ΕΝ ΤΟΥΤΩ ΝΙΚΑ ☦

Nikolaos Mannis, educator <v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas><v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f"><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape alt="A person in a suit and tie

AI-generated content may be incorrect." id="image6.jpg" o:spid="_x0000_i1030" style="height: 185.5pt; visibility: visible; width: 275pt;" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:title="A person in a suit and tie

AI-generated content may be incorrect" src="file:///C:/Users/cgorm/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.jpg"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p> <div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjinNnhwrQnuSXs74MtHqQDXbTTWHviNjRD9i4boDxeYfYzQXL31Lb8oFDbLatqO-ildTEZfgUU_GUfWlWrG3TdsKWBoZBIlDsDKdTWNEhmoACxsZbwGRVrtD8CTuoQBxoml8Jny8KFusUMCWrIAmhkGJxxcZ1Y72EGhBlQaW_X0SU-_PJSp4Tx92smUCtG" style="color: #cc6611; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img alt="" data-original-height="387" data-original-width="573" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjinNnhwrQnuSXs74MtHqQDXbTTWHviNjRD9i4boDxeYfYzQXL31Lb8oFDbLatqO-ildTEZfgUU_GUfWlWrG3TdsKWBoZBIlDsDKdTWNEhmoACxsZbwGRVrtD8CTuoQBxoml8Jny8KFusUMCWrIAmhkGJxxcZ1Y72EGhBlQaW_X0SU-_PJSp4Tx92smUCtG" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1) 1px 1px 5px; padding: 5px; position: relative;" width="320" /></a></div> <v:shape alt="A person with a beard

AI-generated content may be incorrect." id="image1.jpg" o:spid="_x0000_i1029" style="height: 221pt; visibility: visible; width: 152.5pt;" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:title="A person with a beard

AI-generated content may be incorrect" src="file:///C:/Users/cgorm/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.jpg"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p> <div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiEkjLibbjts0mUchfWUhdK8KhVQ-ajs0AUPqPhQfG_TYvHqmuxInM5k_Lfa3TpGdrBSj_M3QYRU6tQVexJ7XXBbAl4IIavFglNxoqNaB3UNZN9N38dRMzofSllbSnHzIjYft1rl48XNth8OBIqSvKnped2TSQvKgkNh_C93luHIWVwDx4C2eTsPW3mR50p" style="color: #cc6611; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img alt="" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="318" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiEkjLibbjts0mUchfWUhdK8KhVQ-ajs0AUPqPhQfG_TYvHqmuxInM5k_Lfa3TpGdrBSj_M3QYRU6tQVexJ7XXBbAl4IIavFglNxoqNaB3UNZN9N38dRMzofSllbSnHzIjYft1rl48XNth8OBIqSvKnped2TSQvKgkNh_C93luHIWVwDx4C2eTsPW3mR50p" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1) 1px 1px 5px; padding: 5px; position: relative;" width="166" /></a></div> There are two major deviations from Orthodox ecclesiology within the ranks of the Genuine Orthodox (Old Calendarist) Christians of Greece. The first, now known as Matthewitism (which developed into a schism from 1937), was expressed by certain Athonites, with the future titular Bishop of Vresthena, Matthaios Karpathakis [+1950], at the forefront, during the early decades of our Holy Struggle, and was adequately addressed by the writings of our right-believing Fathers and Teachers, such as Saint Chrysostomos of Florina, Fr. Theodoretos Mavros, Aristotelis Delimbasis, and others.<o:p></o:p>The second was expressed in recent decades by the now-reposed lawyer and theologian Athanasios Sakarellos [+2021], and not only has it not yet been systematically addressed, but unfortunately it has also spread and found adherents in our circles, influencing to such a degree our ecclesiological self-awareness that we are mocked by certain newly illumined ones as supposedly “heretics,” simply because we disagree with this ecclesiology. Thus, the present work is apologetic and polemical, yet at the same time enlightening, and there is hope that it will contribute to the liberation of the ecclesiology of the Genuine Orthodox (as it was handed down to us by our right-believing Fathers) from the Sakarellian (that is, Romanidian, as will be demonstrated) captivity.<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>For anyone who is unaware, Athanasios Sakarellos was a close collaborator of the historic and militant newspaper Orthodoxos Typos, whose columns hosted, among other topics, his writings against the Old Calendarists (whom he considered heretics), signed either with his own name or with various pseudonyms (e.g. K. Athanasiou, Ioannis Athonites). These were published mainly during the 1980s and provoked reactions from prominent members of our Church (such as the blessed Metropolitan Akakios of Diavleia, Fr. Theodoretos Mavros, and Fr. Euthymios Bardakas).<o:p></o:p>Although around 1990 (after his discipleship under Fr. John Romanides), Mr. Sakarellos joined the Old Calendarists, we personally have not seen anywhere that he publicly stated he renounces what he had written against them.<o:p></o:p>However, we shall not concern ourselves with these texts, accepting by economia that, since Mr. Sakarellos joined the Old Calendarists, this very act of his joining constitutes, in a certain sense, a practical repentance for what he had written against them (even though exactness requires, in the case of written statements, a written renunciation).<o:p></o:p>We shall therefore concern ourselves with the texts he composed as an Old Calendarist, which shaped a new ecclesiology within our ranks—an ecclesiology that stands as far from the Orthodox one as does the Matthewite, with which it is, in many respects, related, though not always identical. These texts of his are primarily the following:<o:p></o:p><ol start="1" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; margin-top: 0in;" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">The Walling-Off of the Faithful from Heretical Bishops, n.d.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">The Union of the Churches Took Place in 1965, n.d.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">Old and New Calendar, 2005,<o:p></o:p></li></ol>as well as his online publications, signed either with his full name or with his internet pseudonym “Kosmas.”<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>Before proceeding to a critical examination of the above texts of his (in which his ecclesiology is summarized), we shall present his deluded positions which constitute the deviation (which, for the sake of brevity, we will refer to as Sakarellism), and which we shall encounter and examine in greater detail in the present work.<o:p></o:p>The fundamental positions of Sakarellism are therefore the following:<o:p></o:p>1. In order for someone to understand theology in general, and ecclesiology in particular, he must know history, and specifically the interpretation of history proposed by Fr. John Romanides. According to this (Manichaean [= dualistic], as it appears) conception, those called Christians are divided into two parts, the “Romans” and the “Franks.” These parts, which are presented with certain of their characteristics in the table below, are in perpetual war, because the latter conspire to enslave the former.<o:p></o:p><v:shape alt="A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect." id="image2.png" o:spid="_x0000_i1028" style="height: 153pt; visibility: visible; width: 4in;" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:title="A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect" src="file:///C:/Users/cgorm/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.png"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgDZb3rUA0cFQbfs9U9Gfmen9eR_THzXn7ZcT00MD_cNVkL1ETw2Vmu922rc4PY0iYD3oXWUKdUcdxsfFcUvAAm6hk2YIA-6S9bLQUz6dL-KtEDBRBioj0azW-qsdPO6LSb-mJ5ExAm5TEyJKsLpgdj8JgVDfDpYeEvsdKeO2AVaoKkQ-GFD2E5g7R_mgIy" style="color: #cc6611; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img alt="" data-original-height="319" data-original-width="600" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgDZb3rUA0cFQbfs9U9Gfmen9eR_THzXn7ZcT00MD_cNVkL1ETw2Vmu922rc4PY0iYD3oXWUKdUcdxsfFcUvAAm6hk2YIA-6S9bLQUz6dL-KtEDBRBioj0azW-qsdPO6LSb-mJ5ExAm5TEyJKsLpgdj8JgVDfDpYeEvsdKeO2AVaoKkQ-GFD2E5g7R_mgIy=w400-h213" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1) 1px 1px 5px; padding: 5px; position: relative;" width="400" /></a></div> The “Franks” ultimately managed to prevail and to take the whole world captive (even the “Romans”), through their “Frankish scholasticism,” from the 14th to the 20th century—until the appearance of Fr. Romanides, who liberated us...2. As a result, all the Orthodox Fathers, teachers, theologians, and ecclesiastical writers from Saint Gregory Palamas to Fr. Romanides (with exceedingly few exceptions) were captives of “Frankish scholasticism,” and therefore unreliable. (And indeed, in order to determine which of the aforementioned Fathers and Teachers were captives or not, we simply place their writings next to the writings of Fr. Romanides; those who agree with his positions were “true” Orthodox—and Romans!—whereas those who disagree with him—such as Saint Nektarios or Saint Chrysostomos of Florina, for example—were “captives of the Franks”...)<o:p></o:p>3. In the Church (in which, according to Mr. Sakarellos, there exists no distinction between the Church Militant on earth and the Church Triumphant—this, he claims, is... “Frankish scholasticism”), only the Saints, the enlightened, the deified, the elect, the pure, belong. The existence of sinners and those of unsound doctrine within the Church defiles it, and is therefore impossible. One does not become a member of the Church through the Baptism of water, but through the “baptism of the spirit”!!! The Saints are infallible, and consequently, those who (according to his own judgment, of course) are in error (such as Augustine, Isaac the Syrian, John Maximovitch, Philaret of New York, and others) are false saints.<o:p></o:p>4. The Church of Greece fell from the pure “Church of Christ” (and lost Divine Grace and the Priesthood) in 1924 with the change of the calendar, (and/or) in 1930 with the acceptance of the “Nestorian heresy” of Trembelas, (and/or) in 1935 with the repudiation of the three hierarchs who returned to the Old Calendar, (and/or) in 1965 with the supposed “Union of the Churches,” and also because it is in communion with the Church of Finland, which follows the new Paschalion. The imitators of Mr. Sakarellos add that it fell (and/or) in 1990 with the agreement with the Monophysites in Chambésy, (and/or) in 1993 with the agreement with the Papists in Balamand, (and/or) in 2016 with the pseudo-council of Kolymbari. (Nevertheless, the fact that Fr. Romanides—the “authority” and our “great theologian liberator”—was a member of the Church of Greece seems to have no significance whatsoever...).<o:p></o:p>5. According to the saying (which holds the place of a dogma and is also misinterpreted, according to personal judgment), “he who communes with one who is excommunicated, let him also be excommunicated,” all the Local Churches that are in communion with the Church of Greece and with one another have fallen from the pure “Church of Christ,” which is now comprised solely of a few deified... “Romans.”<o:p></o:p>We overlook the numerous errors found in the above texts that pertain to historical matters and will focus solely on those relating to ecclesiology; we therefore begin the critique of Sakarellian ecclesiology with an examination of its first fundamental principle, which concerns who constitutes members of the Church and who does not.<o:p></o:p>The references to the corresponding passages in Mr. Sakarellos’ aforementioned books will be made using the following abbreviations:<o:p></o:p>A (= The Walling-Off of the Faithful from Heretical Bishops) E (= The Union of the Churches Took Place in 1965) P (= Old and New Calendar)<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>According to Sakarellism (=Romanidism), members of the Church are only those “who have been deemed worthy to attain the ‘vision of God’, which is ‘illumination’ and ‘deification’” (A, 4 / P, 193), and “who are in the state of noetic prayer” (P, 80). More specifically, Baptism alone is not sufficient for one to be a member of the Church: “Contemporary theologians consider every Orthodox person to be a member of the Church simply because he was once baptized…” (A, 5).<o:p></o:p>The fact that these positions are based primarily on Fr. John Romanides can be confirmed by consulting his writings: “Someone who is faithful through the baptism of water, but has not yet entered into the state of illumination—that is, the baptism of the Spirit—and therefore is not yet a member of the Body of Christ… is called a layman, since he remains in a lay condition.” [1] “In any case, the baptism in the Spirit is identical with the reception of the gift of tongues and is clearly distinct from the baptism in water… This baptism in the Spirit, which results in the gift of tongues and is normally accompanied by the gift of prophecy, is evidently the beginning of the chrismation, the mystery through which one becomes a member of the Body of Christ and a temple of God. For the Apostle Paul, the gift of tongues appears to be the minimal requirement for becoming a member of the Body of Christ (…) Those who, through unceasing prayer, attain glorification are the central core of Holy Tradition, for without them there is no Body of Christ. (…) Without them, the sacraments of the Church become a system of magic. The Apostle Paul does not say that the Body of Christ is truly built up by baptism, chrismation, the divine Eucharist, etc., but by the Apostles and prophets—meaning the Apostles and Fathers—who spiritually beget others in Christ, preparing them to receive the prayer of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. Only within this framework are the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, the divine Eucharist, priesthood, confession, repentance, etc., not magic.” [2] “One must test himself to see whether he is in the state of illumination, and therefore a member of the Body of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit, having at the very least the ‘kinds of tongues,’ that is, noetic prayer.” [3] “In the ancient period, the members of the Church were those who were in a state of illumination. They had at least noetic prayer. And since they had noetic prayer and were in a state of illumination, they were called saints.” [4] The first position, therefore, is the following: One does not become a member of the Church through the “baptism of water,” but through the “baptism of the Spirit.” And proof that one is truly a member of the Church is the possession of the “prayer” (noetic prayer).<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>It is indeed true that, upon examining this position, we did not find it unprecedented. It has indeed been expressed before in the past—though not by Orthodox. Let us, however, first examine it in detail. In contrast to this position, the Fathers teach that one becomes a member of the Church through Baptism, which they do not divide into a “baptism of water” and a “baptism of the spirit,” as though these were two supposedly distinct kinds of baptism!<o:p></o:p>The theoretician of Romanidism within the New Calendarist sphere (and classmate of Mr. Sakarellos under Romanides), Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, attempting to establish this dichotomy, writes: “The baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit may be connected to one another when proper and Orthodox catechesis takes place; however, they may also not be absolutely connected, in the sense that the baptism of water precedes and the baptism of the Spirit follows. It is very characteristic in the Acts of the Apostles that the Christians of Samaria had indeed received the baptism of water, that is, they had already been baptized in the name of the Lord, but they had not received the baptism of the Spirit, which is why the Apostles Peter and John were sent to baptize them with the Holy Spirit.” [5] Metropolitan Hierotheos refers to the following passage from Acts: “Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” [6] At first glance, there is indeed the risk that one might conclude that Baptism does not confer the Holy Spirit. But whoever reads the chapter carefully will observe earlier that: “Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them” [7] and “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” [8] And Saint John Chrysostom explains: “And why had they not received the Holy Spirit when they were baptized? Either because Philip had not given it to them, honoring, perhaps, the Apostles; or because he did not have such a gift (for he was one of the seven); and this is more likely to say. Hence it seems to me that this Philip was one of the seven, the second after Stephen. Therefore, though he baptized, he did not give the Spirit to those being baptized; for he did not have authority to do so: for this gift belonged only to the Twelve.” [9] We thus see that the particular Baptisms in Samaria were incomplete only for the reason that they had been performed by a Deacon (Saint Philip, one of the seven Deacons) and not by one of the Twelve Apostles, who alone at that time had the authority to perform the Mysteries.<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>The manner in which Romanidism (i.e., Sakarellism in our context) treats Baptism—calling it the “Baptism of water,” while distinguishing and referring to Chrismation as the “Baptism of the Spirit” [10]—is demeaning to this Mystery, the first and foundational Mystery of the Church. Through this depreciation, Sakarellism, combined with its overemphasis on Chrismation, not only now establishes the pre-existing delusions within our ranks (such as Rebaptisms—since the “baptism of water” is supposedly not of great value, contrary to the Fathers who stress that it is of such great value that it must NOT be repeated!) and re-Chrismations—since Chrismation is of such great value and only through it does one become a “true member” of the “true Church”—but also constitutes a deviation which lies at the opposite extreme of the other end, namely the so-called “Baptismal Theology” of the Ecumenists, which holds that every person who has received “baptism,” wherever it may have been received, must be considered a “member of the Church.”<o:p></o:p>But we, the true Orthodox, “shall walk the royal road, turning neither to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy bounds”; [11] and we believe that through the Baptism which one receives within the Church, he becomes a member thereof.<o:p></o:p>With every kind of baptism and wherever it is performed, one becomes a member of the Church. With Baptism, which is performed within the Church, one becomes a member thereof. With Baptism, one does not become a member of the Church.<o:p></o:p>Baptism, therefore, according to Orthodox teaching, is performed “of water and of the Spirit” [12]—that is, it imparts the Holy Spirit to those being baptized and makes them members of the Church even without the Mystery of Chrismation (whose true value Orthodoxy in no way questions, since through it additional gifts of the Holy Spirit are bestowed). Proof of this is not only the Church’s practice of accepting as members those who are baptized without having yet received Chrismation (e.g., those who needed to be baptized immediately because they were in danger of death—chiefly sick infants or imprisoned Christians during persecutions, who had not yet had the opportunity to be baptized), but also Her teaching, from which we present the following indicative examples:<o:p></o:p>1. From the Apostle Paul: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” [13] Does one put on Christ who is not a member of the Church?<o:p></o:p>2. From the Prayers in the Service of Holy Baptism: “Make him a rational sheep of the holy flock of Thy Christ, an honorable member of Thy Church... Build him upon the foundation of Thy Apostles and Prophets; and do not cast him down, but plant him as a planting of truth in Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and do not uproot him.”<o:p></o:p>3. From Saint John Chrysostom: “Do you see how many are the gifts of Baptism? And yet many suppose that the gift consists only in the remission of sins, whereas we have enumerated ten honors: for this reason, indeed, we also baptize children, though they have no sins, so that sanctification, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood, becoming members of Christ, and becoming a dwelling-place of the Spirit may be added to them.” [14]<o:p></o:p>4. From Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite: “For through the Cross the Church was betrothed to the Crucified Christ, and through the blood and water that flowed from His side, she who was formerly barren bore many children, and became both a mother of many and a noble mother, giving birth through the water of Baptism and nourishing the newborn through the Body and Blood of the Lord.” [15]<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>Romanidism claims that one is a member of the Church only if he has at least the “prayer” (noetic prayer), as it interprets the “kinds of tongues” mentioned by the Apostle. Without this prayer, not only can one not be a member of the Church, but all the Mysteries are deemed fraudulent—“a system of magic”! Orthodoxy, and especially the Hesychast tradition, emphasizes the great importance of noetic prayer, but it does not claim that whoever lacks it is outside the Church, nor that without it the Mysteries are ineffectual!<o:p></o:p>On the contrary, both the unprecedented division of Baptism (into that of water and that of the Spirit), and the absolute exaltation of the significance of the “prayer,” are encountered among the so-called Messalians (or Euchites). They taught: “Divine baptism is unable to uproot the roots of sins. Yet our Lord Jesus Christ says, ‘Unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God.’ Now, the Holy Spirit is divine fire; for it descended upon the disciples in the form of tongues of fire, concerning which the Forerunner also bore witness to the superiority of Christ to the crowds, saying, ‘He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.’ Just as sensible fire, falling upon a field filled with underbrush, burns up all that is on the surface and dries up their roots, and renders the field clean from such filth, so also the Holy Spirit—much more indeed… They say that every child born draws from the forefather Adam, just as his nature, so also his slavery to the demons, and he carries with him a demon united to him and  dwelling with him; and that neither holy baptism nor any other most divine operation is able to expel it, but only fervent and intense prayer, through the gnashing and spitting of the one who prays.” [16]<o:p></o:p>As Professor of Dogmatics Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos rightly observes (so that no one may think we are the only ones offering criticism of these positions), “The erroneous disparagement of the ‘baptism of water’ by Fr. Romanides, in view of another, distinct ‘baptism of the Spirit’ supposedly offered only through prayer, strongly recalls the heresy of the Messalians, who likewise disparaged Baptism, seeking through ‘prayer’ the realization of salvation—or, in Romanidic language, incorporation into the Body of Christ. In any case, the acceptance of two Baptisms, one without the Spirit and a second with the Spirit, through prayer, is entirely unknown to the Patristic tradition—and especially to the Hesychast tradition.” [17]<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>Continuing the examination of Sakarellian ecclesiology, we read: “The Fathers, on the basis of Holy Scripture, consider as members of the Church the saints. In them is found the deifying divine grace. They consider the Church to be the ‘communion of saints.’ For this reason, although it is composed of human beings, who are created, because the saints, being deified, became uncreated by grace, the true Church also, according to the Fathers, is uncreated” (P, 191). “In the Symbol of Faith we confess that the Church is ‘holy.’ This is so not only because her head, Christ, is holy, but also because her members must be holy! A Christian is holy when he reaches the state of ‘vision of God,’ that is, illumination or deification” (P, 95). The second position we thus encounter is the following: The true Church, which is “uncreated,” is composed of the saints (“communion of saints”) and is holy because its members must also be holy.<o:p></o:p>Let us first examine the matter of the “uncreated Church.” No matter how much one searches, he will not find among the Fathers the view that the Church is uncreated. This was first asserted by Romanides. [18] Yet here Mr. Sakarellos diverges somewhat from his mentor, since whereas Romanides considers the Church to be (also) uncreated “as the hidden-in-God kingdom and glory, in which God dwells with the Word and the Holy Spirit,” the former (Sakarellos) considers it uncreated “because the saints, being deified, have become uncreated by grace” (and therefore, since the Church consists only of “uncreated” saints, it is likewise “uncreated”!) However, the Saints teach that the Church is not uncreated (=unmade), but created:<o:p></o:p>1. According to the Apostle Paul, the Church is the true tabernacle “which the Lord pitched, and not man” [19] and the city “whose builder and maker is God.” [20]<o:p></o:p>2. Saint Clement of Rome: “By doing the will of God our Father, we shall belong to the first Church, the spiritual one, which was created before the sun and the moon.” [21]<o:p></o:p>3. Saint Hermas: “Behold, God of hosts, who by His invisible and mighty power and His great understanding created the world, and by His glorious counsel adorned His creation with beauty, and by His powerful word established the heaven and founded the earth upon the waters, and by His own wisdom and providence created His holy Church, which He also blessed… And it was revealed to me, brethren, as I was sleeping, by a very handsome young man who said to me: ‘Whom do you think the elderly woman is, from whom you received the little book?’ I said, ‘The Sibyl.’ ‘You are mistaken,’ he said, ‘she is not.’ ‘Who then is she?’ I asked. ‘The Church,’ he said. I said to him, ‘Why then is she elderly?’ ‘Because,’ he said, ‘she was created before all things; for this reason, she is elderly, and for her sake the world was prepared.’” [22]<o:p></o:p>4. Saint Athanasius the Great, in his discourse Against the Arians concerning the incarnate appearance of the Word of God, explains to these heretics that the passages of Scripture which speak of Christ as a creature do not refer to His divine nature, but to His human nature—that is, to His Body, the Church: “Thus also when it says, ‘The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways,’ it speaks concerning the Church, which is being created in Him… Whatever the Scripture says that the Son has received, it speaks on account of His body, which body is the first-fruits of the Church. And when it says, ‘Before all the hills He begets me,’ it is spoken from the person of the Church, which, though first created, is afterwards begotten of God. For this reason, in Proverbs it is first written, ‘The Lord created me,’ and afterwards, ‘He begot me’… And when Peter says, ‘Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ,’ he does not speak concerning His divinity, that He was made both Lord and Christ, but concerning His humanity—which is the whole Church.” [23]<o:p></o:p>5. Euthymios Zigabenos, in his interpretation of the verse from the 44th Psalm, “The queen stood at Thy right hand,” writes (in the simplified rendering by Saint Nikodemos): “Here David calls the Church and the assembly of devout Christians ‘queen,’ whom the King Christ, who was previously joined to idols, has betrothed to Himself through faith in Him; for she reigned on earth over the passions, and reigned together with her Bridegroom and King Christ in the heavenly kingdom. The Bridegroom and King Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, being of one essence and equal in honor with Him according to the Godhead; but His bride and queen, the Church, does not sit, but stands at the right hand of her Bridegroom and King, together with the bodiless Angels, because although she is both bride and queen, yet she is by nature created.” [24]<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>We now come to the position that only the saints constitute members of the Church (and that this is supposedly why the Church is called the “communion of saints”); and that, because the Church is holy, its members must be holy; and if they are not holy, then they are not members of the Church.<o:p></o:p>First, in Scripture—as well as in the Fathers—the term “communion of saints” is absent, apart from a very few exceptions in the West (in Latin, it is called “Communio Sanctorum”). The first reference to it is found in the so-called “Apostles’ Creed,” which the Westerners claim was composed by the Apostles themselves, though the Church considers it apocryphal. There we read: “[Credo in] sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem” (“[I believe in] the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints”). And yet, Saint Augustine in a certain text (whose real author, according to modern scholars, is Saint Caesarius [†543], Bishop of Arles in Gaul), interpreting this phrase, writes: “Sanctorum communionem: quia dona sancti Spiritus licet in hac vita diversa sint in singulis, in aeternitate tamen erunt communia in universis” [25] That is: “Communion of saints: because the gifts of the Holy Spirit, though different in each individual in this life, will in eternity be common to all.” This has absolutely no relation to the Sakarellian/Romanidean interpretation of the term, which, by asserting that only the saints—that is, the elect and the “pure” (the “deified”)—are members of the Church, aligns more closely with elitist ecclesiological positions expressed, among others, by the following heretics:<o:p></o:p>1. The Montanists. “In the early centuries of Christianity, a heretical movement appeared known as ‘Montanism.’ This movement taught that the Church ought to consist exclusively of perfect and holy beings, and it demanded that sinners and the imperfect be removed from its ranks.” [26]<o:p></o:p>2. The Novatianists (the “Pure”). “The Novatianists further observed that, since the Church had already accepted into her ranks those who had committed mortal sins, she had become defiled and profaned; and for this reason, only they, as the pure ones, still constituted the true, apostolic Church.” [27]<o:p></o:p>3. The Donatists. They maintained that “the true Church must be called that in which there are no sinners.” [28] According to Saint Optatus of Milevis (†4th c.), the confusion of the Donatists arose “from their general understanding of the Church as a body of saints, elect, and sinless ones. Thus, the Donatists identified the Catholic Church with the elect saints, who alone, they claimed, could validly perform the Mysteries.” [29] “They insisted on limiting the membership of the Church only to irreproachable believers.” [30]<o:p></o:p>4. The Anabaptists: “The Mennonites or Anabaptists… According to them, the Church is a communion of saints and therefore must be preserved in its purity through the strictest discipline.” [31]<o:p></o:p>5. The Lutherans. The Augsburg Confession professes belief in the Church as “congregatio Sanctorum” (= congregation of saints). The great 19th-century theologian Nikolaos Damalas observes: “If we finally examine Melanchthon’s definition, in what relation it stands to the catholic and apostolic Church of the seven ecumenical councils, we shall find it to be entirely opposed to it. For that Church, considering and proclaiming itself as the catholic and apostolic, would nurture the faithful and discipline those among them who sinned, and in every way strive to shepherd and save the flock of Christ, and to make them into the very kind of righteous and holy persons that Melanchthon demands as a prerequisite for entering his church. Thus, the ancient catholic Church was not composed exclusively of the pious and the righteous, but was a communion of the faithful, whose final purpose was to make them truly righteous and holy.<o:p></o:p>“Therefore, the church of Melanchthon and his associates is neither the Church of Scripture, nor the apostolic Church, nor the Church of the Symbol of Faith, nor the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven ecumenical councils. What, then, is it? To understand this, let us examine the doctrine of the so-called Evangelical [i.e., Protestant] Church regarding the Church itself. What does this definition say to us first of all? That the Church is a communion of saints—that is, of truly pious and righteous persons… And Luther himself inscribed on the door of his church: ‘Let no one enter who is not holy and righteous.’ Therefore, we may justly ask him: ‘If your church is a communion of saints, what are we, who are corrupted by ancestral sin, wretched and miserable and half-dead, and in need of cleansing, discipline, and nurture unto sanctification, to do in order to become holy? What answer will Luther give to such as these? That apart from his own assembly of saints—or of truly pious and righteous ones—there exist also other visible Churches?’” [32]<o:p></o:p>In another section below, we shall see what consequences the adoption of such views had upon our Church of the Genuine Orthodox.<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>At this point, before proceeding, let us engage in a hypothetical dialogue with a Sakarellian/Romanidean in order to better understand where these positions lead:<o:p></o:p>– Do you claim that only the saints, the “pure,” the “elect,” the “deified,” and not sinners, are members of the Church?<o:p></o:p>– Of course!<o:p></o:p>– Are you such a person?<o:p></o:p>– Um, no, I’m not...<o:p></o:p>– Then you are outside the Church, and therefore I cannot pay heed to what is claimed by someone who does not belong to the Church.<o:p></o:p>– Alright then, I’m not a sinner, I’m “pure,” a saint.<o:p></o:p>– Wretched man, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” [33] I am sorry, but “whoever declares himself pure has utterly condemned himself as unclean.” [34]<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>We Orthodox believe that the only Holy One, in the absolute sense of the term, is God, who is the source and origin of all holiness and of every sanctification. He is the one who sanctifies both the Church [35] and her members, [36] whom He calls to become holy. [37] For this reason, the members of the Church are considered not only the “elect saints” (as the aforementioned heresies believed), but all the “called saints,” that is, all believing and baptized Christians who have been called by God. “To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” [38] writes the Apostle Paul, and Saint John Chrysostom interprets: “He calls all the faithful ‘saints.’” [39] “Paul calls all the faithful Christians saints,” agrees Saint Nikodemos, and continues: “He added the word ‘called’ to remind them of God’s benefaction, and that—even if, he says, you were born of consuls and governors according to the flesh—nevertheless, God called you with the same calling with which He called the common and poor, having loved and sanctified you equally with them.” Note: “Oikoumenios says that Paul first put the phrase ‘beloved of God,’ then ‘called to be saints,’ as if to say: ‘From where were you called? From what labors? From what accomplishments? How are you holy? But it is solely from the love of God. For He, having loved us freely and having shed His blood for us, called us to sanctification and to the inheritance of His Church.’” [40] Moreover, interpreting the Catholic Epistle of the Apostle Jude, and specifically the first verse: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those who are sanctified by God the Father and preserved in Jesus Christ, called,” [41] this same Father (Saint Nikodemos) writes concerning the faithful: “They do not have sanctification of themselves, but from the Father, who drew them and sanctified them.” [42]<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>The visible Church in time and space includes within her fold both sinners and the righteous—Abel and Cain, wheat and tares, sheep and goats, clean and unclean, evil and good, sound and sick members, gold/silver and wooden/earthen vessels—without this in any way affecting the holiness of the Church, which, as we said, derives from her Head and not from her members. The members of the Church, during their time in the Church Militant, may remain in the same state, but they may also change (e.g., from sheep, wheat, or righteous, they may become goats, tares, and sinners—and naturally, the reverse is also possible); nevertheless, they remain members of the Church. Of course, there are cases of Church members who are cut off from her, either voluntarily (i.e., by apostasy), or by decision of the Church for a pedagogical purpose, through her competent organs. And naturally, on the Day of Judgment, when the final separation takes place, the Church in Paradise will include only the sheep, the wheat, the righteous, and the saints. Let us consider the teaching of the Lord and of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church on all this:<o:p></o:p>a) The Lord said: “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.” [43]<o:p></o:p>b) Saint John Chrysostom, interpreting this parable, writes: “Many of the leaders, by introducing evil men into the churches—heresiarchs in hiding—have provided great opportunity for such a plot. For the devil no longer needs to exert effort, once he plants such men in their midst… Observe also the affection of the servants. For they already press to uproot the tares, even if they do not do so deliberately; which shows their concern for the seed, and that they are focused solely on this—not so that the enemy be punished, but that what has been sown might not perish; for this is what is most pressing. Wherefore, they aim to first remove the disease. Yet they do not even seek this simply; for they do not act on their own, but await the will of the Master, saying: “Do you will it?” What then does the Master say? He forbids it, saying: “Lest you uproot the wheat along with them…”<o:p></o:p>Therefore, He restrains them with two considerations: first, that the wheat not be harmed; second, that the tares—being incurably diseased—will most certainly be overtaken by punishment. So, if you wish both that they be punished and that the wheat remain unharmed, await the proper time. What does “Lest you uproot the wheat with them” mean? Does He say this because, if you were to raise arms and slaughter the heretics, it would be inevitable that many of the saints would be destroyed together with them? Or because it is likely that many from among the tares may change and become wheat? If then you preemptively uproot them, you are harming those who are going to become wheat, killing those who could have changed and become better. Therefore, He does not forbid restraining heretics, silencing them, cutting off their boldness, dissolving their councils and alliances—but rather their execution and slaughter. And observe His gentleness, how He does not merely declare, nor even just prohibit, but introduces reasoning. What then, if the tares remain until the end? Then I shall say to the reapers: “First gather the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them.” Again, He reminds them of the words of John, which present Him as Judge, and He says that while they stand near the wheat, they must be spared; for it is possible for them to become wheat. But when they depart without having gained anything, then necessarily the inescapable judgment will overtake them. For I shall say to the reapers: “First gather the tares.” Why first? So that they are not afraid, as though the wheat would be taken away together with them. “And bind them in bundles, so as to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.” [44] And Saint Cyprian of Carthage: “Nam etsi videntur in Ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen impediri non debet aut fides aut caritas nostra, ut, quoniam zizania esse in Ecclesia cernimus, ipsi de Ecclesia recedamus.” [45] (Translation: “For, although tares appear to be in the Church, nevertheless neither our faith nor our love ought to be hindered, such that, seeing tares in the Church, we ourselves should depart from the Church.”)<o:p></o:p>c) Again, the Lord said: “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, and gathering from every kind; which, when it was filled, they drew it up on the shore, and sitting down, they gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall go forth, and shall separate the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” [46] And the holy Chrysostom makes the following noteworthy observation: “And how does this differ from the parable of the tares? For there also some are saved, and others perish. But there, through evil doctrines—heresy; and those even before that, through not paying attention to what was said. These, however, through wickedness of life, who are more wretched than all, having attained to knowledge and having been caught [by the net], yet were not even thus able to be saved.” [47]<o:p></o:p>d) And again, the Lord said: “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man, a king, who made a marriage for his son. And he sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying: Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise; and the remnant took his servants and treated them shamefully and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants: The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment, and he saith unto him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants: Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.” [48] After the rejection of the once-chosen Jewish people from the divine calling, the Lord, after His presence on earth, calls all to His Church, into which both evil and good enter, until the day that He shall come a second time and shall inspect their garments, and shall cast out those who have not the “wedding garment.”<o:p></o:p>e) Saint Augustine, in many of his writings against the Donatists (who at that time disturbed the Church of North Africa, drawing with their excessive zeal — which was attractive to the simpler — thousands of faithful into their schismatic heresy), explains that the Church is at once the “holy Church” (Ecclesia sancta), but also the “mixed Church” (Ecclesia permixta). This distinction is not a distinction between different realities, but between different perspectives: the Church in its present (temporal and worldly visible) reality is Ecclesia permixta, that is, mixed — containing saints and sinners — while from an eschatological point of view — as will be manifest after the Judgment, in eternal life — it is Ecclesia sancta, that is, pure, which will include only the saints and the righteous. He writes in his magnificent works (which, unfortunately, even after so many centuries, have not been translated into our language for us to enjoy [49]) on this subject: “Veniant in mentem illae de Scripturis similitudines et divina oracula vel certissima exempla, quibus demonstratum et praenuntiatum est, malos in Ecclesia permixtos bonis usque in finem saeculi tempusque iudicii futuros.” [50] (Translation: “These comparisons from the Scriptures come to my mind, and the divine oracles and the most certain examples, by which it has been demonstrated and foretold that the wicked will be mingled in the Church with the good until the end of the world and the time of judgment.”) One of the most characteristic examples he uses is the well-known comparison of the Church with the Ark of Noah: “Agnoscamus arcam illam quae praefiguravit Ecclesiam: simul illic munda animalia simus; nec in ea nobiscum etiam immunda portari usque in finem diluvii recusemus. Simul in arca fuerunt, sed non simul Domino in odorem sacrificii de immundis obtulit Noe. Nec ideo tamen a mundis aliquibus arca ante tempus propter immunda deserta est. Corvus tantum deseruit, et se ante tempus ab illius arcae communione separavit; sed de binis immundis, non de septenis mundis fuit.” [51] (Translation: “Let us acknowledge that the ark prefigured the Church: let us be the clean animals therein, and let us not refuse that the unclean animals also be carried with us until the end of the flood. They were together in the ark, but Noah did not offer any of the unclean animals as a sacrifice to the Lord in the savor of an offering. Nevertheless, some of the clean animals did not abandon the ark early on account of the unclean ones. Only the raven abandoned it, and separated himself prematurely from the communion of that ark; but he was of the two unclean, not of the seven clean animals.”)<o:p></o:p>Saint Jerome, in his discourse Against the Schismatic Luciferians, says: “Arca Noe Ecclesiae typus fuit, dicente Petro Apostolo: ‘In Arca Noe pauci, id est, octo animae salvae factae sunt per aquam, quod et nos nunc similis [Al. similiter] formae baptisma salvos facit [Al. faciat]’ (I Pet. III, 20). Ut in illa omnium animalium genera: ita et in hac universarum et gentium et morum homines sunt. Ut ibi pardus et haedi, lupus et agni: ita et hic et justi et peccatores, id est, vasa aurea et argentea, cum ligneis et fictilibus commorantur. Habuit arca nidos suos: habet Ecclesia plurimas mansiones.” [52] (Translation: “The Ark of Noah was a type of the Church, as the Apostle Peter says: ‘In the Ark of Noah few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water — which now saves us also, baptism of like [or similar] form’ (1 Peter 3:20). As in it were all kinds of animals, so also in the Church there are people of every race and character. As there were in the ark the leopard and the goats, the wolf and the lambs, so too in the Church there are both the righteous and the sinners — that is, vessels of gold and silver dwelling together with wooden and earthen ones (cf. 2 Tim. 2:20). The ark had its nests: the Church has many mansions.”)<o:p></o:p>f) Saint Basil the Great: “For in this great house, the Church, there are not only vessels of all kinds—of gold and silver and of wood and of clay—but also crafts of every sort.” [53]<o:p></o:p>g) Saint Theodoret of Cyrrhus: “For even the three youths, adorned with the highest virtue and having been crowned with the victor’s wreath, while praying in the furnace, said: ‘We have sinned, we have acted lawlessly, we have done wrong, and we have departed from Thy commandments, and we have not kept Thy ordinances.’ So also did the wondrous Daniel, so too the divinely inspired Jeremiah, so too the godly Isaiah, and likewise the most wise Paul. For, he says, ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first.’ And again, ‘I am not worthy to be called an apostle.’ Thus, then, the Church of God, though being assailed by the storms of the impious, does not boast, as one who contends in battle, but attributes what happens to sins and transgressions, and entreats to partake of the help that comes from the Savior. Moreover, the Church of God is not composed solely of the perfect, but also includes those who live in ease, those who cleave to a lax way of life, and those who choose to be enslaved to pleasures. And since it is one body, both these and those are spoken as from a single person.” [64]<o:p></o:p>h)  The wise Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias II Tranos, teaches the Lutherans in the excellent Chapter VIII of his First Response, titled “That in the Church there are also base [men],” [55] that the unworthiness of certain members of the Church—even of priests—does not in any way hinder the holiness of the worthy members, who receive sanctification from God, Who operates even through the unworthy.<o:p></o:p>i) Saint Meletios Pegas, in his dialogical work Orthodox Christian Dialogue, writes: Stranger: “But what if someone is a Christian, indeed holding correct doctrine, but his deeds are perverse?” Boy: “He is indeed a member, proper yet weak, whom we bear, restoring in a spirit of meekness, watching lest we also be tempted. He too is a Christian, though in need of healing, lest, remaining a withered branch, he be cut off from the vine and cast into the furnace of fire.” Stranger: “And what if his doctrine is also weak?” Boy: “We too, doing the work of brethren, heal such as these also, holding fast to the faithful word in accordance with the teaching of the Father. But those who resist and oppose the truth in a manner opposing God, we apostolically reject after the first and second admonition.” [56]<o:p></o:p>j) The most theological Teacher of the Nation, Eugenios Voulgaris, writes: “Do those who are entangled in mortal sins fall away from ecclesiastical communion? By no means; for they are as suffering members, moved least of all by the Head, which is Christ, but languishing in their own afflictions—yet they are not altogether cut off from the body, nor do they dissolve the unity with the rest. For by faith they are joined to the Church, they listen to the pastors and teachers, and accept what is said as true. And in them flourishes the hope of recovering from their sins, of receiving forgiveness and being revived in Christ and strengthened again—things which are not possible for those who have fallen into heresy.” And after citing the Lord’s relevant parables on the subject and refuting the Protestant heresy concerning an “invisible Church of saints,” he explains what “heretic” and “heresy” mean so that misunderstandings may not arise. The heretics “are members cut off from the body of the Church; for heresy overturns both faith and love, through which the members of the Church are united and held together in one body. Heresy is a false opinion concerning something directly revealed, contended for with stubbornness and boldly proclaimed with insolence. Therefore, if someone errs out of ignorance or carelessness, and being admonished, departs from the unstable opinion, such a one could not properly be called a heretic. Hence, what was said by Saint Augustine seems elegant: ‘I may be deceived, but I will not be a heretic.’” Therefore, those who fall into some heresy out of ignorance or negligence are not automatically outside the Church, especially when, being admonished, they repent; on the contrary, when they are admonished by the Church and refuse to be corrected, then they are cut off from it as “putrid and alien members.”<o:p></o:p>k) Saint Athanasios of Paros writes: “And indeed, it is not unknown that in the holy Church there are also some who are impure due to a base way of life, not having a wedding garment. Yet the Church endures even these through the hope of repentance, that they may wash away the stains of their sins, praying for them in imitation of God, and that they may return to the rank of the proper and elect. But the obstinate and unrepentant become alien and estranged from the present communion of the saints. For just as the leper who remained in his condition lived outside the camp, so also the one who sins without repentance is cast out of the Church... And if someone should question, saying: ‘How is it fitting for it to be called holy, when even those who live wickedly are found in it, and perhaps more numerous than the righteous and pious?’ — the solution is readily available from what has already been said. First, because it is called holy as being purified through holy baptism, and as a body formed from it that is undefiled and spotless, having as its Most Holy Head Jesus Christ. And because it is nourished and constituted through the dread Mysteries of the Lord’s Body and Blood. Second, because it is rightly called holy from its greater part. For even one person who does the will of God is greater than ten thousand lawless ones.” [60]<o:p></o:p>l) The very prolific and most ascetical Archbishop Antony Amfiteatrov, one of the foremost Russian theologians, writes: “Even if there are sinful persons as weak members within the Church, they in no way defile the holiness of the entire Church, but she bears with them, awaiting their return and recovery.” [61]<o:p></o:p>m) The wonderworking Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis: “The Church, as an organic body, is visible and unites into one whole all its members, both the holy and the weak. As weak members of the Church, they by no means cease to be functioning members of her body... and if they are healed, they are united with those who are healthy; but if they are incurably ill, then they shall die in their sin, as sheep of the flock having become incurably ill and having died in their own sins.” [62]<o:p></o:p>And elsewhere: “The Church includes within her bosom also those who have fallen into sins and do not live according to her laws, and considers these as suffering members.” [63]<o:p></o:p>n) The Hieromartyr and Confessor Hilarion Troitsky: “In their dogmatic notions about the Church, the Donatists proceeded from a strict concept of the holiness of the Church and of its unity. A Church that receives traditors into communion cannot be holy. Traditor-bishops cannot  communicate any grace; therefore, in a Church that has bishops who are traditors, there are no Mysteries. The personal unworthiness of the bishop deprives the whole Church of grace. In the Church, even Baptism has no meaning, and for that reason, anyone wishing to pass from the Church to the Donatist community—which alone is the one true and holy Church—must be baptized. One can observe that the Donatists adopted some ideas of St. Cyprian and turned them against the Church... But the Mysteries do not depend on the person of the priest: they are holy in themselves. Likewise, the holiness of the Church does not depend on the holiness of its members; on the contrary, the very members of the Church receive holiness from the Church. The Church is one, and her holiness is in the Mysteries, not in the pride of individuals.” [64]<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>On the contrary to what the Fathers of the Church profess, Mr. Sakarellos claims that one loses the status of being a member of the Church — and, additionally, the Priesthood, if he is a cleric — automatically:<o:p></o:p><w:sdt id="-1482561145" sdttag="goog_rdk_0">→ Whoever falls away from “illumination” and “theosis”: “From the Church, as defined by Christ and taught by the holy Fathers (note by us: we have seen that they taught the exact opposite!), a member departs when he falls away from that blessed state of “illumination” and “theosis,” that is, of ‘the vision of God.’ Then he ceases to be a member of the Church. These cases occur when the mind of man is again darkened and slain by sins and passions, or if he falls into heresies and erroneous beliefs” (P, 194). “Every believer who is deemed worthy to reach the state of ‘illumination’ or ‘theosis’ acquires the sense of Christ’s presence within him. If a person has not acquired this sense, even if he is baptized, he is not a member of the Body of Christ, according to the Fathers [note by us: the beloved tactic of the Sakarellians when expressing an opinion is to use the phrase 'according to the Fathers', almost never citing them, except for very small excerpts (some verbatim, others altered, as we shall see], which they interpret arbitrarily)” (P, 213).</w:sdt><o:p></o:p><w:sdt id="-343024111" sdttag="goog_rdk_1">→ Whoever is led astray: “Whichever of her members happened to be led astray, no matter how many they are, these are immediately cut off of their own accord from her body and cease automatically to constitute her members” (A, 5).</w:sdt><o:p></o:p><w:sdt id="-664023872" sdttag="goog_rdk_2">→ Whoever falls into heresy: “From the moment a believer—whether a layman, monk, or clergyman—accepts some heresy, even if he has not proclaimed it to anyone but keeps it hidden to himself, he becomes an enemy of God, according to Saint John Chrysostom. This is explained by the fact that a believer, by accepting false doctrines, loses the Right Faith, which is the Apostolic Tradition. It means that Apostolic Succession is cut off for him. It means that this heretic ceases henceforth to constitute a member of the Church of Christ! He himself, then, exits of his own accord from the body of the Church. He cuts himself off from the Church on his own, even if he says, formally, that he remains! He self-condemns—meaning, he himself condemns himself! This is also stated by the Apostle Paul, when he writes of every heretic that: 'he sins, being self-condemned,' that is, he is now self-condemned!” (A, 8). “A heretic is not only he who introduces new dogmas into the Church, but also whoever has not reached ‘illumination’ or ‘deification.’ Whoever, that is, is not a member of the Church. This person is not Orthodox!” (P, 194).</w:sdt><o:p></o:p><w:sdt id="-1147772988" sdttag="goog_rdk_3">→ Whoever has ecclesiastical communion with such persons: “From the moment that a member of the Church, regardless of what position he may hold in its body, falls into heresy or 'communes' with one of those who have fallen into heresy, he no longer continues to be a member of it. He can no longer be a Patriarch, nor an Archbishop or bishop, nor a priest or monk, not even a simple member of it, nor can he be called a Christian! ...Much more so, he cannot be a Patriarch, Archbishop, or other clergyman, because he does not have Apostolic Succession and priesthood” (E, 3).</w:sdt><o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>Here, then, we see not merely a complete opposition to what the Fathers teach, as we previously saw, nor simply a revival of Donatistic heresies, but an ecclesiology of unprecedented reductionism (surpassing even that of the Matthewite), according to which so few members remain in the Church, about whom we are not even certain whether they are truly members, since we are unable to ascertain in any way whether they have “illumination” and "deification" (or whether they feel it...), nor whether their mind has been "darkened" by sins and passions, nor whether they have fallen into some delusion or heresy (even if they keep it hidden to themselves!), nor whether they commune—either indirectly or directly—with someone who has "fallen"!<o:p></o:p>These clearly unorthodox views aim, of course, at supporting a more central position, which constitutes a fundamental pillar of the Sakarellian ecclesiology: that clergy belonging to the above categories, being automatically “outside the Church,” automatically lose the Priesthood as well.<o:p></o:p>But if there is an automatic loss of the Priesthood, then why do Synods convene to depose transgressing clergy? To this reasonable question, the Sakarellians respond: “The ‘defrocking’ imposed by the Church on unworthy ‘bishops’ of hers is an act in which the Church ascertains that a certain clergyman of hers does not have divine Grace, and therefore cannot perform the sacraments! This means that the Church, by this act of hers, confirms a condition that was created due to the unworthiness of this particular bishop. Because he does not have ordination from God — something clearly proven by his confirmed conduct against the right faith and upright life — God does not operate the sacraments this person performs as a clergyman! A simple example will help us better understand the declarative character of ‘defrocking.’ When someone dies, a death certificate is issued. The death of the person is not caused by the certificate. The certificate simply certifies the death that has occurred. The same happens with the defrocking of a clergyman. The defrocking simply confirms, in an indisputable manner, that the said person no longer has the authorization of the Church to perform sacraments because he ceased to have the “ordination from above.” Therefore, the sacraments he performs are “without Grace,” i.e., they have no Grace of God! (P, 184). A similar line of argument is also developed by the currently active Sakarellians of our circle, only that instead of presenting the Synod as the Registrar of their teacher, they present it as the Forensic Examiner: “When the Hierarchs in Synod pronounce on the spiritual death of a heretical community, they are not the spiritual executioners who spiritually kill the heretics through the anathema, but the ‘spiritual forensic examiners,’ who ascertain the spiritual necrosis of the heretics, which came about precisely from the deadly disease of heresy... Just as, when we have before us a dead body, the forensic examiners may not agree among themselves about the exact time of death and may try to calculate in various scientific ways when the fatal moment occurred — but the indisputable fact is that death has occurred.”<o:p></o:p>And others, however, within the broader ecclesiastical sphere, claim that the condemnation of a clergyman “by a synod to deposition on account of heresy, insofar as he does not repent and return to the right faith, has significance only as a recognition of the already inoperative state of divine grace in the sacraments performed by him, and not formative significance (i.e., that from the deposition onward the divine grace ceases to operate in the sacraments performed by him).” [66]<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>In support of this central position, certain patristic phrases are enlisted in a fragmentary manner, which we shall examine one by one immediately, in order to reveal the extent of the misinterpretation.<o:p></o:p>a) “But when such a clergyman ‘falls’ from this state of spiritual perfection, in reality he ‘leaves’ the Church as well. The Canons of the Church consider heretical bishops, even before their condemnation by a Synod, as false bishops and false teachers. We read in the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, that those who wall themselves off from heretical bishops ‘have condemned not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers’” (P, 194).<o:p></o:p>Here we have a literal interpretation of the word “false bishop,” which, however—as we shall see—is rejected by the practice and teaching of the Church. A literal interpretation, if it is not supported by the practice and teaching of the Church, leads to entirely erroneous and absurd conclusions, “falls into absurdities,” according to Saint Nikodemos, since “the letter killeth” (2 Corinthians 3:6). To make this understandable, let us consider an example: the Apostle Paul says that the covetous man “is an idolater” (Eph. 5:5). Yet we know that there are clergymen who are covetous, and thus, by the literal interpretation of this passage, they are idolaters. But idolaters do not perform Mysteries, and therefore the Mysteries performed by any covetous clergyman are non-existent—which, of course, the practice and teaching of the Church have never upheld! Therefore, the Apostle’s word has a deeper meaning.<o:p></o:p>So also with the term “false bishop” in the Canon. This does not mean that he is not still (that is, “prior to synodal judgment”) formally a bishop who performs Mysteries, but rather that he is unworthy—or more precisely, worthy of punishment and deposition from the episcopal office, as one who has fallen into heresy. This, moreover, is confirmed not only by the Canon itself, which provides for “synodal judgment,” but also by the practice and teaching of the Church. Let us look at some characteristic examples, which also serve as a response to those Sakarellists (who consider it heresy to say that “whoever falls from the faith does not also supposedly fall from the priesthood”!) and who ask us, “Which and when did an Ecumenical Council ever recognize the priesthood in heretics at the time they were in heresy?”<o:p></o:p>1) The case of Nestorius: Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople from the years 428–431, although he had preached heresy, was treated as an active Bishop of the Church by the Third Ecumenical Council, which summoned him three times to appear before the Council before finally deposing him in absentia. It calls him “most reverent,” “most beloved of God,” and “most devout” “Bishop” [67] throughout the entire course of the examination of his views, recognizing him not only as a member, but also as a Bishop of the Church until his deposition and anathema, which clearly shows that whoever falls into heresy does not automatically lose either the status of member of the Church or the Priesthood, which is removed by the Lord Himself with the cooperation of the Council: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who was blasphemed by him, has determined through this present most holy Council, that the same Nestorius is to be alienated from the episcopal rank and from every clerical assembly.” [68] From the time of his deposition onward, he is referred to simply as “Nestorius,” “the new Judas,” [69] “infamous,” [70] “unholy,” [71] and so forth.<o:p></o:p>2) The case of Dioscorus: Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria during the years 444–451, although he had not only preached heresy but had also supported it synodally (at the Robber Council of Ephesus), condemning the Orthodox, was treated as an active Bishop of the Church by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, at which he himself was initially present as an equal member!!! This provoked the reaction of the representatives of Pope Leo of Rome, who demanded that he make his defense, and thus (as we read in the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council), “Dioscorus, the most reverent Bishop of Alexandria, having been seated in the midst,” [72] the Council began its proceedings by first examining the accusation of Eusebius of Dorylaeum against the “most reverent Bishop of the great city of the Alexandrians.” [73] However, after the first session, Dioscorus abandoned the Council, and so it summoned him three times to appear before finally deposing him in absentia. At the first summons, bishops were sent “to summon the most beloved-of-God Bishop of the great city of Alexandria.” [74] At the second, “the holy and ecumenical Council, to the most beloved-of-God Bishop of the Alexandrians, Dioscorus,” wrote to him saying that “we have issued a second canonical summons to your God-revering self.” Finally, for the third time, “the most holy and great ecumenical Council, to the most pious Bishop Dioscorus,” [75] summoned him, but he refused, so that at last the Council informed Dioscorus (no longer calling him “most beloved-of-God” or “most pious Bishop” [76]) that “he is deposed from the episcopate by the holy and ecumenical Council.” [77] And because Dioscorus remained unrepentant, the Fourth Ecumenical Council proceeded to anathematize him.<o:p></o:p>3) The case of John Bekkos: John XI Bekkos, Patriarch of Constantinople from 1275–1282, avoided being anathematized before the Synod of 1282 because he appeared before it and delivered a Libellus against the Latin doctrines. However, he did not escape deposition, because he had ascended the throne unlawfully, using secular power and while the canonical Patriarch, Saint Joseph I, was still living. He accepted his deposition in writing (in the said Libellus) and remained a simple member of the Church. Yet Bekkos, “though being required by the Holy Synod to provide words of repentance and having laid his hand, so to speak, upon the Gospel plow and having pledged to follow the Church, turned again backwards.” [78] Thus, a new Synod, in January 1283, declared: “We cut off John Bekkos and those who follow him... [79] from the full communion of the Orthodox and declare them cast out of the Church of God and of the flock.” [80] And the Synod concludes with the following noteworthy words: “For even though we cut them off from us, even though we expel them from the Church of the pious, even though we subject them to the dreadful and great condemnation of excommunication and estrangement from the Orthodox, we do not do this as rejoicing in their sufferings, nor as delighting in the expulsion of men—on the contrary, we grieve, and bear the separation with revulsion.” [81]<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>b) “But Dositheos of Jerusalem says concerning heretical bishops: ‘He who has become a heretic is neither Patriarch, nor bishop, nor even a member of the Church’” (A, 8 / B, 195).<o:p></o:p>Mr. Sakarellos often hurls, like hand grenades, fragments of phrases which, being presented in isolation (and given that most readers are unable to consult the sources for verification), serve his ecclesiological views.<o:p></o:p>What conclusion does the author urge us to draw from the above mutilated phrase? That whoever falls into heresy automatically loses his Priesthood and his status as a member of the Church. But let us see whether Dositheos of Jerusalem actually supports such a claim (essentially Saint Maximus, as we shall see — if the Sakarellists had in fact studied Dositheos of Jerusalem, they would have been shocked by his views on the actual existence of the priesthood among heretics).<o:p></o:p>The phrase in question is from Paragraph A of Chapter VIII of Book VII of his so-called Dodekabiblos, which paragraph refers to Saint Maximus the Confessor. Indeed, the genuine phrase is as follows: “Ὁ δὲ Αἱρετικὸς γενόμενος, οὔτε Πατριάρχης ἐστίν, οὔτε Ἐπίσκοπος, οὔτε κᾄν μέρος τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.” [82] [“But the one who has become a heretic is neither a Patriarch, nor a Bishop, nor even a part of the Church.”] Thus, we see that there is initially a small falsification, since the word μέρος [part] is replaced by Mr. Sakarellos with the word μέλος [member].<o:p></o:p>Before we examine the full sentence in which this phrase is found, let us consider the context of the paragraph. In this paragraph, Dositheos refutes the view of the Papists that Saint Maximus the Confessor supposedly considered the Pope of Rome to be the Head of the Church, because in his dialogue with Theodosius of Caesarea he urges him, if they have repented of Monothelitism, to send a written confession to the Bishop of Rome, Saint Martin. Dositheos explains that Saint Maximus did this not because he believed that the Roman bishop had universal authority over all the Churches, but because at that historical period he was the only Primate who rightly divided the word of truth. For the Bishops of Constantinople—Sergius (and his successors Pyrrhus and Paul), of Alexandria—Cyrus, and of Antioch—Macedonius, were Monothelites, while the see of Jerusalem, after the capture of the city by the Arabs and the repose of Saint Sophronius, was vacant. Dositheos continues by saying that Saint Maximus could not commune with the Monothelites on his own initiative, because first, as he told them, "your heresy has been condemned synodically... and I am unable to undo what has been repeatedly judged and condemned synodically." [83] Secondly, "even though this heresy was judged and anathematized first by the holy Sophronius, yet since there is now no Patriarch there, especially as the place is being ravaged by the onslaught of the Arabs, and moreover the Antiochian Macedonius sympathizes with you and sits and forms a faction together with your Patriarch Peter against the apostolic faith, and indeed in Alexandria Peter is of the same mind with you, the one who has become a heretic is neither Patriarch, nor Bishop, nor even a part of the Church, and only in Rome is piety spoken with boldness and triumphs; therefore seek also union with that Church." [84] Here, then, the one considered a heretic is the one who preaches a heresy that has been condemned by Synods or by the Fathers. The heresy of the Monothelites at that time had been condemned both by Synods (Lateran, Africa, Jerusalem) and by Fathers (Saint Sophronius, Saint Maximus, Saint Martin), and therefore those who preached it were neither Patriarchs, nor Bishops, nor part of the Church—not in the sense that they automatically lost the Priesthood and their status as members of the Church, but in the sense that, because of their stance, they no longer represented the Church nor expressed the word of Truth. They were thus "false bishops" according to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, which we saw earlier (and it is not a coincidence that this Canon was based on Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem: "If certain persons separate from someone, not on the pretext of a charge, but because of heresy condemned by a Synod or by the holy Fathers, they are worthy of honor and acceptance as Orthodox"). [85] And the greater proof that the Monothelite “false bishops” did not automatically lose the Priesthood is the fact that most of the Holy Fathers who later convened the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which anathematized them, had themselves been ordained by them!<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>c) “Saint Theodore the Studite, referring to heretical clergy, considers that ‘it is a profanation of the holy things for such a one (the clergyman) to perform the sacred rites’” (P, 195).<o:p></o:p>Here Mr. Sakarellos, promoting the aforementioned position—that every clergyman who falls into heresy automatically loses his Priesthood and therefore constitutes a “profanation of the holy things” when he serves—proceeds to yet another misinterpretation.<o:p></o:p>This particular phrase of Saint Theodore is found in his 28th Epistle (addressed to Basil, the monk). In this letter, reference is made to the well-known case of the priest Joseph, who, by blessing the unlawful second marriage of Emperor Constantine VI, fell into an offense punishable by deposition from the Priesthood. When the unlawful marriage took place (in 795), Patriarch Saint Tarasius did not depose Joseph because the emperor had threatened that if he did, he would reinstate Iconoclasm. After the fall of Constantine, however (in 797), Saint Tarasius deposed and excommunicated Joseph. In 806 (that is, after the repose of Saint Tarasius), the new Patriarch, Saint Nicephorus, pressured by the new emperor Nicephorus and fearing that he too might harm the Church, reinstated Joseph. This very reinstatement is what Saint Theodore considers unacceptable (indeed, he breaks communion with the Patriarch over it), and writes to the monk Basil, among other things, the following: “For how, as your reverence correctly writes us, does not know the divine canons, that according to them the man is deposed? For if they do not even allow a presbyter to be invited to a marriage of a digamist, what shall we say about him who crowns a digamist? And what about being invited to an adulterous marriage for thirty whole days? And what is worse, to even crown an adulterer, according to the word of the Lord, who declares the sacred prayer upon the union, calling upon divine grace impiously upon the profane? He is detestable before God, according to the divine Dionysius, and such a one is unholy; for it is superfluous to write here the other canons that apply to him. And since he was also excommunicated by the previous patriarch for a period of nine years, and the canon does not permit release unless it occurs within a year, where shall we place this? The answer will surely be: that he was released. And if he was released, how is it that he does not serve? And if he was released, how is it that he now seeks release by synod? Clearly, the one who is bound seeks to be released, not the one unbound; so then even here, he who wishes to act against the truth falls into self-contradiction. Therefore, O brother, for this man to serve is a profanation of the holy things, and a total confusion of the canons is the failure to uphold such matters. For what does Chrysostom also say? That it is not without danger for the priest to be unexamined—not concerning the faith, as you suppose he says this, but concerning accuracy of life. It is necessary, therefore, to examine and investigate each person’s state; for grace descends even upon the unworthy on account of those approaching. But in the case of those who have been clearly condemned, of whom one is Joseph, who has openly committed a great lawlessness before the whole world, which the Lord has condemned, and the one who joined him in marriage being more defiled than the adulterer himself, to not make a distinction, according to the Theologian, is clearly a betrayal of the truth and a nullification of the canons.” [86]<o:p></o:p>Therefore, Saint Theodore, in writing “it is a profanation of the holy things for this man (the cleric) to serve,” is referring to a specific cleric who had been deposed and excommunicated, and not generally “to heretical clerics,” and especially not to those who have not been condemned (deposed/excommunicated), as the Sakarellian theory misinterprets.<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>d) “Saint Gregory Palamas is also clear on this matter. Heretics, according to him, from the moment they embrace a heresy, cease to belong to the Church. He says: ‘They are not even of the Church of Christ, as they are not of the truth!’” (A, 8–9).<o:p></o:p>Let us also look in this case at the entire relevant passage and what the Saint actually means. This phrase comes from the text of the Saint entitled Refutation of the Letter of Ignatius of Antioch. The Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius, had unfortunately sided with the then Patriarch of Constantinople, John Kalekas (who had imprisoned, “defrocked,” and “anathematized” Saint Gregory Palamas), and had composed a letter against the Saint. Saint Gregory, while imprisoned and also being “defrocked” and “excommunicated,” refutes this letter. He explains how matters truly stand, for it seems that Ignatius of Antioch had been misinformed about the issue. He begins his refutation by noting, regarding the unjust penalties he had received, the following: “For in every accusation, a synod is convened and a tribunal is seated, and with the accused present and the accuser standing face to face, an honest examination and judgment—if indeed the judges of the case are impartial—takes place; and then the decision follows, and the ruling of the judgment is properly recorded and signed by the hierarchs and judges for confirmation. But if someone, being a hierarch and judge, then without lawful and canonical examination and judgment, issues a verdict, he is justly to be condemned, as truly not a legitimate judge. And if he dares even to commit his arbitrary verdicts to writing, how much more is he worthy of condemnation? And if the matter concerns piety, and there has been an examination and judgment and decision by a synod—and such a one at that, where even the Emperor himself presided, and the entire Senate was present, along with the general Roman judges and the issuing of conciliar letters, and those condemned were subjected to written excommunications and the most dreadful anathema—then, if afterward someone receives those justly condemned as communicants and deems them worthy of holy ordinations, and makes them fellow celebrants and leaders of the Church, while he condemns and rejects those who were publicly vindicated and praised as advocates of piety, such a person is not simply guilty but is clearly the inheritor of the condemnation of those earlier condemned; and even if they were impious, neither is he pious.” [87]<o:p></o:p>So, what is the Saint telling us here, in short? That for every transgression (crime), a Synod and a tribunal is convened, with the accused and the accuser present, and an honest investigation and judgment is made (if the judges are impartial), and then the decision follows, which is recorded and finally signed by the hierarchs and judges for confirmation. But if it happens that one of these hierarchs and judges renders a verdict without a lawful and canonical examination, he is not truly a judge, but condemnable! And if he even dares to deliver these unexamined decisions of his in writing, how much more worthy of condemnation is he? And if the matter concerns the faith (piety), and an examination, judgment, and decision has already taken place by a Synod (and indeed by such a Synod, in which even the king himself and the entire senate and the civil judges participated), and synodal letters have been issued and the condemned have been subjected to written excommunication and dreadful anathema—if someone afterward receives those justly condemned into communion (into ecclesiastical communion), deems them worthy of priestly ordination, co-serves with them and makes them presidents of churches—then this person is not merely responsible, but is manifestly the inheritor of the condemnation of all those condemned ones, and if they are impious, neither is he pious.<o:p></o:p>Saint Gregory Palamas writes these things because Patriarch John Kalekas, despite the fact that a Synod had been convened (in 1341)—indeed, in the presence of the king and the civil authorities—which condemned Barlaam and Akindynos along with their doctrines, not only “rendered a judgment without lawful and canonical examination,” but also dared to deliver “his unexamined decisions” in writing against the Saint (“deposition” and “excommunication”). Furthermore, he scorned the earlier Synod and thus is “manifestly the inheritor” of its condemnatory decisions.<o:p></o:p>“Having acted thus—or rather, having suffered thus—those who now boast themselves as arch-pastors of the holy Church, do they not offer, more destructive than any poison, a draught mixed with impiety and injustice, by means of the letters presented here for examination, to those who obey them? They themselves, having previously been so abundantly filled with this wicked and impious mixture, now, as if from certain fountains—namely, from their own mouths—pour forth and spew out, alas, the manifold falsehood and the profuse deception of impiety, of which also this letter is a specimen. ‘For,’ it says, ‘our humility departs to her Church, which by the grace of Christ has been truly allotted to her.’ What sort of allotment, what portion, what genuineness unto the Church of Christ, for him who is an advocate of falsehood? The Church, according to Paul, is ‘the pillar and ground of the truth,’ and she remains by the grace of Christ ever secure and unshaken, firmly founded upon those things upon which the truth itself is established. For those who are of the Church of Christ are of the truth; and those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ either—and this all the more insofar as they falsely claim themselves to be, and are called by one another, shepherds and sacred arch-pastors. For we have been initiated into the knowledge that Christianity is to be defined not by persons, but by truth and exactitude of faith." [88]<o:p></o:p>That is, in short, what does the Saint say those who boast of being arch-pastors of the Church have done? Do they not offer to those who obey them a drink more destructive than any poison, mingled with impiety and injustice, by means of their letters—having first themselves drunk so abundantly of this evil and impious mixture, that from their mouths overflows the manifold falsehood and the poured-out deceit of impiety, of which this letter is a specimen? “For our humility departs,” it says (in the letter of Ignatios of Antioch), “to her Church, which she has truly inherited by the grace of Christ.” What inheritance, what portion, what genuineness with respect to the Church of Christ, the Saint asks, can there possibly be for one who is an advocate of falsehood—with the Church which is “the pillar and ground of the truth,” according to the Apostle Paul, and which remains, by the grace of Christ, ever secure and unshaken, firmly established upon that which truth itself is established? For those who belong to the Church of Christ are of the truth; and those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ either—much more so, the more they lie against themselves, calling themselves and being called by others sacred shepherds and arch-pastors; for we have been taught that it is not persons, but truth and precision of faith, that characterize Christianity.<o:p></o:p>The Saint therefore considers his persecutors to be false bishops—in the sense we mentioned earlier—namely, that they do not express the Church and, naturally, cannot impose penalties in her name. Not that they have automatically lost the priesthood! This latter point is also proven by the continuation of the text, when the Saint writes concerning Ignatios: “For whence came to him, and that in Constantinople, the authority to compose tomes concerning dogmas? For without a synod altogether, it is unlawful. And if he was present at a synod duly convened, he would not himself have omitted to mention this—especially since that tome would then have belonged jointly to both these Patriarchs. But if he convened a private synod, not even within his own province, then he is subject to full deposition according to the holy canons.” [89] From what deposition would he be at risk, if he had already lost the priesthood? And as for Kalekas himself, and Akindynos, and all the clerical Barlaamite followers—if they had automatically lost the priesthood, why did the Hierarchs of the Synod of 1347, with regard to the former, “unanimously subject him to deposition,” [90] and with regard to Akindynos, “strip him of all priesthood,” [91] while concerning the latter they declared: “As for those who remain unrepentant, we subject them to the same [penalties]; but those who truly repent and anathematize both such heretical doctrine and those who persist in it, we most gladly accept not only into communion according to piety, but also into the priesthood—by no means degrading them.”? [92]<o:p></o:p> ***<o:p></o:p>There is, therefore, no such thing as “automatic defrocking” from the Church, nor, much less, “automatic loss” of the priesthood. After all, the priesthood is one and belongs to Christ—as is evident from the fact that the cleric, during the celebration of the Mysteries, does not say “I baptize,” “I crown,” or “I ordain,” but rather, “is baptized,” “is crowned,” or “is ordained”—that is, by God (using the third person). For according to Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, “Grace is not from men, but the gift is from God through men.” [93] This is why Saint Augustine also writes that Baptism—whether performed by Paul, or Peter, or Judas, or a drunken, adulterous, or murderous cleric—it is Christ Himself who baptizes. [94]<o:p></o:p>By ordination through the cooperation of God and the Synod, the ordained cleric receives participation in the Priesthood of Christ. But just as there is no “automatic ordination,” neither is there “automatic deposition.” Thus, likewise, with deposition—by the cooperation of God and the Synod (recall above the depositional decision against Nestorius)—the priesthood is rendered inactive.<o:p></o:p>For this reason, Saint Gregory the Theologian writes: “Do not say: Let a Bishop baptize me, and this one a Metropolitan, or of Jerusalem (for grace is not of places, but of the Spirit), and this one among those of good repute... But for you, anyone trustworthy is sufficient for purification; only let him be of the approved, and not of those clearly condemned, nor alien to the Church.” [95] Therefore, any cleric may perform Mysteries, provided he is approved (that is, recognized—not, for example, unordained), not clearly condemned (that is, not deposed), nor alien to the Church (that is, neither having defected from it, nor excommunicated by it).<o:p></o:p>This is also agreed upon by Saint Nikodemos, who, interpreting a related passage from Saint John Chrysostom (“God indeed does not ordain all, but through all He Himself works, even if they be unworthy, because the people must be saved”), emphasizes: “He works through all who are not deposed, but not through those who have been deposed and unfrocked… For he who is justly deposed, both inwardly by reason of his unworthiness and outwardly by the Synod, has lost the operation of the priesthood.” [96] Thus, when a cleric falls into some transgression, he is not automatically (in actuality) deposed, but only potentially, as we learn from the Fathers and the Synods:<o:p></o:p>a) Saint Nikodemos writes: “We must know that the penances appointed by the Canons, that is to say, ‘let him be deposed,’ ‘let him be excommunicated,’ and ‘let him be anathema,’ these, according to grammatical usage, are in the third-person imperative, in absentia. And for this imperative to be enacted, the second person must necessarily be present. I explain more clearly: the Canons command the Synod of the living Bishops to depose priests, or to excommunicate or anathematize laymen who transgress the Canons. However, if the Synod does not practically enact the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication or anathematization of the laymen, then those priests and laymen are not in actuality deposed, excommunicated, or anathematized. They are, however, liable—here to deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, and there to divine judgment… Hence, those foolish ones greatly err who say that in the present times all those ordained contrary to the Canons are in actuality deposed. It is a slanderous tongue that foolishly babbles such things, not realizing that the command of the Canons, without the practical action of the second person, that is, of the Synod, is ineffective and not operative in itself immediately and before judgment. The divine Apostles themselves clearly explain this with their 2nd Canon, since they do not say that a Bishop or Presbyter who accepts the baptism of heretics is already and immediately deposed in actuality, but rather, ‘we command that he be deposed’—that is, he must be brought to trial, and if it is proven that he did this, then let him be stripped of the priesthood by your decision; this is our command.” [97]<o:p></o:p>The Sakarellists, of course, claim that these things supposedly apply “only to canonical transgressions and not to matters of faith,” but not only are they utterly unable to substantiate this view, they are immediately refuted by Saint Nikodemos himself, who cites as an example a Canon (the 66th Apostolic Canon) that concerns a matter of Faith!<o:p></o:p>b) Saint Athanasios of Paros: “Those who are liable to deposition are not deposed in actuality, and possess an active power of the Priesthood equal to that of the innocent. For, according to the Chrysostomic maxim, ‘God does not ordain all, but He works through all.’ This is shown also by what follows. For that which they bind remains bound, and what they loose appears loosed. And the waters which they sanctify are seen to remain unspoiled for many years. These indeed become an irrefutable proof of the truth of our Faith against the heterodox religions.” [98] Those guilty of deposition, says the Saint (that is, those whom the Sakarellists consider to have automatically lost the Priesthood), are not deposed in actuality and possess the operative power of the Priesthood just as the innocent do. This, he continues, is demonstrated by the subsequent events. Namely, that which they bind remains bound, and that which they loose appears loosed. And the very waters which they sanctify are seen to remain unspoiled for many years, which constitute an irrefutable proof of the truth of our Faith to the heterodox! Let us hope, then, that the Sakarellists—the followers of “invalid Mysteries”—have understood why the Holy Water celebrated by those clergy whom they consider pseudo-clerics (despite no depositional sentence against them) remains incorrupt.<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>It is indeed remarkable that, although many proponents of these ideas possess legal training—that is, they have the very competence which enables them to understand such matters far more easily than others—they deny the indisputable fact that no penalty is executed automatically upon the transgression, but only after a condemnatory decision! What thief is found automatically in prison immediately upon committing theft? What murderer is automatically executed upon committing murder? The distinction between “potentially” and “actually” penalized is something we learn not only from Law (both penal and ecclesiastical), but also from the Justice of God. What did God say to Adam? “From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.” [99] Did Adam die on the very day he ate of the forbidden fruit? In potential, yes, he died—that is, he laid the foundation for mortality, since, on account of the transgression, God cast him out of Paradise. [100] But he did not die physically at the moment he ate the fruit! [101] So too with the transgressing cleric: by his transgression he lays the foundation for his deposition—that is, he becomes a pseudo-cleric—but he does not lose the Priesthood automatically.<o:p></o:p>Thus, the Synod is neither a registrar nor a coroner, but a physician, who does not ascertain an already existing fall from grace, but rather the condition of the fallen one’s spiritual health. Specifically, in the case of heresy, if this condition is reversible—that is, if there is repentance—then it does not impose penalties and recognizes the Priesthood. At the Seventh Ecumenical Council, its President, Saint Tarasios of Constantinople, explicitly declared, “We accept those ordained by heretics” (referring, of course, to the repentant heretics who had not yet been deposed, such as the Iconoclasts at that time), because “ordination is from God.” [102] But if the Synod determines that there is no repentance among the heretics—that is, that decay has set in—then it proceeds to the deposition of the clergy, namely the suspension of the Priesthood, and performs a surgical operation by cutting off the decayed members from the Church, “lest,” according to the Eighth Ecumenical Council under the Great Photius, “the healthy body also perish because of them.” [103] This medical character of the Synod (which is affirmed by many Councils and many Fathers, as well as by the Hymnography of our Church when it speaks of the cutting off of “decayed members” from the Body of the Church [104] is also referenced by Saint Palladius in his work on the life of Saint John Chrysostom, titled Historical Dialogue of Palladius. In this work, referring to the decision of the Church of Rome not to recognize the unjust deposition of the Saint and to break ecclesiastical communion with his persecutors, he writes: “The purpose of the Church of the Romans is this: not to commune with the Eastern bishops, especially Theophilus, until the Lord grants an Ecumenical Council that will heal the decayed members of those who committed these acts.” [105]<o:p></o:p>Thus, the Synod heals and surgically removes the decayed members that are beyond healing—it does not merely ascertain their severance! The adoption of the Sakkarellian theory regarding the Synod’s role as merely declarative (like a registrar or a coroner) has tragic ecclesiastical consequences. By transforming the role of the Synodal Bishops from dynamic and active (healing/admonition/therapy and removal/excision/excommunication), with the “sling” and the “sword,” [106] into a will-less and passive one (mere observation/declaration of death), it nullifies the entire anti-heretical struggle and leads to self-justifying and simultaneously divisive solutions that fragment the Church.<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>According to Sakkarellian ecclesiology, the Saints do not err: “Whatever a saint believes or teaches is correct, and this is what the faithful must also believe” (B, 125). “Only the saints—and among the living, only those who have attained the ‘vision of God’—are infallible!” (A, 4). “If someone has not reached this state, or has fallen from it, then he can be led into error!” (A, 5). If some Saints are in error and do not agree with the other Saints on certain matters, then it is not possible that they are Saints, for this would mean that “these individuals were never deemed worthy to attain theosis. Therefore, they cannot be ranked among the saints” (B, 216). “Those who are a ‘communion of saints’ cannot be led astray. But these are the Church” (A, 5).<o:p></o:p>The Fathers, however, as we shall also see below, teach that even the Saints can fall into certain errors. We read in the Book of the Venerable Barsanuphius and John, published by Saint Nikodemos, concerning the Saints: “Do not think, however, that even though they were saints, they were truly able to comprehend all the depths of God.” [107] This occurs because at times they received something distorted from their teachers and did not pray to God to reveal to them the truth on that matter. [108] As an example, Saint Gregory of Nyssa is mentioned, who “having received the opinion concerning the restoration [ἀποκατάστασις] from the teachers before him without discernment, did not pray to God that He might reveal to him whether it is true… Yet it should also be noted that the Saint stated this not with insistence, nor after a conciliar determination on the matter; for later the Fifth Ecumenical Council rejected this opinion as blasphemous.” [109]<o:p></o:p>Therefore, someone being imbued with views of the Church as consisting of infallible Saints, it follows that he is unable to accept that it is possible even for Saints to be deceived, and thus he ends up in opposing the Saints!<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>The Saints whom Mr. Sakarellos rejected were the following:<o:p></o:p>1) Saint Augustine. Under the influence of Fr. Romanides, who was the greatest adversary of Saint Augustine, he likewise adopted the same stance. In 1977, Mr. Sakarellos, as a New Calendarist, submitted a “Memorandum to the Church of Greece on the matter of the canonization of Saint Augustine,” a text completely flawed, both from a historical and theological perspective, which, as was natural, was rejected by the official Church. But even later, as an Old Calendarist, he attacked the Saint: "[The Franks] when they learned to read, discovered the writings of Augustine (354–430), who was bishop in Hippo of North Africa. In these they read the heresy of ‘absolute predestination.’ This heresy of Augustine, which taught that God predestines each man whether he will be saved or not, whether he will be free or a slave, etc., pleased them greatly. It served them in persuading the serfs that they ought to be content with their slavery, because God had predestined them to be slaves! Just as God had predestined themselves to be the lords of the Romans! With theological arguments, they justified the slavery of the Romans as being the will of God! Thus, according to this heresy of Augustine, any enslaved Roman who desired his freedom was not a good Christian! He was a heretic! Together with this heresy, the Franks accepted the other heresies of Augustine, such as the Filioque, etc. Thus, aided also by the audacity of their ignorance, they began to present themselves as great theologians! They promoted Augustine as the greatest Father of the Church. They even began to accuse the truly Orthodox Roman theologians as heretics, because they did not embrace the delusions and heresies of Augustine!" (P, 19). "In the ancient Church, the only one who did not agree with the Holy Fathers regarding the ‘procession’ of the Holy Spirit appears to have been Augustine, who is considered the father of the Filioque heresy!" (P, 228).  An even harsher text (equally baseless and without documented arguments) he also published online, in an old forum. [110]<o:p></o:p>Here we shall not undertake a detailed refutation of the Sakarellian (=Romanidian) attacks against Saint Augustine. The lover of truth reader may refer to the following, highly enlightening, texts. [111]<o:p></o:p>1. Fr. Seraphim Rose, The Place of Saint Augustine in the Orthodox Church, publ. Myriovivlos, 2010 (the best book on the subject).<o:p></o:p>2. Michael Rackl, Die griechischen Augustinusuebersetzungen, Rome, 1924<o:p></o:p>3. Georgios Martzelos, The Theological School of Thessaloniki and Saint Augustine<o:p></o:p>4. Generally, on the subject of the errors of the Saints, we also recommend the very fine work of Fr. Nikiforos Nassos, “The Saint of Aegina and the Disputed Matters Concerning Him (Refutation of Opposing Arguments/Objections),” [112] which is a summary of his book “With All the Saints: Recognitions of Saints – Disputes,” Volos, 2009.<o:p></o:p>We simply declare that we, the Genuine Orthodox, honor Saint Augustine as a Saint and Father of the Church, in agreement with the Councils (e.g. the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Ecumenical, the Local Council of Jerusalem [415], Lateran [649], etc.) and the Fathers (e.g. Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Martin of Rome, Great Photios, Saint Mark of Ephesus, Saint Nikodemos, Saint Nektarios, etc.).<o:p></o:p>However, we cannot fail to mention the irony that the Sakarellian (=Romanidian) position is a purely "Frankish" one!<o:p></o:p>And here is the evidence: a) Saint Photios the Great, in his letter of exceptional importance to John, Metropolitan of Aquileia (who was defending the filioque as supposedly a teaching of Saints Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome), wherein he refutes the delusion concerning "infallible" Saints, addresses the following opinion: "If they taught correctly," he says (i.e. those Fathers who made some dogmatic errors), "then those who consider them Fathers must uphold their views; but if they expressed heretical doctrine, then together with their heretical opinion, they themselves must also be rejected." [113] To this purely Frankish opinion (upon which later the “infallibility” of the Pope would be based), which unfortunately is being repeated in our time, Saint Photios responds that "the faithful of the Church, and those who do not forget the sacred teachings, according to the example of Shem and Japheth, [114] know very well how to cover the nakedness of their father, but they also condemn and turn away from the imitators of Ham." [115] And Saint Photios covers the errors of the Saints in the following manner: "For how many circumstances have compelled many to speak some things offhandedly, others out of economy, others again because of the resistance of the disobedient, and still others even from ignorance, into which it is human to fall. For one contending against heretics, another accommodating the weakness of his listeners, another acting otherwise—while the moment called him to overlook precision for some greater purpose—spoke and did things which are not permitted to us even to say or to do… But if they did not speak well, or for some reason which we now do not know they deviated from the truth, and no investigation was made into them, nor were they summoned to learn the truth, then by no means should we refrain from considering them Fathers, both on account of the brilliance of their life, and for their venerable virtue, as well as for their otherwise blameless piety; their words, however, in which they deviated, we shall not follow… And we, since we find some of the other blessed Fathers and teachers of ours in many places to have deviated from the precision of the correct dogmas, do not accept the deviation as a contribution, but we do accept the men; likewise also, if some of them have gone so far as to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, we do not accept this deviation from the word of the Master Christ, but we do not separate them from the choir of the Fathers." [116]<o:p></o:p>b) Saint Mark of Ephesus, during the Council of Ferrara-Florence, encountered a similar position from the Latins. The latter, attempting to convince that their theory concerning purgatorial fire was a correct teaching, cited certain passages from the Fathers, such as from Saint Gregory of Nyssa. However, Saint Mark, agreeing with Saint Photios the Great, explained to them that even Saints are capable of erring. Specifically, he wrote to them that: "If Saint [Gregory of Nyssa] truly believed something of this sort, yet even this occurred because the dogma was still at that time disputed and not entirely clarified, nor had the opposing opinion been definitively rejected—which occurred at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. If therefore, being a man, he too erred in something with regard to precision, it is not at all a matter of wonder or astonishment, since indeed many before him [Saints] experienced something similar, such as Irenaeus of Lyons, Dionysius of Alexandria, and others." [117]<o:p></o:p>The Latins were shocked by this response (“it seemed to us exceedingly offensive”) [118] and replied that this position leads to the questioning and ultimately the overthrow of the Faith! And they conclude: “We too confess that it is possible for man to be deceived, since he is a man and does something by his own strength alone; but when he is led by the divine Spirit and has been tested by the judgment of the Church in matters pertaining to the common dogmatic faith, we say that whatever has been written by him is most certainly true.” [119]<o:p></o:p>However, Saint Mark replies in turn, repeating that: “And yet, it is possible for the same person to be both a teacher and not to have said everything with absolute precision; otherwise, why would the Ecumenical Councils have been necessary for the Fathers, if no one were ever going to fall at all from the truth?” [120]<o:p></o:p>Whoever therefore wishes to be a Genuine Orthodox is obliged to accept the patristic teaching (that it is possible for a saint to err, and for this reason we accept not the opinion of one or two Saints, but the general agreement of the Holy Fathers [consensus patrum]) and not the “Frankish” notions of the Romanidists concerning “infallible” saints.<o:p></o:p>2) Abba Isaac the Syrian. Mr. Sakarellos does not accept even the sainthood of Saint Isaac the Syrian: "Isaac was a heretic! He was a Nestorian! ...The fact that nowadays various Ecumenists have inserted him into the Orthodox hagiology proves its corruption, which is being attempted in our days!" [121]<o:p></o:p>We, of course, rejecting the theories concerning the supposed Nestorian identity of Saint Isaac, [122] and also knowing very well, from experience, the miraculous effect of the Saint’s writings in the lives of the faithful, confess together with all the Genuine Orthodox the sainthood of Abba Isaac the Syrian, agreeing with the Holy Fathers (e.g. Saint Gregory Palamas, Saint Nikodemos, Saint Hieronymos of Aegina, etc.), who in no way were… Ecumenists!<o:p></o:p>3) Saint John Maximovitch. Neither the vast multitude of his miracles, nor especially the incorruptibility of the relics of Saint John Maximovitch, was sufficient to prevent Mr. Sakarellos from writing the following (speaking, moreover, in the name of our Church!) to a New Calendarist acquaintance of his: "I explained to you that the Church which, even after 1924, continues to follow the traditional calendar, after the first two or three years of the 1980s, has had no ‘communion’ with the Russian bishops of the Diaspora. Therefore, no ecclesiological problem exists for the Church of the Old Calendar, which considers the Russian Synod to have fallen away from the true faith, since even after the accomplished Union of the Churches, it continued—even indirectly, as you yourself admit—in ‘communion’ with the innovating Churches of the New Calendar, which have Latinized. On account of this, the Church of the Old Calendar does not recognize as saints those declared by the Russian Synod, such as the members of the last Tsarist family or John Maximovitch. You may honor them yourselves!" [123] As he explains elsewhere, [124] communing with heretics (meaning that Saint John Maximovitch communed with the Serbs, who communed with the Phanariots, who communed with the Papists after the—supposed, as we shall see elsewhere—“union” of 1965) is, according to him, proof that one is not a Saint...<o:p></o:p>Naturally, the Fullness of all the Orthodox especially honors the great Father and Teacher of the latter times, Saint John Maximovitch the Wonderworker, because God Himself honored and glorified him.<o:p></o:p>4) Saint Philaret of New York, Saint Edward of England, the New Martyrs of Russia, and the Holy Royal Martyr Saints of the Romanov Family. The negative stance of Mr. Sakarellos toward the Russians (see P, 24–31: “The Frankification of the Russians”) derived from the ideas of Fr. Romanides [125] (it is not accidental, after all, that the anti-Russian attitude of the theoretician of the union between the official Church of Greece and the Ukrainian Schismatics—who recognized the American Patriarchate of Constantinople—Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos, is of Romanidean origin, since Fr. Romanides, in a report to his Archbishop Seraphim, claimed that the supposed dissolution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was “...an old plan of the Russians and the Masons” (P, 48)). He expressed this stance against the Russians particularly both as a New Calendarist and as an Old Calendarist. As a New Calendarist, he published in Orthodox Typos (1983–1984) two delirious articles (“The Anathema Against Ecumenism by Metropolitan Philaret” in sixteen installments, and “Once Again on the Issue of Philaret” in six installments), attacking the Russian Church Abroad—which had just anathematized the doctrine of Ecumenism! It is indeed sorrowful that after the anathema of Saint Philaret against Ecumenism (1983), the Ecumenists did not react—but a supposed Orthodox did... In those articles, all kinds of arguments are marshaled—some the product of the author’s legalistic sophistry, others drawn from earlier accusations (mostly from the Matthewite circles), others based on texts mutilated by a method of “cut-and-sew editing”—with the aim of stigmatizing the Russians of the Diaspora as “Slavophiles” and “anti-Hellenes,” as “deserters” and “traitors” who “abandoned their homeland to save their bodies” rather than stay and be slaughtered by the Communists (an accusation reminiscent of the Novatianists against Saint Cyprian of Carthage for hiding during the Decian persecution), as “schismatics,” “simoniacs” (regarding the ordinations of the Genuine Orthodox!), as “heretics” and even “ecumenists”! Later, as an Old Calendarist, he not only failed to repudiate his earlier views but attempted to combine them with his new identity. Thus, he invented the claim that the Church of the Russians in the Diaspora became heretical in 1984! He writes: "The Church of the Old Calendar, to which by the grace of God I belong, and to which I will belong so long as it remains Orthodox, had communion with the Russian Synod in the Diaspora under Metropolitan Philaret until 1982. Then both Philaret and his Synod were Orthodox! Philaret accepted the Filioque in his encyclical of July 20 / August 2, 1984, which I cited earlier in my post of December 4, 2007. From that time, Philaret and his Synod became heretics!" [126]<o:p></o:p>But why does he claim that Saint Philaret accepted the Filioque in 1984 and that both he and the Synod of the Russians in the Diaspora became heretical? The reason was the glorification, by the Russian Church Abroad, of Saint Edward of England, who was martyred in 978. Some expressed doubts regarding his sainthood, because by that time the filioque had already been introduced in the West. But Saint Philaret, in a Synodal Encyclical (dated July 20 / August 2, 1984), responded with the following: "It has been stated that Saint Edward cannot be considered a saint on the grounds that the addition of the filioque had already been introduced into the Symbol of Faith in England during his time. To maintain such an opinion is contrary to the expressed views of the great Fathers of the Church, who refuted the Filioque, namely the venerable Maximus the Confessor and the holy Hierarch Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Moreover, justice demands that many other saints, who unknowingly professed the same addition to the Symbol of Faith, be likewise removed from our hagiology, such as Saints Vyacheslav and Ludmilla of Bohemia, Saint Martin the Confessor, Pope of Rome, etc… Both bodies—the Synod and the Council of Bishops—examined the matter of the Filioque carefully in relation to the case of Saint Edward, and, in light of the expressed opinions of the Fathers of the Church, concluded that this (the Filioque) did not constitute an obstacle, in the time of Saint Edward, for a Christian to attain holiness." [127]<o:p></o:p>Mr. Sakarellos writes to his interlocutor:<o:p></o:p>"From the above, we arrive at the following conclusions:<o:p></o:p>a. Not even in thought can an Orthodox consider that the Anglo-Saxon king of England is a saint of the Orthodox Church! The reason is simple: He was a member of a heretical Church, the Anglo-Saxon one, which at that time had accepted the heresy of the Filioque, taught by the Franks under the influence of Augustine. He was, therefore, a HERETIC! Neither can he be considered a martyr, because he did not suffer martyrdom for the Faith of Christ.<o:p></o:p>b. However, the further problem that arises is this shameful and heretical Encyclical of the Russian Synod of the Diaspora, which, unfortunately, was signed by then-Metropolitan Philaret. In this Encyclical, Philaret claims that the Filioque does not constitute an obstacle to the salvation of man—an opinion clearly contrary to what the Fathers teach! And what is even worse, Philaret, together with his Synod, slanders the Fathers, portraying them as supposedly agreeing with him! These views of the Russian Synod of the Diaspora render the Synod HERETICAL, and the members of this Church HERETICS, who can in no way ever be not only saints of the Church, but not even be saved. As such, the opinion of brother Misha—that Metropolitan Philaret was deified and a saint—does not stand!” [128]<o:p></o:p>Here we clearly see a distortion of both the words and the spirit of Saint Philaret, for Saint Philaret writes that to accept the Filioque at that time (that is, before the Schism of 1054—during which Saint Edward lived and when the Church of England still belonged to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) and to do so unknowingly does not constitute an obstacle to the attainment of sanctity, since there is no automatic fall from the Church. (As we saw above, Saint Photios the Great exhorts the one who accepts the Filioque out of ignorance and delusion as “most God-beloved, most pious, most holy bishop, brother and concelebrant, the most admirable archbishop and metropolitan of Aquileia”.) [129]<o:p></o:p>But he did not stop there. He also condemned Saint Philaret for the glorification of the Royal Martyrs Romanov [130]—just as he had previously condemned him for the glorification of all the Russian New Martyrs—writing the following unacceptable things, for anyone who knows the life and martyrdom of these thousands of Confessor New Martyrs of Russia: “We have in the past condemned many times the Ecumenical Patriarchate because, without the traditional criteria of our Church, it proceeds to proclaim certain persons as saints.” (Editor’s note: Whom exactly does he mean in the year 1984? For until then, the Patriarchate’s glorifications were Saint Nikodemos, Saint Kosmas of Aitolia, Saint Nektarios...) “But if the Ecumenical Patriarchate proclaimed in such an unacceptable way one or two or three or five individuals, Metropolitan Philaret proclaimed... two thousand and five! Namely, three years ago he proclaimed as ‘saints’ of the Orthodox Church—as ‘New Martyrs’—the entire family of Tsar Nicholas, and two thousand of their followers, mostly ‘nobles,’ who were killed by the atheistic Bolsheviks in 1917 as enemies of their revolution! …The proclamation by the Synod of Metropolitan Philaret of these persons as ‘saints’ constitutes a pan-Orthodox scandal and a condemnable ‘innovation,’ for which the Russians will give a dreadful account on that Day before the Just Judge. And this, because for reasons of cheap chauvinistic and ethnophyletic propaganda, they corrupted the hagiology of our Church, which twenty generations of Orthodox Christians over two thousand years have revered, and into which the grace of God placed the victorious martyrs and God-bearing saints of our faith. The Russians, among these saints, wanted to place the tyrants and oppressors of the Orthodox Russian people” (Editor’s note: tyrants and oppressors, according to the author, are not the Communist butchers and persecutors of the Christians, but their victims!), “the tsars and the other ‘nobles.’” [131]<o:p></o:p>We, of course, the true Orthodox, stand with the Saint and Confessor Metropolitan Philaret, whose relic is incorrupt, whom God glorified and honored, whose sainthood we acknowledge—as well as that of the great multitude of thousands of New Martyr Confessors, of every class, age, and origin, who shed their blood for Christ during the dreadful Communist Persecution—and not with those critics of theirs who, instead of Christ, seize His Judgment Seat.<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>Unfortunately, then, saint-fighting has come to characterize even our own sphere, and this stain we are called today, among other things, to remove—on the one hand, by honoring the Saints whom the Church honors, and on the other hand, by remaining silent and not reviling those persons concerning whom God, the People of God, and the Church as a whole have not yet pronounced judgment.<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>After usurping the Judgment of God concerning who are members of the Church and who are not, as well as who are Saints and who are not, Mr. Sakarellos also seizes the Judgment of the Church as a whole and pronounces, as if he were an Ecumenical Council, which Local Churches have become Schismatic and Heretical and have been cut off from the Church of Christ. These, according to the Sakarellian diagnosis, are all without exception—except for the “Church of the Old Calendarists”! All the Local Churches have become schismato-heretical and have fallen away from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!<o:p></o:p>How did this happen?<o:p></o:p>He initially holds that the Local Church of Greece fell away from the Church of Christ, yet he is unable to determine the exact time and cause, expressing that this occurred:<o:p></o:p>a) In 1924! He writes: “In 1924, after the change of the Calendar. The faithful were divided into two factions. One faction had no ‘communion’ with the other. But which was the Church then? The faithful who did not change the Old Calendar in their worship and walled themselves off from the bishops who followed the New, there is no doubt, continued to be members of the Church, just as they were before March 10, 1924. …Those bishops who accepted the New or Frankish Calendar on March 10, 1924, must be considered ‘pseudo-bishops’ and fallen from the Orthodox faith.” (P, 110–111). And elsewhere: “…Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, who tore the Church in 1924 with the change of the calendar, only five years earlier had declared that no Church can accept the New Calendar without becoming schismatic! This means he admits that the Church of the New Calendar became schismatic!” (P, 186).<o:p></o:p>b) Or in 1930...<o:p></o:p>Further down, however, he claims that this fall occurred in 1930, when “the Synod of the state Church accepted the heretical Report of Professor Christos Androutsos! Thus, it itself became heretical!” (P, 127).<o:p></o:p>c) Or in 1935!<o:p></o:p>In another passage, the author again claims that the Church of Greece was cut off in 1935: “Several reasons support this opinion. The most important is that when the three bishops joined the Old Calendar in 1935, in their Encyclical they proclaimed the Church of the New Calendar as schismatic.” (P, 112).<o:p></o:p>However, the above "pronouncements" regarding the Church of Greece cannot stand, because it did not fall away:<o:p></o:p>a) In 1924.<o:p></o:p>First, because Mr. Sakarellos’ claim that “after the change of the Calendar... one faction had no ‘communion’ with the other” is not valid. Immediately after the change of the calendar, there was no break in communion and no walling off, but only protest and the faithful’s demand to be served according to the Old Calendar by the parish priests. According to all the testimonies of the time, the faithful who insisted on the Old Calendar were asking the parish priests—who were now following the New Calendar—to celebrate the feasts according to the Old.<o:p></o:p>Most characteristic is the case of Saint Nicholas Planas, who served also according to the Old Calendar, thus ministering to the first Old Calendarist strugglers. Therefore, there was no schism at that time, in the sense of a break in communion with the ruling Church.<o:p></o:p>Secondly, because if the Bishops who accepted the New Calendar became “pseudo-bishops,” as the author claims, then the three Hierarchs who returned to the Old Calendar in 1935 are also “pseudo-bishops,” and the ordinations of bishops and priests which they performed were invalid—and therefore, even the Old Calendarists have no Priesthood. To this argument the Matthewites attempted to respond by saying, on the one hand, that the two Hierarchs (Germanos of Demetrias and former Chrysostomos of Florina) had been consecrated before 1924, and thus… self-restored by their “Confession” and return (which, however, contradicts the practice of the Church, according to which only a Synod of Bishops removes the Priesthood and only it restores it), and on the other hand, that Chrysostomos of Zakynthos was supposedly restored “by cheirothesia” by the other two Hierarchs. This claim, however—unsupported by any proof whatsoever—constitutes a great and unfounded myth (in which the Matthewites specialize), fabricated to counter their double humiliation: on the one hand, due to the resounding collapse of their heretical theory of automatic loss of Priesthood, and on the other hand, due to the fact that their “Holy Father” Matthaios was consecrated by a New Calendarist Bishop.<o:p></o:p>Thirdly, because the citation of the specific text by Chrysostomos Papadopoulos from 1919 to support the above position is entirely misguided, since that text does not mean what Mr. Sakarellos and his followers want it to mean. When Papadopoulos writes that “the Church of Greece, as well as the other Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, although internally independent, are nonetheless connected to each other and united by the principle of the spiritual unity of the Church, constituting one and only Orthodox Church, and consequently none of them can separate itself from the others and accept a new Calendar without becoming schismatic in relation to the others,” he is not expressing the view that if a Church accepts a new Calendar it automatically becomes schismatic, as Sakarellos misinterprets it, but rather he is expressing a concern that it might become schismatic from the other Churches—that is, that it would give occasion for the other Churches to declare it schismatic, something which did not happen, since the other Churches (wrongly) showed tolerance and economy toward the New Calendarist Churches. And even if one were to suppose that Papadopoulos was so foolish as to consider, on the one hand, that any Church accepting the new Calendar becomes automatically schismatic, and on the other hand, to proceed himself to change the calendar of his own Church—what value do his words have that Sakarellos should invoke him? We Orthodox, when supporting a position, appeal to the opinions of the Holy Fathers—not of those who are in delusion!<o:p></o:p>b) Nor in 1930.<o:p></o:p>Quite simply because the supposedly heretical Report of the ever-memorable Androutsos did not teach the imaginary heresy of the “two holinesses”! It should be noted that this “heresy” was discovered by the well-known excommunicated saint-fighter, Nun Magdalene—in her book “Contemporary Heretics” (1974)—whom Mr. Sakarellos himself praises as supposedly Orthodox! He writes of her: “She was excommunicated, as we saw, for the Orthodox faith of the Church, that Christ has ‘one holiness.’ But by excommunicating Magdalene, the bishops of the state Church excommunicated the holy Fathers, such as Saint Dionysios the Areopagite, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint Athanasius the Great, Saint Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Maximos the Confessor, and so many others! Of course, as a pretext for this excommunication, certain characterizations were used, which the said Abbess unfortunately included in her books against Saint Nektarios of Aegina, concerning some of his views found in his writings.” (see P, 128).<o:p></o:p>However, Magdalene did not simply include, supposedly “unfortunately,” “certain characterizations” in her books against Saint Nektarios, but dedicated many of her books exclusively to the slandering and reviling of the great Saint—so that he, even after death, might receive the crown of unjust calumny. And for this she was excommunicated both by the New Calendarists (in 1976) and by the Old Calendarists (in 1979). As for the combative positions of Mr. Sakarellos against Christos Androutsos, and also against the ever-memorable Panagiotes Trembelas, they were refuted by the distinguished Professors of Theology, the late Andreas Theodorou and Konstantinos Mouratidis (especially the latter’s book was to such a degree devastating to these slanders that Mr. Sakarellos never dared to reply).<o:p></o:p>c) Nor in 1935.<o:p></o:p>And the very author of the 1935 declaration responds to Mr. Sakarellos: “The right to proclaim individuals and Churches as schismatic was not granted by the divine and God-bearing Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils either to individuals or to the local Churches, but to an Ecumenical Council, representing the entire Orthodox Church, whose decisions are made under the inspiration of the All-Holy Spirit. For this reason, we, respecting the Canons and Ordinances of the Ecumenical Councils, refused to proclaim the Greek Church as schismatic, and we confined ourselves only to breaking ecclesiastical communion with the Archbishop of Athens and the like-minded Hierarchs, so that we might not become participants in the responsibility for the calendar innovation. And this we did in accordance with the 15th Canon of the First-Second Ecumenical Council, which grants only the right to break ecclesiastical communion with those who violate the traditions, prior to a synodal judgment—by which alone can individuals and Churches be declared schismatic, and their Mysteries invalid.” [132]<o:p></o:p>“If we, departing into exile, called the Archbishop of Athens and the Church of Greece schismatic, we employed the term schism not in the sense in which the Church uses it—to signify separation from the Orthodox Church and, as a result thereof, alienation from the grace of Christ and the Mysteries—but in the sense that the Archbishop of Athens, through the festal innovation, separated himself and the hierarchy following him from the other Orthodox Churches in the celebration of the feasts and in the observance of the fasts. This separation of the Most Blessed and the hierarchy following him grants us the right to express our personal and wholly individual opinion, that the Most Blessed and the bishops who follow him, as having knowingly disrupted the unity of the entire Orthodox Church in the simultaneous celebration of the feasts and observance of the fasts, have become only potentially—but not actually—fallen from divine grace, as being under the curses and anathemas which the divine Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils hurled against those who transgress the traditions and move the eternal boundaries which our Fathers have set. But the Most Blessed and the like-minded bishops of his will become actually fallen from divine grace and estranged from the Orthodox spirit of the Mysteries only when they are declared such—and actually schismatic—by a pan-Orthodox Synod, which alone is authorized to do so according to the statutes of the Orthodox Eastern Church.” [133]<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>He also considers the Patriarchate of Constantinople as being outside the Church of Christ, on account of the “Union of the Churches” which supposedly took place in 1965, as Mr. Sakarellos claims in his related book entitled “The Union of the Churches Took Place in 1965!”<o:p></o:p>There he argues that the “Union” took place because:<o:p></o:p>a) Athenagoras commemorated the Pope; and he presents the following reasoning:<o:p></o:p>“Athenagoras was not a mere individual. He was not a simple member of the Church. He was the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church. And when the Primate of a Church—such as the historic Patriarchate of Constantinople—unites with the heretical Pope, not only the ‘Most Reverend Metropolitans around him,’ as it is written, who commemorate him and concelebrate with him become heretics, but all the Orthodox as well, such as:<o:p></o:p>●        all the clergy under him, who concelebrate with him or commemorate him;<o:p></o:p>●        all his flock, which receives sacramental services from clergy who commemorate him;<o:p></o:p>●        all the other Patriarchs and Archbishops who are in ‘communion’ with him.”<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: normal; margin: 14pt 0in 0in 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">●        all the other clergy of the remaining Patriarchates and Churches who concelebrate with or commemorate their Patriarchs or Archbishops who are in “communion” with Athenagoras!<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 14pt 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">●        all the flocks of those Patriarchates and Churches whose presiding Patriarchs and Archbishops are in “communion” with Athenagoras!<o:p></o:p>In other words, if a Patriarch of any Orthodox Church commemorates the pope, that fact alone renders all the local Churches with which he is in “communion” papal! (E, 7–8).<o:p></o:p>Before this irrational reasoning is refuted, let a specific absurdity be noted, for which the following rhetorical question is posed:<o:p></o:p>How is Athenagoras not “a simple member of the Church,” but also “Patriarch of the Orthodox Church,” when—as we have seen according to Sakarellian ecclesiology—whoever does not have “illumination” and “deification,” “falls from being a member of the Church,” and “regardless of what position he holds in its body, if he falls into heresy or ‘communicates’ with one of those who have fallen into heresy, he ceases to be a member of it”?<o:p></o:p>The above absurdity—that supposedly not only Athenagoras, but also his Metropolitans, his clergy and his flock, and the other Patriarchs and Archbishops, and their clergy and their flocks “become heretics”—is refuted not only by plain reason but also by similar events from Church history. For example, when Nestorius fell, then according to this logic, all the Bishops of the Church of Constantinople would have to be considered “heretics,” as well as the other Patriarchs and Bishops of the other Churches who were still in communion with him. Then, according to Sakarellian illogic, the Third Ecumenical Council that condemned Nestorius would have been convened by “heretics”! The same would have to apply every time a Patriarch fell into heresy (which happened quite often!), or recognized the Pope (also not a rare occurrence), and automatically all those (whether aware or not of his fall) communing with him, and those communing with the communicants, and so forth, would all have to become “heretics”…<o:p></o:p>Never, however, was the fall of a Patriarch considered the fall of the entire Local Church, but only a personal fall, for which the Church would usually—sooner or later—take action and resolve the matter (deposition and excommunication of the transgressor, etc.). And the walling off of the Orthodox from the fallen one had precisely that purpose.<o:p></o:p>b) the “Lifting of the Anathemas” took place, the original text of which supposedly contains the term “non-communion” and not “anathema.”<o:p></o:p>Mr. Sakarellos writes: “The original French text of the 1965 agreement states that Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras lift the ‘non-communion’ between the two Churches. …Specifically, in the French original, the word excommunication appears. This word undoubtedly means ‘non-communion,’ excommunication. The ‘official Greek translation’ renders it with the word ‘anathema.’ This is a deliberate error. The French render the Greek word ‘anathema’ with the word anathème. If, therefore, the French original intended to say that the anathemas are being lifted, it would have used the French word anathème and not the word excommunication! In French, the word excommunication means ‘non-communion’ (footnote 33: That the French word excommunication means non-communion is also proven by the very French text of the agreement, in which the expression la communion ecclésiastique is used twice and means ‘ecclesiastical communion,’ as the ‘official Greek translation’ rightly renders it, and not ‘ecclesiastical anathema’!). It is clearly distinguished from the word anathème, which means ‘anathema.’ The words ‘non-communion’ and ‘anathema’ are terms with theological content. The term ‘non-communion’ means separation (excommunication) from the other members of the Church. The term ‘anathema’ means separation from Christ, delivery to Satan, and deprivation of salvation. Therefore, the terms ‘non-communion’ (excommunication) and ‘anathema’ are not identical. Since, then, in paragraph 4 of the agreement the word excommunication is used, this means that by this agreement the ‘non-communion,’ the ‘schism’ between the two Churches, has been lifted!”<o:p></o:p>Here the distortion reaches another level, namely the one which lawyers are fond of reaching, by falsifying the truth. Mr. Sakarellos claims that the word excommunication in the French original supposedly means only “non-communion.” He justifies his view not by consulting any dictionary, but with the following reasoning: since communion, he writes, means “communion,” therefore excommunication means “non-communion”! And thus, he continues the absurdity, since there was a “lifting of non-communion,” we now have “ecclesiastical communion” and a “Union of the Churches”!!!<o:p></o:p>The refutation of this view is likewise twofold. Firstly, and primarily, by consulting reliable French-Greek dictionaries, in which it is clearly demonstrated that the French word excommunication is rendered as “anathema” / “excommunication,” and not as “non-communion”!<o:p></o:p><v:shape alt="Text, letter

Description automatically generated" id="image5.jpg" o:spid="_x0000_i1027" style="height: 368pt; visibility: visible; width: 226.5pt;" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:title="Text, letter

Description automatically generated" src="file:///C:/Users/cgorm/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image004.jpg"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj-MhTrC_-LamnAAum7Ry2PrXFdAzfFpMPIdlyV2SpRW3n82ubkNuZixy-rhosahCW6gYlHIwtkiScM7lxHvLu79inW_mG2LmCPirFLtF32YE_UJxeX5PhnTcr-4_skW4ApUIak_M_qQVDPK-f3XQ-I0GU4qSLbvjTHFphBP4rTrnxy8z5E1UXnNndt_0k0" style="color: #cc6611; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img alt="" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="473" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj-MhTrC_-LamnAAum7Ry2PrXFdAzfFpMPIdlyV2SpRW3n82ubkNuZixy-rhosahCW6gYlHIwtkiScM7lxHvLu79inW_mG2LmCPirFLtF32YE_UJxeX5PhnTcr-4_skW4ApUIak_M_qQVDPK-f3XQ-I0GU4qSLbvjTHFphBP4rTrnxy8z5E1UXnNndt_0k0=w247-h400" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1) 1px 1px 5px; padding: 5px; position: relative;" width="247" /></a></div> The proofs are presented alongside. A second proof that there is no “lifting of non-communion” and “Union of the Churches” is the fact that, officially, openly, and universally (and without the betrayals of the Ecumenists from among the Orthodox being absolved), there exists no official Act of Communion, that is, the so-called “Common Chalice.”<o:p></o:p>To condemn, therefore, millions of simple Orthodox—clergy and laity—as supposedly “Papists,” I do not know whether this is merely the absurdity of some individual or a deliberate and conscious act of tarnishing the ecclesiology of the Genuine Orthodox, so that our Church may be rendered entirely unreliable and cease to be a refuge for the faithful of the official Churches, who have been betrayed by their shepherds. Let us consider: whom does this inward-looking, indifferent, self-justifying, conservative, and extreme ecclesiological stance serve—and whom would be benefited by an outward-looking, enlightening, brother-loving, discerning, and correct ecclesiological stance? With the former, we shall continue to appear as members of some kind of sect, who by their rigidity and self-righteousness repel every humble and reasonable person. On the contrary, with the latter we will show that we are indeed truly and genuinely members of the Orthodox Church, that our objection and testimony have theological foundation and patristic substantiation, and we will be able, with the Grace of our Lord, to bring concern to every sound and upright believer, who will join our Struggle—thus weakening the decayed domain of the official Churches.<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>Mr. Sakarellos considers that the Church of Russia fell away from Orthodoxy and became... “Frankish” already from the time of Peter the Great (see his anti-Russian rant in P, 24–31).<o:p></o:p>And he considers the Russian Church Abroad to be heretical from 1984 onward, as we saw in the previous section.<o:p></o:p>As for this claim, only he himself could answer how it is possible that from this “Frankish,” according to his view, Church, so many great Saints emerged (Seraphim of Sarov, Ignatius Brianchaninov, Theophan the Recluse, John of Kronstadt, etc.), as well as thousands of New Martyrs under Bolshevism, and furthermore that a Genuine Orthodox Church (that of the Russian Diaspora, with great Saints and incorrupt relics) arose from it—from which, indeed, we have Apostolic Succession.<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>In any case, he considers all the Local Churches to be heretical due to their participation in the World Council of Churches: “When the shepherds of the Orthodox Church become members of the so-called ‘World Council of Churches,’ this hodgepodge of heretical ‘churches,’ what does this mean? It means that the unworthy shepherds who made her a member of it—whether they are Patriarchs, Archbishops, bishops, or other clergy and theologians—have fallen from the Orthodox faith and become heretics! And those who follow them and ‘commune’ with them are, before God, the same. They too are equally heretical and heterodox!” (P, 43)<o:p></o:p>However, this position was likely not even accepted by its own author, not only because he knew that the “World Council of Churches” does not (at least not yet) constitute a “Pan-Church” (regardless of whether that is the direction it is heading and aiming for), but also because, if he were to accept this position, he would have to be the first to condemn as a heretic his own mentor, Fr. John Romanides, who, as is well known, participated for many years in the dialogues of the “World Council of Churches” and who considered it a reproach to be regarded as an “anti-ecumenist”! Behold what Romanides himself reveals in a report published, in fact, by Mr. Sakarellos, his disciple:<o:p></o:p>"Indeed, we were informed in a private conversation that actions were taken in 1981, by order of the General Secretary, based on the appointment from the Church of Greece in 1976 for the appointment of the undersigned to ‘Faith and Order.’ But it was rejected because I was accused of being an anti-ecumenist, and our own people in charge did not do what was necessary to neutralize the accusation.” (P, 47)<o:p></o:p>It is therefore truly astonishing that Mr. Sakarellos considered Fr. John Romanides (that is, not merely a member of the “schismatic-heretical”—according to Sakarellos—Church of Greece, but also a longtime participant in “Dialogues” and a chief architect of the disgraceful Chambésy Declaration!) as “blessed” and a “foremost Theologian” (P, 169), whose teaching he embraces! This madness is perpetuated by the (knowingly or unknowingly) followers of Sakarellism, who, while likewise considering Romanides as great (“who opened our eyes so we could see the theology of light,” as they write!), nevertheless combat as supposedly deluded the authentic exponents of the true Orthodox Ecclesiology in Greece (the blessed Metropolitan Cyprian Koutsoumpas, Aristotelis Delimbasis, Fr. Maximos Agiovasiliatis, Fr. Theodoritos Mavros, and others)—that is, the Genuine Orthodox, whom Romanides himself considered heretical!!!<o:p></o:p>Behold the unacceptable things the latter writes in the introduction to his work ORTHODOX–HETERODOX DIALOGUES and THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES: [134]<o:p></o:p>“Fifth column of Augustinians posing as Traditional Orthodox Old Calendarists.<o:p></o:p>“The fifteen canonical Orthodox Churches, numbering approximately 300 million Orthodox Christians, sent their representatives to Thessaloniki to meet between April 29 and May 2 in order to confront a new heresy of the Old Calendar. This new phenomenon of Anti-Ecumenist Augustinians is directed in Greece by the so-called Orthodox Metropolitan of Phyle, Cyprian, and in the U.S. by the so-called Orthodox Archbishop of Etna, California, Chrysostomos. It has become evident that they are attempting to establish their Augustinian heresy by presenting themselves as enemies of Ecumenism in countries such as Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Georgia, etc. This Cyprian of Phyle was originally a New Calendar priest of the official Church of Greece. A few years ago, he became a member of the Old Calendar Church. There is suspicion that behind this movement are those who are trying to infiltrate Orthodox countries with the heresies of Augustine under the guise of Traditional Old Calendarist Anti-Ecumenist Orthodoxy. Presenting themselves as ultra-conservative traditional Orthodox, Cyprian of Phyle and Chrysostomos of Etna have been quite busy trying to promote and defend the heresies of Augustine among the Orthodox, as can easily be seen in their publications. What is interesting is the fact that both Latins and Protestants consider Augustine as the founding father of both Latin and Protestant theologies. Therefore, what is said in this introduction about treating the disease of religion applies equally to both Cyprian of Phyle and Chrysostomos of Etna and their attempt to infiltrate traditional Orthodox countries with the disease of religion.” (our translation)<o:p></o:p>Here we see, first of all, the well-known demonic and saint-fighting obsession of Romanides against Saint Augustine (at this point it must be emphasized that those of our own—thankfully very few—who have been misled and consider Saint Augustine as an exponent of an ecclesiology contrary to that of Saint Cyprian of Carthage are mistaken—the Hieromartyr Hilarion Troitsky in particular has demonstrated that he is an exponent of the same Orthodox Ecclesiology).<o:p></o:p>He accuses the Hierarchs of the Synod in Resistance, now of blessed memory, Cyprian and Chrysostomos, who with their titanic work in the 1990s enlightened the entire Orthodox world regarding Ecumenism, at a time when the New Calendarists and Ecumenists of the Romanides type had fallen into great apostasies (e.g. Canberra, Chambésy), while the rest of the G.O.C. were consumed with disputes and schisms (1995, 1998), with one of the central figures—and one of the main culprits of the harm—being Mr. Sakarellos!<o:p></o:p>Romanides also refers to the infamous “Inter-Orthodox Conference of Thessaloniki” held from April 29 to May 2, 1998, which was convened by the Ecumenists of the official Churches (greatly alarmed by the anti-ecumenist work of the Resisting Genuine Orthodox), under the presidency of the well-known ecumenist Chrysostomos of Ephesus (with the permission, of course, of Mr. Bartholomew), and which condemned the true Orthodox. [135]<o:p></o:p>This was the “great Romanides,” whose heretical teachings were introduced into our circle by Mr. Sakarellos.<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>In order for Mr. Sakarellos to be done, once and for all, with all the Churches and to prove the “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece” as the only Church in the world, he employs the “Finnish argument.” What exactly this is, we shall see immediately based on the analysis of his presenter (P, 151–157).<o:p></o:p>Mr. Sakarellos writes that the First Canon of the Council of Antioch “cuts off from the Church every believer who transgresses the ‘Decree’ of the First Ecumenical Council. That is, it cuts off anyone who does not celebrate Pascha as defined by the First Ecumenical Council, as it ought to be celebrated by the Orthodox. Every clergyman who does not celebrate, or who in the future will not celebrate Pascha on that date, is already deposed from that time—that is, from the day the Council of Antioch, which issued this Canon, made that decision” (P, 152). He also writes: “Any clergymen who ‘commune’ with clergymen already deposed by the Council, because they transgress the ‘Decree’ of the First Ecumenical Council, are likewise deposed!” (P, 153). He concludes, then: “The Church of Finland, however, accepted the calendar change. Eighty years ago, it altered not only the Old Calendar, but also the Paschalion! Since then, it celebrates Pascha with the Papists, which often coincides with or even precedes the Jewish Passover. This means, according to the above Canon of Antioch, that its clergy are already deposed and its faithful cut off from the Church. Someone might ask: what concern is it of ours if the Church of Finland accepted the Papal Paschalion? It concerns us directly. Because Orthodox clergymen, as the First Canon of Antioch prescribes, must not have ‘communion’ with the clergy of Finland. Any clergymen who have ‘communion’ with the clergy of that Church are likewise deposed, according to the above Canon.”<o:p></o:p>Which clergymen have “communion” with the Church of Finland? Only those clergymen who have accepted or tolerate the New Gregorian Calendar! Therefore, some bishops may not have changed the Paschalion themselves, but since they have “communion” with the Church of Finland, it is as if they too have changed the Paschalion. The consequences are exactly the same!According to the above Canon, any clergymen who behave arrogantly toward the “Decree” of the First Ecumenical Council by seeking to alter the date of the celebration of Pascha are already preemptively deposed by the Council of Antioch! …From the above, it follows that, indeed, those who changed the Calendar may not have directly changed the Paschalion; however, since they have communion, on the one hand with the Church of Finland, which accepted the Papal Paschalion, and on the other with the Patriarchs of Constantinople, who are seeking to change the date of the celebration of Pascha and are, as a result, preemptively deposed, it is evident that they are transgressing the “Decree” of the First Ecumenical Council, which, according to the First Canon of Antioch, is a matter of faith (P, 153–154).<o:p></o:p>Therefore, according to Mr. Sakarellos, all the clergy of all the official Churches of the world, because they have communion with the Church of Finland, have fallen from the Priesthood—and the only clergy remaining on earth are the Old Calendarists (and not even all of them, as we shall see from what he himself writes in the next section).<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>To examine whether the above views are correct, let us first look at the text of the relevant Canon (Canon I of the Council held in Antioch): “All those who dare to nullify the decree of the holy and great Council held in Nicaea, convened in the presence of the piety of the most God-loving emperor Constantine, concerning the holy feast of the saving Pascha, are to be cut off from communion and cast out of the Church, if they persist contentiously in opposing the things rightly and properly defined; and let this be said concerning the laity. But if any of those set over the Church—bishop, or presbyter, or deacon—after this decree shall dare to hold a private celebration, and to perform Pascha with the Jews, to pervert the people and disturb the Churches: this holy Synod has from this point already judged such a one to be alien to the Church, as not only heaping sin upon himself, but also becoming the cause of corruption and perversion for many. And not only does it depose such persons from ministry, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. And the deposed are to be deprived also of the external honor, which the holy Canon and the priesthood of God confer.”<o:p></o:p>Two observations must be made on this point:<o:p></o:p>a) The critical phrase upon which Mr. Sakarellos (mis)interprets the Canon (in a rationalistic manner) is the following: “ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος ἐντεῦθεν ἤδη ἀλλότριον ἔκρινε τῆς ἐκκλησίας.” [“The holy synod, from this point already, judged him alien to the Church.”]<o:p></o:p>b) The Canons are interpreted and explained by the approved Canonists and by the Praxis of the Church (who understand the above phrase as equivalent to the imperative “let him be deposed”), and not by just anyone according to his own reasoning.<o:p></o:p>If, then, the notion of “automatic deposition/loss of Priesthood” proclaimed by Mr. Sakarellos were valid, then:<o:p></o:p>1. Already from the 4th century, the Priesthood would have been extinguished in the Church. How so? Through communion with the Church of Rome, which only in 444, under Saint Pope Leo the Great, finally accepted the correct calculation of the date of Pascha—having until then (for over a hundred years) celebrated it, due to miscalculations, up to a month earlier, thus violating the Decree of the First Ecumenical Council. According to Sakarellian ecclesiology, therefore, not only the clergy of Rome, but also the clergy of all the Local Churches—since all then had communion with Rome—would have been automatically deposed and devoid of Priesthood, which is absurd!<o:p></o:p>2. It would not have been necessary, toward the end of the 16th century, for three Pan-Orthodox Synods to be convened in order to condemn the shifting of Pascha caused by the Gregorian calendar (1582), since the “automatic penalty” of the First Canon of Antioch (which was repeated verbatim by the Great Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1593) would have sufficed.<o:p></o:p>3. Nor would the "Church of the G.O.C. of Greece" have Priesthood. For the Church of Finland accepted the Gregorian Paschalion in 1921, that is, three years before the Calendar Innovation of 1924 in Greece! And since in 1921 all the Local Churches were in communion with the Church of Finland, therefore automatically (according to Sakarellos, of course) all the clergy lost the Priesthood and consequently it was abolished before there were even Old Calendarists!<o:p></o:p>And the eminent Canonists likewise align themselves with the Orthodox Ecclesiology of the “potential and not actual” nature of the penalties of ALL the Holy Canons. Specifically, concerning the said Canon, Zonaras in his interpretation uses, for the transgressors, the imperative “let them be deposed” (καθαιρεῖσθαι αὐτούς)—that is, he commands “that they be deposed” and does not consider them automatically deposed—and he refers to the 7th Apostolic Canon (“If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon celebrate the Holy Day of Pascha before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed”)—upon which, moreover, the 1st of Antioch is based. Balsamon also agrees (“laymen are to be subjected to the penalty of complete excommunication; clergy, however, are to be deposed”), as does Saint Nikodemos, who likewise refers to the 7th Apostolic Canon.<o:p></o:p>Nevertheless, while by the above-mentioned act and theory the error of the Sakarellian (mis)interpretation is demonstrated, one could reasonably ask the following: “then why in this Canon is the usual ‘let him be deposed’ (καθαιρείσθω) not used, but rather ‘he has already been judged a stranger’ (ἤδη ἀλλότριον ἔκρινε)?” According to Ecclesiastical Law, [136] for every violation there must be, on the part of the competent authority, a summons of the transgressor, his defense, and an examination of the violation before any decision is made ([St. Nikodim] Milaš writes: “The corresponding penalties for the crimes committed are imposed by the law of the Orthodox Church either by a condemnatory [accusatory] or by a declaratory [explanatory] sentence. In the case of a condemnatory verdict, an unconditional requirement is that the proper ecclesiastical court comply with all instructions regarding the trial in order to verify the case subject to punishment in this manner and, accordingly, to impose the appropriate punishment upon the guilty party”). In the particular case we are examining, however, the above-mentioned process (summons, defense, examination) is rendered superfluous, since “the Church has already judged him a stranger” (ἤδη ἀλλότριον ἔκρινε ἡ Ἐκκλησία)—and nothing further is awaited except the activation/proclamation of the penalty by the competent authority. (On this point Milaš writes: “In this case, the court does not need to initiate the investigation of the violation, because by the very commission of it, the perpetrator has incurred the corresponding penalty against himself, and only the declaration of the criminal act and punishment remains pending, which is declaratory [explanatory]. According to this distinction in penalties, the corresponding punishments are also named differently. In the first case of the condemnatory [accusatory] sentence, the penalty is called judicial, whereas in the second, where the verdict is of a declaratory [explanatory] nature, then the penalty is called and is legal”). Both types of penalties are activated/proclaimed by the competent authority.<o:p></o:p>Even if it be assumed that the transgressors of the First Canon of Antioch were deposed in actuality, even then this would not mean that those who commune with them are automatically co-deposed, as Mr. Sakarellos asserts, using as an argument the famous—and falsified—saying, “he who communes with the excommunicated, let him be excommunicated” (P, 86), for even for such communicants the relevant Canon (the 10th Apostolic) also uses the imperative “let him be excommunicated” (ἀφοριζέσθω). (Phrysanthos of Jerusalem writes in his treatise on excommunication that when the Canon “says ‘whoever does this or that, let him be excommunicated,’ then the canon does not excommunicate, but leaves the execution of the excommunication to the superiors”). That is, patristically, “let them be excommunicated”—and not, Sakarellianly (and Matthewite-ly and Magdalene-ly and hyper-zealously, etc.), “they are automatically excommunicated”!<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>Also, the supporters of Sakarellian ecclesiology, in order to reinforce their view concerning the loss of Priesthood by the clergy of the official Churches, add the year 1998 on account of the “anathema against Ecumenism” by the “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.” The said text, although signed by the then Hierarchs of the Synod of the G.O.C. (most of whom have now reposed), was composed by Mr. Sakarellos, who, acting as advisor to the then Archbishop and the then Chief Secretary, misled them and the other Hierarchs into placing their signatures beneath a text that is utterly untheological, problematic in every respect, and regrettably shameful—a text that deserves nothing but to be cast into oblivion.<o:p></o:p>It begins as follows:<o:p></o:p>“To those who say that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, existing as the Church of the firstborn in the heavens, and having become the Body of Christ through the coming of the Holy Spirit at Holy Pentecost, has ceased to exist in the world, as having been divided into many branches, each of which possesses a part of the revealed truth and grace of the mysteries, according to what the novel ecumenists teach—wherefore it must be re-established anew by us men, through the union of all the branches into a single tree, that is, through the assimilation into one whole of all heresies and schisms together with the true Orthodox Church, and thereafter of all these together with the other religions, unto the formation of a single pan-religion, which shall thus constitute the ‘church’ of the Antichrist: Anathema.”<o:p></o:p>At the outset, a question arises: Who are the ones that “say” that “the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, existing as the Church of the firstborn in the heavens,” became “the Body of Christ through the coming of the Holy Spirit at Holy Pentecost”? The “novel ecumenists” or Mr. Sakarellos? We, of course, know that this is the ecclesiology of the latter, who sought to insert, in the manner of a lesson, his own ecclesiological theory—clearly heretical—into a text of “anathema”!<o:p></o:p>And one more thing: Instead of this legalistic construct, why did the Synod at that time not simply copy the profoundly theological text of the anathema against Ecumenism from the Russian Church Abroad under Saint Philaret in 1983?<o:p></o:p>Perhaps because the mastermind, Mr. Sakarellos, did not approve of it, since he had fiercely opposed it—as we have mentioned—(with a series of articles in the Orthodox Typos under the title “Ecumenism and Slavophilia: The Anathema against Ecumenism by Metropolitan Philaret”), and had not repented for this polemic of his?<o:p></o:p><v:shape alt="Text

Description automatically generated" id="image3.jpg" o:spid="_x0000_i1026" style="height: 96.5pt; visibility: visible; width: 287.5pt;" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:title="Text

Description automatically generated" src="file:///C:/Users/cgorm/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image005.jpg"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjeP50Db_xdS8mlx12Tq3wiK9oqs2OVIE9L4BcIxhF9c9CfracPPXzPZlgA1NIuZ9VPE3IRoDc8G6sjnww2bstrgntF8fN-T29y9gGXPQaB8DiOiX1krC5Q9-a4ZRYEaH4LCDo_P0_dKB-5ci09jex5Tots8EEQMtqmY2HJqxhHHDX-GAVYM8-Qvg6R6op7" style="color: #cc6611; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img alt="" data-original-height="201" data-original-width="599" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjeP50Db_xdS8mlx12Tq3wiK9oqs2OVIE9L4BcIxhF9c9CfracPPXzPZlgA1NIuZ9VPE3IRoDc8G6sjnww2bstrgntF8fN-T29y9gGXPQaB8DiOiX1krC5Q9-a4ZRYEaH4LCDo_P0_dKB-5ci09jex5Tots8EEQMtqmY2HJqxhHHDX-GAVYM8-Qvg6R6op7=w400-h134" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1) 1px 1px 5px; padding: 5px; position: relative;" width="400" /></a></div> Among other distortions and falsehoods, he wrote at the time that “there is NOT A SINGLE Greek Orthodox Bishop who is… ‘ecumenist’!”, while he reproached Saint Philaret for supposedly usurping the function of an Ecumenical Council by inserting the text of the Anathema into the Synodikon!<o:p></o:p>And yet the true usurpation was committed through the text of Mr. Sakarellos, which later on (where the following is written: “To Joachim III, Patriarch of Constantinople, Meletios Metaxakis, and Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, the chief architects of the heresies of Ecumenism: Anathema”) proves that the so-called “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece,” which signed the above absurdity, is indeed usurping the function of an Ecumenical Council—the only competent body to pronounce anathemas by name against Primates of Churches, and moreover, against those who have reposed! [137]<o:p></o:p>The authority, moreover, that an “anathema” of a Synod of a remnant of a Local Church holds against the Primates of Churches is equivalent to the condemnation of a Hierarch by an Ecclesiastical Court meant for Priests—that is to say, nonexistent.<o:p></o:p>And this is not said in order to justify those indeed utterly blameworthy individuals—well known, in any case, for their corrupting activity—but so that the name of the Genuine Orthodox and the righteous in every respect Sacred Struggle may not be degraded by such reprehensible excesses.<o:p></o:p>The text continues with the following “anathema”:<o:p></o:p>“To those who raged in assemblies against the Orthodox faith in Constantinople in the year 1923 and on the Holy Mountain in the year 1930: Anathema.”<o:p></o:p>Here, by what criteria is the Synod (more precisely, the “Preliminary Committee”) held on the Holy Mountain in 1930 anathematized, and in what way exactly did it “rage” “against the Orthodox faith”?<o:p></o:p>And yes, Mr. Sakarellos had his opinion, since he wrote: “The bishops of those who followed the New Calendar, at the Inter-Orthodox Conference (note: bishops who followed the Old Calendar also participated, such as the Serbian Bishop of Ohrid, Saint Nicholas Velimirovich), which convened in 1931 (note: 1930) at the Vatopedi Monastery on the Holy Mountain—the preeminent place of ‘hesychasm’—decided [sic] to replace hesychasm with the Frankish monasticism of the West, with their missionary orders” (P, 194).<o:p></o:p>And yes, the Hierarchs of that time, either due to lack of education or due to lack of access to the original sources, were unable to correctly assess these fantasies of Mr. Sakarellos.<o:p></o:p>But is it permissible in our time—when we have more educated Hierarchs and an abundance of sources available to any interested party—for this “anathema” text to still be circulated, and even read aloud in churches (thankfully, only in a few) on the Sunday of Orthodoxy?<o:p></o:p>In the Acts of that Conference in question, [138] anyone may verify with their own eyes to what extent Mr. Sakarellos’ baseless accusations—about an alleged replacement of hesychasm “with the Frankish monasticism of the West, with their missionary orders”—are justified.<o:p></o:p>And the degradation continues with Mr. Sakarellos’ personal obsession (against Trembelas—because of Romanides—and Androutsos, supposed exponents of the imaginary heresy of the “two sanctities” discovered by the well-known Magdalene—see also the previous section), now being clothed in a synodal mantle, as if the Church of the Genuine Orthodox ever faced such an issue!<o:p></o:p>"To those who say that Christ had two sanctities, both divine and human, and that His human sanctity progressed: Anathema."<o:p></o:p>No comment, truly...<o:p></o:p>After the “anathemas,” we pass on to the “blessings”:<o:p></o:p>"To those who struggled for the Orthodox Faith—Jeremias Tranos, Sylvester of Alexandria, Sophronius of Jerusalem, and all the others who participated in the Pan-Orthodox Synods of the years 1583, 1587, and 1593, which condemned the calendar innovation and cut off from the body of the Church those who accepted and would accept it—Eternal be their memory."<o:p></o:p>Here the knowledge of History, as well as of Ecclesiology, is deficient and shameful for a synodal text.<o:p></o:p>First of all, it is unacceptable that there is no mention of the chief architect of the rejection of the Gregorian Calendar—Saint Meletios Pegas—who surpassed even Jeremiah Tranos in this matter. It is as if one were to commemorate the First Ecumenical Council without Saint Athanasius the Great, or the Second without Saint Gregory the Theologian, etc...<o:p></o:p>Secondly, the said Synods of the 16th century condemned—as is evident both from the genuine texts of the time and from later documents related to the matter—the shifting of Pascha resulting from the new Gregorian Calendar.<o:p></o:p>Thirdly, these Synods did NOT “cut off from the body of the Church those who accepted it,” because none of the Orthodox at that time accepted it. They rejected the innovation of the Papists—who were already outside the Church—in order to protect the Orthodox from that temptation.<o:p></o:p>Fourthly, they did NOT “cut off from the body of the Church” even those who “would accept it,” because no Council can condemn in advance some future transgression—much less so when we know that in 1924 the Gregorian Calendar and Paschalion were not adopted, but only the Gregorian reckoning for the fixed feasts, while the Paschalion remained untouched. Therefore, a new synodal condemnation is required for this deception and for the hybrid “Revised Julian” calendar of the ecumenists from within Orthodoxy (let us also recall the words written by Saint Chrysostomos, former of Florina, to Germanos of the Cyclades: “Your Grace also hypocritically and shamelessly lies when you insist that the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod or a Great Local Synod is superfluous and unnecessary for the valid and final condemnation of the calendar innovation of the Archbishop, since the Pan-Orthodox Synods of 1583, 1587, and 1593 condemned the Gregorian Calendar. This is because you know full well that the said Synods indeed condemned the Gregorian Calendar, but that this condemnation refers to the Latins, who applied the entire calendar, whereas the Archbishop received from it only the half, applying it to the fixed feasts and retaining the Old Calendar for Pascha and the movable feasts—precisely in order to bypass the stumbling block of that condemnation. Accordingly, this innovation of the Archbishop, who applied the Gregorian Calendar only for the fixed feasts and not for Pascha (for which the Gregorian Calendar was primarily condemned, as being contrary to the 7th Apostolic Canon), constitutes an issue appearing for the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church. Consequently, the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod is not only not superfluous, as Your Grace dogmatizes from a tripod like another Pope, but it is in fact imperative for the canonical and valid condemnation of this matter.” [139]<o:p></o:p>The view of automatic condemnation and loss of Priesthood and Divine Grace on account of earlier Synods on similar matters (a view which constitutes one of the fundamental pillars of the heresy of Matthewitism and other forms of so-called “Extreme Zealotism”) is refuted by the very fact that new Synods are convened each time an issue arises—even if that issue has already appeared in the past.<o:p></o:p>The same delusion had been refuted earlier by the ever-memorable Fr. Theodoretos, in his book “The Calendar Schism: Potentially or Actually?” (1973), written in response to the Matthewite-leaning monk Markos Chaniotis (who, by his own admission, was one of the chief instigators of the Matthewite Schism), whose argument Mr. Sakarellos merely copied.<o:p></o:p>c) That which demonstrates more clearly than the sun the absurdity of the reasoning—that is, that no new condemnation of the innovators of 1924 is required, since this innovation has already been condemned from as early as 1583—is none other than the very Synod of 1583 itself, as well as the two others following it, namely those of 1587 and 1593.<o:p></o:p>We ask: why was there a need for these Synods to be convened at the moment when the innovation of changing the Paschalion had already been condemned by the 7th Apostolic Canon—an innovation which causes compulsory celebrations of Pascha either together with the Jews or before their Pascha, both of which are forbidden? Or do you perhaps think, or reason slavishly, that the Apostolic Canons are of lesser authority than the decisions of the above-mentioned Orthodox Synods and that, consequently, their convocation was unnecessary? But according to the above: why then was the Synod of 1587 convened, if that of 1583 had preceded it? And why also the one of 1593, if the other two had preceded it?!!...]<o:p></o:p>The text continues, rather oddly, as follows:<o:p></o:p>“To Anthimos, Ecumenical Patriarch, and to those who participated in the Synod of Constantinople in the year 1848: Eternal be their memory.”<o:p></o:p>The ever-memorable and sharp-witted Metropolitan Cyprian Koutsoumpas wondered about this: “What possible relation can the laudatory mention of the Ecumenical Patriarch and ‘those who participated in the Synod of Constantinople in the year 1848’ have with anti-ecumenism? And if, perchance, the intention was to connect it with anti-papism—despite the paradox that the ‘Anathema’ concerns Ecumenism—why were countless Synods and Fathers, who fought vigorously against the multi-heresy of Papism and even proclaimed anathemas against it, passed over in silence?” [140]<o:p></o:p>To this question, we respond as follows:<o:p></o:p>But quite simply, the Synod of 1848 contains a passage which Mr. Sakarellos, along with his followers—as well as all manner of Reductionists (Matthewites, Matthewtizing, Hyper-zealots, and other adherents of the “automatic condemnation”)—use as confirmation of their ecclesiological heresy. That passage is the following (note the underlined parts): “We hold fast to the confession which we have received unadulterated from such great men, turning away from every innovation as an inspiration of the devil; for he who accepts innovation reproaches the proclaimed Orthodox faith as deficient. But this faith is already complete and sealed, admitting neither diminution, nor increase, nor any alteration whatsoever. And whoever dares either to act, or to counsel, or to think such a thing, has already denied the faith of Christ and has already willingly subjected himself to the eternal anathema, for he blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, as though He had not spoken perfectly in the Scriptures and through the Ecumenical Councils.”<o:p></o:p>But since, Sakarellists, those individuals have already been anathematized (as you misinterpret) and have fallen away from the Church, why did you hasten to “anathematize” them again in 1998—so many decades later? Are those who are already, and automatically, outside the Church to be anathematized—that is, cast out of the Church—again?<o:p></o:p>The text, however, ends beautifully—with the only part that could, in its entirety, be used in the future within a theologically sound text of this kind:<o:p></o:p>“To all who have struggled, in deed and in word, for the Orthodox Faith and against the innovations of the New Calendar and the heresy of Ecumenism: Eternal be their memory.”<o:p></o:p>Eternal be their memory!<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>The examination of the ecclesiological reasoning of Mr. Sakarellos concludes with the presentation of yet another unorthodox position, which perhaps constitutes the very core of the ecclesiological heresy we call “Sakarellism.” This position concerns the identification of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ with a specific Local Church or Hierarchy, or even with a part thereof.<o:p></o:p>He writes: “The Church, because it is ‘one,’ possesses indivisible unity. [141] This is a fundamental dogmatic teaching of hers. If her unity is divided into two or more parts, one of those parts will be the ‘One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.’ The other part will be a schism! There are not other or many churches! Therefore, whoever cuts himself off from the body of the ‘One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church’ necessarily becomes a schismatic, a heretic! If a priest or deacon refuses to commemorate his bishop, this means that the clergyman has separated himself from the local Church. And when someone separates himself from the local Church to which he belongs, he separates himself from the entire Church of Christ. He is ‘outside the Church’!” (P, 84–85).<o:p></o:p>Mr. Sakarellos had developed this view already from the period when he followed the New Calendar, and he used it in his argumentation against the Genuine Orthodox, believing that in 1924, with the calendar schism, the “portion” that did not follow the Innovation (namely, the Old Calendarists) became schismatic and outside the Church. When he joined the Church of the G.O.C., he maintained precisely the same ecclesiology, simply inverting and extending it. That is, he now claimed that the faction which followed the Innovation (namely, the New Calendarists) became schismatic and outside the Church; but he added that all the factions of the Old Calendarists also became schismatic and outside the Church, except for only one, because the Church, he insisted, must be “one” administratively! He characteristically writes: “…which faction, into which the faithful were divided on March 10, 1924, is the ‘Church of Christ’? If the ‘Church of Christ’ is the New Calendarists, then those who continued to follow the Old Calendar are necessarily ‘outside the Church,’ without priesthood and grace of the mysteries! But if the ‘Church of Christ’ is those who follow the Old Calendar, then necessarily the New Calendarists are ‘outside the Church,’ without priesthood and grace of the mysteries!” (P, 120). And elsewhere: “If, then, the divisions of the members of the Church that occurred up to 1924 did not eliminate the Church of Christ, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, in the same way the Church did not cease to exist after 1924—even though certain faithful who follow the Old Calendar unfortunately detached themselves from the One Church (of the Old Calendar) and joined four Factions and certain other small groups that exist! The Church of Christ—even when divided—remains One!” (P, 207). And elsewhere: “It is a fact that today those who continue to follow the Old Calendar are scattered among many Factions…” It is also a fact that each one of the above-mentioned Factions arbitrarily presents itself as the only true “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” and all the others as schismatic. However, this cannot be entirely true, because all of the above Factions cannot each truly be the “One” Church of Christ. Christ founded only one Church. And indeed, each one of the above Factions has the “right,” according to worldly criteria, to believe that it is the “Church of Christ,” or anything else it wants. “There is the ‘One’ Church of Christ, that is, one of all the above Factions is the Church.” What is to become of the above Old Calendarist Factions, which present themselves as the “Church of Christ”? Should they not at some point cease to exist, so that only the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” remains? “Some wish the union of the Old Calendarist Factions to take place according to the above-mentioned models of Ecumenism! Thus, they cultivate a new kind of Ecumenism: Old Calendarist Ecumenism, according to which all the Old Calendarist Factions are the same thing, all are ‘Churches of Christ,’ and therefore all can be united into one Church—the ‘Church of Christ’! This is Ecumenism ‘from the right’! And we call it Ecumenism ‘from the right,’ because, as the Apostle Paul says, there is a war ‘from the left’ and a war ‘from the right.’ In this way, we distinguish the two types of Ecumenism. This type of Ecumenism in the realm of the Old Calendar signifies that none of its Factions constitutes the Church of Christ.” [142]<o:p></o:p>This ecclesiology was also evident in the now infamous “Constitutional Charter” of 1998. In it, we read: “Article 1. CONCERNING THE CHURCH IN GENERAL. a) The ‘Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece’ is the local Orthodox Catholic Church in Greece, which was founded by Christ. b) The ‘Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece,’ or ‘Orthodox Catholic Church,’ constitutes the canonical and unbroken continuity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ, after the separation from it of all heretics and schismatics up to the innovators—the New Calendarists of 1924—and of certain groups of members of our Church, who follow various defrocked former clergy of ours or unordained individuals. “It believes and confesses that it is the only secure path of salvation for its members and recognizes as salvific and grace-bearing only the holy mysteries performed by itself.” [143]<o:p></o:p>Traces of this ecclesiology unfortunately also exist in the text “Confession of Faith of the Genuine Orthodox Christian,” which was formulated and approved by the Inter-Orthodox Conference. [144] It is noteworthy that the original version of this text—distributed to the faithful for signing in view of the actions toward the implementation of Law 4301/14—did not contain elements of Sakarellian ecclesiology. However, the said text was subsequently modified, with the result that the faithful signed one “Confession,” while another is now the official one!<o:p></o:p><v:shape alt="Text, letter

Description automatically generated" id="image4.jpg" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 83pt; visibility: visible; width: 419.5pt;" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:title="Text, letter

Description automatically generated" src="file:///C:/Users/cgorm/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image006.jpg"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiWyY_YEL7qBTn35wUtRTrEAlxdAMcvPn8ZSM1JC26HDDGmWeskHs6M3D7g273Igy802UiDrCKFYhCj9R7kfdSL2xgWV2n-1Jrsw2F8gXCDozw9ckhsL55Dg1RYxrsAsuipmTNF9qxaUtwbcn8T5pwKUgulGyITYVX9ICZbyQN-HgKKik8LOFnye3Ie-FHv" style="color: #cc6611; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img alt="" data-original-height="173" data-original-width="874" height="79" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiWyY_YEL7qBTn35wUtRTrEAlxdAMcvPn8ZSM1JC26HDDGmWeskHs6M3D7g273Igy802UiDrCKFYhCj9R7kfdSL2xgWV2n-1Jrsw2F8gXCDozw9ckhsL55Dg1RYxrsAsuipmTNF9qxaUtwbcn8T5pwKUgulGyITYVX9ICZbyQN-HgKKik8LOFnye3Ie-FHv=w400-h79" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1) 1px 1px 5px; padding: 5px; position: relative;" width="400" /></a></div> The disputed passage from the original text intended for signing, without the addition<o:p></o:p>The disputed addition to the original text of the “Confession” is found in the following passage (noted here in italics):<o:p></o:p>“I willingly submit, in ecclesiastical matters, to the Holy Synod, as the Highest Authority of the Genuine Orthodox Church in Greece, constituting the continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in Greece.”<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>This confusion between the concepts of the Catholic and the Local Church, through the transference of the attributes of the former to the latter, leads to an identification of their boundaries, as well as to impasses—as can easily be understood. It proves Sakarellism to be an ecclesiological heresy, which (like the similar heresy of Matthewitism) contracts the boundaries of the Church. [145]<o:p></o:p>That this ecclesiological position is unacceptable is also demonstrated by Church History. In order for this to be fully understood, it is absolutely necessary to present certain historical data, which will aid in a more complete understanding of the subject under examination.<o:p></o:p>From Church History we learn that a schism, although it begins as a division within the One, Catholic Church (either as a rupture between Local Churches or as a division among the members of a Local Church), may end up (either almost immediately or after some period of time) in the secession of one side from the entire Church—through voluntary and manifest defection from Her and through Synodal Judgment, by which the Church “marks those who separate themselves.” [146] In such a case, those who have seceded—by their separation from the whole Church—no longer partake in Her Body, can no longer perform Mysteries in Her name, and have lost Divine Grace, according to patristic teaching. [147]<o:p></o:p>There is, however, also the case in which such a division does not develop into a secession from the entire Church, as the following is observed: a division may indeed exist—either between Local Churches or as divisions [148] among the members of a Local Church—yet both of the mutually divided parties remain in communion with the One Catholic Church through their shared communion with the other Local Churches, thereby maintaining an indirect communion with one another!<o:p></o:p>As is therefore evident from what has been written thus far, the word “schism” may denote either a secession from the Catholic Church or a division within Her. The latter, however, cannot persist indefinitely, for in the course of time there will either occur a definitive rupture (and we will have a schism in the first sense), or the division will be resolved. However, the things that apply to schismatics in the first sense (those severed from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) do not apply in the second case (those separated from one another, yet remaining within the Catholic Church and indirectly in communion with each other).<o:p></o:p>In order for this second case to be better understood, it is necessary to present some examples from Church History and to offer certain observations on them:<o:p></o:p>a) Toward the end of the 2nd century, the first great schism within the Church arises, which is twofold, since we observe a break in ecclesiastical communion both between Local Churches and among the members of a Local Church. Specifically, due to the then-existing disagreement over the date of the celebration of Pascha, the Bishop of Rome, Victor, cuts off from ecclesiastical communion the parishes of the Asians in Rome, because the latter celebrated Pascha on the 14th of Nisan, according to the tradition of the Apostles John the Theologian and Philip (a tradition followed by all the Local Churches of Asia Minor), in contrast to the Romans who, following the tradition of the Apostles Peter and Paul, celebrated Pascha on the first Sunday after the vernal full moon. Thus, a schism arises within the Local Church of Rome. At the same time, Victor also breaks ecclesiastical communion with the Local Churches of Asia Minor, which had gathered in Synod under the leadership of Polycrates of Ephesus and declared their insistence on celebrating Pascha on the 14th of Nisan. A schism thus also arises between the Local Churches of Rome and those of Asia Minor. However, the rest of the Local Churches continued to maintain ecclesiastical communion both with Rome, with the parishes of the Asians within it, and with the Churches of Asia Minor. Led by Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, they succeeded in lifting this twofold intra-ecclesiastical schism. [149] (As is well known, the issue of the celebration of Pascha was definitively resolved by the First Ecumenical Council, [150] after which liturgical agreement begins to be stabilized.)<o:p></o:p>b) The schism between Saint Hippolytus and Saint Callistus within the Local Church of Rome is also considered an intra-ecclesiastical schism. In 217, after the repose of Pope Zephyrinus, Callistus was elected as the new Pope, but a faction within the Church reacted and elected Saint Hippolytus as Pope (he is the first antipope in the history of the Church of Rome). The party of Saint Hippolytus accused the "Callistians" (whose Church they contemptuously referred to as a "School" [=Philosophical]) of monarchian tendencies and of excessive leniency regarding the return of heretics and the fallen, as well as with respect to the sins of the clergy. The party of Saint Callistus, in turn, accused the "Hippolytians" of excessive strictness and Montanist influences. The schism lasted for 17 years, continuing even during the episcopates of Saint Callistus’ successors—Saint Urban (martyred in 230) and Saint Pontian. The latter was exiled to Sardinia together with Saint Hippolytus, with whom reconciliation was achieved and the schism lifted. Both were martyred shortly thereafter, in 235. [151]<o:p></o:p>c) The events related to the so-called “Antiochian Schism” are more or less well known. The Orthodox were divided from 360 onward into two parties—“Eustathians” and “Meletians”—for over 50 years. The Local Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Cyprus maintained communion with the Eustathians, while the Local Churches of Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Asia Minor were in communion with the Meletians. The lifting of the schism was accomplished thanks to the boldness of a saintly man, Bishop Alexander of Antioch, who—with his entire flock—went to the church of the Eustathians and concelebrated, thereby uniting the divided Local Church of Antioch (in the year 413). [152]<o:p></o:p>d) The “Johannite” Schism was yet another intra-ecclesiastical schism—and indeed a multifaceted one—since, due to the “deposition” and exile of Saint John Chrysostom (404), there was a break in ecclesiastical communion both between Local Churches (Rome with Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch) and among the members of at least two Local Churches: Constantinople and Antioch. In the former, the followers of Saint Chrysostom—under the guidance of his disciples, such as the presbyter Germanos, the deacon Cassian, and the deaconess Olympias—broke communion with the successive patriarchs: namely, Saint Arsacius (Patriarch 404–405), Saint Atticus (406–425), Saint Sisinnius (426–427), Nestorius (428–431), Saint Maximian (431–434), and Saint Proclus (434–446), until the latter transferred the relics of Saint John Chrysostom back to the City (438). Thus, the schism lasted 34 years. In Antioch, in 404, the presbyter Constantius, who had been a co-candidate with the eventually elected Patriarch Porphyrius, together with a multitude of faithful, led the break in communion with the latter. The schism was lifted during the episcopate of the next Patriarch, Saint Alexander, who restored the “Johannite” bishops Elpidios and Pappos to their sees and inscribed the name of Saint John Chrysostom in the Diptychs (413), an act which also led to the restoration of communion with the Local Church of Rome (under Pope Innocent). [153]<o:p></o:p>e) Another example of an intra-ecclesiastical schism is the nearly twenty-year schism between Saint Photios the Great and Saint Ignatius (858–877). Due to political intrigues and ecclesiastical disputes, as well as papal interference, the Local Church of Constantinople became divided into two factions. Concerning this internal division, Saint Photios lamented in a letter, referring to a "Church being torn and divided." [154] The schism was further entrenched—as Saint Photios himself later acknowledges—because “we accepted many others who had been deposed for offenses by the most holy Ignatius, and those whom we had deposed were accepted by Saint Ignatius.” [155] The schism between the “Photian” and “Ignatian” parties was resolved shortly before the repose of Saint Ignatius [156] (who was then in his second official patriarchate), when he came to recognize the sanctity of Saint Photios and his support during his painful illness. In fact, Saint Ignatius proposed the restoration of Saint Photios, but the latter declined, and only after the former’s repose did Saint Photios (for the second time officially) ascend to the episcopal throne of the City, thereby formally lifting that division. [157]<o:p></o:p>f) Concluding the series of examples, it is worth mentioning the so-called “Schism of the Arsenites.” In 1261, Saint Arsenius Autoreianus, then Patriarch of Constantinople, excommunicated Michael VIII Palaiologos because he had blinded the lawful minor heir to the throne, John IV Laskaris, and usurped the throne, thereby becoming perjured. Michael gradually won over the majority of the Synod members, which was convened and deposed Saint Arsenius on false charges in the year 1264. The deposition caused a great schism in the Local Church of Constantinople, since many supporters of the Saint, under the slogan “touch not, neither draw near,” separated from the official hierarchy and from the new Patriarch, Germanus III (patr. 1265–1266). This intra-ecclesiastical schism was so extensive that, according to the historian Pachymeres, “even households were divided within themselves.” It continued during the tenure of Saint Joseph I of Galessios (first term: 1266–1274; second term: 1282–1283). In 1274, the false Union of Lyons was signed, which Saint Joseph refused to accept. He was replaced by the well-known Latin-minded John XI Bekkos (patr. 1274–1283). The followers of Saint Joseph broke ecclesiastical communion with the official hierarchy, and thus three factions arose in the City: the “Unionists,” who now represented the “official Church,” and the two Orthodox factions—the “Arsenites” and the “Josephites”—who were not in communion even with each other, and from whom martyrs and confessors emerged. [158] Within the “Arsenite” camp, however, a fragmentation developed, [159] and two main tendencies emerged, one of which—an extreme faction—rejected the Mysteries not only of the “Unionists,” but also of the “Josephites.” [160] After the death of Michael and the ascent to the imperial throne of the most pious Andronikos II, the new emperor—following actions through which he convened a Synod and restored Orthodoxy by anathematizing the Union of Lyons and the “Unionists”—sought to lift the schism between the “Arsenites” and the “Josephites” by electing a new Patriarch (Saint Joseph had just reposed) who would be acceptable to both factions. The new Patriarch was Gregory II of Cyprus (patr. 1283–1289), under whom the Synod of Adramyttium (1284) was convened to address the issue of the schism. At this Synod, the moderate faction of the “Arsenites” proposed a divine judgment (theokrisia): that two volumes—one containing the views of the “Arsenites” and the other those of the “Josephites”—be placed into fire. The two documents were sealed in a silver container and left in the fire throughout the night, during which the participants in the Synod remained in prayer. The next day the container was opened, and both volumes had been consumed by fire. One faction of the “Arsenites” then united with the official Church, but the others continued the break in communion and were excommunicated. Another group of “Arsenites” was reconciled with the official Church after the translation of the relics of Saint Arsenius, which took place in 1285 by order of the emperor, who ardently desired the lifting of the schism. This was followed by the patriarchates of Saint Athanasios I (first term: 1289–1293; second: 1304–1310) and of John XII (patr. 1294–1304), a period during which gradual returns of “Arsenites” to the official Church occurred. As the historian George Pachymeres writes: “The members and parts of the Church, which until yesterday and even earlier had been divided and separated by a powerful opposing current, were being brought together and restored—yet not to the extent that the Church could be said to enjoy complete peace.” [161] The final extreme “Arsenites” (whom Saint Athanasios, paraphrasing the word zealots, called “rippers” [xēlōtai]!) returned to the official Church in 1310, under Patriarch Niphon I (patr. 1310–1315), after a special ceremony was held in Hagia Sophia before the relic of Saint Arsenius. All receptions of the “Arsenites” into the official Church took place without the repetition of the Mysteries or any other rite (i.e., no re-chrismation, re-ordination, etc.). [162]<o:p></o:p>As is evident, the aforementioned intra-ecclesiastical divisions cannot possibly be equated with condemnable schisms such as those of the Novatians, the Donatists, the Encratites, the Raskolniki, and all those, that is, who had truly separated themselves from the One Catholic Church of Christ. [163]<o:p></o:p>Based on the above historical examples, it has been demonstrated that indeed, in certain circumstances, a Local Church can be temporarily divided into valid and salvific “factions” or “parties,” which are still considered within the One Catholic Church, without this in any way implying acceptance of the ecumenist “branch theory.” When, for example, Saint Basil the Great wrote that the Church “is torn apart even by those who profess to believe the same things,” or when Saint Photius the Great spoke of a Church “being cut and divided,” referring respectively to the Local Churches of Antioch and Constantinople of their time, could anyone possibly accuse them of being adherents of the ecumenist ecclesiology of a “divided Church”?<o:p></o:p>If we accept the Sakarellian ecclesiology, then we must answer clearly, for each of the aforementioned examples, which “faction” constituted the Church. If, for example, in the case of the Antiochian schism we answer, “the Church was the faction of Saint Meletios,” then we must explain how Saint Athanasius (and the Local Churches of Alexandria, Cyprus, and Rome) were in communion with the “outside the Church” faction of Paulinus and were not themselves rendered “outside the Church,” according to the principle “he who communes with the non-communicant becomes non-communicant.” The position that the Church is One, and therefore, in cases of division and the appearance within a Local Church of multiple Administrations (synods, jurisdictions, factions, bodies, sections, parties—call them as you will), only one of these can possibly constitute the Church, leads also to other questions that must be answered, which concern us more directly. For example: “Which one Jurisdiction was the Church in Greece in 1983?” Since, as is well known, in that year (besides the “official Church” and the still unified “Matthewite Church”), [164] the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece was divided into three Synods (those of Auxentios, Gerontios, and Callistos–Antonios).<o:p></o:p>***<o:p></o:p>Concluding this work, we hope that the Church of the G.O.C. will be liberated from the Babylonian captivity of Sakarellism (through the active repentance of its current bearers who administer it), and that, having stretched forth her hands wide, she may unconditionally embrace into her bosom the ADJACENT Fathers and Brethren who, though outside her bosom, are within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, so that together we may journey onward in these difficult years for True Orthodoxy.<o:p></o:p>Amen, may it be so!<o:p></o:p> NOTES<o:p></o:p>1. Ecclesiastical Synods and Civilization: <a href="http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/1995_4_4_Romanides.pdf" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/1995_4_4_Romanides.pdf</a><o:p></o:p>2. Jesus Christ – The Life of the World: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.e.21.insous_xristos_i_zoi_tou_kosmou.01.htm <o:p></o:p>3. Religion is a neurobiological illness, whereas Orthodoxy is its cure: https://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/cure_gr.html <o:p></o:p>4. Empirical Dogmatics: http://arxetyposkaitelos.blogspot.com/2017/07/blog-post_32.html <o:p></o:p>5. Catechesis and Baptism of Adults, 2nd ed., Apostolic Ministry (Apostoliki Diakonia), 1998, pp. 7–8.<o:p></o:p>6. Acts 8:15–17.<o:p></o:p>7. Ibid.,5.<o:p></o:p>8. Ibid., 12.<o:p></o:p>9. P.G. 60, 144.<o:p></o:p>10. "The Holy Spirit, coming upon the believer, anoints him. This is the 'baptism of the Spirit' and constitutes the well-known mystery of 'Chrismation'" (P, 174).<o:p></o:p>11. Num. 20:17.<o:p></o:p>12. John 3:5.<o:p></o:p>13. Gal. 3:27.<o:p></o:p>14. E.P.E. 30, 386.<o:p></o:p>15. Eortodromion, Venice, 1836, p. 13.<o:p></o:p>16. P.G. 130, 1276-1277.<o:p></o:p>17. The Apophatic Ecclesiology of the Homoousion, Armos Publications, 2002, p. 140.<o:p></o:p>18. Uncreated and Created Church: <a href="http://www.oodegr.com/oode/orthod/genika/aktisth_ktisth_1.htm" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">http://www.oodegr.com/oode/orthod/genika/aktisth_ktisth_1.htm</a><o:p></o:p>19. Heb. 9:2.<o:p></o:p>20. Ibid., 11:10.<o:p></o:p>21. The Two Epistles to the Corinthians, Constantinople, 1875, p. 133.<o:p></o:p>22. E.P.E., Apostolic Fathers 4, pp. 386, 392.<o:p></o:p>23. P.G. 26, 992, 1004–1005, 1021.<o:p></o:p>24. Interpretation of the One Hundred and Fifty Psalms of the Prophet-King and Ancestor of God David, vol. 1, Constantinople, 1819, p. 369.<o:p></o:p>25. P.L. 39, 2189. <o:p></o:p>26. N. Berdyaev, Christianity and Social Reality: https://www.pemptousia.gr/2013/04/prepi-na-ise-apetitikos/<o:p></o:p>27. A. Diomidis-Kyriakou, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, Athens, 1881, p. 117.<o:p></o:p>28. Konstantinos Kontogonos, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, Athens, 1866, p. 493.<o:p></o:p>29. Stylianos Papadopoulos, Patrology, vol. 2, Athens, 1990, p. 686.<o:p></o:p>30. Vlasios Feidas, Ecclesiastical History I, Athens, 1994, p. 308.<o:p></o:p>31. A. Diomidis-Kyriakou, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2, Athens, 1881, p. 448.<o:p></o:p>32. On First Principles, Leipzig, 1865, pp. 108–109.<o:p></o:p>33. 1 John 1:8<o:p></o:p>34. St. Epiphanius, P.G. 41, 1028<o:p></o:p>35. Eph. 5:26<o:p></o:p>36. John 18:19<o:p></o:p>37. 1 Pet. 1:16<o:p></o:p>38. Rom. 1:7<o:p></o:p>39. P.G. 60, 399<o:p></o:p>40. The Fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, vol. 1, Venice, 1819, p. 8<o:p></o:p>41. Jude 1:1<o:p></o:p>42. Interpretation of the Seven Catholic Epistles, Venice, 1806, p. 324<o:p></o:p>43. Matt. 13:24–30.<o:p></o:p>44. P.G. 58, 476–478<o:p></o:p>45. P.L. 4, 344<o:p></o:p>46. Matt. 13:47–50<o:p></o:p>47. P.G. 58, 484<o:p></o:p>48. Matt. 22:2–14.<o:p></o:p>49. Cf. St. Nikodemos, Synaxaristes, vol. 3, Venice, 1819, p. 110.<o:p></o:p>50. P.L. 40, 201<o:p></o:p>51. P.L. 33, 417<o:p></o:p>52. P.L. 23, 185<o:p></o:p>53. E.P.E. 6, 224–226<o:p></o:p>54. P.G. 80, 1160<o:p></o:p>55. Ioannis Karmires, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments, vol. I, Austria, 1960, pp. 461–463<o:p></o:p>56. Epeteris of the Society for Byzantine Studies, vol. 54 (2012–2013), P. V. Paschos, “An Orthodox Catechesis of Meletios Pegas,” p. 126.<o:p></o:p>57. Theologikon, Venice, 1872, p. 50.<o:p></o:p>58. Ibid., pp. 55–56.<o:p></o:p>59. Ibid., p. 50.<o:p></o:p>60. Epitome or Collection of the Divine Dogmas of the Faith, Leipzig, 1806, pp. 38–39.<o:p></o:p>61. Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic and Eastern Church, Athens, 1858, p. 305.<o:p></o:p>62. Study on the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, Athens, 1987, pp. 24–25.<o:p></o:p>63. Orthodox Sacred Catechesis, publ. by Rigopoulos (2nd ed.), Thessaloniki, p. 25, footnote 1.<o:p></o:p>64. The Question of the Church in the Dogmatic Polemic with Donatism <a href="https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ilarion_Troitskij/vopros-o-tserkvi-v-dogmaticheskoj-polemike-s-donatizmom/" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ilarion_Troitskij/vopros-o-tserkvi-v-dogmaticheskoj-polemike-s-donatizmom/</a><o:p></o:p>65. He thus reaches the point of absurdity, considering that everyone who is not deified is automatically a heretic!<o:p></o:p>66. <a href="http://aktines.blogspot.com/2016/10/blog-post_902.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">http://aktines.blogspot.com/2016/10/blog-post_902.html</a><o:p></o:p>67. Spyridon Milias, The New and Most Abundant Collection of the Holy Synods, vol. 1, Paris, 1761, pp. 469–482.<o:p></o:p>68. Ibid., p. 494.<o:p></o:p>69. Ibid., p. 497.<o:p></o:p>70. Ibid., p. 498.<o:p></o:p>71. Ibid., p. 501.<o:p></o:p>72. Spyridon Milias, The New and Most Abundant Collection of the Holy Synods, vol. 2, Paris, 1761, p. 45.<o:p></o:p>73. Ibid., p. 46.<o:p></o:p>74. Ibid., p. 115.<o:p></o:p>75. Ibid., p. 116.<o:p></o:p>76. Ibid., p. 123.<o:p></o:p>77. Ibid., p. 130.<o:p></o:p>78. P.G. 142, 238–239.<o:p></o:p>79. “We cut off,” not “we ascertain his … self-severance!”<o:p></o:p>80. Ibid., 239.<o:p></o:p>81. Ibid., 246.<o:p></o:p>82. History Concerning Those Who Were Patriarch in Jerusalem, Bucharest, 1715, p. 681.<o:p></o:p>83. Ibid., pp. 680–681.<o:p></o:p>84. Ibid., p. 681.<o:p></o:p>85. P.G. 87, 3369–3371.<o:p></o:p>86. P.G. 99, 997-1000.<o:p></o:p>87. St. Gregory Palamas, E.P.E. 3, pp. 604–606.<o:p></o:p>88. Ibid., pp. 606–608.<o:p></o:p>89. Ibid., p. 624.<o:p></o:p>90. Jus Graeco-Romanum, part 3, Leipzig, 1857, p. 699.<o:p></o:p>91. Ibid.<o:p></o:p>92. P.G. 152, 1282.<o:p></o:p>93. P.G. 33, 1009<o:p></o:p>94. Cf. P.L. 35, 1424<o:p></o:p>95. P.G. 36, 396<o:p></o:p>96. Footnote 2 to the 68th Apostolic Canon.<o:p></o:p>97. Footnote 1 to the 3rd Apostolic Canon.<o:p></o:p>98. Epitome of the Divine Dogmas of the Faith, Leipzig, 1806, pp. 378.<o:p></o:p>99. Gen. 2:17<o:p></o:p>100. Gen. 3:24<o:p></o:p>101. Cf. Neophytos Kausokalyvites, Epitome of Sacred Canons, Athens, 2002, p. 168.<o:p></o:p>102. Mansi 12, 1042<o:p></o:p>103 Dositheos of Jerusalem, Volume of Joy, Rimnic, 1705, p. 42<o:p></o:p>104. Cf. also here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3tuH122XTsxOG1LX2VtbkRWU3c/view?resourcekey=0-oO-dabJ60I8xam2FNQU9pA<o:p></o:p>105. P.G. 47, 78<o:p></o:p>106. There are many examples showing how descriptively the Fathers of the Synod present their active role, both in the Hymnography (“with the sling of the Spirit, having slung away those who had fallen from the fullness of the Church as unto death, and as incurably diseased”) and in the writings of our Church (“with the sword of the Spirit they cut off as putrefied members from the entirety of the Orthodox”).<o:p></o:p>107. Venice, 1816, p. 296.<o:p></o:p>108. Ibid.<o:p></o:p>109. Ibid., footnote 1, pp. 296–297.<o:p></o:p>110. The online forum “Orthodoxy” has now been discontinued. Republishing of the said text here: <a href="https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2009/09/blog-post_8625.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2009/09/blog-post_8625.html</a><o:p></o:p>111. We also made a small reference here: <a href="https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/06/blog-post_41.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/06/blog-post_41.html</a><o:p></o:p>112. <a href="http://intpvolou.weebly.com/thetaepsilonomicronlambdaomicrongammaiotakappa940/46" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">http://intpvolou.weebly.com/thetaepsilonomicronlambdaomicrongammaiotakappa940/46</a><o:p></o:p>113. “But if, he says, they dogmatized rightly, then it is necessary to embrace their mindset, those who call these men Fathers; or—may I not speak impiously—they dogmatized impiously, and must be cast out together with the heretical mindset” (P.G. 102, 809).<o:p></o:p>114. Cf. Gen. 20:20–27.<o:p></o:p>115. “Those nourished by the Church and not forgetful of sacred lessons, like Shem and Japheth, know how to cover their father’s shame, and turn away condemning the imitators of Ham” (P.G. 102, 812).<o:p></o:p>116. “For how many circumstances of events have compelled many to misinterpret, or to say something for the sake of economy, or because of revolts of those resisting, or even due to ignorance, as human beings are indeed subject to deficiency. One speaks in opposition to the heretics; another accommodates the weakness of his listeners; another is engaged in some other matter, and, because the time invites much leniency of precision for the sake of a greater end, he both said and did things which it is not permitted to us either to say or to do... And if they did misinterpret, or deviated for some reason now unknown to us due to human weakness, but no charge was brought against them, nor did anyone call them to learn the truth, then we shall call them Fathers no less—even if they did not say this—on account of the brilliance of their life, the reverence of their virtue, and the blamelessness of their other piety; but as for their words, in which they deviated, we shall not follow them... And we, since we also find some other of our blessed Fathers and teachers having deviated in many other doctrines of exactness, we do not accept the deviation, but we embrace the men; thus also those who perhaps dared to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son—we do not accept that which is contrary to the Master’s voice; but we do not exclude them from the company of the Fathers” (Ibid.).<o:p></o:p>117. “Even though he was truly a saint of such glory, yet at that time the dogma was still genuinely disputed and had not yet been fully clarified, nor had the opposing opinion been altogether cast out—which took place at the Fifth Council. If, therefore, as a man, he too in some matter of exactness slipped, it is nothing remarkable, since even many before him did likewise—Irenaeus of Lyons, Dionysius of Alexandria, and others” (P.O. 17, 53–54).<o:p></o:p>118. Ibid., 84.<o:p></o:p>119. “We too confess that it is human to err and to be deceived, insofar as one is a man and acts by his own power; but insofar as he is moved by the divine Spirit and tested by the judgment of the Church in matters relating to the common faith of the dogma, we affirm that his writings are altogether true” (Ibid.).<o:p></o:p>120. “For it is possible for one to be a teacher and yet not speak everything with precision; otherwise, for what reason would the Fathers have needed Ecumenical Councils, if no one ever failed at any point in the truth?” (Ibid., 123).<o:p></o:p>121. https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2017/04/blog-post_88.html<o:p></o:p>122. Two interesting texts here: <a href="https://www.hsir.org/Theology_el/3d5088AbbaIsaak.pdf" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://www.hsir.org/Theology_el/3d5088AbbaIsaak.pdf</a> and here: <a href="https://proskynitis.blogspot.com/2019/10/blog-post.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://proskynitis.blogspot.com/2019/10/blog-post.html</a><o:p></o:p>123. <a href="http://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2016/08/blog-post_163.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">http://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2016/08/blog-post_163.html</a><o:p></o:p>124. <a href="https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post_556.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post_556.html</a><o:p></o:p>125. See especially “The Romiosyne of 1821 and the Great Powers.”<o:p></o:p>126. https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post_43.html <o:p></o:p>127. “Orthodoxos Týpos” (no. 645, 22‑3‑1985).<o:p></o:p>128. <a href="https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post_47.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post_47.html</a><o:p></o:p>129. P.G. 102, 793<o:p></o:p>130. See these anti-hagiographical articles of his here: <a href="https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2015/08/blog-post_787.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2015/08/blog-post_787.html</a> and here: <a href="https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2017/03/blog-post_893.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2017/03/blog-post_893.html</a>. For their refutation, see the excellent work of the periodical St. Cyprian titled “The Russian Holy New Martyrs and Tsar Nicholas II” (<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WCDth_zGbm6dPxYgGtvlvMPa-Qcw-TWI/view" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WCDth_zGbm6dPxYgGtvlvMPa-Qcw-TWI/view</a>).<o:p></o:p>131. “Orthodoxos Týpos” (no. 591, 27‑1‑1984).<o:p></o:p>132. Letter of Saint Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina to the Community of the G.O.C., 17/10/1937, <a href="https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2020/09/blog-post_20.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2020/09/blog-post_20.html</a><o:p></o:p>133. Letter of Saint Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina to Germanos of the Cyclades, 9/11/1937, <a href="http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2019/09/blog-post.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2019/09/blog-post.html</a><o:p></o:p>134. <a href="http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.12.en.orthodox_heterodox_dialogues.01.htm#1" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.12.en.orthodox_heterodox_dialogues.01.htm#1</a><o:p></o:p>135. See the full text in the ecumenist periodical Kath’ odon, issue 14, June 1998.<o:p></o:p>136. There is a relevant analysis by the Serbian Canonist Nikodim Milas in his interpretation of the said Canon — a work unfortunately untranslated.<o:p></o:p>137. So as not to even express our astonishment regarding the criteria by which, for example, Joachim III is condemned, but not Athenagoras!<o:p></o:p>138. Here: <a href="https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/metadata/0/0/9/metadata-1367319936-959923-23197.tkl" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/metadata/0/0/9/metadata-1367319936-959923-23197.tkl</a><o:p></o:p>139. <a href="http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2019/09/blog-post.html" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2019/09/blog-post.html</a><o:p></o:p>140. <a href="https://www.imoph.org/Theology_el/3a3a008EnhmGramma.pdf" style="color: #cc6611; text-decoration-line: none;">https://www.imoph.org/Theology_el/3a3a008EnhmGramma.pdf</a><o:p></o:p>141. By “unity” here is meant administrative unity, as is immediately evident afterwards. However, the unity of the Church lies in the same Faith and in the communion of the same Mysteries, and not necessarily in uniformity of worship or administration.<o:p></o:p>142. http://orthodoxia.forumup.gr/about492-orthodoxia.html, under his online pseudonym “Kosmas.”<o:p></o:p>143. Periodical Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, no. 23, November – December 1998, p. 25.<o:p></o:p>144.https://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%81%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B7/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/%E1%BC%90%CE%BA%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/879-omologia-pistews<o:p></o:p>145. Cf. http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/09/blog-post.html<o:p></o:p>146. St. Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 380.<o:p></o:p>147. “They no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them, for the transmission [of grace] ceased with the breaking of succession. …They had neither the authority to baptize nor to ordain, nor could they grant the grace of the Holy Spirit to others, since they themselves had fallen away from it,” according to the 1st Canon of St. Basil the Great.<o:p></o:p>148. “Divisions,” as the Apostle Paul calls them (1 Cor. 1:11).<o:p></o:p>149. Details in Vlasios Feidas, Ecclesiastical History I, 2nd ed., Athens, 1994, pp. 278–284.<o:p></o:p>150. He confirmed the tradition of the Chief Apostles.<o:p></o:p>151. Details in Vlasios Feidas, op. cit., pp. 294–296 (he calls it the “Schism of Hippolytus”) and in Philaretos Vafeidis, Ecclesiastical History I, Constantinople, 1884, pp. 115–116 (he calls it the “Schism of Callistus”).<o:p></o:p>152. Details in our work The Antiochian Schism, Athens, 2014.<o:p></o:p>153. Details in Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History (P.G. 67, 1572–1592) and Diomidis Kyriakou, Ecclesiastical History I, Athens, 1881, p. 233.<o:p></o:p>154. P.G. 102, 900<o:p></o:p>155. P.G. 104, 1229–1232<o:p></o:p>156. St. Photius the Great describes before the Eighth Ecumenical Council the lifting of the schism with the following moving words: “When both fell at each other’s feet, and whatever wrong had been done by either against the other, forgiveness of these was mutually granted” (Mansi 17, 424).<o:p></o:p>157. Details in Ioannis Valettas, Letters of Photius the Most Wise and Most Holy Patriarch of Constantinople, London, 1864 (Prolegomena), and Vlasios Feidas, op. cit., pp. 97–125.<o:p></o:p>158 Better known is the “Josephite” Saint Meletios of Galisia.<o:p></o:p>159 The “Josephite” Saint Theoleptos of Philadelphia (teacher of Saint Gregory Palamas) writes concerning the “Arsenites” that “they had split into many factions and different arrangements—rather, factions than arrangements—having been established, and indecently dignifying themselves with the names of various leaders, and being designated by the names of many chiefs. One says, ‘I belong to such-and-such a patriarch,’ another to another, one to this hierarch, another to that one… they were cut into schisms and factions, and each one chose for himself as head whomever he wished among men” (Revue des Études Byzantines, V (1947), Bucharest, 1947, p. 131, note 1).<o:p></o:p>160 “For they teach the people of God to abstain from the Church, to avoid the holy things, not to submit to the pastors of the churches… they leave their children unbaptized, and it happens that they die without illumination; and even those who are of age, when they depart from this life by death, reject the reception of the holy Body and Blood of the Lord” (Ibid., pp. 122–123).<o:p></o:p>For this reason, Saint Theoleptos considered the extreme “Arsenites” to be heretics, and when the official Church later accepted all the “Arsenites” unconditionally, he ceased commemorating the Patriarch!<o:p></o:p>161. P.G. 144, 205–206<o:p></o:p>162. Details in Paris Gounarides, The Arsenite Movement, Athens, 1999<o:p></o:p>163. At this point, and in order to avoid any misunderstanding, it must be emphasized that there is no intention here to justify an intra-ecclesiastical division (nor, of course, is the responsibility of those who cause it overlooked), but such a division must be examined on an entirely different basis from that on which one examines the schism par excellence (= separation from the Catholic Church).<o:p></o:p>164. Today we have five or six Matthewite “Holy Catholic and Apostolic” “Churches,” a fact that is to be expected if one examines their ecclesiology, which is by nature divisive.<o:p></o:p> Source: Translated from “Συμβολή στην Απελευθέρωση της Εκκλησιολογίας των Γνησίων Ορθοδόξων από τη Σακαρλλείo (ήτοι Ρωμανίδειο) Αιχμαλωσία,” serialized at <a href="https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/</a>. ΠΗΓΗ: <a href="https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/12/a-contribution-to-liberation-of.html">https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/12/a-contribution-to-liberation-of.html</a>

A Contribution to the Liberation of the Ecclesiology of the Genuine Orthodox from Sakarellian (Romanidian) Captivity

Nikolaos Mannis, educator There are two major deviations from Orthodox ecclesiology within the ranks of the Genuine Orthodox (Old Ca...