On the Transfiguration of the God-Man



, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



by St. Gregory Palamas



We are filled with praise and wonder when we see this magnificent work of God, the entire visible we see this magnificent work of God, the entire visible creation. The pagan Greek sages also extolled and admired it as they investigated it. But whereas we marvel at it to the glory of the Creator, they did so against His glory, for in their wretchedness they worshipped the creature rather than the Creator (cf Rom. 1:25). In the same way, we elucidate the words of the prophets, apostles and fathers for the benefit of those who read them and in honor of the Spirit who spoke through them. The leaders of any given evil heresy also attempt to interpret their writings, but their purpose is to harm their followers and deny that truth which is in accordance with piety, using the words of the Spirit against the Spirit. The words of the gospel of grace are lofty and suitable for mature ears and minds, but these words too our God-bearing Fathers softened in their own mouths, making them appropriate for those of us who are less than perfect, just as mothers devoted to their children chew solid food and render it serviceable and easy to take for babies still at the breast. The moisture in their mothers’ mouth is nourishment for the children, and the thoughts in the hearts of our God-bearing Fathers are suitable food for souls that listen and obey The mouths of evil, disreputable men, however, are full of deadly poison which, when mixed with the words of life, makes even them lethal for careless listeners.

2. Let us flee from those who reject patristic interpretations and attempt by themselves to deduce the complete opposite. While pretending to concern themselves with the literal sense of the passage, they reject its godly meaning. We should run away from them more than we would from a snake, for when a snake bites it kills the body temporarily, separating it from the immortal soul, but when these evil men get their teeth into a soul, they separate it from God, which is eternal death for that soul. Let us escape as far as we can from such people, and take refuge with those who teach piety and salvation in accordance with the traditions of the Fathers.

3. I have said these things to your charity by way of introduction because today we celebrate the noble feast of Christ’s transfiguration, and we shall be addressing the subject of the fight that shone on that occasion, which is much opposed even in our own day by the enemies of the fight. Let us now briefly set out the words of todays Gospel reading from the beginning to unfold the mystery and demonstrate the truth. ‘And after six days Jesus taketh Peter james, and John, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them: and his face did shone as the sun’ (cf Matt. 17: 1-2). The first thing we should consider in this Gospel passage is from what point in time Matthew, Christ’s apostle and evangelist, counts the six days preceding the day on which the Lord was transfigured. Six days after which day? Six days after the day when the Lord taught His disciples, saying, “The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father” (Matt. 16:27), and adding, “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his rule [kingdom]'(Matt. 16:28). He was referring to the light of His transfiguration as His Father’s glory and as His own kingdom. The evangelist Luke indicates the same sequence of events and expresses it more clearly saying, ‘And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering’ (Luke 9:28-29).

4. But how do the two accounts agree, when one clearly states that there were eight days between the promise and the manifestation, and the other says it followed after six days? Listen and you will understand. There were eight on the mountain, but they appeared to be six. Three, Peter, James and John, went up with Jesus. There they saw Moses and Elijah with Him, talking to Him, making six. But the Father and the Holy Spirit were invisibly accompanying the Lord. The Father bore witness with His voice that Christ was His beloved Son, and the Holy Spirit joined His brilliance to Christ’s in the radiant cloud, and showed that the Son was of one nature with the Father and Himself and united in Their light. For Their wealth consists in Their oneness of nature and in the unified outburst of Their brilliance. So the six persons were eight. just as there is no contradiction between six and eight in this respect, so there is no disagreement between the evangelists when Matthew says it was after six days, and Luke that it was about eight days after these sayings. It is as if through these two phrases they present us with a figurative allusion to those visibly gathered on the mountain and those mysti- cally present.

5. Anyone who examines their words closely will see that the evangelists both say the same thing. When Luke mentions eight days, he is not contradicting Matthew’s statement that it was after six days, but is including the day on which the words were uttered and the day when the Lord was transfigured. Matthew allows those who read intelligently to understand this, because he says “after” to make it clear that he is referring to the following day, whereas Luke leaves the word out. He does not say, “after eight days”, as Matthew says “after six days”, but “about eight days passed”. So there is no difference in meaning between the evangelists’ accounts.

6. They do, however, indicate another great mystery through this apparent mutual contradiction. Let those of you who are quick witted pay careful heed to what I am going to say. Why did one evangelist say “after six days”, whereas the other went be- yond a week and mentioned the eighth day? Because the great vision of the light of the Lord’s transfiguration is the mystery of the eighth day, that is, of the age to come, which is manifested after this world, which was made in six days, has ceased, and the sixfold action of our senses has been transcended. We have five senses, but if you add speech it brings the number of ways in which our senses work to six. The kingdom of God promised to those who are worthy surpasses not only our senses but also our words. The seventh day is honored with blessed rest from the activities of our sixfold senses, and after this pause, the kingdom of God shines forth on the eighth day, by virtue of a higher energy. It was this power of the divine Spirit, through which those who are worthy will see God’s kingdom, that the Lord foretold, according to the divine Luke, when lie declared to His disciples, “There be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1, cf Luke 9:27), bestowing on those who see it the power to behold what is invisible, and purifying them in advance from the deadly, soul-destroying defilement that is sin. The taste of sin is the starting point of evil thoughts, and those who are cleansed beforehand will not experience the death of the soul, having been preserved undefiled in their minds as well, as I understand it, by the power of the manifestation to come.


7. “There be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1). The King of all is every- where, and so is His kingdom, so the coming of His kingdom does not mean it arrives here from somewhere else, but that it is revealed through the power of the divine Spirit. That is why He said it would come with power. But this power is not for just anyone, but for those who have stood with the Lord, those who have been established in His faith, men like Peter, James and John, who, as the Scripture tells us, were first brought up a high mountain, that is to say, above the lowliness of our nature. That is why God is imagined to be on a mountain, coming down from His heights and leading us up from the depths of our abasement, that He who cannot be contained might, to an extent compatible with our human nature and our safety, be contained. This idea is not something inferior to man’s mind, but far superior and more exalted than it, being instilled in it by the power of the Holy Spirit.

8. The light of the Lord’s transfiguration does not come into being or cease to be, nor is it circumscribed or perceptible to the senses, even though for a short time on the narrow mountain top it was seen by human eyes. Rather, at that moment the initiated disciples of the Lord “passed”, as we have been taught, “from flesh to spirit” by the transformation of their senses, which the Spirit wrought in them, and so they saw that ineffable light, when and as much as the Holy Spirit’s power granted them to do so. Those who are not aware of this light and who now blaspheme against it think that the chosen apostles saw the light of the Lord’s transfiguration with their created faculty of sight, and in this way they endeavor to bring down to the level of a created object not just that light — God’s power and kingdom — but even the power of the Holy Spirit, by which divine things are revealed to the worthy. They have not heard, or have not be- lieved, Paul’s words, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God” (I Cor. 2:9-10).

9. When the eighth day came, as we have said, the Lord “took Peter and James and John, and went up into a mountain to pray” (cf Luke 9:28). He would always either withdraw from everyone, including the apostles, to pray alone, as when, having fed the five thousand men along with women and children, with five loaves and two fishes, He immediately dismissed them, constrained all the disciples to go into a boat, and went up the mountain to pray (Matt. 14:16-23) — Or else He would take a few disciples, those that surpassed the others, with Him. When His saving passion approached He told the other disciples, “Sit ye here, while I go and pray”, but took Peter, James and John with Him (Matt. 26:36-37). Here too He took only these three with Him, “and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them” (Matt. 17:1-2), that is to say, while they were watching.

10. What do the words “and was transfigured” mean? Chrysostomos the theologian said that the Lord graciously willed to open up a little of His divinity, and revealed God-within Him to the initiated disciples. ‘As he prayed”, says Luke, “the fashion of his countenance was altered” (Luke 9:29), and, as Matthew writes, “His face did shine as the sun” (Matt. 17:2). He compares the light to the sun, not that anyone should imagine that that light was visible to bodily eyes – away with those whose minds are blind and capable of understanding nothing more exalted than visible phenomena! – but that we might know that Christ as God is for those who live by the Spirit and see with spiritual eyes what the sun is for those who live by their senses and see with natural vision. Those who behold God in divine contemplation need no other light, for He alone is the light of those who live for ever. What need is there for a second light when they have the greatest light of all? Thus while He was praying He became radiant and revealed this ineffable light in an indescribable way to the chosen disciples in the presence of the most excellent of the prophets, that He might show us that it is prayer which procures this blessed vision, and we might learn that this brilliance comes about and shines forth when we draw near to God through the virtues, and our minds are united with Him. It is given to all who unceasingly reach up towards God by means of perfect good works and fervent prayer, and is visible to them. Everything about the blessed divine nature is truly beautiful and desirable, and is visible only to those whose minds have been purified. Anyone who gazes at its brilliant rays and its graces, partakes of it to some extent, as though his own face were touched by dazzling light. That is why Moses’ countenance was glorified when he spoke with God (Exod. 34:29).

11. Do you observe that Moses too was transfigured when he went up the moun- tain and beheld the Lord’s glory? But although he underwent transfiguration, he did not bring it about, in accordance with him who said, “the humble light of truth brings me to the point where I see and experience God’s radiance”. Our Lord Jesus Christ, however, possessed that radiance in His own right. He did not need prayer to illuminate His body with divine fight, but He showed how God’s splendor would come to the saints and how they would appear. For the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father (Matt. 13:43), and when they have all become divine light, they will behold, as children of that light, Christ’s indescribable divine radiance. The glory that proceeds naturally from His divinity was shown on Tabor to be shared by His body as well, because of the unity of His person. Thus His face shone as the sun on account of this light.

12. There are people in our own times, who boast of pagan Greek learning and the wisdom of this world, and who completely disobey spiritual men in matters of the Spirit, and choose to oppose them. When they hear that the light of the Lord’s transfiguration on the mountain was seen by the eyes of the apostles, they immediately reduce it to visible, created light. They drag down that immaterial, never-setting, pre-eternal light, which surpasses not only our senses but also our minds, because they themselves are at a low level, and are incapable of conceiving of anything higher than earthly things. Nevertheless, He who shone with this light proved in advance that it was uncreated by referring to it as the kingdom of God. God’s kingdom is not subservient or created, but uniquely unsubduable and invincible. It is beyond the bounds of both time and aeon, and cannot be said to have had a beginning or to have been overtaken by time or age. We believe this kingdom to be the inheritance of those who are being saved.

13. Given that when He was transfigured the Lord shone and displayed glory, splendor and light, and will come again as He was seen by His disciples on the mountain, does this mean He somehow took this light to Himself, and will have for ever something He did not have before? Perish the blasphemous thought! Because anyone who says so imagines that Christ has three natures: the divine, the human, and the one be- longing to this light. It follows that He did not manifest a radiance other than that which He already had invisibly. He possessed the splendor of the divine nature hidden under His flesh. This light, then, is the light of the Godhead, and it is uncreated. According to the theologians, when Christ was transfigured He neither received anything different, nor was changed into anything different, but was revealed to His disciples as He was, opening their eyes and giving sight to the blind. Take note that eyes with natural vision are blind to that light. It is invisible, and those who behold it do so not simply with their bodily eyes, but with eyes transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit.

14. The apostles were transformed, therefore, and saw that transformation which our human clay had undergone, not at that time, but from the moment in which it had been assumed, when it was deified through union with the Word of God. That is why the Virgin, who mysteriously conceived and bore Him, recognized her child as God incarnate, as did Simeon, when he took Him up in his arms as an infant, and the aged Anna, who came to meet Him (Luke 2:25 ff). The power of God shone out visibly as if through thin glass to people who had had the eyes of their hearts purified.

15. Why does He take the leaders, and them alone, and go up with them? Obviously, to show them something great and mysterious. But how could the vision of ordinary light, visible to those chosen before they ascended, as well as to those left below, be a great mystery? Why would they need strengthening by the Spirit, and why would their eyes have to be assisted and changed by the Spirit to see such light, if it were visible and created? flow could ordinary light be the glory and the kingdom of the Father and the Spirit? How could Christ come in that sort of glory and kingdom in the age to come, when there will be no need for air, light, place or anything of the sort, but God, according to the apostle, will be everything for us? (cf 1 Cor. 15:28). Clearly if He will be everything for us, He will also be our light. Again this demonstrates that this light is the light of the Godhead, because John, the greatest theologian among the evangelists, shows in the Revelation that the everlasting future “city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamb is the light thereof ” (Rev. 21:23). Surely here he is also pointing us towards Jesus divinely transfigured on Tabor, whose light is His body, and who, instead of daylight, has the glory of divinity as revealed on the mountain to those who came up with Him. Of the inhabitants of that city John says, “They need no candle, neither light: and there shall be no night there” (cf Rev. 22:5). What light is this, in which there is no variableness, nor shadow of turning? (Jas. 1:17). What is this unchangeable and never-setting light? Is it not the divine light?

16. How could Moses and Elijah, and particularly Moses who was a spirit without a body, have been seen and glorified by means of ordinary light? For they appeared in glory, and spoke of His departure, which He was to accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). And how did the apostles recognize men they had never seen before, except by the revealing power of that light?

17. In order not to strain your understanding too much, we shall keep the remaining verses of the Gospel for the time of the holy and divine Liturgy. We believe what we have been taught by those enlightened by Christ, which they alone know with certainty – “My secrets are for me and those who are mine”, as God said through the prophet (Isa. 24:16 Lxx, cf Dan. 2:27ff). So, rightly believing what we were taught, and understanding the mystery of the Lord’s transfiguration, let us make our way towards the radiance of that light. As we long for the beauty of unchanging glory, let us cleanse the eyes of our understanding from all earthly defilements, despising every delight and beauty that is not lasting, for sweet as it may be, it procures eternal suffering, and though it may enhance the body, it clothes the soul in that ugly robe of sin, on account of which the man without the garment of incorruptible union was bound and taken away into outer darkness (cf Matt. 22:11-13).

18. May we all be delivered from such a fate by the illumination and knowledge of the pre-eternal, immaterial light of the Lord’s transfiguration, to His glory and the glory of His Father without beginning and the life-giving Spirit, whose radiance, divinity, glory, kingdom and power are one and the same, now and for ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

SOURCE: From Saint Gregory Palamas The Homilies, pp 266-273, ed & trans. Christopher Veniamin, Mount Tabor Publishing


The True Meaning of Canonicity


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The True Meaning of Canonicity [pdf]

Why the Synod in Resistance of the Orthodox Church of Greece Stands on the Firmest of Canonical Grounds in Its Sacred Opposition to the Religious Syncretism of Ecumenism

An Opinion Paper by the Fathers of the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery, Etna, California

NO TERM IS USED—AND MISUSED—among the Orthodox people in America more often than the term canonical. One hears endless discussions about the ‘canonicity’ or the ‘uncanonicity’ of this or that bishop, jurisdiction, priest, parish.”1 So states Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann (1921–1983) at the very outset of his penetrating article, “The Canonical Problem,” and nearly half a century later “canonical” and “uncanonical” continue to be bandied about by individuals ignorant of the Orthodox import and genuine meaning of these terms. Thus, we canonical resisters to the ills of innovation (the New Calendar), deviation from Holy Tradition, and the religious syncretism of ecumenism are often the objects of epithets like “uncanonical” and “irregular status” (the latter a term directly borrowed from Roman Catholic nomenclature). Canonicity is, of course, a requisite constituent of Orthodox Christianity; indeed, in some ways “canonical” is a ready synonym for the adjective “orthodox.” For this reason, we find it necessary to define the term “canonical” and to offer a succinct refutation of the ill-informed and frequently ill-intentioned accusation of noncanonicity levelled against our God-pleasing canonical resistance as an assault on our very orthodoxy. We would like to do so, here, by drawing on the insights of Father Schmemann, as well as of other writers. We will do this

1) by examining the popular misunderstanding of canonicity and demonstrating the erroneousness of prevailing ideas about it;

2) by defining canonicity properly, in terms of Orthodox ecclesiology, and particularly vis-à-vis Apostolicity; and

3) by establishing that our particular jurisdiction, the Holy Synod in Resistance of the Orthodox Church of Greece, most firmly and scrupulously exemplifies the Orthodox requirements of canonicity.

“Canonicity” means “the state or quality of being canonical,” which in turn, in the Orthodox universe of discourse, means “that which is in conformity with the Holy Canons of the Church.” This definition is so obvious as to be tautologous; yet, a disturbing number of Orthodox Christians, whose thinking is so frequently poorly formed in the Fathers and spiritual experience, never make the connection between canonicity and the Holy Canons. Instead, what has come to prevail in the popular consciousness is an equation of “canonical” with “official,” the latter meaning “derived from an office or an officer, or by virtue of the authority invested therein.” This conflation of canonicity and officiality Father Schmemann labels “canonical subordinationism,” which he defines as one simple rule, which to…[those who invoke it]…seems a self-evident one: to be ‘canonical’ one has to be under some Patriarch, or, in general, under some established autocephalous church in the old world. Canonicity is thus reduced to subordination which is declared to constitute the fundamental principle of church organization. Implied here is the idea that a ‘high ecclesiastical power’ (Patriarch, Synod, etc.) is in itself and by itself the source of canonicity: whatever it decides is ipso facto canonical and the criterion of canonicity.2

“‘Canonical subordinationism’ is the best indication of how deeply ‘westernized’ we have become in our canonical thinking,”3 Father Schmemann further observes, and he goes on to note that, “in the theory of ‘canonical subordinationism’ the reality of the church is reduced to the formal principle of ‘jurisdiction,’ i.e. subordination to a central ecclesiastical power.”4

Although he never explicitly mentions the Roman Catholic Church, Father Schmemann has, in fact, provided us, here, with an ecclesiological definition of the heresy of Papism in nuce. This classic heresy has resurfaced in a mutated, if not mutilated, form in the contemporary Orthodox Church as “Neo-Papism,” “Papalism,” or “Patriarchalism,” of which malignant trend the modern Patriarchate of Constantinople is especially guilty, with its new, anti-Orthodox, and blasphemous concept of a ‘Mother Church’ modeled on the Latin understanding of that term and of what is essentially an ‘Eastern Pope’ with administrative and spiritual authority throughout Orthodoxy—even to the point, apparently, of claiming jurisdiction over the autocephalous Orthodox Churches and their Patriarchates!5

Another example of this Patriarchalist mentality is the much-touted catch phrase of the Antiochian Patriarchate, “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Acts 11:26),” or the self-descriptive moniker assumed by the Patriarchate of Moscow: “The Third Rome.” What Neo-Papism has in common, then, with Roman Catholicism is the idea that Divine authority automatically inheres in a given See, Hierarch, or Synod—that is, in an office or officeholder—and that it is communion with, and submission to, this officiality that concurrently guarantees Orthodoxy and constitutes canonicity.

Thus, “canonical subordinationism,” as Father Schmemann argues,

leads to (and also in part proceeds from) the harmful and un-Orthodox reduction of canonicity to an almost abstract principle of validity…, [as] a ‘principle in itself,’ i.e. disconnected from truth, authenticity and, in general, the whole faith and order of the Church.6

He decries as a “really immoral idea [the notion] that a man, an act, a situation are ‘valid’ only in function of a purely formal ‘validity in itself’”:7

We are constantly told that something is ‘canonical,’ because it is ‘recognized’ as canonical by such or such Patriarch or Synod. But…in the Orthodox teaching canonical is that which complies with the canons[,] and the canons express the truth of the church. We must openly reject the ‘romanizing’ theory that something is true because some infallible authority has decreed that it is true. In the Orthodox Church truth itself is the supreme authority and criterion. At one time the Patriarch of Constantinople ‘recognized’ as Orthodox and canonical the so-called ‘Living Church’ [the Живая Церковь, or Renovated Church (Обновленческая Церковь), was established by the Communists, in 1922, to replace the administration of the Orthodox Church of Russia, introducing unheard-of reforms and perversions into that body for almost two decades—note by the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery]. This did not make it either Orthodox or canonical.8

From this “immoral idea” that officiality is self-validating stems a legalistic interpretation of canonicity utterly foreign to the Orthodox ethos:

Canonical tradition, understood at first as an organic part of the dogmatical tradition, as the latter’s application to the empirical life of the Church, became Canon Law: a system of rules and regulations, juridical, and not primarily doctrinal and spiritual, in their nature and interpreted as such within categories alien to the spiritual essence of the Church. Just as a lawyer is the one who can find all possible precedents and arguments that favor his ‘case,’ a canonist, in this system of thought, is the one who, in the huge mass of canonical texts, can find that one which justifies his ‘case,’ even if the latter seems to contradict the spirit of the Church. And once such [a] ‘text’ is found, ‘canonicity’ is established.9

Officialdom, self-validation, legalism—such are the artificial, external, and formalistic superficialities upon which “canonical subordinationism” fixates at the expense, and to the exclusion, of the genuine inner content of canonicity.

What, then, is the correct Orthodox understanding of canonicity? It begins with a recognition that canons are the flip side of dogmas on the coin of Christian Truth, the latter being the “head” of θεωρία (theory) and the former the “tail” of πρᾶξις (practice). This idea is made evident by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky (1888–1988) in his juxtaposition of the two:

In ecclesiastical terminology dogmas are the truths of Christian teaching, the truths of faith, and canons are the prescriptions relating to Church order, Church government, the obligations of the Church hierarchy and clergy and of every Christian, which flow from the moral foundations of the evangelical and Apostolic teaching. Canon is a Greek word which literally means ‘a straight rod, a measure of precise direction.’10

In regard to this definition of “canon,” it is noteworthy that “the favorite phrase”11 used by Saint Irenæus of Lyons (ca. 125–202) to designate the corpus of dogmas is “ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας,” or “the canon of truth.” For example, Saint Irenæus speaks of “put[ting] an end to all…[false] doctrines, and…establish[ing] the rule [canon] of truth in the Church”;12 elsewhere, he speaks of “holding the unadulterated rule [canon] of truth.”13 It is precisely this “canon of truth” which “serves generally to emphasise what is for Christianity an inner law and binding norm”14 that the Holy Canons, as a body of rules, reify and regulate.

Father Schmemann likewise stresses the intimate and vital connection between the dogmatic and the canonical, characterizing the Holy Canons as manifestations of Truth:

…[I]n the genuine Orthodox tradition…ecclesiastical power is itself under the canons and its decisions are valid and compulsory only inasmuch as they comply with the canons. In other terms, it is not the decision of a Patriarch or His [sic] Synod that creates and guarantees ‘canonicity,’ but, on the contrary, it is the canonicity of the decision that gives it its true authority and power. Truth, and not power, is the criterion, and the canons, not different in this from the dogmas, express the truth of the Church. And just as no power, no authority can transform heresy into orthodoxy and to make white what is black, no power can make canonical a situation which is not canonical. …[T]he whole point is that canons are not mere laws, but laws whose authority is rooted precisely in the spiritual essence of the Church. Canons do not constitute or create the Church[;] their function is to defend, clarify and regulate the life of the Church, to make it comply with the essence of the Church. This means that in order to be properly understood, interpreted and applied, canonical texts must be always referred to that truth of, and about, the Church, which they express sometimes for a very particular situation and which is not necessarily explicit in the canonical text itself.15

This formulation of canonicity, unlike the doctrine of “canonical subordinationism,” is wholly consentaneous to the “φρόνημα τῶν πατέρων,” “the mind of the Fathers” (which is, of course, “the mind of Christ”16)—not an insignificant fact, given that the Holy Canons are products of this selfsame Patristic mind. They are, in fact, a codification of general and specific guidelines drawn from the extensive (and often nettlesome) Archpastoral experience of the Church Fathers.

Canonicity, then, is a pastoral expression of Patristicity. As a corollary to this truth, that which is canonical is also of necessity Apostolic, since Patristicity is of a piece with Apostolicity, the former being nothing other than the organic extension and perpetuation of the latter in the post-Apostolic—that is, Patristic—age. In other words, the Holy Apostles were simply the first generation of Holy Fathers, and hence Apostolicity is the fountainhead from which Patristicity emanates. As Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky (1893–1979) avers: “Only by being ‘Patristic’ is the Church truly ‘Apostolic.’”17 No better elucidation of this truth can be found than that offered by Saint Justin of Ćelije (1894–1979), who puts forth the case with characteristic clarity:

The holy apostles were the first god-men by grace. …For them, the historical God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the supreme value and the supreme criterion. …This theanthropic apostolicity is integrally continued in the earthly successors of the Christ-bearing apostles: in the holy fathers. Among them, in essence, there is no difference: the same God-man Christ lives, acts, enlivens and makes them all eternal in equal measure, He Who is the same yesterday, and today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). Through the holy fathers, the holy apostles live on with all their theanthropic riches, theanthropic worlds, theanthropic holy things, theanthropic mysteries, and theanthropic virtues. The holy fathers in fact are continuously apostolizing, whether as distinct godlike personalities, or as bishops of the local churches, or as members of the holy ecumenical and holy local councils. For all of them there is but one Truth, one Transcendent Truth: the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ. Behold, the holy ecumenical councils, from the first to the last, confess, defend, believe, announce, and vigilantly preserve but a single, supreme value: the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ.18

“In Christianity truth…is the theanthropic hypostasis—the historical Jesus Christ,”19 Who is “the incarnate Truth.”20 Correspondingly, the Orthodox Church, as “the Body of Christ,”21 “is a divine-human organism, is the God-man extended into the ages,”22 “is the incarnation of the Theanthropos Christ, continuing through the ages and through all eternity.”23 Apostolicity is, of course, one of the four classic notæ of the True Orthodox Church professed in the Symbol of Faith (“I believe…in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”), and “through her apostolicity she preserves the unchangeable and continuous historical reality and life of the divine-human body and work of Christ.”24

But what, exactly, constitutes Apostolicity? The Apostles being agents sent forth by the Holy Trinity, it is appropriate that we identify three constituents of Apostolicity: continuity, authenticity, and oecumenicity. The first of these, continuity, is realized through Apostolic Succession, whereby the Hierarchy of the Church uninterruptedly perpetuates itself from the Apostolic age through the Mystery of the Laying on of Hands, as Saint Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) explains:

…[T]hrough the Apostles ordaining their successors, and these successors ordaining others, and so on, the grace of the Holy Spirit is handed down through all generations and enlightens all who obey their spiritual shepherds and teachers.25

Father Schmemann warns us, however, that, in the doctrine of “canonical subordinationism,” [a] Church’s subordination to a ‘jurisdiction’…[is a] serious distortion and, indeed, destruction of the Orthodox conception of continuity and apostolic succession. For the Church cannot be reduced to ‘jurisdiction.’ She is a living organism and her continuity is precisely that of life. The function of the Episcopate and of ‘power’ in general is to preserve, defend and express this continuity and fulness of life, but it is a function within and not above the Church. The ministry of power does not create the church but is created by God within the Church, which is ontologically prior to all functions, charisms and ministries. And ‘jurisdiction’ when it is divorced from the real continuity of the Church can become, and in fact often becomes, a principle of discontinuity and schism….26

“The real continuity of the Church” is ensured by the second component of Apostolicity, authenticity, which refers to wholehearted fidelity to the Apostolic spirit and teaching, embodied in the Gestalt of Holy Tradition. Thus, Apostolicity is not self-sufficiently established by a mere Hierarchical pedigree (such as that which Nestorians, Monophysites, Papists, and Anglicans claim to possess no less than Orthodox); it also requires full adherence to Orthodox doctrine and practice. Father Florovsky touches upon the nexus between continuity and authenticity when he explains that the Irenæan “canon of truth” is, in fact, nothing else than the witness and preaching of the Apostles, their κήρυγμα and praedicatio (or praeconium), which was ‘deposited’ in the Church and entrusted to her by the Apostles, and then was faithfully kept and handed down, with complete unanimity in all places, by the succession of accredited pastors: qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum acceperunt [Those who, together with the succession of the episcopacy, have received the firm charisma of truth…]. …[I]n the mind of St. Irenaeus, this continuous preservation and transmission of the deposited faith was operated and guided by the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The whole conception of the Church in St. Irenaeus was at once ‘charismatic’ and ‘institutional.’ And ‘Tradition’ was, in his understanding, a depositum juvenescens [a living tradition] entrusted to the Church as a new breath of life…. Bishops or ‘presbyters’ were in the Church accredited guardians and ministers of this once deposited truth. ‘Where, therefore, the charismata of the Lord have been deposited…, there it is proper to learn the truth, namely from those who have that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles…and who display a sound and blameless conduct and an unadulterated and incorrupt speech….’27

Note, here, the accouplement of continuity—“the succession of the episcopacy”—and authenticity—“the firm charisma of truth”—, the harmony of the “institutional” and the “charismatic,” or, as the eminent Church historian Jeffrey Burton Russell characterizes it, “[t]he spirit of order and the spirit of prophecy…, [which] together…[give] balance to the Christian religion.”28 With regard to authenticity, Father Schmemann alerts us to another danger posed by “canonical subordinationism”:

…[The] idea of validity per se appears more and more as the only criterion. There grows around us a peculiar indifference to authenticity, to elementary moral considerations. A Bishop, a priest, a layman can be accused of all sorts of moral and canonical sins: [but] the day when he ‘shifts’ to the ‘canonical’ jurisdictions all these accusations become irrelevant; he is ‘valid’ and one can entrust to him the salvation of human souls! …It is this immoral doctrine that poisons the Church, makes parishes and individuals think of any jurisdictional shift as justified as long as they ‘go under a valid bishop’ and makes the Church cynical about[,] and indifferent to, considerations of truth and morals.29 [One cannot help but note the astonishing irony of the curious abandonment of this Patristic concept of “authenticity” when Father Schmemann’s jurisdiction, the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America, or the so-called “Metropolia,” negotiated autocephaly from the Moscow Patriarchate in 1970 and, having renamed itself the “Orthodox Church in America,” suddenly identified itself as the historical Russian Church in America, despite having many of its roots in Greek Catholicism, and began styling itself the “canonical” American Orthodox jurisdiction—note by SGPM.]

Continuity and authenticity coalesce in the third aspect of Apostolicity, oecumenicity, that aspect which the average person perhaps finds most difficult to understand. To grasp the theological meaning of oecumenicity, it is helpful to keep in mind two complementary aspects of this term. Firstly, “oecumenicity” comes from the Greek “οἰκουμένη,” “the ecumene,” meaning “the inhabited world”; knowing this, the relationship of oecumenicity to universality becomes transparent in the Psalm verse applied to the Holy Apostles: “Their sound is gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world [τῆς οἰκουμένης].”30 Secondly, “οἰκουμένη” is etymologically derived from “οἶκος,” Greek for “house,” a word invoked in the Pauline images of “τοῦς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως,” or “the household of faith,”31 and “οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ,” or “the household of God.”32 The gist of oecumenicity is thus not, as is often believed, ubiquity or a monolithic worldwide presence (which best describes the Papacy’s understanding of universality), but domesticity: an intimate familial environment—a spiritual home. The term “oecumenicity” thus paradoxically combines within itself universality and locality (domesticity); yet there is no contradiction in this, for the Universal Church does not exist as an abstract entity, but rather is always actualized in its totality in concrete Local Churches. This is a logical consequence of the Theanthropic ontology of Orthodoxy, the Incarnational theology of the Church as the Body of Christ: just as Divine Nature and human nature (which natures are simultaneously present in the Orthodox Church) do not subsist in abstracto, as Platonic ideals, but are realized, in their fullness, through hypostatic individuation, so “Ecclesial Nature” of necessity subsists in “Ecclesial Hypostases.” In other words, a Local Church is not merely a part of the Universal Church; a Local Church is the Universal Church.

Now, the focal point, channel, and linchpin of the oecumenicity of a given Church is its Hierarch, an idea that Father Schmemann also examines:

In the original tradition [of Orthodox canonicity], a Bishop through his consecration by other bishops, becomes the ‘successor’ not to his consecrators but, first of all, to the unbroken continuity of his own Church. The ‘Church is in the Bishop’ because the ‘Bishop is in the Church’ [according to Saint Kyprian of Carthage (ca. 200–258)—SGPM], in…‘organic unity with a particular body of church people.’ In the system of canonical subordinationism, however, the Bishop becomes a simple representative of a higher jurisdiction, important not in himself, not as the charismatic bearer and guardian of his Church’s continuity and catholicity, but as means of this Church’s subordination to a ‘jurisdiction.’ …There can be no doubt that the unity of the Church, as expressed in her canonical structure, is expressed, first of all, in and through the unity of the Episcopate. Episcopatus unus est, wrote St. Kyprian of Carthage in the third century. This means that each local or particular church is united to all other churches, reveals her ontological identity with them, in its bishop. Just as every bishop receives the fulness of his episcopate from the oneness of the Episcopate expressed in the plurality of the consecrators, this fulness includes, at its very essence, his unity with the whole Episcopate.33

In a similar vein, analyzing the ecclesiological thought of Saint Ignatios of Antioch (ca. 30‒ca. 107), Protopresbyter John Romanides (1927–2001) makes what is, at first, a startling observation: “The idea that the bishop is now what the apostles once were is completely missing from the epistles of Ignatius. Peculiarly enough it is the presbyters who are always compared to the apostles.”34 Presbyters, and not Hierarchs, represent the Apostles? Does this not unravel the entire argument that Hierarchs embody Apostolicity? Not at all. In the Ignatian metaphor, just as the Apostles were united around their spiritual Father, Christ, so the Presbyters are united around their spiritual Father, their Hierarch, who thus serves, not as an Icon of the Apostles, but as a living Icon of Christ Himself. Yet, it is precisely because “[t]he holy apostles were the first god-men by grace”35 that their successors, the Hierarchs, are likewise enabled to function as flesh-and-blood images of the God-Man. As Father Romanides points out, this teaching has comprehensive ramifications for the equality of Hierarchs in their rôles as agents of oecumenicity:

The order of the episcopate was not something that existed in itself, of itself, and over or apart from the local Church. It was definitely within the Church; and since the visible Church could be defined only in terms of the body of Christ locally manifested in its mystagogical life, the episcopate was definitely of local character. The existence of bishops in the smallest and remotest villages of the empire cannot be explained otherwise than in terms of the necessity to have a bishop and council of presbyters within and responsible for the life of each eucharistic center. Therefore bishops were equal because communities were equal. One local manifestation of the body of Christ could not be more [the] body of Christ or less than another. Likewise the living image of Christ, the bishop, could not be more [the] image or less image than another image, because Christ, whose image the bishops are, is identically One and Equal with Himself.36

The rarefaction of oecumenicity Bishop Kyprian of Oreoi, Acting President of the Holy Synod in Resistance of the Orthodox Church of Greece, renders accessible in a brilliant sixfold précis of Patristic ecclesiology:

What is the Church?

1. The Church is the Assembly of the People of God for the celebration of the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist, wherein the local Church actually becomes and is revealed as the Body of Christ, as a Theandric organism, in which the Holy Trinity dwells.

2. The visible center and head of the Eucharistic Assembly is the Bishop: It is he who leads the Assembly and preaches the word of God; it is he who offers the Eucharist, as an ‘Icon of Christ,’ the Great High Priest, and as the one who presides ‘in the place of God,’ according to St. Ignatios of Antioch.

3. In the early Church, only the Bishop offered the Divine Eucharist in each local Church; that is, there was only one Eucharist, and this was centered on the Bishop.

4. The Bishop, when he offers the Divine Eucharist, offers Christ in His wholeness, imparting the Holy Mysteries to the Faithful with his own hands; in ancient times, the People of God partook of Christ only from the living Icon of Christ, the Bishop.

5. Therefore, the Bishop not only embodies the local Church, but also expresses in time and space the Catholic Church, that is, the whole Church; for that which embodies Christ in His wholeness, and wherein one receives Christ in His wholeness is that which embodies the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. ‘Wherever Jesus Christ is,’ says St. Ignatios, ‘there is the Catholic Church.’

6. For precisely this reason, when one is united with the Bishop in the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist, then he is also united with the Catholic Church.37

Note, here, the explicit mention of the four hallmarks of the True Orthodox Church. Although we have explored but one, Apostolicity, it is important to realize that the ecclesial notæ are not discrete characteristics, but rather interpenetrate, corroborate, and reiterate one another. Thus, in continuity we have the Apostolic quality of the Church’s Oneness; in authenticity we have the Apostolic quality of the Church’s Holiness; and in oecumenicity we have the Apostolic quality of the Church’s Catholicity. Canonicity is not canonicity in the absence of any of these three qualities of Apostolicity.

We come, then, to our main point, viz., the canonicity of resistance, and, in particular, of the Holy Synod in Resistance. What is its canonical raison d’être? First of all, ours is an Ecclesiastical Community “in resistance.” By this appellation, we wish to emphasize our fulfillment of a particular canonical imperative typified by the maxim of the Apostle James, “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you,”38 and encapsulated by Saint Theodore the Studite (759–826) in the phrase, “God-pleasing resistance.”39 To what, then, are we in resistance? Submitting ourselves to God, we are in resistance to the panheresy of ecumenism. The ailing President of our Synod, Metropolitan Kyprian of Oropos and Phyle, some time ago summarized our position thusly:

What is Ecumenism? Ecumenism is heresy, the panheresy of Antichrist. This heresy is called ‘Ecumenism,’ since it derives from a world [οἰκουμένη] far from God; that is, from the world of sin. …Behind the heretical leaders and their heresies…is found the Devil. …Ecumenism is not simply a heresy, but a full collection of heresies. It has brought together from the modern world all of the heresies and strives to unite them into one great and powerful panheresy. The heresy of Ecumenism does not contain the incorrect teaching of just one heresy, but the incorrect teaching and falsehood of all of the heresies. Ecumenism wishes to place the local Orthodox Churches in the midst of its structure as another heresy. This dark plan is crafty. If we Orthodox Christians recognize Ecumenism, then we will embrace not only one heresy, but all of the heresies of the known world. We will forsake Orthodoxy and place ourselves in the world of heresy. Then the local Orthodox Churches will themselves become panheretical and the Orthodox Church will disappear from the face of the earth. There will be neither faith nor will Divine Grace be effective, and man will not be saved from eternal death. Hence, the Divine work of salvation in Christ will be rendered useless and the Antichrist will prevail, to the wild delight of the Devil. …The panheresy of Ecumenism is to date the most powerful weapon of the Devil against the Church and against the salvation of mankind in Christ…40

Therefore, to resist Ecumenism is to resist the Devil, in fulfillment of the aforementioned Scriptural injunction proffered by Saint James.

“Ecumenism is the common name for…pseudo-Christianity,” declares Saint Justin of Ćelije, “[and] within it is the heart of European humanism….”41 If Orthodox involvement in the Ecumenical Movement was meant to enrich Western Christianity with the Theanthropic wealth of Orthodoxy, just the opposite has occurred: Orthodoxy has been impoverished by the humanistic penury of Western Christianity:

In the European West, Christianity gradually became transformed into humanism. For several centuries the God-man became more and more limited and confined to His humanity, eventually becoming the infallible man of Rome and of Berlin. Thus, on the one hand there appeared a western Christian humanistic maximalism (the papacy) which took everything away from Christ, and on the other hand a western Christian humanistic minimalism (protestantism) which sought very little if anything from Christ. In both man takes the place of the God-man as that which is of most value and is the measure of all things. Thus, a most grievous correction of the God-man, His work, and His teaching was accomplished!42

In fact, we see that those Orthodox Churches that have abandoned their oecumenicity for Ecumenism now have a mongrelized ecclesiology blending Protestant ideology—Ecumenism—and Papist methodology—Neo-Papism.

The Ecumenical Movement was, through and through, the brainchild of Protestantism, which has always had denominationalism—ecclesiastical competition—as its modus vivendi. It keenly dawned on Protestant theologians in their missionary endeavors in the nineteenth century just how utterly counterproductive denominationalism was, and it was in rethinking their missiology, as Metropolitan Kyprian has noted, that the idea was born to replace ecclesiastical competition with ecclesiastical coöperation—Ecumenism. Thus, in consort with His Eminence, Father Peter Heers shows that…long before…the Orthodox entered into the [Ecumenical] discussion, the presuppositions and parameters of encounter were set[,] and they did not, even in the slightest, reflect or even acknowledge Orthodox ecclesiological principles. The ecclesiological framework in which the ecumenical movement was forged, formed, developed and exists to this day is, with slight adjustments, the product of 19th century Evangelicalism.43

Fundamental to Protestant ecclesiology and its denominational experience, and hence to the Ecumenical Movement, is the theological distinction between “The Visible Church” and “The Invisible Church”:

Traditionally interpreted, the visible church points to the institutional church in the world, whereas the invisible church consists of the totality of all true believers irrespective of their affiliations or lack of them with any organizationally constituted church. …[I]t is clear that the Reformers were aware of the apparent difference between the essence of the church and their experience of the church in their time. The accent upon the visible/invisible division was aimed primarily to point out this wide difference between what the church claimed to be and what it actually was in practice. The visible church designated what was incomplete, corrupt, unholy, and external, whereas the invisible church pointed to what was complete, incorruptible, holy, and internal. This notion pointed to the church within the church. In fact, it seemed to indicate or imply that there was a kind of Platonic essence or ideal of which the visible church was unfortunately only a partial and defective image. Thus the ‘true’ church was a purely transcendent and heavenly reality, while the existing and earthly church was imperfect and impure.44

According to the Protestant ecclesiology undergirding the Ecumenical Movement, therefore, the Orthodox Churches are just so many more “incomplete, corrupt, unholy, and external” denominations within “The Visible Church.” Yet, for Ecumenism to escape its parochialism—for it to move beyond its pan-Protestant origins and to legitimate itself as a pan-Christian phenomenon—, its architects desperately needed the participation of the Orthodox Churches; and for this, they lobbied long and hard (and, eventually, successfully). Robert Hallowell Gardiner III (1855–1924) was a seminal figure in canvassing for the Ecumenical Movement. Through a massive letter-writing campaign—he wrote more than eleven thousand letters—he brought together an extensive network of religious and political leaders. One Orthodox clergyman whom Gardiner solicited was Saint Hilarion of Verey (1886–1929). In a letter written in 1917, on the eve of the Russian Revolution, when Ecumenism was still institutionally inchoate, Saint Hilarion, in response to his Protestant interlocutor, displays great dexterity with ecumenical ideology; and he does so, interestingly enough, by citing the thinking of a less-astute Orthodox clergyman who had come to embrace the ecclesiological presuppositions taken as “givens” by Protestants like Gardiner:

[…In Ecumenical theology,] all communities which call themselves Christian comprise one Church of Christ, albeit weakened in her unity. Such a theory on the unity of the church is not alien to some of the Russian theologians as well. Thus, the archpriest P[avel] Ya[kovlevich] Svetlov [1861–1945] asserts that the Christian creeds of the West comprise, along with the Orthodox faith, Christian churches belonging to the Catholic Church, and that they are not extra-ecclesiastical communities separated from the Church; that the extant Christian churches in the West and in the East are local churches or parts of the Catholic Church, and for any of them to assume the right of the Catholic Church constitutes misappropriation. At the same time, the Catholic Church is, in Fr. Svetlov’s opinion, a unity of true believers, scattered everywhere in all local or particular Christian churches in the West and in the East, or, what amounts to the same thing, an aggregate of local churches of the East and the West which, in the absence of a possibility of convoking an Oecumenical Council and with the Church in a state of external division, is deprived of a complete outward or visible organization, yet in possession of an internal unity of faith and of grace-filled life in Christ, Who Himself is at the head of His Church or Body.45

Clearly, Father Svetlov had accepted the distinction between a “Visible Church” and an “Invisible Church” as a valid ecclesiological premise. Saint Hilarion, however, was not so easily duped by this notion, which he outright rejected as incompatible with the Patristic ecclesiology of Orthodoxy:

Such a doctrine of the Church is absolutely inadmissible…, since it was, beyond any doubt, alien to the ancient Church, where no reduced concept of Church unity had ever been known and where faith ‘in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ had always and invariably been professed through the ninth article of the Creed. …The Christian Church is not a philosophical or theological school, an affiliation with which is sufficiently determined by the acknowledgement of its theoretical precepts. The principal truth of Christianity, its great mystery—the Incarnation of the Son of God—is acknowledged by all Christian creeds, yet this alone cannot fuse them into one Church. For, according to the Apostle James (II, 19), the devils also believe; as attested by the Gospel, they confessed their faith like the Apostle Peter did (Matt. XVI, 16; VIII, 26; Mark I, 24; Luke VIII, 28). But do they belong to one Church of Christ?46

And by the “one Church of Christ,” Saint Hilarion obviously means, in the words of the late Bulgarian theologian, Archimandrite Sergius (1924–2008), the Church of Christ that struggled for the triumph of Orthodoxy against heresy, [which] came to be called the Orthodox Church. …[I]t logically follows that Orthodoxy is not just one of the many forms of Christianity, along with the legitimate existence of other, non-Orthodox forms of Christianity; our Orthodox Faith is Christianity itself, in its most pure and one and only authentic form. When juxtaposed to Orthodoxy, all of the rest of the so-called Christian denominations are essentially alien to true Christian—that is, Orthodox—spirituality and the essence of the Faith.47

Saint Hilarion of Verey ultimately comes to a stingingly frank conclusion about the Ecumenical Movement: that it openly “proclaim[s] the greatest lie of all: that one can be a Christian while denying the Church.”48

The Protestant lobbying of the Orthodox Church finally hit pay dirt, however, in 1920, when the Patriarchate of Constantinople issued a watershed document, an Encyclical entitled “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere.” Its very title, which refers to all ecclesiastical bodies, whether Orthodox or not, ushered in a change in the Orthodox world, for it marked the first time that an Orthodox Church endorsed the use of the term “Churches” for heterodox bodies, not as a terminological expedient, but as an ecclesiological concession. Largely authored by Metropolitan Germanos of Thyateira (1872–1951), this encyclical was, as Father Heers demonstrates, an iconoclastic betrayal of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology and an opportunistic capitulation to Ecumenical Protestant ecclesiology:

In the Encyclical a new consideration was being urged upon the churches, ‘that they should no more consider one another as strangers and foreigners, but as relatives, and as being a part of the household of Christ and “fellow heirs, members of the same body and partakers of the promise of God in Christ” (Eph. 3:6).’ In commenting on this passage in 1929, Metropolitan Germanos himself…interprets it thus[ly]: ‘How wide the conception is which the Encyclical teaches at this point becomes clear in that it widens the notion of the relationships between the members of a single church—as members of one body according to St. Paul’s wonderful teaching—so as to apply it to the relationships between several churches.’ …Here is the cornerstone of the ecumenical policy of the Patriarchate and the key point of synchronization with the developing ‘ecumenical ecclesiology’ of the Protestants. In widening the notion of the church to include bodies neither ecclesiastically, sacramentally, or dogmatically in communion with the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Germanos is in perfect harmony both with…‘evangelical ecclesiology’ which speaks of a ‘fellowship of an invisible church of Christ to which all “vital” Christians belonged,’ as well as the succeeding ‘ecumenical ecclesiology’ which, although quite similar in its admission of an existing invisible ‘mystical’ Body of Christ, seeks a manifest unity in Christ. Metropolitan Germanos’ radical reinterpretation and ‘broadening’ of St. Paul’s teaching concerning the Body of Christ was not something limited to him, but, as would be natural in the overwhelmingly Protestant setting of the movement’s gatherings, such ecclesiological ‘broad mindedness’ permeated the entire atmosphere of ecumenical engagement. This led to the adoption by Orthodox ecumenists—consciously or unconsciously—of Protestant ecclesiological attitudes. …With the encyclical, the Patriarchate did not simple [sic] change its stance vis-à-vis the heterodox confessions, it changed its understanding of the Orthodox Church itself.49

This concurrence with the Protestant ideology of Ecumenism went hand-in-hand with the employment of the Papist methodology of Neo-Papism—“canonical subordinationism.” The Encyclical of 1920 listed several practical proposals intended to inaugurate its new ecumenical ecclesiology, the first and foremost of which was “the acceptance of a uniform calendar for the celebration of the great Christian feasts at the same time by all the churches.”50 This principle was fully approved by the “Pan-Orthodox” Congress of 1923, leading to the adoption, in 1924, of the what was absurdly called the “New Julian” or “Revised Julian” Calendar—a thinly disguised version of the Gregorian Calendar (that is, the Papal Calendar) with the Orthodox Paschalion artlessly grafted onto it—by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. We see in action, here, the principle of self-validation spoken of by Father Schmemann: The Encyclical of 1920 and the “Pan-Orthodox” Congress of 1923 became “canonical” because they were “recognized” as such by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Yet, as Father Schmemann reminds us: “This did not make…[them] either Orthodox or canonical.”51 As Bishop Photii of Triaditza points out regarding the former, “…[T]he Encyclical [of 1920] became the first public attempt by the Constantinopolitan Throne to usurp the authority of the One, Holy, Orthodox Church”52—it was a Neo-Papist power grab. With regard to the Church,

[i]n agreement with the Holy Canons, ecclesiastical questions of a local and general significance are to be discussed exclusively by a council of Bishops who have flocks and Dioceses, and not by ‘congresses,’ ‘meetings,’ or ‘conferences.’ From a canonical point of view, the ‘Pan-Orthodox’ Congress in Constantinople was uncanonical in its formation, authority, and establishment. Therefore, its decisions, though made in the name of the entire Orthodox Church, are without any authority and have no significance for the local Orthodox Churches. Furthermore, the very content of these decisions is in direct opposition to the Canons of the Orthodox Church.53

Uncanonical or not, because the Patriarchate of Constantinople had “officially” accepted Ecumenism and its attendant calendar innovation, this made it “valid” for the Orthodox Church of Greece, the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s closest “daughter” Church, to imitate its example and adopt the New Calendar. This unquestioning “canonical subordination” to the authority of Constantinople, where no such authority existed, represents a tendency towards Neo-Papism. To understand this phenomenon better, one need only examine the archetypal paradigm of Papism, the Roman Catholic Church—a name for the Papal Church which is actually a theological oxymoron. How so? Consider the doctrine of the Papacy taught in its own Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome ‘which presides in charity.’ For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord. …The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys…infallibility in virtue of his office…as supreme pastor and teacher of the faithful…. [T]he bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.54

According to this teaching, a given Church is “Catholic” only insofar as it is “Roman”; that is, a Local Church’s catholicity—its integrity, wholeness, and universality—is dependent upon and mediated through another specific Local Church, Rome, which Local Church is said to be the Universal Church—exclusively. Hence there arises the self-contradictory concept of “Roman Catholicity.” Furthermore, Papist ecclesiology holds that the Pope preserves correct dogma and morals by sheer “virtue of his office,” as Bishop of Rome, and that, as “Vicar of Christ” and “Head of the Church,” he is the “Bishop of Bishops,” a notion that flagrantly contravenes the equality of Hierarchs unequivocally expressed in the Patristic ecclesiology of Saint Ignatios the God-Bearer, which we previously examined. In Roman Catholicism, then, we have not oecumenicity, the localization of the universal, but the very reversal thereof—anti-oecumenicity, the universalization of the local, viz., the “Romanization” (or “Frankification”) of the world. Papism is a curious idea, and Saint Justin of Ćelije scathingly censures it as such:

In its essence, western Christianity is fundamentally humanistic since it has declared man infallible, thus transforming the theanthropic religion into a humanistic one. Proof of this is found in the fact that the Roman Church transported the God-man back to heaven and in His place put a substitute: Vicarius Christi…. What a tragic absurdity: to appoint a substitute and representative for the all-present Lord and God! It is, however, a fact that this absurdity was realized in western Christianity. Thus, the de-incarnation of the incarnate God, the de-incarnation of the God-man, was somehow accomplished. Western Christian humanism proclaimed that the all-present God-man was not present in Rome and thus appointed His substitute in the person of an infallible man. It is as if this humanism were saying to the God-man: Depart from this world and go to the next since we have your representative who infallibly represents you in everything. …Through the dogma of infallibility the pope usurped for himself, that is for man, the entire jurisdiction and all the prerogatives which belong only to the Lord God-man. He effectively proclaimed himself as the Church, the papal church, and he has become in her the be-all and end-all, the self-proclaimed ruler of everything. In this way the dogma of the infallibility of the pope has been elevated to the central dogma…of the papacy. And the pope cannot deny this in any way as long as he remains pope of a humanistic papacy. …The dogma of papal infallibility is not only heresy but the greatest heresy against the True Church of Christ, which has existed in our terrestrial world as a theanthropic body ever since the appearance of the God-man. …This dogma is the heresy of heresies, a revolt without precedent against the God-man Christ on this earth….55

It is to this same temptation that the Patriarch of Constantinople inclines each time that he promotes himself as the “Head of the Orthodox Church,” thereby gradually transforming the OEcumenical Patriarchate into the Ecumenist Neo-Papacy. Ironically, it was a Roman Hierarch who first articulated the danger of this temptation to Patriarchalist thinking. When Saint John the Faster (†595), Patriarch of Constantinople, adopted the title “OEcumenical Patriarch” in 587, Saint Gregory the Dialogist (ca. 540–604), Pope of Rome, took quick issue with “the proud and pestiferous title of oecumenical, that is to say, universal”:56

Wherefore, dearest brother [John], with all thy heart love humility, through which the concord of all the brethren and the unity of the holy universal Church may be preserved. …If…[Saint Paul] shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of Universal? …Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John,—what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head [Christ]. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord’s Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal.57

Let us be clear though: Saint Gregory, the Pope of Rome, took umbrage with Saint John styling himself the “OEcumenical Patriarch.” Imagine what he would have thought of the prerogatives claimed by his later successors, who styled themselves the “Universal Pontiff.” Pope Gregory clearly appreciated the ecclesiological principle of genuine Christianity: that every Hierarch, be he Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan, Catholicos, Patriarch, or Pope, possesses, qua Hierarch, full oecumenicity and that “…if one… [Hierarch] is universal bishop, it remains that…[the other Hierarchs] are not bishops.”58

Taking the lead in ecumenism has, however, provided an ideal opportunity for the modern Patriarch of Constantinople to behave more and more like a Neo-Papal “universal bishop”:

From the [Ecumenical] movement’s very inception it was, significantly, the ecumenical Patriarchate which took the initiative and leadership by supporting a policy of full participation. That numerous other jurisdictions followed suit is, in some measure, due to its encouragement and affirmative attitude.59

So it was that the Orthodox Church of Greece, even though it consciously realized that the implementation of the farce that was Constantinople’s “New Julian” Calendar was not only uncanonical but even anticanonical, nevertheless proceeded to its implementation based on nothing more than the OEcumenical Patriarch’s legitimation of the Papal Calendar, in an illicit act of reform, “by virtue of his office”:

On January 16, 1923, a committee of theologians and clerics appointed by the Church of Greece to study the calendar issue submitted the following decision to the Church Prelacy: ‘…a regional Church cannot separate itself and unilaterally accept the New Calendar without rendering itself schismatic with respect to the other [Orthodox] Churches.’ Despite this warning, a decision was made by the Church of Greece to adopt the Gregorian Calendar the following year. And, indeed, division was the outcome. Firstly, the Church of Greece divided itself from the Liturgical unity of the Orthodox Church, which is maintained by a Festal Calendar common to all local Churches. It also broke from the decisions of many inter-Orthodox synods, which had flatly refused to adopt the Gregorian Calendar, not only because such a change would interfere with the liturgical unity of the Church, but because they found something irregular about the authority by which the Latin Pontiff had so dictatorially imposed this change on society. [These include, in particular, the Synods of Constantinople of 1583, 1587, and 1593.] …[Thus,] the Church of Greece became divided in 1924. It is not true that the Old Calendarists broke away from the Church. In fact, if one were to argue idly for a schism having taken place—and this is not perhaps wise—, it would be the State Church, in the view of its own theological advisors, that fell into schism. The fact is simply that the Church of Greece became divided with the calendar innovation and that it has not yet regained its ecclesiastical health and wellbeing in a much-longed-for unity in its ranks.60

The uncanonicity of Ecumenism—which has long since transmogrified from a pan-Protestant, transdenominational pipe dream into a pan-religious, syncretistic circus—is thus emblematized by the New Calendar—to use the words of Father Schmemann—for the simple reason that it does not comply with the canonical tradition or the truth of the church. For the purpose of the Hierarchy is precisely to keep pure and undistorted the tradition in its fulness, and if and when it sanctions or even tolerates anything contrary to the truth of the church, it puts itself under the condemnation of canons.61

And it was not merely the calendar innovation that was in question; at every step along the way, the Orthodox Church’s participation in the Ecumenical Movement has involved egregious and obstreperous breaches of the Holy Canons. Never one to equivocate, Saint Justin of Ćelije has no patience with those who pretend that participation in the Ecumenical Movement is a matter of canonical indifference:

The 45th Canon of the Apostles thunders: ‘Let any Bishop or Presbyter, or Deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if someone has permitted them to perform any service as Clergyman, let him be deposed’ (cf. 33rd Canon of the Synod of Laodicea). Isn’t this canon obvious? Even to a gnat? The 65th Canon of the Apostles directs: ‘If a clergyman, or layman, enter [sic] a synagogue of the Jews, or heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated,’ and this is clear enough even for the most primitive mind. The 46th Canon of the Holy Apostles says: ‘We command that any Bishop or Presbyter who accepts any heretic’s baptism or sacrifice be deposed; for what accord does Christ have with Belial or what part has the believer with an infidel?’ It is obvious even to a blind man that this commandment categorically directs us not to recognize any of the sacraments of the heretics and that we must consider them invalid and without divine grace.62

Those clergymen and laymen of the Orthodox Church of Greece who rejected the Neo-Papist calendar reform and its Ecumenical justification, and who thereby proved themselves to be “the protector[s] of religion…, the very body of the Church, even the people themselves, who desire their religious worship to be ever unchanged and of the same kind as that of their fathers,”63 came to be labelled “Old Calendarists,” an epithet that they embraced as an honorific comparable to the term “Iconodule” during the Iconoclastic Controversy (726–843). From 1924 to 1935, Athonite Hieromonks organized, consolidated, and expanded the Old Calendar movement into an Orthodox Ecclesiastical Community separate from the State Church of Greece. Then, in 1935, three Hierarchs of the Orthodox Church of Greece agreed to shepherd the Old Calendarist flock and proceeded with the Consecration of additional Hierarchs; however, ecclesiological disagreements and defections marred the internal relationships of the “Old Calendar” Church, because once it had gained a Hierarchy…, [s]ome of the less refined elements in the movement, motivated by true piety, but struck by the overzealousness that inevitably develops in movements that involve intensely held views, began to imagine that, since they now had Bishops and a Church, they were the Church of Greece.64

However, one Hierarch, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina (1870–1955), disputed this position as premature and triumphalistic, defining instead, as follows, the only viable canonical approach to the challenge of Ecumenism:

According to the spirit of the relevant Canons, when the Primate or the majority of the Hierarchs of a recognized Orthodox Church introduce into the Church an innovation that is contrary to the Canons and to Orthodox Divine worship, the right-believing Hierarchs of this Church are justified in breaking ecclesiastical communion with the innovators, even before a Synodal judgment, lest they, too, be responsible before the whole Church for the innovation that has been evilly and uncanonically introduced; but they cannot declare the innovating Hierarchs schismatics or subject them to deposition, for that is the exclusive prerogative of the entire Church when it comes together in a Synod, states its opinions with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and issues its verdict, after a thorough clarification and a detailed defense by the innovating Hierarchs under judgment. When those who are right-believing sever ecclesiastical communion with a ruling Synod and cease to commemorate it, not only are they not condemned, but they are indeed extolled for not having created a schism, but rather having saved the Church from schism….65

In his meticulous Patristic argumentation, Metropolitan Chrysostomos cites the Fifteenth Canon of the First–Second Synod as epitomical of the canonicity of breaking communion with and walling off from erring Hierarchs:

As for those who, on account of some heresy reprehended by Holy Synods or Fathers, separate themselves from communion with their First Hierarch, who, that is to say, is preaching this heresy publicly and teaching it brazenly in Church, such persons are not only not subject to any canonical penalty for walling themselves off, prior to a Synodal verdict, from communion with one who is called a Bishop, but will be deemed worthy of the honor due to Orthodox Christians. For they have not reprehended Bishops, but false bishops and false teachers, and have not sundered the unity of the Church through any schism, but have been sedulous to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.66

The repose of Metropolitan Chrysostomos in 1955 left the Old Calendarists temporarily without Episcopal leadership; however, this was soon rectified by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which continued the Hierarchy of the Greek “Old Calendar” Church by consecrating, in 1960, and co-consecrating, in 1962, new Hierarchs for this Ecclesiastical Community. Unfortunately, there remained extremist elements therein that regarded the Holy Mysteries of the State Church as devoid of salvific Grace. Eventually, these elements provoked endless schisms and divisions. To put an end to the scandalous internal vagaries of the Greek Old Calendarists, and to call it back to a united front against the real threat to all Orthodoxy—Ecumenism—, in 1979 there were attempts to reform the movement. This led to the formation, over time of the Synod in Resistance, under the Presidency of Metropolitan Kyprian of Oropos and Phyle. This Synod has, since its inception, remained loyal to the vision of canonical unity championed by Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina, who,

[r]egarding the State Church, …pointed out, in 1937, that it was not in actual schism, but that only a potential schism existed. He added that the Old Calendarists had walled themselves off from communion with the New Calendarists and organized in a proper Church structure, as the Holy Canons permit, since they were called by conscience to maintain the true and correct standards of the Church. He observed that this separation would exist until such a time as the calendar question and other innovations were decided upon in a lawful way, consistent with Holy Tradition—that is, by a general council of the whole Greek Church.67

“[P]roper Church structure” calls for an Hierarchical Synod, “[t]he fundamental form and expression of episcopal unity,”68 as Father Schmemann points out:

It must be strongly emphasized…that…[canonical subordinationism] is the distortion of a fundamental truth: the unity and the interdependence of the bishops as the form of the Church’s unity. The error of canonical subordinationism is that it understands unity only in terms of subordination (of a bishop to his ‘superiors’) whereas, in Orthodox ecclesiology, subordination or obedience is derived from the unity of bishops. There is indeed no power above the episcopal power, but this power itself implies the bishop’s agreement and unity with the whole Episcopate, so that a bishop separated from the unity of bishops loses ipso facto his ‘power.’ In this sense a bishop is obedient and even subordinated to the unity and unanimity of bishops, but because he himself is a vital member of that unity. His subordination is not to a ‘superior,’ but to the very reality of the Church’s unity and unanimity of which the Synod of bishops is the gracious organ: ‘The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…but neither let him…do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity’ (Apost. Canon 34).69

The achievement of “the Church’s unity and unanimity”—specifically within the Orthodox Church of Greece and thence, generally, within the whole of the Orthodox Church—is thus the canonical raison d’être of the Synod in Resistance. To wit:

1. The Holy Synod in Resistance, with the help of God and the protection of the Theotokos, shepherds those pious Orthodox Christians who are, in the first place, Anti-Ecumenists and follow the Patristic Calendar of the Church (i.e., the Old Calendar), forming the Ecclesiastical Community of the Anti-Ecumenists of the Patristic Calendar.

2. The pious Anti-Ecumenists broke Mysteriological communion in 1924 with the so-called official Churches, which participate in the Ecumenical Movement and have adopted or accepted without protest the New Calendar, because they consider Ecumenism to be an ecclesiological heresy and the New Calendar a condemnable innovation.

3. The work of the Holy Synod in Resistance is primarily unitive, since it seeks to inform the faithful with regard to the heretical character of the Ecumenical Movement.

4. The sober and responsible promulgation of information on this subject will, with the help of God, awaken the synodal (conciliar) conscience of the Orthodox Church, with the aim of convoking a General Union Synod in the Truth of the Faith, so as to condemn heresy and to restore the festal unity of the Orthodox.70

Metropolitan Kyprian augments this statement of the Synod in Resistance’s self-identity by delineating what it is and what it is not:

The anti-innovationist plenitude of the Orthodox Church in resistance, as a specific ecclesiastical community that has walled itself off,

does not constitute the Church;

is not an administrative substitute for the innovating Church;

does not function as a jurisdiction parallel to that of the New Calendar Church;

and does not present itself as a second Orthodox Church in Greece.

It is, however, profoundly aware that

—it is within the boundaries of the Church;

—it constitutes the “healthy part” of the Church;

—and that it continues the history of the anti-innovationist Church of Patristic Tradition, which is Orthodoxy in its genuine sense, always having in mind the prospect of a general unifying Synod.71

Only when the so-called, self-proclaimed, and self-styled “official” Churches put aside their Neo-Papal lust for power, typified by “canonical subordinationism,” and return to the Orthodox “canon of truth,” incarnated by continuity, authenticity, and oecumenicity, will they be canonically validated:

Canonicity gains additional force, not when it is applied to claims concerning rank and jurisdiction, sees, prerogatives, and commemorations, in which it is possible for ignoble motivations such as egotism and primacy to intrude, but when it is applied above all to matters of faith, because these have to do with unselfish, disinterested, and dispassionate love for God and His Holy Church, the truth of which must remain genuine and unadulterated unto the ages.72

So it is that, together with its canonical Sister Churches—the True (Old Calendar) Church of Romania, the True (Old Calendar) Church of Bulgaria, and the Provisional Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad—, the canonical Orthodox Church of Greece, the Holy Synod in Resistance [see note below], issues a clarion call to “every Episcopate of the Orthodox…[to] teach aright the word of…[the Lord’s] truth”73 by resisting the diabolical panheresy of Ecumenism.

1 Alexander Schmemann, Problems of Orthodox in America: The Canonical Problem, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, Vol. VIII, No. 2 (1964), p. 67.2

2 Ibid., p. 69.

3 Ibid., p. 70.

4 Ibid.3

5 Neo-Papism, Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIV, No. 1 (1997), p. 24.

6 Schmemann, The Canonical Problem, pp. 73“74.

7 Ibid., p. 74.4

8 Ibid., p. 73.

9 Ibid., p. 75.5

10 Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition, 3rd ed., trans. and ed. Hieromonk Seraphim Rose and the St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood (Platina, CA; St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2005), p. 42.

11 Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Vol. I of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Belmont, MA; Nordland Publishing Co., 1972), p. 78.

12 Irenæus Against Heresies, Vol. I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1975), p. 426.

13 Ibid., p. 439.

14 Κανών, Hermann Wolfgang Beyer, Vol. III of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1965), p. 600.6

15 Schmemann, The Canonical Problem, pp. 69, 75.

16 I Corinthians 2:16.

17 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 107.7

18 Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), The Attributes of the Church, trans. Stephen Karganovic, Orthodox Life, Vol. 31, No. 1 (January-February 1981), p. 31. (The English in this translation is, unfortunately, at times rather awkwardly rendered. We have nonetheless quoted it verbatim.)

19 Idem, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, trans. Asterios Gerostergios et al. (Belmont, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1994), p. 78.

20 Ibid., p. 77.

21 Romans 7:4; I Corinthians 10:16, 12:27; Ephesians 4:12.

22 Father Justin, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, p. 82.

23 Idem, The Attributes of the Church, p. 32.

24 Idem, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, p. 84.8

25 The Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, ed. Christopher Veniamin, Vol. II (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2004), p. 29. This is one of the few translations from the difficult writings of St. Gregory Palamas that is [almost – mine added] faithful to the original Greek texts.

26 Schmemann, The Canonical Problem, p. 71.9

27 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, pp. 78“79.

28 Jeffrey Burton Russell, A History of Medieval Christianity: Prophecy and Order (New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1968), p. 195.

29 Schmemann, The Canonical Problem, p. 74.10

30 Psalm 18:5.

31 Galatians 6:10.

32 Ephesians 2:19.11

33 Schmemann, The Canonical Problem, pp. 70-71, 79-80.

34 The Rev. John S. Romanides, The Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. VII, Nos. 1 & 2 (Summer 1961”Winter 1961“1962), p. 70.12

35 Archimandrite Justin, The Attributes of the Church, p. 31.

36 Romanides, The Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch, pp. 71“72.13

37 Archimandrite Kyprian, The Place of the Bishop in the Orthodox Church, Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVI, Nos. 3 & 4 (1999), p. 12.

38 St. James 4:7.

39 St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle I.39, ˜To Theophilos the Abbot,™ Patrologia Græca, Vol. XCIX, col. 1049A.14

40 Metropolitan Kyprian of Oropos and Fili, The Panheresy of Ecumenism, 3rd. ed., trans. Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2004), pp. 7“8.

41 Father Justin, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, p. 169.15

42 Ibid., p. 89.

43 Fr. Peter Alban Heers, The Missionary Origins of Modern Ecumenism: Milestones leading up to 1920 (Athens: 2005), p. 2.16

44 Carnegie Samuel Calian, Icon and Pulpit: The Protestant“Orthodox Encounter (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1968), pp. 69, 72.17

45 The Unity of the Church and the World Conference of Christian Communities (Letter to Mr. Robert Gardiner, secretary of the Commission to arrange a World Conference of Christian Communities), trans. Margaret Jerinec, ed. Monastery Press (Montréal, QC: Monastery Press, 1975), pp. 12“13.18

46 Ibid., pp. 13“14.

47 Archimandrite Sergius, Christianity and Orthodoxy, Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XV, No. 4 (1998), pp. 6“7.

48 Holy New-Martyr Archbishop Ilarion (Troitsky), Christianity or the Church? (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1985), p. 29.19

49 Heers, The Missionary Origins of Modern Ecumenism: Milestones leading up to 1920, p. 12, 14.

50 Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1920, The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements 1902“1975, ed. Constantin G. Patelos (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978), p. 41.20

51 Schmemann, The Canonical Problem, p. 73.

52 Bishop Photii of Triaditza, The Road to Apostasy: Significant Essays on Ecumenism (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1995), p. 13.

53 Ibid., p. 25.21

54 Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York, NY: Catholic Book Publishing, 1994), pp. 221, 234“235, 237.22

55 Father Justin, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, pp. 90“91, 104, 111“112.

56 Selected Epistles of Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, trans. Rev. James Barmby, Vol. 23 XIII, 2nd Ser., of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1969), p. 18.

57 Register of the Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, trans. Rev. James Barmby, Vol. XII, 2nd Ser., of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1969), p. 166“167.

58 Selected Epistles of Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, p. 19.24

59 Aristeides Papadakis, History of the Orthodox Church, A Companion to the Greek Orthodox Church, ed. Fotios K. Litsas (New York, NY: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, 1984), p. 28.

60 Bishop Chrysostomos, Bishop Auxentios, and Bishop Ambrose, The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1994), pp. 55.57.25

61 Schmemann, The Canonical Problem, p. 69.

62 Father Justin, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, p. 175.26

63 “Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs: A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, To the Easterns (1848).

64 Bishop Chrysostomos, Bishop Auxentios, and Bishop Ambrose, The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece, pp. 62–63.27

65 Resistance or Exclusion?: The Alternative Ecclesiological Approaches of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and Bishop Matthew of Vresthene, trans. Hieromonk Patapios, ed. Archbishop Chrysostomos (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2000), p. 70.

66 Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Synod.28

67 Bishop Chrysostomos, Bishop Auxentios, and Bishop Ambrose, The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece, p. 63.

68 Schmemann, “The Canonical Problem”, p. 80.

69 Ibid.29

70 Orthodox Church of Greece, Synod in Resistance, The Orthodox Resistance Against the Ecclesiastical Heresy of Syncretistic Ecumenism: Basic Ecclesiastical and Canonical Positions, (Phyle, Greece: 2006).30

71 Metropolitan Kyprian of Oropos and Fili, The Heresy of Ecumenism and the Patristic Stand of the Orthodox, trans. Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna and Hieromonk Patapios (Etna, CA: Center for traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), pp. 50, 51.

72 Protopresbyter Theodore Zissis, “What Synod Will Enforce Adherence to the Canons? Ορθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1559 (July 16, 2004), pp. 3–4.

73 Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostomos. Text translated and compiled by the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery.




Information About Our Website:

Its New Form After the Union 1.

We are happy to inform visitors to our website that the Official Dialogue for Union between our Synod in Resistance and the other major Old Calendarist Synod in Greece has come to an auspicious conclusion and that, following the informatory gatherings of our clergy and laity, the union was brought to fruition yesterday, March 5/18, 2014, in joint deliberation by both sides, and is now a re-ality, by the Grace of the Lord.

2. There no longer exists a Holy Synod in Resistance or a President there-of, inasmuch as the union has brought forth a single and unified Synod of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece (or The Old Calendar Or-thodox Church of Greece) under Archbishop Kallinikos, President of the Holy Synod.

3. Our website will henceforth be the official website of the new Holy Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle.

4. The structure of our new website, adjusted to the needs of our Metropolis, demands radical changes and adjustments to the preëxisting one, so as to reflect the new ecclesiastical and synodal state of affairs; and our work, in this regard, will commence as soon as possible, with the help of God.

From the Chancery of the Holy Metropolis

Wednesday, March 6/19, 2014