Many Protestants ask Orthodox Christians what the Orthodox understanding of the Gospel is. This is our attempt at explaining to Protestants (and others) what the gospel is:

The gospel is that the kingdom of Heaven has broken into our realm through the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If we have an incorrect understanding of what  these things mean, this will lead to large errors of practice, which will seriously impair our entrance to the kingdom of God. For example, Calvinist theologian Sinclair Ferguson describes  his spiritual life as “dragging his sin before the Cross.” By this, he means putting penal substitution into practice. When he sins, he feels guilty because God is angry at him. At this  point, he remembers that God already punished Jesus for his sin, so he “drags it before the Cross” to rid himself of guilt. But what does this do to actually deify him? Note the word  ”deify.” Ferguson has never used that word to describe salvation. But “deification” is the substance of salvation. Let me explain.Our Lord, the pre-eternal Son and Word of the Father, is fully divine. He has, from all eternity, had all the properties of deity common to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Man was created in  the Image and Likeness of God. The Holy Fathers interpret this to mean that man reflects certain properties of God, but does not reflect them fully. This is not a “shortcoming”, but rather  a statement that God is infinite, and the brightness of man’s reflection of God can increase forever and ever. So Adam was “very good.” But He was not as good as he possibly could be. If he  was, the Hebrew would say “very very good.” Adam was granted authority over the garden. As he partook of the grace of God, he himself would reflect God ever more brightly, and, as the  steward of God’s creation, the “high priest”, one might say, he would lead all Creation to more brightly reflect the grace of God. At this point we must briefly comment on the meaning of “grace” according to the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. Protestants interpret grace to mean “God’s unmerited favor.” This is an  incorrect interpretation.

Grace is not “God’s unmerited favor”, but refers to the power of God actualized in the world. For example, in the first chapter of Saint John’s Gospel, Our Lord is  referred to as “full of grace and truth.” How could Christ be full of “unmerited favor?” In the third chapter of Saint Luke’s Gospel, Christ is referred to as “growing in grace and  stature.” How could Christ “grow” in unmerited favor? A reading much more in accord with the Biblical text is the understanding of grace as “God’s power actualized in the world.” This is  what Orthodox Christians mean by the “energies of God.” In essence, God cannot be known. But God’s essence is actualized in the world through His uncreated energies. These energies are  truly and really God, and they are the means of participation in the life of the divine. Adam would grow in His reflection of God’s likeness in energies, but because no man or angel could  ever partake of the divine essence, He would never be “subsumed” into God. He would always be a deified Adam, never losing his personal existence. Anyway, this path of deification was the right path Adam was walking. Tragically, through events we all know, Adam turned away from this right path. The serpent promised him that “he would  be like God.” Wanting to be like God was not Adam’s error. (As a sidenote, the fact that many Protestants think it is reflects how completely they have lost the concept of deification) We  should all want to be like God. The Holy Apostle Peter says that we are to “be holy, as he is holy.” So why would we want to be unlike Him? No, Adam’s error was trying to be deified (which  means more fully reflecting God’s properties) APART from God. This was not the end of the Fall. The pre-incarnate Word appeared to Adam and asked him what he had done. The Fathers teach  that if Adam at this point had honestly admitted his error, repented, and promised obedience henceforth, the serpent would have been thwarted and God would have reconciled Adam to Himself.  But Adam did not. Adam lied and blamed his wife.

Thus, Adam was expelled from the Garden, and the creation over which he was set a steward fell into corruption, death, and decay. Death  itself cannot be spoken as a literal (though the imagery can be used metaphorically) “punishment” from God. God did not say to Adam, “If you eat, I will surely kill you.” God said, “If you  eat, you will surely die.” Death is simply the natural result of turning away from the only source of life.Corruption, death, decay, these now all became a part of the human experience. And, in a significant, but often overlooked passage, Moses writes, “When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered  a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” This is the “image of Adam” described in the New Testament. It is the image of God in a state of corruption and  imperfection. The Old Testament, even in the deified Prophets and Patriarchs, is a story of how man tries to reach God and always falls short. The ideal of ever more brightly reflecting the  Divine Image could not be attained. Even the Saints of the Old Testament could not attain full glory, because humanity was enslaved.

This is where Christ comes in. The pre-eternal, infinite, uncontainable Word of God became a human being. The eternal Divine Word acquired a human nature. That is, He acquired the set of  properties common to all human persons. In assuming humanity into Himself, He deified it. The human nature was perfectly united and brought into communion with the Logos of God and so  became completely deified at the very moment of the incarnation. Christ, the perfect Image of God (Colossians 1:15) reconstructed the Image of God in man by becoming a man Himself. Christ  grew up, sanctifying every stage of life in His own Person. When Christ announced His public ministry, this was not going to be a collection of pithy moral sayings before He got to what  really mattered, the Crucifixion. No, every miracle and act that Christ did, every word that He spoke, has immense significance in the Christian life. By subjugating himself to death, Adam  subjugated himself to Satan. Satan was the “Prince of this World” and God’s people was a small resistance movement. Most of the false gods throughout pre-Christian history have been  demonic. Many pre-Christian civilizations were under the direct control of Satan’s minions. This is a frightening truth, but if one reads the Book of Daniel, one finds references to the  demonic princes and rulers of other, specific nations. So, when Christ announced “The kingdom of God is at hand!”, this was a world-shaking truth. It was a declaration that Satan’s rule was  over, that God had come at long last to set things right. The Israelites, however, expected this to be in a carnal sense. They expected the Jewish Messiah to come and lead an army to  overthrow the Romans and establish a Jewish government in the Holy Land. The evil Roman Empire was itself only a symptom of the disease, and Our Lord understood that, so He went and fought  the source- Satan. When He cast out demons, this was a statement that God was finished with them, that they were going to be driven out. When Christ healed men from diseases, this was a  statement that the reign of corruption was coming to an end. In short, these were all means of announcing that corruption, death, demonic rule, these were finished. When Christ taught, He  was giving us the true Torah, that which the Torah of Moses was only a shadow. This Torah was one of the heart. It was how man would live in the Kingdom that Christ was ushering in. This  Torah changed the heart of man, which is why the Lord said that “the Kingdom of God is within you.” So, Christ’s ministry had two closely related functions. It was first to announce the  nearness of the Kingdom of God and it was second to describe how man would live in that Kingdom through the preaching of a Torah of the heart.

On Great and Holy Friday, Our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins. While this phrase is acknowledged by nearly all who confess the name of Christ, what this actually means is a  subject of intense debate. Most Protestants suggest that God poured His wrath upon Christ’s head so that He did not have to pour it on our heads in hell. The Scholastics suggested that  Christ, in dying a shameful death, generated an infinite store of honorable merit, which could be accessed by the Sacraments and good works. The Church, however, through its Prophets,  Apostles, and Fathers, has an altogether different doctrine. It was mentioned above that Adam had made suffering, corruption, and death a part of human experience. Christ came to reconstruct the  Divine Image through His own incarnated Person. In order to sanctify the fullness of human experience, the terrible truth was that God had to partake of death itself. He had to descend to  the lowest state of human existence. And He did. Christ suffered greatly, and died one of the most shameful deaths known to man. He partook of all our sufferings, our sorrows, our  sicknesses, and our pains. And because it was the infinite God who entered into these things, He healed all of them. This is why the Prophet Isaiah says, “By His stripes, we are healed.”  Satan, as the one who held the power of death, believed that He had won. He had taken the Messiah of God. What He did not take into account is that Christ had never subjected Himself to  Satan’s authority. Christ had never entered into Satan’s communion. But Satan took Him nonetheless. This was his greatest mistake. As Satan had no power over death, Christ broke free of it,  and released all the spirits who communed with Him into Paradise as well. Satan was disarmed. Christ said that He would “disarm the strong man”, and that He did. In the Apocalypse, Christ  says that HE “holds the keys of death and Hades.” This is a profound and glorious truth. Christ had gone down into the lowest state of human existence. He now was bringing up human  experience to the highest points of divine experience. This is the message of the resurrection! The resurrection is the ushering of humanity into the high places. It is the deification of  the body itself. The body, while before it had been a prison of corruption, sickness, and death, was now in Christ a glorious blessing. It was renewed, deified, made incorruptible.

Man, however, still has freedom of choice. God desires all men to come into the communion of His energies, His love. But true love requires freedom. If we choose not to be deified, then  that is our choice. If we desire this wonderful state of deification, how do we do it? The first thing that we must do is have faith. Faith is the foundation of the entire Christian life.  It is the particular attitude which sees God not as a distant lawgiver, but a close father, one who is merciful and good. The one who acts consistently with his faith will undoubtedly be  saved. It must be emphasized that faith does not guarantee consistently acting with that faith. One may have faith, but if one does not act consistently with it, the faith dies.  If one DOES act consistently with the faith, one chooses to be baptized. This Baptism, St. Paul says, clothes us with Christ. It clothes us with His death and resurrection. It frees one  from the subjugation of Satan, who takes every man who sins even once. This Satanic system is the system of law. When we are baptized, we are freed from it, because we become “in Christ.”  As Satan had no authority over Christ, so also He loses authority over every man who is “in Christ.” We are now in a different system, a “system” where the goal is “partaking of the divine  nature” (2 Peter 1:4), and being “conformed to the image of His Son.” (Rom 8:29) When we are anointed with the oil of God (this is known as Chrismation and is described in the Book of Acts  as “laying on of hands), we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. This “Chrismation” is really a part of the Mystery of Baptism. The Holy Spirit is our only hope. He is the one who indwells us,  who bestows grace on us, by whose power we do anything that is good. However, salvation still requires “work.” This is not the “work” that one does in a business setting, where one works a  particular number of hours and the boss gives you a particular payment. This is the principle of obligation condemned so forcefully by St. Paul in Romans 4:4. If we work like this, there is  no relationship with the boss. One simply works and receives due payment. But God owes us nothing. Salvation itself requires intimate COMMUNION with God, so if one does these works out of  view of Christ, the communion is not improved, and they will be burned up on the Last Day. This is why St. Seraphim teaches that only good works done for Christ’s sake give us the grace of  the Holy Spirit. NT Wright describes works that save in this fashion. The only works that benefit for salvation are those that are organically related to their result. So, when you make a  new friend, you might describe yourself as “working” for that friendship. But this is only in the sense that talking, hanging out, spending time with this person naturally produces a  friendship. If you went to his house, mowed his lawn, did not talk to him, this “work” woul do nothing to produce a friendship. It is the same with God. Praying, fasting (as fasting dulls  the passions), partaking of the true Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, these are the ways that we commune and relate with God. They naturally produce communion with God.

Christ, through His incarnation, death, and resurrection,  ushered the People of God (who already existed in the form of Israel) to the highest and most advanced state possible, that of being His own Body, which we call the Church. The Church is the People of God that have  partaken of the Divine Nature in Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit. The Church is “necessary for salvation” only because Christ is necessary for salvation. It is through Christ alone  that man can be saved, and the Church is Christ’s Presence in the world. This is meant this in more than a symbolic sense. The Church is a Eucharistic Community. It is the Eucharist which creates  the Church. St. Paul says, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?  Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17) The Church is Christ’s Presence to the world because of the Holy Eucharist. We become “one body in Christ” by partaking of Christ’s body in the Holy Eucharist. This is the normative condition of things under the New Covenant. Was the thief on the Cross a member of the Church? Yes, because he was united with Christ unto the remission of sins in salvation. Of course, as Christ had not risen yet, and as the Holy Spirit had not been sent yet, one cannot look at the thief on the Cross as an example of what leads to salvation normatively. Moses and Elijah were also part of the Church, because the Church is not an organization that exists in this world, it is a heavenly reality, containing ALL the People of God, made manifest and visible to this world in the form of Eucharistic Communities.While man experiences a foretaste of his eternal destiny when he dies and his body is separated from his soul, this is still an unnatural state. On the Last Day, the Lord will return to Earth to Judge all mankind. This “Judgement” is simply the placing of every person in the place where the condition of their soul requires. Christ will deify the New Creation. The grace of God will be in all and through all. For the person oriented towards God, this means they will continue on their journey of deification forever. For the person oriented away from God, the energies of God only inspire further resistance to God. Thus, the person who reposed while walking the wrong path will forever walk that path. His Divine Image will be deconstructed eternally as they become more and more evil and selfish. The state of living eternally without any love for others, and living with others who are like that- this is hell. The state of living eternally, in a deified and glorified body, in a condition of ever-increasing love and bliss, and living under the direct rule of Christ the King, with others who lovingly serve Christ the King- this is Heaven. This is not to say that we won’t have something to do on the New Earth. No, we, as the Image-Bearing representatives of God to all Creation, together with Jesus Christ, the ultimate Image of God, will forever work on our mission of deifying all Creation. This is eternal joy.

Author Unknown

By Allison Sailer Bennett

I grew up in a fundamentalist “Bible church” that loved God and had a clear desire to serve him, but I questioned why my church was so isolated from other Christians. By the time I graduated from high school I found something in the more historical faith of Reformed Presbyterianism but still wondered what exactly transpired between the first century A.D. and 1517. During my first year of college, I attended a Reformed Church on Sunday mornings and a Roman Catholic Church on Sunday evenings. My theology was still Reformed, but I longed for rich, liturgical worship saturated in Scripture. A year later, I encountered Eastern Orthodoxy and knew immediately that this was where I belonged. General dissatisfaction with evangelicalism led me to search for the historic church of liturgy and sacraments. And while Reformed Christianity sometimes has these elements, I found the fullness of them only within the Orthodox Church.

Protestantism’s narrative of church history left me dissatisfied. In particular, what happened between the first century church and the dawn of the Reformation? Evangelicals essentially told me that the Christian church fell into heresy right away and did not recover until years later when Martin Luther rescued the faith from the hands of Roman Catholicism. Reformed thinking is more generous to the early church, but still takes significant pause at what transpired between Jerusalem and Geneva.

Orthodoxy claims that the church has been here all along, unchanged, and still relevant. Orthodoxy is both “right belief” and “right worship” in the context of apostolic succession. In other words, someone has to preserve the faith (duly ordained bishops), and the right faith must be preserved (Orthodoxy). Christ promised to build his church (singular), “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

Evangelical and Reformed Christianity left me dissatisfied by their liturgy. All churches inescapably have a liturgy, but many evangelicals say that formal liturgical worship is “canned,” “dry,” or pharisaical. The Orthodox Church worships together in beauty and holiness, and I was drawn to it. Because liturgy is rooted in the Incarnation, we worship God with our whole being: body, mind, and soul. Anyone who has attended an Orthodox service can speak of the holistic worship: incense, icons, vestments, chants, and prostrations.

Finally, evangelicalism left me dissatisfied by its sacraments where there is little to no recognition of the elements as physical vehicles of grace, and Communion is celebrated more as a memorial service than as the life-giving bread and wine. Orthodoxy understands that all of life is a sacrament in Christ who fills life itself with the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy is centered on one sacrament – the Eucharist – which is the “sacrament of sacraments” and the heavenly banquet of the kingdom of God. In Holy Communion we partake of the body and blood of Christ, the Eternal Passover Lamb, who makes us alive and holy with himself. This is why we worship, and this is why I transitioned from evangelicalism into the fullness of the faith – Christian Orthodoxy.

Originally published in Modern Reformation Magazine

From a Convention of Orthodox Clergymen and Monks
Greece, April 2009

Those of us who by the Grace of God have been raised with the dogmas of piety and who follow in everything the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, believe that:

The sole path to salvation of mankind[1] is the faith in the Holy Trinity, the work and the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, and their continuance within His Body, the Holy Church. Christ is the only true Light;[2] there are no other lights to illuminate us, nor any other names that can save us: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”[3] All other beliefs, all religions that ignore and do not confess Christ “having come in the flesh,”[4] are human creations and works of the evil one,[5] which do not lead to the true knowledge of God and rebirth through divine Baptism, but instead, mislead men and lead them to perdition. As Christians who believe in the Holy Trinity, we do not have the same God as any of the religions, nor with the so-called monotheistic religions, Judaism and Mohammedanism, which do not believe in the Holy Trinity.

For two thousand years, the one Church which Christ founded and the Holy Spirit has guided has remained stable and unshakeable in the salvific Truth that was taught by Christ, delivered by the Holy Apostles and preserved by the Holy Fathers. She did not buckle under the cruel persecutions by the Judeans initially or by idolaters later, during the first three centuries. She has brought forth a host of martyrs and emerged victorious, thus proving Her divine origin. As Saint John the Chrysostom beautifully expressed it: “Nothing is stronger than the Church… if you fight against a man, you either conquer or are conquered; but if you fight against the Church, it is not possible for you to win, for God is the strongest of all.”[6]

Following the cessation of the persecutions and the triumph of the Church over Her external enemies – in other words, the Judeans and the idolaters – the internal enemies of the Church began to multiply and strengthen. A variety of heresies began to appear, which endeavored to overthrow and adulterate the faith once delivered, such that the faithful became confused, and their trust in the truth of the Gospel and traditions was debilitated. In outlining the ecclesiastical state of affairs that was created by the dominance for over 40 years – even administratively – of the heresy of Arius, Saint Basil the Great says: “The dogmas of the Fathers have been entirely disregarded, the apostolic traditions withered, the inventions of the youth are observed in the Churches; people are now “logic-chopping” not theologizing; precedence is given to the wisdom of the world, pushing aside the boasting in the Cross. Shepherds are driven out, and in their place cruel wolves are ushered in, dispersing Christ’s flock.”[7]

That which happened because of external enemies – religions – also happened because of internal ones – heresies. The Church, through Her great and enlightened Holy Fathers, demarcated and marked the boundaries [perixarakose] of the Orthodox faith with decisions by Local and Ecumenical Synods in the cases of specific, dubious teachings, but also with the agreement of all the Fathers (Consensus Patrum), on all the matters of the Faith. We stand on sure ground when we follow the Holy Fathers and do not move the boundaries that they have set. The expressions “Following after our Holy Fathers” and “Not withdrawing the boundaries that our Fathers have set” are signposts for a steady course of spiritual advance and a guardrail for [remaining within] the Orthodox faith and way of life.

Consequently, the basic positions of our Confession are the following:

1. We maintain, irremovably and without alteration, everything that the Synods and the Fathers have instituted. We accept everything that they accept and condemn everything that they condemn; and we avoid communication with those who innovate in matters of the Faith.[8] We neither add, nor remove, nor alter any teaching. Even from the apostolic era, the God-bearing Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his epistle to Saint Polycarp of Smyrna wrote: “Anyone who says contrary to what has been decreed – even if he is trustworthy, even if he fasts, even if he lives in virginity, even if he performs signs and prophesizes, let him appear to you as a wolf in a sheep’s hide, aspiring to the corruption of the sheep.” Saint John the Chrysostom, in interpreting the Apostle Paul’s words “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:9), observes that the Apostle “did not say if they should proclaim something contrary or if they should overturn everything, but that even if they should preach even the smallest thing that has not been delivered to you, even if they should simply provoke it, let them be anathema.”[9] Upon announcing its decisions against the Iconoclasts to the clergy of Constantinople, the 7th Ecumenical Synod wrote: “We have followed the tradition of the Catholic Church, neither loosening [the matters of faith] nor making any superfluous addition, but, having been taught in the apostolic manner, we maintain the traditions we have received, accepting and respecting everything that the Holy Catholic Church has received from the first years, unwritten and written… for the true and straightforward judgment of the Church does not make any allowance for innovations within Her, or for attempts to remove anything. We, therefore, by following the laws of our Fathers, having received Grace by the one Spirit, have duly safeguarded without any innovations and reductions, all the things of the Church.”[10]

Along with the Holy Fathers and the Synods, we too reject and anathematize all the heresies that appeared during the historical course of the Church. Of the old heresies that have survived to this day, we condemn Arianism (still surviving, in the pseudo-Witnesses of Jehovah) and Monophysitism – the extreme form of Eutychius and the more moderate form of Sevirus and Dioscorus – according to the decisions of the 4th Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon and the Christological teaching of the great Holy Fathers and Teachers such as Saints Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Photios the Great and the hymns of our worship.

2. We proclaim that Roman Catholicism is a womb of heresies and fallacies.[11] The teaching of the “Filioque” – that is, the procession of the Holy Spirit AND from the Son – is contrary to everything that Christ Himself taught about the Holy Spirit. The entire chorus of Fathers, both in Synods and individually, regard Roman Catholicism as a heresy because apart from the Filioque, it produced a host of other fallacies, such as the primacy and the infallibility of the Pope, the unleavened bread (host), the fires of Purgatory, the immaculate conception of the Theotokos, created Grace, the purchasing of absolution (indulgences)… it has altered nearly all of the teaching and the practice pertaining to Baptism, Chrismation, the Divine Eucharist and the other Sacraments, and has converted the Church to a secular State.[12]

Contemporary Roman Catholicism has deviated even further than the medieval Latins from the teaching of the Church, to the extent that it no longer comprises a continuance of the ancient Church of the West. It has introduced a swarm of new exaggerations in its “Mariology,” such as the teaching that the Theotokos is a parallel redeemer (co-redemptrix) of the human race. It has reinforced the “Charismatic Movement” of Pentecostal (supposedly Spirit-centered) groups. It has adopted eastern religious practices and methods of prayer and meditation. It has introduced additional innovations into Divine worship, such as dances and musical instruments. It has shortened and essentially ruined the Divine Liturgy. With respect to Ecumenism it has set down the bases for a unification of all religions (panthriskeia) with its Second Vatican Council, by recognizing “spiritual life” in the people of other religions. Dogmatic minimalism has led it to a diminishing of moral requirements, on account of the bond between dogma and morality, resulting in the moral failures of leading clergymen and an increase in moral deviations such as homosexuality and pedophilia among clergymen.[13] By continuing to support “Uniatism” – that caricature of Orthodoxy with which it victimizes and proselytizes faithful – The Vatican is sabotaging the dialogue and is contradicting its supposedly sincere intentions for union.

Generally speaking, after the Second Vatican Council there has been a radical change in Catholicism and a turn towards Protestantism, and even an adoption of various “spiritual” movements of the “New Age.”

According to Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki, the Mystagogue, “Papism” caused more damage to the Church than all the heresies and schisms combined. We Orthodox have communion with the pre-Schism Popes and we commemorate many Popes as Saints. However, the post-Schism popes have all taught heresy; they have ceased to be successors to the throne of Rome; they no longer have Apostolic succession, because they no longer have the faith of the Apostles and the Fathers. It is for this reason that, as St. Symeon states, with each such pope, “not only do we have no communion, but we also call him a heretic.” On account of their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with their teaching of the Filioque, they forfeited the presence of the Holy Spirit and therefore everything of theirs is deprived of Grace.[14] Not one of their Mysteries (Sacraments) is valid, according to Saint Simeon: “Therefore the innovators are blaspheming and are far away from the Spirit, by blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, hence everything of theirs is graceless, inasmuch as they have violated and have demoted the Grace of the Spirit… which is why the Holy Spirit is not among them, and there is nothing spiritual in them, as everything of theirs is new and altered and contrary to Divine tradition.”[15]

3. The same things apply to an even greater degree to Protestantism, which as the offspring of Papism has inherited many heresies, but has also added many more. It has rejected Tradition, accepting only Holy Scripture (Sola Scriptura), which it misinterprets; it has abolished the Priesthood as a unique Mystery (Sacrament), as well as the veneration of the Saints and of the holy Icons; it has failed to honor, or even, in some cases, slighted the person of the Most Holy Theotokos (Mother of God); it has discarded monasticism; among the Holy Mysteries, it accepts only Baptism and the Divine Eucharist, which are understood in a way that deviates sharply from the teaching and the practice of the Church; it teaches such things as absolute predestination (Calvinism) and justification through faith alone. Furthermore, its more “progressive” sector has introduced Priesthood for women and marriage between homosexuals – whom they even accept into the ranks of the clergy. But above all, it lacks a proper ecclesiology, because the Orthodox understanding of the nature of the Church does not exist among them.[16]

4. The only way that our communion with heretics can be restored is if they renounce their delusion (plani) and repent, so that there may be a true union and peace: a union with the Truth, and not with delusion and heresy. For the incorporation of heretics into the Church, canonical precision (akriveia) requires that they be accepted through Baptism.[17] Their previous “baptism,” performed outside the Church (without the triple immersion and emersion of the one being baptized in water sanctified by a particular prayer) is in no way a baptism.[18] All attempts at baptism outside the Church lack the Grace of the Holy Spirit (Who does not remain within schisms and heresies) and as such, we have nothing in common that unites us, as Basil the Great points out: “those who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on them the Grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken…they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that Grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain.”[19]

That is why the new attempt by Ecumenists to push the idea that we have a common baptism with heretics is unfounded. Indeed, upon this nonexistent baptismal unity they want to base the unity of the Church, which supposedly exists wherever a baptism may exist.[20] One enters the Church, however, and becomes Her member, not with just any baptism, but only with the “one baptism,” that uniformly performed baptism, officiated by Priests who have received the Priesthood of the Church.

5. As long as the heterodox continue to remain in their errors, we avoid communion with them, especially in common prayer. All those holy canons which address the matter of common prayer are unanimous in prohibiting not only common officiating and common prayer in the temple of God, but even ordinary prayers in private quarters. The Church’s strict stance toward the heterodox springs from true love and sincere concern for their salvation, and out of Her pastoral care that the faithful be not carried away by heresy. Whosoever loves, reveals the truth and does not leave the other in falsehood; otherwise, any love and agreement with him would only be counterfeit and false. There is such a thing as a good war and a bad peace: “…for a praiseworthy war is superior to a peace that separates one from God” says Saint Gregory the Theologian.[21] And Saint John the Chrysostom recommends: “If you should see devoutness infringed upon, do not prefer a oneness of mind to the truth, but stand fast until death… in no way betraying the truth”. And elsewhere, he recommends with emphasis: “Do not accept any false dogma on the pretext of love.”[22] This stance of the Fathers was also adopted by the great defender and confessor of the Orthodox faith against the Latins, Saint Mark of Ephesus, who concluded his own Confession of Faith in Florence with the following words: “All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils and all the divine Scriptures exhort us to avoid heretics, and to refrain from communion with them. Therefore, am I to disregard them all, and follow those who under the pretense of a manufactured peace strive for union? Those, who have counterfeited the sacred and divine Symbol of Faith (The Creed) and who introduced the Son as the second cause of the Holy Spirit? [...] May this never happen to us, benevolent Comforter (Paraclete), and may I never fall away from my own duteous thoughts, but, by following Thy teaching and the blessed men who were inspired by Thee, may I be added to my fathers, by bringing in, if nothing else, this: devoutness.”[23]

6. Up until the beginning of the 20th century, the Church has steadfastly and immutably maintained a dismissive and condemnatory stance towards all heresies, as clearly formulated in the Synodicon of Orthodoxy which is recited on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Heresies and heretics are anathematized, one by one; furthermore, in order to ensure that no heretics be left out of the anathema, there is a general anathema at the end of the text: “Let all heretics be anathematized.”

Unfortunately, this uniform, steady and unswerving stance of the Church up until the beginning of the 20th century has begun to be progressively abandoned, following the encyclical that was released by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1920, “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere,” which for the first time officially characterized heresies as “churches”[24] that are not alienated from the Church, but are familiar and related to Her. It recommended that “the love between the Churches should above all be rekindled and reinforced, and they should no more consider one another as strangers and foreigners, but as relatives, and as being a part of the household of Christ and ‘fellow heirs, members of the same body and partakers of the promise of God in Christ.”[25]

The path is now open for the adoption, the shaping and the development of the heresy of Ecumenism wthin the sphere of the Orthodox Church – this “pan-heresy,” initially of Protestant inspiration, now with Papal acceptance, which adopts and legalizes all heresies as ‘churches’ and assaults the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This new dogma regarding the Church, this new ecclesiology, is now developed, taught and imposed by Patriarchs and bishops. According to this new teaching, no Church is entitled to demand for itself exclusively the designation of the catholic and true Church. Instead, each one of them is a piece, a part, and not the entire Church; they all together comprise the Church.[26]

All the boundaries set by the Fathers have fallen; there is no longer a dividing line between heresy and Church, between truth and delusion. Heresies are also ‘churches’ now; in fact, many of them – like the Papist one- are now regarded as ‘sister churches’ to which God has entrusted, jointly with us, the care for mankind’s salvation.[27]

The Grace of the Holy Spirit now also exists within heresies, and therefore their baptisms are – like all the other mysteries – considered valid.[28] All who have been baptized into a heretical group are now considered members of Christ’s Body, the Church.

The condemnations and the anathemas of the councils are no longer valid and should be stricken from liturgical books. We are now lodged in the “World Council of Churches” and have essentially betrayed – with our membership alone[29] – our ecclesiastical self-awareness. We have removed the dogma regarding the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – the dogma of “one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.”[30]

7. This inter-Christian syncretism has now expanded into an inter-religious syncretism, which equates all the religions with the unique knowledge of and reverence for God and a Christ-like way of life – all revealed from on high by Christ. Consequently, it is not only the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in relation to the various heresies that is being attacked, but also the foundational and unique dogma of revelation and salvation of mankind through Jesus Christ in relation to the religions of the world. It is the worst delusion, the greatest heresy of all ages.

8. We believe and confess that salvation is possible in Christ alone. The religions of the world, but also the various heresies do not lead man to salvation. The Orthodox Church is not merely the true Church; She is the only Church. She alone has remained faithful to the Gospel, the Synods and the Fathers, and consequently She alone represents the true catholic Church of Christ. According to the blessed Elder Justin Popovitch, Ecumenism is a common name for the pseudo-churches of Western Europe; their common name is “pan-heresy.”[31]

This pan-heresy has been accepted by many Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, clergymen, monks and laity. They teach it, “bareheaded,” they apply it and impose it in practice, communing with heretics in every possible manner – with common prayers, with exchanges of visits, with pastoral collaborations – thus essentially placing themselves outside the Church.[32] Our stance, per the Conciliar canonical decisions and per the example of the Saints, is obvious. Each one must now assume his responsibilities.

9. There are of course collective responsibilities also, and chiefly in the ecumenistic conscience of our hierarchs and theologians, towards the Orthodox people (pleroma) and their individual flocks. To them, we declare with a fear of God and with love that this stance of theirs and their involvement in ecumenistic activities are condemnable from every aspect, because:

a) they actively impugn our Orthodox-Patristic Tradition and Faith;
b) they are sowing doubt in the hearts of their flock and unsettle many, leading to division and schism, and
c) they are luring a portion of the flock into delusion, and thus, to spiritual disaster.

We, therefore, declare that, for the aforementioned reasons, those who endeavor within this ecumenist irresponsibility, whatever rank they may hold within the Church Body, contradict the tradition of our Saints and are thus stand in opposition to them. For this reason their stance must be condemned and rejected by the entirety of the Hierarchy and Faithful.[33]

[1] See treatise by Gennadius II Scholarios, Patriarch of Constantinople: “Regarding the only way to the salvation of mankind,” to George Scholarios “The complete extant works – Oevres Completes de Georges Scholarios,” Volumes I-VII, Paris 1928-1936, publ. L. Petit – X. Siderides – M. Jugie, Vol. III, 434-452.

[2] John 8:12 “I am the light of the world – whosoever follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 3:19 “The light had come to the world and men loved the darkness rather than the light.”

[3] Acts 4:12.

[4] 1 John 4:2-3: “Every spirit that confesses Jesus had cometh in the flesh, is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus Christ had cometh in the flesh, is not from God. And this is what you have heard regarding the antichrist: that he cometh and is now already in the world.”

[5] See “Didaches” (Teachings) of St.Cosmas of Aetolia, of I. Menounos, “Cosmas of Aetolia teachings” (and biography), Tinos publications, Athens, Didache A1, 37, page 142: “All faiths are false, counterfeit, all of them the Devil’s. This I realized as being true, divine, heavenly, correct, perfect, both by my word and by your word: that the faith of the pious and Orthodox Christians is good and holy, and that we must believe and be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

[6] “Homily prior to the exile” 1, ΕΠΕ 33, 186.

[7] Epistle 90, “To the most holy brothers and bishops in the West” 2, ΕΠΕ 2, 20.

[8] This refers to those who provoke and innovate with regard to the Faith. It does not mean that Orthodox Christians should have no contact with non-Orthodox in the context of missionary outreach and witness, which would mean the cessation of all evangelism, missionary work, sharing of our Faith, etc. -Ed.

[9] Galatians. 1, 9. To Gall. Homily chapt. 1, PG 61, 624.

[10] Mansi, 13, 409-412.

[11] In our age of “political correctness” this statement may seem outrageous and unnecessarily inflammatory. It is, however, “soft” in comparison to the writings of the Holy Fathers (e.g., note the language of St. Photios the Great throughout his 10th-century treatise against the filioque clause, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit – and this was long before many other heresies were introduced). The Holy Fathers have, for centuries, viewed the Roman Catholicism as a womb of heresies, beginning with the adoption and promulgation of the filioque clause.
Consider the following statements from another Confession of Faith from modern times, the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1848: “As soon as [the filioque] was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel-commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed…. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.”
Similar language is found in the the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895: “[B]ut the present Roman Church is the Church of innovations, of the falsification of the writings of the Church Fathers, and of the misinterpretation of the Holy Scripture and of the decrees of the holy councils, for which she has reasonably and justly been disowned, and is still disowned, so far as she remains in her error…. [A]s has been said before, the Western Church, from the tenth century downwards, has privily brought into herself through the papacy various and strange and heretical doctrines and innovations, and so she has been torn away and removed far from the true and orthodox Church of Christ.” If some find the language of the “Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism” offensive, they might consider whether this is due to a lack of familiarity with the writings of the Holy Fathers, and past confessional statements of the Orthodox Church. – Ed.

[12] Again, see the Patriarchal Encyclicals of 1848 and 1895, which lay this out in great detail. – Ed.

[13] The moral laxity and decadence, even among the clergy, had already been noted at the beginning of the 15th century, by Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki (see ‘Dogmatic Epistle 16′ in D. Balfour, by Simeon of Thessaloniki (1416/17-1429) “Theological Works,” Vlatades Gleanings 34, Thessaloniki 1981, page 218: “And furthermore, that they did not regard fornication at all entailing Hell, not even among their priests, but instead, they would unscrupulously have concubines and youths for fornication and would every day officiate.” Ibid, 15, page 216: “They also do not follow an evangelical lifestyle; for, every kind of luxury and fornication to them is not a reprehensible matter, nor anything else that is forbidden for Christians.”) The moral decadence that is observed of late even among the Orthodox clergy is the result of liberalism which accompanies ecumenism and of secularism.

[14] The term “Grace” is often misunderstood today. The Patristic teaching on the subject was best expressed by our Venerable Father Diadochus the God-bearer, Bishop of Photike in Epirus. As he writes in his Hundred Texts on Spiritual Knowledge and Discernment: “Before holy baptism Grace encourages the soul towards good from the outside, while Satan lurks in its depths, trying to block all the intellect’s ways of approach to the divine. But from the moment we are reborn through Baptism, the demon is outside, Grace is within.” And, in our own days, Blessed Archbishop Seraphim of Sophia writes concerning the two forms of Grace: “According to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, the Grace of the Holy Spirit is manifest in two forms: firstly, as an external, providential Grace, which acts in and throughout the lives of everybody, enabling anyone to accept the True Faith; and, secondly, as an internal, salvific Grace, which revivifies, redeems, and functions solely in the Orthodox Church.” Here the Confession refers to the latter form of Grace. The general operation of the Holy Spirit among all men is not in question. – Ed.

[15] Dialogue 23, PG 155, 120-121. Epistle regarding blessedness 5, in D. Balfour, Simeon Archbishop of Thessaloniki (1416/17-1429), “Theological Works,” Vlatades Gleanings 34, Thessaloniki 1981, page 226. These comments of Saint Simeon should be interpreted on the basis of the Patristic teaching on Grace, as referred to in note 14 above. – Ed.

[16] Here the Confession speaks generally of Protestantism. Given that there are 26,000+ denominations, it is impossible to make a succinct statement about Protestant tenets that applies accurately to them all. The Confession is admittedly painting with a broad brush, but these are all aspects of Protestantism that apply more or less to all Protestant groups, unless otherwise specified as speaking to particular confessions (such as Calvinism). – Ed.

[17] “Canonical precision” or akriveia, is the norm, as it is most consistent with the theological principles under-girding the Canons concerning Holy Baptism. Nevertheless, the authors of the Confession would agree that, when canonical presuppositions existed, “canonical dispensation”, or oikonomia, has been employed. It is also the case, however, that, in almost every case today, those presuppositions (such as triple immersion) do not exist. – Ed.

[18] The reception of a convert into the Church by oikonomia, when indeed it is done within the canonical prescriptions and leads to the same end as akriveia, in no way can be interpreted as altering Orthodox ecclesiology. Employing oikonomia in the reception of non-Orthodox does not mean acceptance per se of non-Orthodox mysteries. The acceptance per se of non-Orthodox mysteries by some Orthodox representatives in the ecumenical movement is impossible to reconcile with Orthodox ecclesiology and is to be rejected as contrary to the Orthodox Dogma of the Church. – Ed.

[19] Canonical Epistle Ά, To Amphilochios of Iconion, 1st Canon.

[20] In the text of the 9th General Convention of the World Council of Churches in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2006, which was accepted by the representatives of the Orthodox churches and was titled “Called to be the One Chuch,” in paragraph 8 it states: “All those baptized in Christ are united in His name.” In paragraph 9: “That we all belong in common to Christ through baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, gives the churches the possibility and it invites them to walk together, even when they disagree. We assure that there is one baptism, exactly as there is one body and one Spirit, one hope in our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one God and Father to all of us (see Ephes.4:4-6).” The Metropolitan of Pergamos John (Zizioulas) in his work “Orthodox Ecclesiology and the Ecumenical Movement,” Sourozh Diocesan Magazine (England, August 1985, vol.21, page 23), had paved the way for this position, by stating: “Within baptism, even if there is a break, a division, a schism, you can still speak of the Church… The Orthodox, in my understanding at least, participate in the ecumenical movement as a movement of baptized Christians, who are in a state of division because they cannot express the same faith together. In the past this has happened because of a lack of love which is now, thank God, disappearing.”

[21] Apologetics on the flight to Pontus 82, ΕΠΕ 1, 176.

[22] To Romans, Homily 22, 2, PG 60, 611. To Philippians, Homily 2.1, PG 62, 119.

[23] Confession of faith displayed in Florence, in Documents relatifs au Concile de Florence, II, Oeuvres anticonciliaires de Marc d’Ephèse, par L. Petit, Patrologia Orientalis 17, 442.

[24] That is, “churches” in a more or less real, ecclesiological way, implying mystical union with the one, true Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church. – Ed.

[25] See I.Karmiris’, “The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church,” vol. 2, page 958.

[26] One recent example of this is found in the declaration of the 9th General Convention of the World Council of Churches in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2006, which was accepted by the representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches and was entitled “Called to be the One Chuch.” In section II, paragraph 6 of the document, which is a common declaration of Orthodox and heterodox, we read: “Each church is the Church catholic and not simply a part of it. Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it. Each church fulfils its catholicity when it is in communion with the other churches.” But, as it would be expected, this “new dogma” takes on a wide variety of expressions, from including only two churches, such as (in the “two lung” theory) Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church, or three churches, as in the classic Branch Theory of the Anglicans, or including many churches, as has been expressed in the “invisible church” ecclesiology of the World Council of Churches and the “baptismal unity” theory. That which binds these various theories together is a rejection of “ecclesiological exclusivism” and an ecumenism “of return.” A sentiment that is said often and by many, including Orthodox primates and hierarchs, is that “a Catholic will not become an Orthodox and vice versa, but we must approach the altar together” (Bishop Tichon, Diocese of Central and Western Europe of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria on his visit to the Pope, October 22nd, 2009; See http://www.zenit.org/article-27299?l=english).

[27] See joint statement by Pope John-Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew during the latter’s visit to Rome on the 29th of June, 1995. The same had been proclaimed at an earlier date by the Combined Theological Committee for the Dialogue between Orthodox and Papists, in Balamand, Lebanon in 1993.

[28] The term “valid” here means accepting heterodox baptism “per se”, in and of itself, apart from the Church, and has ecclesiological implications which the kat’oikonomia reception of the non-Orthodox can never imply.

[29] This is a question of methodology, the “essential betrayal” being an abandonment of the patristic methodology of witness, wherein the Scriptural command, “a man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject” (Tit 3:10) is followed, if not in word than in spirit. Rather, we have “lodged” ourselves in the World Council of Churches as full organic members, even committing ourselves to dialogue without presuppositions or limits. This disregard for patristic and scriptural guidelines to proper witness inevitably has lead to a betrayal of the Church’s self-understanding.

[30] Ephesians 4:5.

[31] Archimandrite Justin Popovitch, Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, Thessaloniki 1974, page 224.

[32] What is not meant here is an institutional departure from the Church by excommunication or anathema. And this is clear by the use of the terms “essentially” and “placing themselves.” Rather, what is meant is that by their actions and their words they have separated themselves in essence from the Church – from Her Fathers, Her Way and Her Life. They have essentially removed themselves from the Church by no longer following the Holy Fathers, no longer expressing the Orthodox Faith.
The passage draws on the 15th canon of the 1st -2nd Synod. The understanding behind the phrase “essentially placing themselves outside the Church” is clearly implied in the canon when it states: “For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned…” The 15th canon, although praising those who cease commemoration of their bishop, who is teaching heresy “bareheaded”, does not make ceasing commemoration a requirement. It leaves the particular coure of action – based on the canons and councils and fathers – to the discretion of each. The Confession follows suit, clearly naming the heresy and calling all to appropriate response (“Our stance, per the Conciliar canonical decisions and per the example of the Saints, is obvious.), but leaving the particulars to each one’s discretion (“Each one must now assume his responsibilities”). – Ed.

[33] As of Janurary 30, 2010 17,250 clergy, monks and laymen have signed this Confession of Faith against Ecumenism. See: http://www.impantokratoros.gr/ABF82395.el.aspx for a complete list of signers.

NOTICE:

Whosoever of the clergy, monks, nuns and the laity desires to participate in this small deposition of Orthodox confession may declare it, by writing:

“I agree with the Confession of Faith against Ecumenism, and subscribe to it”

They may send this declaration indicating their name and their ecclesiastic, monastic or professional status, to the following address:

Periodical “THEODROMIA”, P.O.Box 1602, Thessaloniki 541 24, Greece – Fax +30 2310 276590 – email address: palimpce@otenet.gr

The above Confession of Faith has been signed by the following, as a first indication.
It has been signed and will be signed by many more:

Last update: 15 OCTOBER 2009

Metropolitan Panteleimon of Antinoes
Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira and Antikythira
Metropolitan Kosmas of Etolia and Akarnania
Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus
Metropolitan Artemios of Raskas and Prizrenis, Kossovo and Metohia.
Bishop George (Schaefer) of Mayfield, Abbot of Holy Cross Monastery, Wayne, West Virginia

Archim. Christodoulos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou, Holy Mountain
Archim. Joseph, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Xeropotamou, Holy Mountain
Archim. Philotheos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Karakalou, Holy Mountain
Archim. Agathon, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Constamonitou, Holy Mountain.
Archim. Nikodemos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Filotheou, Holy Mountain

Protopr. George Metallinos, Peer Professor, School of Theology, University of Athens
Protopr. Theodoros Zisis, Peer Professor, School of Theology, University of Thessaloniki
Archim. Markos Manolis, Spiritual Head of “Pan-Hellenic Orthodox Union”
Archim. Athanasios, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Stavrovouniou, Cyprus.
Archim. Timotheos Sakkas, Abbot of the Holy Monastery Paraklhtou, Oropos
Archim. Kyrill Kehagioglou, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros Melissohoriou Langada
Archim. Sarantis Sarantos, Priest of the Dormition of the Theotokos,Amarousio, Attica.
Archim. Maximos Karavas, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint Paraskevi, Milohoriou, Ptolemaidas
Archim. Gregory Hadjinikolaou, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gatzeas Volou.
Archim. Athanasios Anastasiou, Abbot of the Hily Monastery of Great Meteorou.
Archim.Theoklitos Bolkas, Abbot of Holy Isihastirio of Saint Arsenio the Kapadocian, Halkidiki
Archim. Chrysostomos, Abbot of the Holy Community of Saint Nikodemos, Pentalofos, Goumenitcha.
Archim. Theodore Diamantis, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Theotokos, Molyskepastou, Konitsa.
Archim. Palamas Kyrillidis, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Kallipetra, Veria.
Archim. Eudokimos, Spiritual Father of the Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Archim. Chrysostomos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gerasimos the Jordanian, Jerusalem.
Archim. Laurentios Gratsias, Holy Metropolis of Florina, Prespon and Eordeas.
Archim. Meletios Vadrahanis, Holy Metropolis of Florina, Prespon and Eordeas.
Archim. Paul Demetracopoulos, Holy Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Lord, Moutsialis, Veria.
Archim. Ignatios Kalaitzopoulos, Holy Monastery of Saint Paraskevi, Melohoriou, Ptolemaidas.
Archim. Symeon Georgiadis, Holy Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gatzeas, Volos
Archim. Augustine Siarras, Holy Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gatzeas, Volos
Archim. Ambrosios Gionis, Holy Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gatzeas, Volos
Archim. Benedict, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Holy Archangels, Prizreni, with following.
Archim. Gerasimos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint George, Jourgevi Stoupovi, with following.
Archim. Nicholaos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Holy Archangels, Mavropotami, with following.
Archim. Romylos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Entry of the Theotokos, Doumboki Potok, with following.
Archim. Symeon, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Baniska, with following.
Archim. Stephanos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Saints Anargyron Zotsitse, with following.
Archim. Ioannikios Kotsonis, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Lord, Sohos, Thessaloniki
Archim. Paul Danas, Hieropreacher of the Holy Monastery of Etolias and Akarnanias.
Archim. Constantine Paleologopoulos, retired priest of the Holy Monastery of Kalavriton and Egalias Egio.
Archim. Paisios Papadopoulos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory Palamas, Filota, Metropolis of Florina.
Archim. Epiphanios Hadjigiagou, Head Metropolitan of the Church of Florina, Florina.
Archim. Athanasios Siamakis, Hieropreacher of the Holy Monastery of Florina
Archim. Anargyros Afthonidis, Military Priest, Florina
Archim. Augustine Andritsopoulos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Myrtias of the Holy Monastery of Etolia and Akarnania.
Archim. Theodosis Kyprianou, Holy Monastery of Saint Filotheou, Skete Saint George, Karyes, Holy Mountain.
Archim. Ignatios Kalaitzopoulos, Holy Monastery of Saint Paraskevi, Milohoriou, Ptolemaidas.
Archim. Ierotheos Skiadas, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Dormition of the Theotokos, Vlohou, Agriniou.
Archim. Ioasaph Makris, Holy Monastery of Meteora.
Archim.Kosmas Paleogiannis, Cell of Saint John the Theologian of the Holy Monastery of Dohiariou, Holy Mountain.
Archim. Sevastianos Amantidis, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint Paraskevis Vasiliados, Kastoria.
Archim.Christos Kyriazopoulos, past Educational Adviser, Thessaloniki
Archim. Nektarios Ziombolas, Military Priest
Archim. Joseph Aivazoglou, Holy Church of the Theotokos Ahiropiitou (not made by hand) Thessaloniki.
Elder Gregory, HieromonkHoly IsyhastirionDanieleon, Katounakia, Holy Mountain.
Elder Efstratios, Hiermonk, Holy Monastery of Great Lavvra, Holy Mountain.
Elder Fillipos, Hieromonk, Kalyvi of Great Athanasiou, Mikra Agia Anna, Holy Mountain.
Hieromonk Athanasios, Holy Isyhastirion Danieleon, Katounakia, Holy Mountain.
Hieromonk Nikodemos, Holy Isyhastirion Danieleon, Katounakia, Holy Mountain.
Hieromonk Nephon, Holy Isyhastirion Danieleon, Katounakia, Holy Mountain.
Hieromonk Chrysostom Kartsonas, Kalyvi of Saint George, Holy Skete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain.
Hieromonk Onoufrios, Kalyvi of the Holy Forerunner, Holy Skete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain.
Hieromonk Chrysanthos, Kalyvi of the Holy Forerunner, Holy Skete of Saint Anna , Holy Mountain.
Hieromonk Azarias, Kalyvi of the Holy Forerunner, Holy Skete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain.
Hieromonk Gabriel, Holy Cell of the Theotokos Gorgoepikoou, Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros, Holy Mountain.
Hieromonk Panteleimon, Holy Cell of Saint Panteleimon, Holy Monastery of Saint Pantokratoros, Holy Mountain.
Hieromonk Basil, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saints Anargyron, Vratsevo, with following.
Hieromonk Efthimios, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Holy Forerunner, Sotsanitsa, with following.
Hieromonk Theoktistos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Sopotsani, with following.
Hieromonk Tychon, Holy Isyhastirion of Pantokratoros, Melissohorion
Hieromonk Chariton, Hily Cell of Ascension, Karyes, Holy Mountain.
Hieromonk Nestor.
Hieromonk Augustine, Holy Monastery of All Saints and Saint Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Hieromonk Modestos Diasakis, Holy Monastery of Saint Paraskevi, Kastoria.
Hieromonk Raphael Kyriakou, Holy Monastery of Saint Raphael-Marina, Larnaka, Cyprus.
Hieromonk Photios Georgiou, Holy Monastery of Kastorias.

Protopr. Lambros Photopoulos, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Kosma Etolos, Amarousio, Attica.
Protopr. John Photopoulos, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Paraskevi, Attica.
Protopr. Athanasios Minas, Loutraki Korinthias.
Protopr. Eleftherios Palamas, Saints Christophori (God-bearers) Ptolemaid.
Protopr. Constantine Mygdalis, In Charge of the Holy Church of Saint Constantine, Volos.
Protopr. Photios Vezynias, Teacher, Holy Metropolis of Langada.
Protopr. Anthony Bousdekis, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint Nicholas of Nicea.
Protopr. Demetrios Vasiliadis, Holy Metropolis of Maronia and Komotini
Protopr. Vasilios E. Voloudakis, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Nicholas Pefkakion, Athens.
Protopr. Vasilios Gogidis, Officiating priest, Holy Metropolitan Church of Saint Nicholas, Megapoleos.
Protopr. Nicholas Zaharopoulos, Officiating priest of the Holy Church of Saint Fanourios, Drapetsonas.
Protopr. Haralambos Lalaitis, Officiating priest, Holy Church of the Theotokos Myrtidiotissis, Piraeus.
Protopr. Chariton Pappas, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Demetrios, Piraeus.
Protopr. Panagiotis Sahtouris, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Nilus, Pireaus.
Protopr. Constantinos Tzafestas, Officiating priest, Holy Metropolitan Church of Kerkyra, Theologian, retired Professor M.E., Kerkyra.
Protopr. Christos Christodoulos, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Constantine and Helen, Piraeus.
Protopr. Radoslav Jankovic, Secretary of the Holy Metropolis of Raskas and Prizrenis and Kossovo and Metohia.
Protopr. Dimitrios Vasiliadis, Komotini.
Protopr. Anastasios Semertzidis, Hierarchal Commissioner of the Kastoria eparchy.
Protopr. George Kougioumtzoglou, Thessaloniki.
Protopr. Constantinos Andreopoulos, Holy Monastery Florinis.
Protopr. Vasilios Christidis, Holy Monastery Attikis.
Protopr. Haralambos Nalpadidis, Holy Monastery Florinis.
Protopr. Photios Bithas, Holy Monastery of Saint Spyridon, Great Yarmouth, England.
Priest Dionysios tatsis, Educator, Konitsa.
Priest Demetrios Sarris, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Pammegiston Taksiarhon, Sesklou, Esonias.
Priest Efthimios Antoniadis, Holy Metropolis of Larisa.
Priest Anastasios Gotsopoulos, Officiating priest of the Holy Church of Saint Nicholas, Patra.
Priest George Papageorgiou, Holy Metropolis Demetriados.
Priest Peter Hirs, Petrokerasa, Halkidiki.
Priest Theophanis Manouras, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Athanasiou Valestinou, Magnesias.
Priest Pashalis Ginoudis, Holy Metropolis of Larisa.
Priest George Diamantopoulos, Lavrio, Holy Metropolis Mesogeas.
Priest Vasilios Kokolakis, Officiating priest, Holy Church of the Holy Cross, Holargos.
Priest Peter Pantazis, Officiating priest, Holy Church of the Transfiguration, Halandriou.
Priest Anthony Valvis, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Nilus, Piraeus.
Priest John Vernikos, Holy Church of the Annunciation of the Theotokos, Montgomery, Alabama.
Priest Nicholas Gavalles, Holy Church of the Holy Apostles, Psalidiou, Amarousio.
Priest Iraklis Drivas, Officiating Priest, Holy Church of the Theotokos Myrtidiotissa, Piraeus.
Priest Demetrios Kalabounias, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Nilus, Piraeus.
Priest Demetrios Lambrou, clergy, Holy Monastery Prevezis, Aneza-Artas.
Priest Basilios Mouzelis, Officiating priest, Chapel of Saints Anargyron, Hospital of Halkidos.
Priest Panagiotis Balis, Officiating priest, Holy Church of the Entry of the Theotokos, Imerovigliou, Thera.
Priest Christopher Chronis, Holy Monastery Etolias and Akarnanias.
Priest Sotirios Manolopoulos, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Basil Vrahneika, Holy Monastery of Patra.
Priest George Vasilakis, Lyon, France.
Priest Theoharis Megas, Hieroteacher, Director of Plystylou, Kavalas.
Priest Daniel de Oliveira Pinheiro, Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Brazil.
Priest Demetrios Sykopoulos, Holy Monastery Kastorias.
Priest Triantafyllos Xeros, Thessaloniki.
Presvytera Maria Tsiplakaki, Vathilakkos, Kozani.
Stewart Demetrios Papagiannis, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Fanourios, Drapetsonas.
Stewart John Psarras, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint George Mesoropis, Holy Monastery Eleftheroupoleos.
Stewart John Kyprianou, Officiating priest, Holy Church of Saint Nicholas, Egomi-Lefkosia, Cyprus.
Priest Miltiadis Karagiannis, Kefalohori Imathias.

Hierodeacon Theologos Kostopoulos, Holy Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gazeas Volou.
Hierodeacon Antonios, Holy Isyhastirion Pantokratoros, Melissohoriou.
Hierodeacon George Theodoridis, Holy Metropolis of Lerou, Kalymnou and Astypaleas.
Hierodeacon Iraklidios Kleanthous, Holy Metropolis Tamasou, Cyprus.

Elder Theoliptos Monk, Hut of the Holy Forerunner, Holy Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain.
Elder Gabriel Monk, Cell of Saint Christodoulou, Karyes, Holy Mountain.
Elder Ilarion Monk, near Arsana Constamonitou, Holy Mountain.
Elder Daniel Monk, Holy Isyhastirion Danieleon, Katanoukia, Holy Mountain.
Elder Akakios Monk, Holy Isyhastirion Danieleon, Katanoukia, Holy Mountain.
Elder Stefanos Monk, Holy Isyhastirion Danieleon, Katanoukia, Holy Mountain.
Elder Paul Monk, Holy Cell of the Holy Apostles, SceteXenofontos, Holy Mountain.
Elder Onoufrios Monk, Holy Cell of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Holy Monastery Pantokratoros,Holy Mountain.
Elder Nektarios Monk, Holy Cell of the Lifebearing Spring, Holy Monastery Koutloumousiou, Holy Mountain.
Elder Isaak Monk, Holy Cell of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Holy Monastery Stavronikita, Holy Mountain.
Elder Moses Monk, Holy Cell of Saint John Chrysostom, Scete of Saint Panteleimon, Holy Monastery Koutloumousiou, Holy Mountain.
Elder Heruvim Monk, New Scete, Holy Mountain.
Monk Arsenios Vliakoftis, Holy Isyhastirion of Saint Arsenios of Kappadocia, Halkidiki.
Monk George, Holy Cell of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros, Holy Mountain.
Monk Christopher, Holy Cell of the Apostles, Scete Xenofontos, Holy Mountain.
Monk Maximos, Holy Isyhastirion Danieleon, Katanoukia, Holy Mountain.
Monk Dositheos, Kathisma Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou, Holy Mountain.
Monk Spyridon, Cell of Saint Nicholas, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou, Holy Mountain.
Monk Damaskinos Agiorite, Holy Cell of the Holy Forerunner, Holy Monastery of Karakallou.
Monk Savvas Lavriotis, Holy Monastery of Great Lavra, Holy Mountain.
Monk Theophilos Agiorite, Holy Cell Sanbri, Holy Mountain.
Monk Paisios, Holy Cell of the Holy Archangels “Savveon”, Holy Mountain.
Monk Herouvim, Holy Cell of the Holy Archangels, Saint John Koukouzeli, Holy Mountain.
Monk Nikodemos, Holy Cell of Saint Nektarios, Kapsala, Holy Mountain.
Monk Disitheos, Holy Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Lord, Sohos, Langada.
Monk Chariton, Hut of the Holy Forerunner, Holy Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain.
Monk Nikodemos, Hut of the Holy Forerunner, Holy Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain.
Monk Averkios, Hut of the Holy Forerunner, Holy Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain.
Monk Prodromos, Hut of the Holy Forerunner, Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain.
Monk Arsenios, Holy Hut of Saint Gerasimos, Scete of Saint Panteleimon, Holy Monastery Koutloumousiou, Holy Mountain.
Monk Arsenios, Holy Isyhastirion Pantokratoros, Melissohoriou.
Monk Demetrios, Holy Isyhastirion Pantokratoros, Melissohoriou.
Monk Dionysios, Holy Isyhastiorion Pantokratoros, Melissohoriou.
Monk Efstratios, Holy Isyhastirion Pantokratoros, Melissohoriou.
Monk Ignatios, Holy Isyhastirion Pantokratoros, Melissohoriou.
Monk Mardarios, Jerusalem.
Monk Michael, Holy Isyhastirion Pantokratoros, Melissohoriou.
Monk Nektarios, Holy Isyhastirion Pantokratoros, Melissohoriou.
Monk Nicodemos Bilalis, Cell of the Visitation (Ypapanti) – Kapsala, Holy Mountain.
Monk Pahomios, Holy Isyhastirion Pantokratoros, Melissohoriou.
Monk Raphael, Holy Isyhastirion Pantokratoros, Melissohoriou.
Monk Arkadios Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Monk Arsenios Kotzias, Holy Monastery of Saint Paraskevi, Kastoria.
Monk George, New Scete, Holy Mountain.
Monk Efraim Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Monk Zosimas Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Monk Ioannikos Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Monk Iosaph Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Monk Kallinikos Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Monk Lazaros Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem
Monk Merkourios Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Monk Paisios Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Monk Raphael Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Monk Savvas Mousdikas, Holy Monastery of Saint Paraskevi, Kastoria.
Monk Seraphim Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.
Monk Philotheos Tzimoropoulos, Holy Monastery of Saint Paraskevi, Kastoria.
Monk Herouvim Sabbaite, Holy Lavra of Saint Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem.

Nun Agathi Antoniou, Abbess, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Mariam, Abbess, Holy Monastery of Saint Laurentios, Pilio.
Nun Christonymphi, Holy Monastery of Saint Laurentios, Pilio.
Nun Laurentia, Holy Monastery of Saint Laurentios, Pilio.
Nun Agathinoi Antoniou, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Agathodouli Hondrou, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Agathokliti Athanatou, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Alexia Peppa, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Vessaria Laskou, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Eufimia Dionysopoulou, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Thekla Barka, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Theodosia Bouba, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Theoktisti Paila, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Theologia Papadaki, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Theoproti Tzitzira, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Theotekni Mitsikosta, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Theophania Kyriazopoulou, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Justina Demetriou, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Magdalen Papadam, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Makrina Pappa, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Mariam Kalogianni, Holy Shrine of the Transfiguration of the Lord, Holy Metropolis of Ierissou and of the Holy Mountain.
Nun Marina Famisi, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Markella Gaki, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Nektaria Bali, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Nikodimi Siahouli, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Kseni Karamihou, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Prodromi Kapeti, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Sarra, Abbess, Holy Monastery of Saint Nicholas, Kontsoul, with following.
Nun Silouani Phillips, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Stephania Tesia, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Synglitiki Rekata, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Fevronia Dalla, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Philothei Bali, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Haralambia Mastoraki, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Christoniphi Bandeka, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Chrysostomi Polyzou, Holy Monastery of Saint Stephen, Holy Meteora.
Nun Melani, Thessaloniki.
Nun Christodouli, Thessaloniki.

Archimandrite Philemon Castro, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines
Ieromonah Ioan Buliga, Manastirea Jacul Romanesc
Ieromonah Leontios, Slobozia, Romania
Hieromonk Mark, Economos
Hieromonk Nicolas (Vera) Parish Priest of the Parish of Saint Andrew and Saint Nicolas SerbianPatriarchate,
Jeromonah Naum Mirkovic, Proiguman Manastira Crna Reka Serbija
Hieromonk Nicolás (Vera), Parish Priest of the Parish of Saint Andrew and Saint Nicolás, Alicante (Spain), Serbian Patriarchate
Jeromonah Irinej Ristic, iguman manastira Bogorodia Brainska, eparhija rasko prizrenska i kosovsko-metohijska
Jeromonach Varnava Dimitrijevic, manastir Crna Reka, eparhija rasko prizrenskai kosovsko-metohijska

P. Protopresbitero Jorge (Georgios) Faraj, Sacerdote Ortodoxo del patriarcado de Antioquia en Honduras, Centro America
Protopresbyter Roman Cheb, Russia Siberia, sity Prokopyevsk, Paris Priest, Sacred Temple of Saint Nicholas
Pr. Constantin Diboș
Presbyter Sasha Petrovich, parish priest os St. Nicholas Serbian Orthodox Church, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
Priest Koniukhov Dimitry
Priest Toderita Rusu, the Ascenssion of Lord, Bucharest Romania
Fr. Photios, Spiritual Director, St. James the Just True Orthodox Center website, Russian True Orthodox Church.
Pr. Paroh Mihai Solomon, Parohia Sf. Ilie, Girona, Spania
Protodeacon Basil Alexandrovich Yakimov, Russian Orthodox Church
Diacono Ignacio Miranda, Catedral Ortodoxa Antioquena de San Pedro Sula, Honduras, Centro America
monah Hariton Vlajic, manastir Plocnik, eparhija rasko prizrenska i kosovskometohijska

Monahia Eufimia, Mănăstirea Sfinţii Arhangheli, Slobozia, România

Subdeacon Jorge Luiz Slobodaniuk, Ukrainian Orthodox church in Brazil (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople)

Last update: 15 OCTOBER 2009

This list will be regularly updated with added names.
Readers can see the constantly updated list of signatures in Greek, here:

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/ABF82395.el.aspx”

I’ll tell you what I want, what I really really want: for beauty to regain its former glory and for women to not feel the pressure to rate themselves and each other based on sexual desirability.  I know, it’s a goal which is highly idealistic, but I believe women can snap out of it and start to see themselves as valuable individuals, who do not need the type of validation that comes from drawing the admiring eye of another.

Today there is hardly any limit to how revealingly a woman may dress.  Just the other day I saw a teenage girl walking down the street wearing lycra shorts that were essentially the dimensions of underwear, paired with a midriff-showing tank top.  It was one step up from simply walking down the street in her undies.  Most of the shorts worn by teenage girls in recent years only just cover their bottoms and the skirts are only slightly longer. Jeans are skin tight, as are shirts.  Very little is left to the imagination.

And since I lived in Canada rather than Beverly Hills, I also wore an oversized sweater with that ensemble for most months of the year.

The question of the appropriateness of long hair and beards is frequently put to traditional Orthodox clergy. A comprehensive article appeared in Orthodox Life concerning clergy dress in the J./F. 1991 issue. At this time we would like to address the topic of clergy appearance, i.e. hair and beards.

Anyone looking at photographs and portraits of clergy in Greece, Russia, Rumania, and other Orthodox countries taken in the early twentieth century will notice that almost without exception both the monastic and married clergy, priests and deacons, wore untrimmed beards and hair. Only after the First World War do we observe a new, modern look, cropped hair and beardless clergy. This fashion has been continued among some of the clergy to our own day. If one were to investigate this phenomenon in terms of a single clergyman whose life spanned the greater part of our century one would probably notice his style modernize from the first photographs up through the last.

There are two reasons given as an explanation for this change: it is said, “One must conform with fashion, we cannot look like peasants!” Or even more absurd, “My wife will not allow it!”. Such reasoning is the “dogmatic” line of modernists who either desire to imitate contemporary fashion (if beards are “in,” they wear beards, if beards are “out,” they shave), or are ecumenically minded, not wanting to offend clergy in denominations outside the Orthodox Church. The other reason is based on a passage of Holy Scripture where Saint Paul states, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) In answer to the first justification, Orthodox tradition directly condemns Modernism and Ecumenism. It is necessary however to deal in more detail with the argument that bases its premise on Holy Scripture.

Orthodox Christian piety begins in the Holy Tradition of the Old Testament. Our relationship to the Lord God, holiness, worship, and morality was formed in the ancient times of the Bible. At the time of the foundation of the priesthood the Lord gave the following commandments to the priests during periods of mourning, And ye shall not shave your head for the dead [a pagan practice] with a baldness on the top; and they shall not shave their beard… (Lev. 21:5), and to all men in general, Ye shall not make a round cutting of the hair of your head, nor disfigure your beard (Lev. 19:27). The significance of these commandments is to illustrate that the clergy are to devote themselves completely to serving the Lord. Laymen as well are called to a similar service though without the priestly functions. This out ward appearance as a commandment was repeated in the law given to the Nazarene, a razor shall not come upon his head, until the days be fulfilled which he vowed to the Lord: he shall be holy, cherishing the long hair of the head all the days of his vow to the Lord… (Numbers 6:5-6).

The significance of the Nazarene vow was a sign of God’s power resting on the person who made it. To cut off the hair meant to cut off God’s power as in the example of Samson (see Judges 16:17-19). The strength of these pious observances, transmitted to the New Testament Church, were observed without question till our present times of willfulness and the apostasy resulting from it. Why, one might ask, do those Orthodox clergymen, while rejecting the above pious ordinances about hair, continue to observe the custom of granting various head coverings to clergy, a practice which also has its roots in the ancient ordinances of the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 24:4-6) and the tradition of the early Church (see Fusebius and Epiphanius of Cyprus concerning the miters worn by the Apostles John and James)?

The Apostle Paul himself wore his hair long as we can conclude from the following passage where it is mentioned that “head bands,” [Webmaster note: he then cites the Slavonic word using a special font. Consult the original article if needed.], and “towels” touched to his body were placed on the sick to heal them. The “head bands” indicate the length of his hair (in accor dance with pious custom) which had to be tied back in order to keep it in place (cf. Acts 19:12). The historian Egezit writes that the Apostle James, the head of the church in Jerusalem, never cut his hair (Christian Reading, Feb. 1898, p.142, [in Russian]).

If the pious practice among clergy and laity in the Christian community was to follow the example of the Old Testament, how then are we to understand the words of Saint Paul to the Corinthians cited earlier (I Cor. 11:14)? Saint Paul in the cited passage is addressing men and woman who are praying (cf. I Cor. 11:3-4). His words in the above passages, as well as in other passages concerning head coverings (cf. I Cor. 11: 4-7), are directed to laymen, not clergy. In other passages Saint Paul makes an obvious distinction between the clerical and lay rank (cf. I Cor. 4:1, I Tim. 4:6, Col. 1:7, and others). He did not oppose the Old Testament ordinance in regard to hair and beards since, as we have noted above, he himself observed it, as did Our Lord Himself, Who is depicted on all occasions with long hair and beard as the Great High Priest of the new Christian priest hood.

In our passage noted previously, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) Saint Paul uses the Greek word for “hair.” This particular word for hair designates hair as an a ornament (the notion of length being only secondary and suggested), differing from [Gr.] thrix (the anatomical or physical term for hair). [1] Saint Paul’s selection of words emphasizes his criticism of laymen wearing their hair in a stylized fashion, which was contrary to pious Jewish and Christian love of modesty. We note the same approach to hair as that of Saint Paul in the 96th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council where it states: “Those therefore who adorn and arrange their hair to the detri ment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls.” [2]

In another source, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, we read the follow ing concerning the Old Testament practice: “To an extent, hair style was a matter of fashion, at least among the upper classes, who were particularly open to foreign [pagan] influence. Nevertheless, long hair appears to have been the rule among the Hebrews (cf. Ezek. 8:3), both men and women” [3] (cf. Cant 4:1; 7:5). Thus we observe that cropped or stylized hair was the fashion among the pagans and not acceptable, especially among the Christian clergy from most ancient times up to our contemporary break with Holy Tradition. It is interesting to note that the fashion of cropped or stylized hair and shaved beards found its way into the Roman Catholic and Protestant worlds. So important had this pagan custom be come for Roman clergy by the 11th Century that it was listed among the reasons for the Anathema pronounced by Cardinal Humbert on July 15, 1054 against Patriarch Michael in Constantinople which precipitated the Western Church’s final falling away from the Orthodox Church: “While wearing beards and long hair you [Eastern Orthodox] reject the bond of brotherhood with the Roman clergy, since they shave and cut their hair.” [!] [4]

Igumen Luke

From Orthodox Life, Vol. 45, No. 5 (Sept-Oct 1995), pp. 41-43.

Uncut Hair and Beards of the Clergy

You often state that clergy must not cut their hair and beards. There are church canons to support this and certainly it is part of church tradition. But you also know that St. Paul says that men should not have long hair and that certain church canons even allow for a monk with hair that is too long to cut it, as well as to cut his hair when he is away from the monastery. I would like your guidance on this apparent contradiction in tradition. (Fr. J.K., MA)

Your comments are intelligently stated and do not, as is often the case, seek to dispense with a difficult discipline—the uncut hair and beard of Orthodox clergy—by posing false contradictions in practice. The tradition of maintaining uncut hair and beard among the monastic and married clergy no doubt traces back to the ascetics of the desert. Just as monastic practice has influenced parish worship, so monastic dress and grooming have played an observable role in establishing the standard for clerical dress among married Priests. Except among “Westernized” Orthodox, with their anti-monastic bias, this influence by the barometer of spiritual life, the monastic estate, on the so-called “secular” clergy has always been thought positive.

Since an ascetic monastic foregoes the cutting of his hair and beard in order to avoid vanity, this custom has a practical purpose. Thus, it is obvious that a monastic would also avoid looking effeminate or styling his hair. It is for this reason that, if his hair gets too long, such that it resembles that of a woman, a monastic may ask his superior to cut it. When he goes out into the world, too, he should, in such circumstances, trim his hair and keep it tied up in back, as is the custom in the Greek and some Slavic Churches. This is in keeping with the spirit of St. Paul’s admonition against men having long hair like that of women, when this admonition is read in context.

What we must understand, here, is that the cutting of hair in all of these instances means nothing more than trimming off hair that falls below the middle of the back. We are not talking about the modern haircut, which is, in fact, the equivalent of the desecration of the head that led to Samson’s loss of strength and power. Clergymen are, therefore, unjustified in cutting their hair in the modern style, which is almost unknown in Christian history, until recent centuries. With regard to shaving, the Old Testament, the Church Fathers, and the Canons forbid a clergyman to cut his beard. One of the observations made by the Orthodox against the Popes during the union councils (and repeated by a number of Orthodox Fathers in modern times) was that, as they began to deviate from the Apostolic Faith, they also, oddly enough, began to shave off their beards. Moreover, not only should clergymen not shave, according to various Church authorities, but many holy men, such as St. Kosmas Aitolos, hold that laymen should let their beards, or least a moustache, grow naturally.

All of this does not, of course, mean that an Orthodox clergyman should not be clean and well groomed. The Canons allow for the trimming of the moustache (primarily for the purpose of insuring care in taking Holy Communion), and certainly by economy a Priest can trim his beard slightly, if he has to hold a secular job. Long hair should also be tied up in back or tucked under the collar, for which reason it rarely presents a problem for a working Priest who truly wishes to abide by canonical exactitude. (And by Priest, here, we mean, of course, both the Presbyter and the Deacon.) Nor would we argue that a beard and uncut hair are the sure signs of a good Priest. They are, as Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna always tells us, no more or less important to a Priest than “feathers are to a bird.”

Finally, in anticipation of those who oppose the canonical disciplines placed on Orthodox clergy, let us acknowledge that some monks, in the history of the Church, maintained a tonsure which involved cutting hair from the top of the head. This was one of many customs which did not last, and is not an argument against the living tradition of the Church as it has survived today, which assigns to monastics and “secular” clergy alike the discipline of leaving the hair and beard uncut, This discipline, combined with adherence to the canonical dress of the clergy (in Church, on the street, and at home), is a powerful deterrent against improper behavior on the part of Priests, who should be moral exemplars for the people, and provides a vivid witness of the peculiar nature to the people of God, the Christians.

St. Tikhon and Clerical Appearance

When Patriarch St. Tikhon was Bishop in America early this century, he ordered his clergy to shave and wear Western clerical dress. What does this say of your “traditional” dress? (J.K., NJ)

We have seen only one directive attributed to St. Tikhon on this subject, and it by no means “orders” clergy in America under his jurisdiction to abandon traditional Orthodox dress and grooming. It is also well known that the late Father Georges Florovsky disputed the authenticity of this directive. Whatever the case, St. Tikhon did openly speak of a distinction between the “essentials” and “accidentals” of the Faith, allowing for a number of innovations, including some in clerical appearance. A distinction of the kind made by the Saint is atypical in Orthodoxy, wherein “externals” (matters of apparent accident) are thought to reflect and to be inseparable from an “internal” (or essential) reality. St. Tikhon of course embraced this principle, and his deviation from it merely entailed practical accommodations necessitated by difficulties facing the early Orthodox immigration to America. It is both dishonest and an insult to the Saint’s memory that his use of justifiable oikonomia in what was then a relatively new mission is now invoked as a standard of Orthodox practice in a local Church that is more than two centuries old.

From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XII, No. 3, pp. 19-21.

St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite’s Comments on Canon 96 of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod

Those too incur the excommunication of this Canon, according to Zonaras, who do not put a razor to their head at all, nor cut the hair of their head, but let it grow long enough to reach to the belt like that of women, and those who bleach their hair so as to make it blond or golden, or who twist it up and tie it on spills in order to make it curly; or who put wigs or “rats” on their head. This excommunication is incurred also by those who shave off their beard in order to make their face smooth and handsome after such treatment, and not to have it curly, or in order to appear at all times like beardless young men; and those who singe the hair of their beard with a red-hot tile so as to remove any that is longer than the rest, or more crooked; or who use tweezers to pluck out the superfluous hairs on their face, in order to become tender and appear handsome; or who dye their beard, in order not to appear to be old men. This same excommunication is incurred also by those women who use rouge and paint on their face, in order to look pretty, and in this way to attract men beholding them to their Satanic love. Oh, and how the miserable women have the hardihood to dishonor the image which God gave them with their wicked beautifications! Ah! how is God to recognize them and tell whether they are His own creatures and images, at a time when they are wearing another face which is devilish, and another image, which is that of Satan? Hence it is that St. Gregory the Theologian says the following in his epic verses:

“Build yourselves not towers of spurious tresses on your head, women,
While petting soft necks of rocks invisible;
Nor apply shameful paint to forms of God’s,
So as to be wearing masks, and not faces.
Lest God requite you for such things when He has come to resent them.
Who? Whence is the Creator? Avaunt, get thee away from me, strange female!
I did not paint thee a bitch, but created an image of myself.
How is it that I have an idol, a specter instead of a friend?”

And the poor wretches do not know that by what they are doing they are managing only to make themselves like that hag and whore called Jezebel (II Kings 9:30), and are themselves becoming new and second Jezebels, because she too used to paint her face in order to please the eyes of men, just as is written: “And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of him; and she painted her face, and attired her head, and peeped through the window” (ibid.). So all men and all women who do such things are all excommunicated by the present Ecumenical Council. And is these things are forbidden to be done by the laity in general, how much more they are forbidden to clerics and those in holy orders, who ought by their speech and by their conduct, and by the outward decency and plainness of their garments, and of their hair, and of their beard, to teach the laity not to be body-lovers and exquisites, but soul-lovers and virtue- lovers. Note that the present Canon censures the priests of the Latins who shave off their moustache and their beard and who look like very young men and handsome bridegrooms and have the face of women. For God forbids men of the laity in general to shave their beard, by saying: “Ye shall not mar the appearance of your bearded chin” (Lev. 19:27). But He specially forbids those in holy orders to shave their beard, by saying to Moses to tell the sons of Aaron, or, in other words, the priests, not to shave the skin of their bearded chin (Lev. 21:5). Not only did He forbid this in words, but He even appeared to Daniel with whiskers and beard as the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:9); and the Son of God wore a beard while he was alive in the flesh. And our Forefathers and Patriarchs and Prophets and Apostles all wore beards, as is plainly evident from the most ancient pictures of them wherein they are painted with beards. But, more to the point, even the saints in Italy, like St. Ambrose, the father of monks Benedict, Gregory Dialogus, and the rest, all had beards, as they appear in their pictures painted in the church of St. Mark in Venice. Why, even the judgment of right reason decides the shaving of the beard to be improper. For the beard is the difference which in respect of appearance distinguishes a woman from a man. That is why a certain philosopher when asked why he grew a beard and whiskers, replied that as often as he stroked his beard and whiskers he felt that he was a man, and not a woman. Those men who shave their beard are not possessors of a manly face, but of a womanly face. Hence it was that Epiphanius blamed the Massalians for cutting off their beard, which is the visage peculiar to man as distinguished from woman. The Apostles in their Injunctions, Book I, ch.3, command that no one shall destroy the hair of his beard, and change the natural visage of the man into one that is unnatural. “For,” says he, “God the Creator made this to be becoming to women, but deemed it to be out of harmony with men.” The innovation of shaving the beard ensued in the Roman Church a little before Leo IX, Gregory VII even resorted to force in order to make bishops and clerics shave off their beard. Oh, and what a most ugly and most disgusting sight it is to see the successor of St. Peter close-shaven, as the Greeks say, like a “fine bridegroom,” with this difference, however, that he wears a stole and a pallium, and sits in the chief seat among a large number of other men like him in a council called the college of cardinals, while he himself is styled the Pope. Yet bearded Popes did not become extinct after insane Gregory, a witness to this fact being Pope Gelasius growing a beard, as is stated in his biography. See the Dodecabiblus of Dositheus, pp. 776-8. Meletius the Confessor (subject 7, concerning unleavened wafers) states that a certain Pope by the name of Peter on account of his lascivious acts was arrested by the king and one half of his beard was shaven off as ‘a mark of dishonor. According to another authority, in other temples too there were princes, even on the sacerdotal list, who had a beard, as in Leipzig they are to be seen painted after Martin Luther in the church called St. Paul’s and that called St, Thomas’s. I saw the same things also in Bardislabia.

And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (Rom. 12:2)

Some time ago I accepted a parish that had many third- and fourth-generation émigrés: Just as had their fathers and grandfathers, these parishioners devoted a good deal of energy and money to the growth of their church, building an impressive modern-style edifice in a prosperous section of their city. They organized many social and profit-making events, kept their finances with a bookkeeping system that could have matched that of any reputable business, and in general seemed a model enterprise. Having spent all my years as a priest in relatively poor and small communities, I expected to welcome the material change.

Very soon, however, the contradictions between form and content began to appear. No one came to vespers and matins services on Saturday nights, children were taken away for religious lessons from the Sunday Liturgy itself, and the bulletin’s persistent “did you light a candle for, someone today?” began to sound more like a .demand for money rather than a suggestion to remember the faithful in one’s prayers. Our whole family began to feel part of an actor s troupe, coming out for performances at the scheduled times. The secular world of drama, however, can prove surprisingly moving on occasion, but religion here did not appear to offer even this satisfaction. Growing increasingly dismayed at the dearth of genuine spiritual life, I began to search for an answer.

I did not have to look long. The members of the General Committee approached me themselves with what they, too, perceived as a problem. Just as I worried over their overlooking the forms of Orthodoxy–attending services, privately praying, keeping the fasts–so they felt concern over my preserving the forms. They wanted someone who could continue to lead the parish along the course it had developed for itself in isolation over the decades: integrating with modern society around it to satisfaction, it was a community of already well-established and upwardly mobile businessmen, both full of ambition and the desire to succeed, wanting a pastor and parish commensurate with the status they desired. And so they approached me, a man admittedly poorly versed in the’ ways of the corporate world, with a specific request. Could I cut my hair and beard, wear a dark suit and collar instead of black robes? My appearance as an Orthodox priest struck too much of a jarring note; it did not fit in with their image of a proper leader. The classic ideal of an Orthodox pastor walking within those living on the earth as a reminder of the other world only disconcerted them as an awkward anachronism. I went home that night to think about my obligations both as their parish priest and as a servant of the Orthodox Faith, about form and essence, and realized several things.

Why am I the way I am, I wondered. It is not because I am stubborn. It is possible that the modern way would even be more convenient for me. But I am Orthodox. It was my personal decision during World War II to serve God as an Orthodox priest, and appearance is an integral part of this.

If we study Church history and the lives of our martyrs, we find that they often gave up their lives for Orthodoxy, even though sometimes nothing special was asked of them–only some incense · in front of an idol, for example. They could have done that and remained orthodox at heart, going on to many good deeds. For some reason, however, they preferred to give up their lives so that generations to come would have an example of how to cherish this Orthodox Faith. Our faith is interwoven with traditions and customs, like a beautiful design. When one takes something out, it loses its completeness. And yet, if we look back over time, we will notice that instead of preserving Orthodoxy, we keep adjusting it to the times.

In the time of St. John Chrysostom, the saint was concerned that people came to church, but did not take part in Holy Communion. Through the centuries, however, people grew used to this, and now they consider it odd if someone goes to Holy Communion· very often. As the years went by, people started breaking the fast on Wednesdays and Fridays and other prescribed fasts. Later it became too much for them to attend services in the evening, so in many parishes they are omitted entirely. Later some decided that it was too hard to stand through the one service they did attend, so they have the pews. Sometimes people are ashamed to cross themselves in public, so they avoid it. In some parishes they have even changed the calendar, and who knows what other changes the times will demand. Future generations coming into a modern Orthodox church will well wonder what the difference is between the Orthodox Church and the Western churches, and why bother going to the Orthodox Church if it is like the one next door.

We must be very careful. Do we want to be Orthodox in name only, or Orthodox in faith? Calling oneself Eastern Orthodox and feeling Orthodox within cannot be separated from being Orthodox in our actions as well. Our faith is many things, but it is above all a light illuminating all aspects of our life. It is both a miracle and the most natural thing in the world . The earth’s ephemera will always flit past to catch our fancy, but it can only underscore the eternity of our faith. We can love the life Christ redeemed through His Resurrection, and we can love the life to come still more.· As long as we are soul and body, creatures of both matter and spirit, we need-to fulfill Orthodoxy’s instructions on both. Let us rejoice in our unity within the Eastern Church, try to unite form and spirit, and “commit ourselves and one another and all our lives unto Christ, our God.” Amen.

Fr. Boris Kizenko
Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church
Vineland, New Jerse