ΠΡΟΣΕΓΓΙΖΟΝΤΑΣ ΤΗΝ  ΚΑΤ’ ΑΚΡΙΒΕΙΑ  ΠΡΑΞΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣ

“ΟΥ ΔΕΙ ΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΟΙΣ Η ΣΧΙΣΜΑΤΙΚΟΙΣ ΣΥΝΕΥΧΕΣΘΑΙ”

π. Αναστάσιος Γκοτσόπουλος

Εφημέριος Ι. Ν. Αγ. Νικολάου Πατρών

·        τι  σημαίνει «συνεύχεσθαι» ; 

·        γιατί «ου δει συνεύχεσθαι» ;

Σύμφωνα με τη διδασκαλία της Εκκλησίας μας, από τους Αποστολικούς ακόμα χρόνους, η αίρεση έχει καταστρεπτικές συνέπειες για τον άνθρωπο. Τον απομακρύνει από τον Θεό και τον οδηγεί στην απώλεια. Γι’ αυτό και ο ίδιος ο Κύριος και οι Απόστολοι είναι ιδιαίτερα αυστηροί με τις «αιρέσεις απωλείας»[i][1].

Οι Πατέρες της Εκκλησίας επισημαίνουν το μεγάλο κίνδυνο και ακολουθώντας τις Αποστολικές συστάσεις[ii][2] καλούν τους χριστιανούς και μάλιστα τους ακατάρτιστους στην πίστη να μην έχουν καμία σχέση με αιρετικούς, διότι ο κίνδυνος για τη σωτηρία τους είναι βέβαιος.[iii][3]

Δυστυχώς όμως πολλοί, μη έχοντας ουσιαστική σχέση με το πνεύμα των Πατέρων και με τη ζωή της Εκκλησίας μας, βλέπουν πίσω από τις απαγορεύσεις αυτές μίσος και εχθρότητα της Εκκλησίας προς τους αιρετικούς. Ο Αγ. Νεκτάριος όμως πολύ περιεκτικά συγκεφαλαιώνοντας την Ορθόδοξη διδασκαλία μας προτρέπει : «Αποτρέπου την απιστίαν και την αίρεσιν και το σχίσμα, όχι τον άπιστον και τον αιρετικόν και τον σχίστην, όχι τον άνθρωπον. Αποστρέφου την γνώμην, όχι την φύσιν. Δι’  εκείνην είναι αλλότριος και διάφορος, είναι αποστροφής και μίσους υπόδικος. Διά τοιαύτην είναι οικείος και πλησίον, είναι ελέους και συμπαθείας, πολλάκις δε και κηδεμονίας και περιθάλψεως άξιος»[iv][4]. «Οι απαγορεύσεις περί πολυποίκιλης επικοινωνίας με αιρετικούς πήγαζαν ουσιαστικά από την αγάπη της Εκκλησίας. Η Εκκλησία δηλαδή προσπαθούσε αφ’ ενός να διαφυλάξει τα υγιά μέλη της από την ψυχοκτόνο ασθένεια των κακοδόξων, αφ’ ετέρου δε να προβληματίσει τους τελευταίους με τη στάση της και να τους κάνει να καταλάβουν ότι βρίσκονται σε εσφαλμένο δρόμο. Η αποχή δηλαδή από την κοινωνία μαζί τους είχε ταυτόχρονα και παιδαγωγικό χαρακτήρα»[v][5].

Μελετώντας την Πατερική διδασκαλία για τις σχέσεις μας με τους αιρετικούς βλέπουμε ότι οι Άγιοί μας είναι ιδιαίτερα αυστηροί και κατηγορηματικοί στην απαγόρευση επικοινωνίας με τους αιρετικούς ή σχισματικούς[vi][6] σε θέματα  Λατρείας και κοινής προσευχής. Οι σχετικές αναφορές των Πατέρων είναι πολυπληθείς[vii][7]. Στο παρόν άρθρο δε θα αναφερθούμε στις Πατερικές μαρτυρίες, αλλά αποκλειστικά και μόνο στην Κανονική Παράδοση της Εκκλησίας μας για το θέμα της συμπροσευχής με αιρετικούς και μάλιστα για την κατ’ ακρίβεια εφαρμογή των  Ι. Κανόνων.

Α.   Τι είναι  και  τι δεν είναι  συμπροσευχή.

Όμως τι σημαίνει «συμπροσευχή»;  Στην αρχαία ελληνική γραμματεία, κατά τον Ιω. Σταματάκο, «συνεύχομαι» σημαίνει  «εύχομαι (προσεύχομαι) από κοινού μετά τινός, ενώνω τας ευχάς μου με τας δικάς του»[viii][8]. Στην Πατερική γραμματεία, σύμφωνα με τον G.W.H.Lampe[ix][9] «συμπροσεύχομαι» σημαίνει “pray together, pray with”, ενώ το «συνεύχομαι» σημαίνει α) «pray with, pray together» (=προσεύχομαι μαζί) και  β) “wish one well” (=εύχομαι να είσαι καλά).

Περαιτέρω θα μπορούσαμε να πούμε ότι έχουμε συμπροσευχή όταν :

1. Υπάρχει σύμπτωση τόπου και χρόνου στην προσευχή [x][10] (αναγκαία, αλλά όχι ικανή συνθήκη). 

2. Υπάρχει κοινή βούληση για τον ίδιο σκοπό, για την τέλεση προσευχής[xi][11] (ικανή και αναγκαία συνθήκη).

3. Συμμετέχουμε στην εξέλιξη της προσευχής, με τη χρήση κοινού προγράμματος λατρείας (π.χ. κοινό το περιεχόμενο των ευχών ή ύμνων, ανταπόκριση στις κελεύσεις του λειτουργού[xii][12], ένδυση λειτουργικών αμφίων για τους  κληρικούς) (ικανή αλλά όχι αναγκαία συνθήκη

4. Συμπερασματικά : Όταν με την όλη μας αναστροφή (λόγια, έργα, συμπεριφορά) επιδιώκουμε να δώσουμε την εντύπωση στους άλλους  ότι επιθυμούμε να συμμετέχουμε και εμείς στη λατρεία τους.

Σύμφωνα λοιπόν με τα ανωτέρω δε συντελείται συμπροσευχή όταν έχουμε επίσκεψη ή παρακολούθηση κάποιας θρησκευτικής τελετής για επιστημονικούς, τουριστικούς, εθιμοτυπικούς ή κοινωνικούς και μόνο λόγους [xiii][13].

Β.   Οι  Ιεροί  Κανόνες για  τη  συμπροσευχή με αιρετικούς.

Οι Ι. Κανόνες της Εκκλησίας, με οικουμενικό κύρος, που αναφέρονται στην απαγόρευση συμπροσευχής με αιρετικούς είναι  : 

1.       Κανὼν Ι' τῶν Ἁγ. Ἀποστόλων : "Εἴ τις ἀκοινωνήτῳ, κᾂν ἐν οἴκῳ συνεύξηται, οὗτος ἀφοριζέσθω"

2.       Κανών ΙΑ΄ των Αγ. Αποστόλων : "Εἴ τις καθῃρημένῳ, κληρικὸς ὧν, κληρικῷ συνεύξηται, καθαιρείσθω καὶ αὐτός".

3.       Κανὼν ΜΕ' τῶν Ἁγ. Ἀποστόλων : "Ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ Πρεσβύτερος, ἢ Διάκονος αἱρετικοῖς συνευξάμενος, μόνον, ἀφοριζέσθω, εἰ δὲ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς, ὡς Κληρικοῖς ἐνεργῆσαί τι, καθαιρείσθω"

4.       Κανὼν ΞΔ' τῶν Ἁγ. Ἀποστόλων : "Εἴ τις Κληρικὸς, ἢ Λαϊκὸς εἰσέλθοι εἰς συναγωγὴν Ἰουδαίων, ἢ αἱρετικῶν προσεύξασθαι, καὶ καθαιρείσθω, καὶ ἀφοριζέσθω"

5.       Κανὼν ΟΑ' τῶν Ἁγ. Ἀποστόλων : "Εἴ τις Χριστιανὸς ἔλαιον ἀπενέγκοι εἰς ἱερὸν ἐθνῶν, ἢ εἰς συναγωγὴν Ἰουδαίων ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς αὐτῶν, ἢ λύχνους ἅπτοι, ἀφοριζέσθω"

6.       Κανὼν ΣΤ' τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ Τοπικῆς Συνόδου : "Περὶ τοῦ, μὴ συγχωρεῖν τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς εἰσιέναι εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐπιμένοντας τῇ αἱρέσει"

7.       Κανὼν  Θ' τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ Τοπικῆς Συνόδου : "Περὶ τοῦ, μὴ συγχωρεῖν εἰς τὰ κοιμητήρια, ἢ εἰς τὰ λεγόμενα μαρτύρια πάντων τῶν αἱρετικῶν ἀπιέναι τοὺς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, εὐχῆς ἢ θεραπείας ἕνεκα, ἀλλὰ τοὺς τοιούτους, ἐὰν ὦσι πιστοί, ἀκοινωνήτους γίνεσθαι μέχρι τινός, μετανοοῦντας δὲ, καὶ ἐξομολογουμένους ἐσφάλθαι, παραδέχεσθαι"

8.       Κανὼν ΛΒ' τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ Τοπικῆς Συνόδου : "Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ αἱρετικῶν εὐλογίας λαμβάνειν, αἵτινές εἰσιν ἀλογίαι μᾶλλον, ἢ εὐλογίαι"

9.       Κανὼν  ΛΓ' τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ Τοπικῆς Συνόδου:"Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ αἱρετικοῖς ἢ σχισματικοῖς συνεύχεσθαι"

10.   Κανὼν ΛΔ' τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ Συνόδου. Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ πάντα χριστιανὸν ἐγκαταλείπειν μάρτυρας Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀπιέναι πρὸς τοὺς ψευδομάρτυρας, τουτέστιν αἱρετικῶν, ἢ αὐτοὺς πρὸς τοὺς προειρημένους αἱρετικοὺς γενομένους· Οὗτοι γάρ ἀλλότριοι τοῦ Θεοῦ τυγχάνουσιν. Ἔστωσαν οὖν ἀνάθεμα οἱ ἀπερχόμενοι πρὸς αὐτούς.

11.   Κανὼν ΛΖ' τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ Τοπικῆς Συνόδου : "Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ παρὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἢ αἱρετικῶν τὰ πεμπόμενα ἑορταστικὰ λαμβάνειν, μηδὲ συνεορτάζειν αὐτοῖς"

12.   Κανὼν Θ' τοῦ Τιμοθέου Ἀλεξανδρείας : "Ἐρώτησις. Εἰ ὀφείλει Κληρικὸς εὔχεσθαι, παρόντων Ἀρειανῶν, ἢ ἄλλων αἱρετικῶν; ἢ οὐδὲν αὐτὸν βλάπτει, ὁπόταν αὐτὸς ποιῇ τὴν εὐχήν, ἤγουν τὴν προσφοράν; Ἀπόκρισις. Ἐν τῇ θείᾳ ἀναφορᾷ ὁ Διάκονος προσφωνεῖ πρὸ τοῦ ἀσπασμοῦ. "Οἱ ἀκοινώνητοι περιπατήσατε." Οὐκ ὀφείλουσιν οὖν παρεῖναι, εἰ μὴ ἂν ἐπαγγέλλωνται μετανοεῖν καὶ ἐκφεύγειν τὴν αἵρεσιν"  

Στους πιο πάνω κανόνες θα πρέπει να προστεθούν και  οι :  

13.   Κανὼν β’ τῆς ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ Συνόδου : "Πάντας τοὺς εἰσιόντας εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν Γραφῶν ἀκούοντας, μὴ κοινωνοῦντας δὲ εὐχῆς ἅμα τῷ λαῷ ἢ ἀποστρεφομένους τὴν ἁγίαν μετάληψιν τῆς εὐχαριστίας κατά τινα ἀταξίαν, τούτους ἀποβλήτους γίνεσθαι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ἕως ἂν ἐξομολογησάμενοι καὶ δείξαντες καρποὺς μετανοίας καὶ παρακαλέσαντες τυχεῖν δυνηθῶσι συγγνώμης, μὴ ἐξεῖναι δὲ κοινωνεῖν τοῖς ἀκοινωνήτοις, μηδὲ κατ' οἴκους συνελθόντας συνεύχεσθαι τοῖς μὴ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ συνευχομένοις, μηδὲ μὴ συναγομένοις. Εἰ δὲ φανείῃ τις τῶν ἐπισκόπων, ἢ πρεσβυτέρων, ἢ διακόνων, ἢ τις τοῦ κανόνος τοῖς ἀκοινωνήτοις κοινωνῶν, καὶ τοῦτον ἀκοινώνητον εἶναι, ὡς ἂν συγχέοντα τὸν κανόνα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας".

14.   Κανών Α' τῆς Δ' Οἰκουμενικής  Συνόδου, (επικυρώνει τους Κανόνες των ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ και Αντιοχεία Τοπικών Συνόδων καὶ τοῦ Αγ. Τιμοθέου Ἀλεξανδρείας)

15.   Κανών Β' τῆς ΣΤ' Οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου, (επικυρώνει τους Αποστολικούς  Κανόνες, τους κανόνες των ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ και Αντιοχεία Τοπικών Συνόδων και του Αγ. Τιμοθέου Αλεξανδρείας).

16.   Κανών Α' τῆς Ζ' Οἰκουμενικής Συνόδου (επικυρώνει τους Αποστολικούς  Κανόνες, τους κανόνες των ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ και Αντιοχεία Τοπικών Συνόδων και του Αγ. Τιμοθέου Αλεξανδρείας).

Από την απλή παράθεση των Κανόνων γίνονται σαφή  τα εξής :

1.      Για τους Πατέρες είναι ιδιαίτερα κρίσιμο από πνευματικής απόψεως το θέμα της επικοινωνίας με αιρετικούς στα πλαίσια της προσευχής και της Θ. Λατρείας. Αυτό είναι εμφανές από το μεγάλο αριθμό των κανόνων που διαπραγματεύονται το θέμα αυτό.

2.      Το θέμα της συμπροσευχής με αιρετικούς απασχολεί διαχρονικά την Εκκλησία. Γι’ αυτό και οι σχετικοί απαγορευτικοί κανόνες καλύπτουν χρονικά ολόκληρη την περίοδο που συντασσόταν το Κανονικό Δίκαιό της.

3.      Προφανώς οι παραβάσεις των κανονικών αυτών διατάξεων ήταν συχνές. Η Εκκλησία όμως εμμένει, επανέρχεται και επαναδιατυπώνει τις ίδιες απαγορεύσεις.

4.      Οι κανονικές διατάξεις είναι σαφείς, απόλυτες και κατηγορηματικές στην απαγόρευση συμμετοχής σε κοινή προσευχή και λατρεία με αιρετικούς ή σχισματικούς.

ΣΥΝΕΧΙΖΕΤΑΙ

---

ΣΙΓΓΙΛΙΟΝ ΠΑΤΡΙΑΡΧΙΚΗΣ ΔΙΑΤΥΠΩΣΕΩΣ ΕΓΚΥΚΛΙΟΥ Εἰς τὸ μὴ παραδέχεσθαι τὸ νεότερον Πασχάλιον ἤ Καλενδάριον τοῦ ΝΕΟΥ καινοτομηθέντος Μηνολογίου.

                                   ΣΙΓΓΙΛΙΟΝ ΠΑΤΡΙΑΡΧΙΚΗΣ ΔΙΑΤΥΠΩΣΕΩΣ ΕΓΚΥΚΛΙΟΥ

                    Εἰς τὸ μὴ παραδέχεσθαι τὸ νεότερον Πασχάλιον ἤ Καλενδάριον τοῦ                                                      ΝΕΟΥ  καινοτομηθέντος Μηνολογίου.

ΠΙΣΤΕΥΕΤΑΙ ΟΤΙ ΔΕΝ ΑΞΙΖΕΙ ΝΑ ΑΝΑΡΤΗΘΗ ΚΑΙ ΝΑ ΣΧΟΛΙΑΣΘΗ Η ΠΙΟ ΚΑΤΩ ΑΝΑΡΤΗΣΗ?? ΜΗΠΩΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΝΑΞΙΟ ΛΟΓΟΥ ΝΑ ΤΗΝ ΣΥΖΗΤΗΣΟΥΜΕ?? ΜΗΠΩΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΨΕΥΔΗ , ΣΥΚΟΦΑΝΤΙΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΤΙΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΑ ΑΥΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΛΕΕΙ?? Ο ΧΙΛΙΑΣΜΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΙΡΕΣΗ ΟΙ ΧΙΛΙΑΣΤΕΣ ΔΕΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ?? Ο ΠΡΟΤΕΣΤΑΝΤΙΣΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΙΡΕΣΗ ΟΙ ΠΡΟΤΕΣΤΑΝΤΕΣ ΔΕΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΟΙ?? Ο ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΣΜΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΑΝΕΡΕΣΗ ΟΙ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΕΣ ΠΟΥ ΣΥΜΕΤΕΧΟΥΝ ΔΕΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ?? (ΗΘΙΚΗ ΚΑΙ ΘΡΗΣΚΕΥΤΙΚΗ ΕΓΚΥΚΛΟΠΑΙΔΙΑ ΤΟΜ. 9 ΣΕΛ. 865) ΠΕΡΙΓΡΑΦΗ ΤΗΝ ΙΔΡΥΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΣΤΙΚΗΣ ΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΗΣ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣ -ΠΣΕ- ΚΑΙ ΠΙΕΣ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΙΑ ΠΡΩΣΟΠΑ ΣΥΜΕΤΕΙΧΑΝ ΣΤΗΝ ΙΔΡΥΣΗ ΤΗΣ.

Η ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΕΙΝΑΙ Ο ΑΔΙΑΨΕΥΣΤΟΣ ΜΑΡΤΥΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΔΗΜΟΣΙΟΣ ΚΑΤΗΓΟΡΟΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΤΩΝ ΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΩΝ ΝΕΟΗΜΕΡΟΛΟΓΙΤΩΝ ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΣΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΟΜΑΔΩΝ ΔΕΚΑΤΡΙΜΕΡΙΤΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΛΑΙΟΥ!!!!!!!

Η  ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ  ΕΙΝΑΙ  Ο  ΑΔΙΑΨΕΥΣΤΟΣ  ΜΑΡΤΥΣ  ΚΑΙ  Ο ΔΗΜΟΣΙΟΣ  ΚΑΤΗΓΟΡΟΣ  ΚΑΤΑ  ΤΩΝ  ΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΩΝ ΝΕΟΗΜΕΡΟΛΟΓΙΤΩΝ ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΣΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ  ΟΜΑΔΩΝ   ΔΕΚΑΤΡΙΜΕΡΙΤΩΝ  ΤΟΥ  ΠΑΛΑΙΟΥ!!!!!!!

Δοσίθεου Ἰεροσολύμων.

† Τέσσαρα μεγάλα θηρία ἐγεννησεν ὁ ΙΣΤ αἰών : Τὴν αἴρεσιν τοῦ Λούθηρου, τὴν αἴρεσιν τοῦ Καλβίνου, τὴν αἴρεσιν τῶν Γιεζουβιτών καὶ τὴν αἴρεσιν τοῦ νέου Καλενδαρίου.

Τοῦ Ἁγίου Φωτίου.

† «Καὶ γὰρ ἐστιν ὄντως τὰ Κοινὰ πᾶσιν φυλάττειν ἐπάναγκες καὶ πρὸ γε τῶν ἄλλων τὰ περὶ Πίστεως· ἔνθα καὶ τὸ παρεκλῖναι μικρὸν ἁμαρτεῖν ἐστὶν ἁμαρτία τὴν πρὸς θάνατον». (Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸν Ρώμης Νικόλαον).

Ἁγίου Νικηφόρου.

(Τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀποτελοῦν οἱ εὐσεβεῖς ὁσονδήποτε ὀλίγοι καὶ ἄν μείνουν. Οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες τὴν καινοτομίαν, ἔξω τῆς Ἐκκλησίας εἶναι).

Εἴ τις πᾶσαν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν παράδοσιν ἔγγραφον ἤ ἀγραφον ἀθετεῖ, ἀνάθεμα (τρὶς). Ἡμεῖς τηροῦμεν καὶ κρατοῦμεν τὰ δόγματα καὶ τὰς παραδόσεις τῆς Μίας Ἁγίας Καθολικῆς καὶ Ἁποστολικῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας.Τοῦς δὲ νεοτερίζοντας καινοτόμους, καὶ πᾶσαν αἴρεσιν ἀναθεματίζομεν. Ἀνάθεμα (τρὶς).

Τῆς ἁγίας ἑβδόμης οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου.

† «... Ἡμεῖς τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ θεσμοθεσίᾳ τῆς Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐπακολουθοῦμεν, ἡμεῖς τοὺς θεσμοὺς τῶν Πατέρων φυλάττομεν, ἡμεῖς τοὺς πρσθέτοντας τι ἤ ἀφαιροῦντας ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Ἐκκλησίας ἀναθεματίζομεν».

Τῆς ἁγίας ἕκτης οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου.

† «Ὁρίζομεν ἑτέραν Πίστιν μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι προφέρειν, ἥγουν συγγράφειν ἤ συντιθέναι ἤ φρονεῖν ἤ διδάσκειν ἑτέρως τοὺς δὲ τολμῶντας τοῦτο ποιεῖν ἀναθεματίζομεν».

Επιστολή προς Μητρ. Φλωρίνης Αυγουστίνο Καντιώτη.

«Επειδή το παλαιόν εορτολόγιον είναι παράδοσις έγγραφος, επειδή το νέον είναι καινοτομία παπικής και μασονικής προελεύσεως, όσοι καταφρονούν το παλαιόν εορτολόγιον και ακολουθούν το νέον είναι υποκείμενοι τω αναθέματι. Κάθε πρόφασις και δικαιολογία είναι  αδικαιολόγητος και «πρόφασις εν αμαρτίαις». Ηναγκάσθην την παρελθούσαν Κυριακήν να ανέλθω εις την κορυφήν των Αγίων Πάντων και του προφήτου Ηλιού… και γονυπετήσας έμπροσθεν της πανσέπτου εικόνος αυτών μετά δακρύων εζήτησα παρ΄ αυτών να μοι αποκαλύψουν ποίον εορτολόγιον οφείλω καγώ ο ελάχιστος και οι αδελφοί μου, τα πνευματικά μου τέκνα και πάντες οι Ορθόδοξοι Χριστιανοί να ακολουθώμεν. Πριν έτι τελειώσω την οικτράν ταπεινήν μου δέησιν, ήκουσα φωνής ένδοθέν μοι λεγούσης: «Το παλαιόν εορτολόγιον να ακολουθήσετε, το οποίον σας παρέδωκαν οι τας επτά αγίας Οικουμενικάς Συνόδους συγκροτήσαντες θεοφόροι πατέρες, και ουχί το νέον των παπών της Δύσεως, των την Μίαν, Αγίαν, Καθολικήν και Αποστολικήν Εκκλησίαν σχισάντων και τας Αποστολικάς και πατρικάς παραδόσεις καταφρονησάντων» !!! Τοιαύτην συγκίνησιν, τοιαύτην χαράν, τοιαύτην ελπίδα, τοιαύτην ανδρείαν και μεγαλοψυχίαν ησθάνθην την στιγμήν εκείνην, οίαν σπανίας στιγμάς ησθάνθην εις όλην την ζωήν εν ώρα προσευχής…  Μη νομίζομεν ως μηδαμινόν, το ότι ακολουθούμεν το παπικόν εορτολόγιον. Είναι παράδοσις και ως παράδοσιν οφείλομεν να την φυλάξωμεν, διότι υποκείμεθα εις ανάθεμα. «Ει τις πάσαν παράδοσιν έγγραφον ή άγραφον αθετεί, ανάθεμα», ορίζει η Ζ΄Οικ. Σύνοδος…  Λοιπόν δεν είναι καιρός να σιωπάτε πλέον…  μη αναβάλλετε, σπεύσατε».

(Πάρος 19-6-1968).

«… Εάν εξακολουθήσωμεν ακολουθούντες το παπικόν ημερολόγιον, δεν είναι δυνατόν να απαλλαγώμεν του αναθέματος. Η Ιερά Σύνοδος και οι άγιοι Αρχιερείς, ας φροντίσουν να επαναφέρουν το πατροπαράδοτον ημερολόγιον, δια να απαλλάξουν εαυτούς και τα ποίμνια αυτών των αναθεμάτων».

(Αρχιμ. Φιλοθέου Ζερβάκου: «Το νέον παπικόν ημερολόγιον και οι καρποί αυτού, σελ. 33).

(σ.σ. Εάν η «Εκκλησία» της Ελλάδος επαναφέρει το παλαιόν ημερολόγιο, λύθηκε το πρόβλημα; Ασφαλώς όχι. Έχουν εισέλθει –οι Οικουμενιστές- τόσο πολύ στην πλάνη, που σχεδόν δεν άφησαν τίποτε όρθιο…).

Τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων ΚΑΝΩΝ 45ος.

Ὅποιος Ἐπίσκοπος, ἤ Πρεσβύτερος, ἤ Διάκονος ἤθελε συμπροσευχηθῆ μονάχα, ἀλλ' ὄχι καὶ νὰ συλλειτουργήση μὲ αἴρετικούς ἄς ἀφορίζεται. Επειδή ὅποιος μὲ τοῦς ἀφορισμένους συμπροσεύχεται (καθώς τοιούτοι εἶναι οἱ αἰρετικοί) πρέπει νὰ συναφορίζεται καὶ αὐτός, κατά τὸν 10ον Κανόνα τῶν Ἀγ.Αποστόλων. Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐσυνχώρησεν εἰς τοῦς αἰρετικούς αὐτούς νὰ ἐνεργήσουν κανένα λειτούργημα ὡσάν Κληρικοί, ἄς καθαίρηται ἐπειδή ὅποιος Κληρικός συλλειτουργήσει μὲ καθηρημένους, (καθώς τοιούτοι εἶναι οἱ αἰρετικοί κατὰ τὸν β΄. καὶ δ΄. τῆς γ΄.) συγκαθαιρεῖται καὶ αὐτός κατὰ τὸν 11ον κανόνα τῶν Ἀποστόλων.

Πρωτοπρ. π. Θεόδωρος Ζήσης:

Μέ ἁπλᾶ λόγια: Στήν Ἐκκλησία τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀνήκουν ὅσοι ἀκολουθοῦν τήν ἀλήθεια• ὅσοι δέν ἀκολουθοῦν τήν ἀλήθεια, αὐτοί δέν ἀνήκουν στην Ἐκκλησία. Αὐτό ἰσχύει πολύ περισσότερο γιά ὅσους ἐξαπατοῦν τους ἑαυτούς των αὐτοαποκαλούμενοι καί ἀλληλοαποκαλούμενοι ποιμένες καί ἱεροί ἀρχιποιμένες. Γιατί ἔχουμε διδαχθῆ ὅτι ὁ Χριστιανισμός δέν δίνει σημασία στά πρόσωπα, ἀλλά στήν ἀλήθεια καί στήν ἀκρίβεια τῆς πίστεως.

Απεκρούσθη  το  Γρηγοριανόν  Ημερολόγιον α΄

Είς το  βιβλίον , του τακτικού καθηγητού  της θεολογικής  σχολής  Αθηνών , κ. Κων/νου  Μουρατίδου

ΚΑΝΟΝΙΚΟΝ  ΔΙΚΑΙΟΝ  ΠΑΝΕΠΙΣΤΙΜΙΑΚΑΙ  ΠΑΡΑΔΟΣΕΙΣ , τόμος  πρώτος  - Αθήναι  1982

Αναφέρονται  τά  κάτωθι  περί  του  νέου  ημερολογίου:

Κεφάλαιον  Δεύτερον:  ΠΗΓΑΙ  ΚΑΝΟΝΙΚΟΥ  ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ  σελ.  111

Β)  Δευτέρα  περίοδος  1580—1584. Συνεζητήθη  το  ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΑΝΟΝ  ΗΜΕΡΟΛΟΓΙΟΝ  και  ΑΠΕΚΡΟΥΣΘΗ

Σημ. είς  το αυτό  βιβλίο  ο κ. καθηγητής  κ.  Μουρατίδης  φθάνοντας  είς  το  έτος  1923  δεν  αναφέρει  ουδέν  ότι  απεφασίσθη  η αλλαγή  του  ημερολογίου  διότι  δεν  ήτο  απόφασις  της  Εκκλησίας.

Απεκρούσθη  το  Γρηγοριανόν  Ημερολόγιον  β΄

Είς  το  βιβλίον  του  Παντελεήνομος  Ροδουπούλου  ,  Μητροπολίτου  Τυρολόης  και  Σερεντίου  ,  Καθηγητού  της  θεολογηκής  σχολής  θεσσαλονίκης.

ΜΑΘΗΜΑΤΑ  ΚΑΝΟΝΙΚΟΥ  ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ  1986  ΘΕΣ/ΝΙΚΗ

Αναφέρει  είς  το  κεφάλαιον  , ΑΙ  ΠΗΓΑΙ  ΚΑΝΟΝΙΚΟΥ  ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ  ,  και  εις  την  σελίδα  69 :

Β) κατά  την  περίοδον  1580—1584 συνεζητήθη  το  Γρηγοριανόν  Ημερολόγιον  και  ΑΠΕΡΡΙΦΘΗ.

Η  ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ  ΟΥΚ  ΟΙΔΕΝ  ΑΚΡΙΒΕΙΑΝ  ΧΡΟΝΟΥ  , ΕΝ  ΜΟΝΟΝ  ΟΙΔΕΝ , ΤΗΝ  ΕΝΟΤΗΤΑ  ΤΗΣ  ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ .

ΔΟΓΜΑ  ΓΑΡ  ΔΟΓΜΑΤΩΝ  ΕΣΤΙΝ  Η  ΕΝΟΤΗΣ  ΤΗΣ  ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ

Πρακτικά  Α΄ οικουμενικής  συνόδου  έν  υποσημειώσει

ΓΙΑΤΙ  ΟΙ  ΘΕΟΛΟΓΟΙ  ΚΑΙ  ΘΕΟΛΟΓΟΥΝΤΕΣ  ΣΙΩΠΟΥΝ?? ΑΝΑΡΤΗΣΕΙΣ  ΕΠΙ  ΑΝΑΡΤΗΣΕΩΝ  ΚΑΙ  ΚΑΝΕΙΣ  ΔΕΝ  ΜΙΛΑΕΙ  ΓΙΑ  ΤΟ  ΜΕΓΑ  ΑΥΤΟ  ΘΕΜΑ  ΤΗΣ  ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ!!!!!

Κανών 33ος τῆς ἐν Λαοδικεία Τοπικής Συνόδου.

Διορίζει οὔτος ὁ Κανών νὰ μὴ συμπροσευχώμεθα οὔτε μὲ τοὺς αἰρετικοὺς, ἤτοι τοὺς σφάλλοντας περὶ τὴν πίστιν, οὔτε μὲ τοὺς σχισματικοὺς, ἤτοι τοὺς κατὰ τὴν πίστιν μὲν ὀρθοδόξους ὄντας, χωριζομένους δὲ ἀπὸ τὴν καθολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν διὰ τινας παραδόσεις καὶ ἔθιμα ἰάσιμα, κατὰ τὸν α΄. τοῦ Μεγ.Βασιλείου.

Τοῦ Ἁγίου Βασιλείου τοῦ Μεγάλου.

Περὶ τῶν Σχισματικῶν ἱερέων ὅτι στεροῦνται οὗτοι τῆς θείας χάριτος.

†  Ἀφοῦ δὲ μίαν φορὰν ἐσχίσθησαν ἀπὸ τὸ ὅλον σῶμα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἔχασαν αὐτὸ καὶ δὲν εἰμποροῦν πλέον νὰ βαπτίσουν ἄλλους, ἤ νὰ χειροτονήσουν ἤ ἁπλῶς νὰ δώσουν χάριν, τὴν ὁποίαν διὰ τοῦ σχίσματος ἐστερήθησαν, ὅθεν καὶ οἱ ὑπ’ αὐτῶν βαπτιζόμενοι λογίζονται ὅτι ὑπὸ λαϊκῶν ἐβαπτίσθησαν (Ἑρμηνεία α΄. Κανόνος). «Ὥσπερ μέλος τὶ ἀποκοπὲν τοῦ σώματος παύει μετέχον τῆς ζωτικῆς δυνάμεως, οὕτω καὶ πᾶς τις ἀποσχιζόμενος τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ δὲν μετέχει τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Παναγίου Πνεύματος, ἥν ἔλαβεν ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι» (Ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ Πηδαλίου).

Ἁγίου Ἰγνατίου τοῦ Θεοφόρου.

† «Πᾶς ὁ λέγων παρὰ τὰ διατεταγμένα κἄν ἀξιόπιστος ἤ κἄν νηστεύῃ καὶ παρθενεύῃ κἄν σημεῖα ποιῇ κἄν προφητεύῃ, λύκος σοι φαινέσθω ἐν προβάτου δορᾷ, προβάτων φθορὰν κατεργαζόμενος».

ΣΙΓΓΙΛΙΟΝ ΠΑΤΡΙΑΡΧΙΚΗΣ ΔΙΑΤΥΠΩΣΕΩΣ ΕΓΚΥΚΛΙΟΥ

τοῖς ἁπανταχοῦ Ὁρθοδόξοις Χριστιανοῖς εἰς τὸ μὴ παραδέχεσθαι τὸ νεότερον Πασχάλιον ἤ Καλενδάριον τοῦ καινοτομηθέντος Μηνολογίου, ἀλλ’ ἐμμένειν τοῖς ἅπαξ ἁπλανῶς καὶ καλῶς διατυπωθεῖσει παρὰ τῶν Ἁγίων 318 Θεοφόρων Πατέρων τῆς Ἁγίας Οἱκουμενικῆς πρῶτης Συνόδου μετ’ Ἐπιτιμίου Ἀναθέματος.

†Ἱερεμίας ἐλέω Θεοῦ Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνστ/πόλως καὶ Οἱκουμενικὸς Πατριάρχης.

Ἐπειδὴ καὶ πάλιν ἡ Ἐκκλησία τῆς Ρώμης ἅτε καινοτομίας χαίρουσα τοῖς περὶ αὐτὴν Ἀστρονόμοις ἀπερισκέπτως συνήνεσε καὶ μετέθετο τὰ καλῶς περὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πάσχα τοῖς Ὀρθοδόξοις Χριστιανοῖς τελούμενα τὰς ἀπὸ τῆς Ἁγίας καὶ Οἱκουμενικῆς Πρῶτης Συνόδου τῶν 318 Θεοφόρων Πατέρων ὁρισθέντα παρὰ πανταχοῦ Γῆς Ὀρθοδόξων Χριστιανῶν καὶ παρὰ τῶν λοιπῶν Ἁγίων Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων κυροθέντα τὰ ἑορταζόμενα, ὡς ὥρισαν, τοῦτου δὲ ἕνεκα σκανδάλων γίνεται· ἦλθον γὰρ ἄνδρες τινὲς ἀπὸ τῆν Παλαιὰν Ρώμην ὅ ἔμαθον ἐκεῖ νὰ λατινοφρονῶσιν καὶ τὸ κακὸν εἶναι ὄχι μόνον πὼς ἤλλαξαν τὴν Ἁγίαν Ὀρθόδοξον Πίστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολεμοῦσι τὰ Ὀρθόδοξα καὶ ἀληθινὰ δόγματα τῆς ἀνατολικῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας ὅπου μᾶς παρέδωκεν αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ οἱ Θεῖοι Ἀπόστολοι καὶ αἰ Ἅγίαι ἑπτὰ Οἱκουμενικαὶ Σύνοδοι τῶν Ἁγίων Θεοφόρων Πατέρων. Ὅθεν τοιοῦτους ὡς σεσηπότα μέλη ἀποκόπτοντες ὁρίζομεν ταῦτα ἀποφασιστικῶς.

Ὅποιος δὲν ἀκολουθεί τὰ ἔθιμα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, καθῶς οἱ ἐπτά Ἁγίαι Οἰκουμενικαί Σύνοδοι ἐθέσπισαν, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πάσχα καὶ τὸ μηνολόγιον καλῶς ἐνομοθέτησαν νὰ ἀκολουθῶμεν, καὶ θέλει νὰ ἀκολουθά τὸ νεοεφεύρετον Πασχάλιον καὶ νέον μηνολόγιον τῶν ἄθεων ἀστρονόμων τοῦ Πάπα, καὶ ἐναντιώνεται εἰς αὐτά ὅλα, καὶ θέλει νὰ ἀνατρέψει καὶ νὰ χαλάσει τὰ πατροπαράδοτα δόγματα καὶ ἔθιμα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ἄς ἔχει τὸ ἀνάθεμα, καὶ ἔξω τῆς τοῦ Χριστού Εκκλησίας καὶ τῆς τῶν πιστών ὁμηγύρεως ἄς εἶναι.

Ἐσείς δὲ οἱ εὐσεβείς καὶ ὀρθόδοξοι χριστιανοί, μένετε ἐν οἰς ἐμάθατε καὶ ἐγεννήθητε καὶ ἀνατράφητε καὶ ὅταν τὸ καλέση ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἡ χρεία, καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ αἴμα σας νὰ χύνετε διὰ νὰ φυλάξετε τὴν Πατροπαράδοτον Πίστιν καὶ ὀμολογία σας, καὶ νὰ φυλάγεσθε ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων, καὶ προσέχετε ἵνα καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς σᾶς βοηθᾶ ἄμα καὶ ἡ εὐχῆ τῆς ἡμῶν μετριότητος εἶη μετὰ πάντων ἡμῶν. Ἁμήν.

Ἔτους ἀπὸ Θεανθρώπου αφπγ΄ (1583)

Ἰνδικτίωνος Ιβ΄ Νοεμβρίου Κ΄

+ Ὁ Κων/πόλεως Ἰερεμίας

+ Ὁ Ἀλεξανδρίας Σιλβέστρος

+ Ὁ Ἰεροσολύμων Σωφρόνιος

                                                       Καὶ οἱ λοιποί Ἀρχιερείς τῆς Συνόδου παρόντες.

ΕΓΚΥΚΛΙΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΜΙΑΣ ΑΓΙΑΣ ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΗΣ  ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΙΚΗΣ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣ

Πρὸς τοὺς ἀπανταχοῦ Ὀρθοδόξους.

Κρατώμεν τῆς ὁμολογίας, ἥν παρελάβομεν ἄδολον, παρά τηλικούτων ἀνδρῶν,

ἀποστρεφόμενοι πάντα νεωτερισμόν, ὡς ὑπαγόρευμα τοῦ Διαβόλου.

Ὁ δεχόμενος νεωτερισμόν, κατελέγχει ἐλλειπή τὴν κεκηρυγμένην Ὁρθόδοξον πίστην.

Ἀλλ’ αὔτη πεπληρωμένη ἤδη ἐσφράγισται, μὴ ἐπιδεχόμενη μήτε μείωσιν, μήτε αὔξησιν, μήτε ἀλλοίωσιν, καὶ ὁ τολμών ἤ πράξαι ἤ συμβουλεύσαι ἤ διανοηθήναι τοῦτο, ἤδη ἠρνήθη τὴν πίστιν τοῦ Χριστού, ἤδη ἐκουσίως καθυπεβλήθη εἰς τὸ αἰώνιον ἀνάθεμα, διὰ τὸ βλασφημεῖν εἰς τὸ Πνεύμα τὸ Ἅγιον, ὡς τάχα μὴ ἀρτίως λαλήσαν ἐν ταῖς Γραφαῖς καὶ Οἰκουμενικαῖς Συνόδοις…

Ἄπαντες οὐν οἱ νεωτερίζοντες ἤ αἰρέσει ἤ σχίσματιἐκουσίως ἐνεδύθησαν κατάρα ὡς ἰμάτιον (Ψαλμ-ΡΗ’18), κἄν τε Πάπαι, κἄν τε Πατριάρχαι, κἄν τε κληρικοί, κἄν τε λαϊκοί, κἄν Ἄγγελος ἐξ Οὐρανοῦ.

Ἄνθιμος ἐλέω Θεοῦ Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κων/πόλεως Νέας Ρώμης ἤ Οἰκουμ. Πατρ.

Ἰερόθεος ἐλέω Θεοῦ Πάπας καὶ Πατριάρχης Ἀλεξανδρείας καὶ πᾶσης Αἰγύπτου.

Μεθόδιος ἐλέω Θεοῦ Πατριάρχης Ἀντιοχείας.

Κύριλλος ἐλέω Θεοῦ Πατριάρχης Ἰεροσολύμων.

Καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτοὺς Ἱεραὶ Συνόδοι. 

Ἐν Κωνσταντινούπολει τὸ σωτήριον ἔτος  1848.

ΠΡΟΣΕΧΩΣ ΟΛΟ ΤΟ ΑΡΘΡΟ

ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΕΣ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΟΥΣ ΟΠΑΔΟΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΚΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣ ΧΟΕ ΠΟΥ ΔΥΣΤΗΧΩΣ ΕΧΟΥΝ ΓΕΜΙΣΗ ΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΝΕΟΥ ΗΜΕΡΟΛΟΓΙΟΥ!

Αγία Γραφή και Ιερά Παράδοση

Η ΙΕΡΑ ΠΑΡΑΔΟΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΟΙ

ΟΙ ΑΓΙΟΙΓιατί τιμούμε τους Αγίους;

Ορθόδοξη ερμηνεία σε δύσκολα χριστολογικά εδάφια

 ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΕΣ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΟΥΣ ΟΠΑΔΟΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΚΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣ ΧΟΕ ΠΟΥ ΔΥΣΤΗΧΩΣ ΕΧΟΥΝ ΓΕΜΙΣΗ ΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΝΕΟΥ ΗΜΕΡΟΛΟΓΙΟΥ!

Ποιον Κύριο ευχαριστεί ο λατινόφρων κ. Βαρθολομαίος;

Ποιον Κύριο ευχαριστεί ο λατινόφρων κ. Βαρθολομαίος;

1.700 χρόνια από το Διάταγμα των Μεδιολάνων Επίσκεψη του Οικουμενικού Πατριάρχη Βαρθολομαίου στο Μιλάνο.

Ο Πατριάρχης χοροστάτησε λειτουργίας στον κατάμεστο ναό Σάντα Μαρία Ιν Ποντόνε, ο οποίος έχει παραχωρηθεί από τη Ρωμαιοκαθολική Εκκλησία στην ελληνορθόδοξη κοινότητα του Μιλάνου. Παρών στην τελετή ήταν και ο καρδινάλιος Σκόλα.

«Ευχαριστούμε τον Κύριο για την αδελφοσύνη που επικρατεί ανάμεσά μας, ανάμεσα στις δυο αδελφές εκκλησίες μας. Σας απευθύνω χαιρετισμό, με ιδιαίτερη αγάπη και σας μεταφέρω την ευλογία της εκκλησίας της Κωνσταντινούπολης» τόνισε, μεταξύ των άλλων,  o Οικουμενικός  Πατριάρχης….  

      

σ.σ.   Δεν γνωρίζω ποιον Κύριο ευχαριστεί ο λατινόφρων κ. Βαρθολομαίος. Είναι αδύνατον να ευχαριστεί τον Κύριο των 26 Οσιομαρτύρων της Ι. Μ. Ζωγράφου που ο λατινόφρων Πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Βέκκος έκαψε ζωντανούς διότι ηρνούντο να τον μνημονεύουν.

Και ασφαλώς δεν θα ευχαριστεί, ούτε τον Κύριο της Κυρίας Θεοτόκου, διότι οι λατίνοι εμμένοντες στις αιρετικές δοξασίες τους είναι εχθροί της Κυρίας Θεοτόκου και του Υιού Της, ως τα πάναγνα χείλη Της δήλωσαν:

Οι λατινόφρονες με τον Πατριάρχην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Ιωάννην Βέκκον ήλθον εις το Άγιον Όρος μετά στρατιωτικής δυνάμεως, και αφού έπραξαν εκείνα τα οποία έπραξαν εις τας άλλας Μονάς, ήλθον τελευταίον και εις την Ιεράν Μονήν του Ζωγράφου, πυρ και μανίαν πνέοντες κατά των οικούντων αυτήν Μοναχών. Κατ’ εκείνον δε τον φρικτόν και φοβερόν δια το Άγιον Όρος καιρόν, πλησίον της Μονής Ζωγράφου ηγωνίζετο κατά μόνας εις Μοναχός, έχων συνήθειαν ιεράν να αναγινώσκη πολλάκις καθ΄ εκάστην τον Ακάθιστον Ύμνον της Θεοτόκου ενώπιον της θείας Εικόνος Αυτής. Εν μια λοιπόν των ημερών, ότε εις τα χείλη του Γέροντος αντηχούσεν ο Αρχαγγελικός ασπασμός της Υπεραγίας Παρθένου Μαρίας, το «Χαίρε», ακούει αίφνης ο Γέρων εκ της αγίας Αυτής Εικόνος τους εξής λόγους: «Χαίρε και συ, Γέρων του Θεού!», ο δε Γέρων εγένετο έντρομος. «Μη φοβού», εξηκολούθησεν ησύχως η εκ της Εικόνος θεομητορική φωνή, «αλλ’ απελθών ταχέως εις την Μονήν, ανάγγειλον εις τους αδελφούς και εις τον Καθηγούμενον ότι οι εχθροί εμού τε και του Υιού μου επλησίασαν. Όστις λοιπόν υπάρχει ασθενής τω πνεύματι, εν υπομονή ας κρυφθή, έως ότου παρέλθη ο πειρασμός, οι δε επιθυμούντες μαρτυρικούς στεφάνους ας παραμείνωσιν εν τη Μονή, άπελθε λοιπόν ταχέως». 

ΜΗΠΩΣ ΜΠΟΡΕΙ ΝΑ ΜΑΣ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΕΙ ΚΑΝΕΙΣ?? ΓΙΑΤΙ ΚΑΙ Ο ΒΑΡΘΟΛΟΜΕΟΣ ΑΝΗΚΕΙ ΣΤΟ ΣΩΜΑ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΩΣ ΕΚ ΤΟΥΤΟΥ ΚΥΚΛΟΦΟΡΕΙ ΤΟ ΙΔΙΟ ΑΙΜΑ-ΠΝΕΥΜΑ- ΜΕ ΟΣΟΥΣ ΑΝΗΚΟΥΝ ΣΤΗΝ ΙΔΙΑ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ!

Why I Am an Old Calendarist

Why I Am an Old Calendarist
‘They who audaciously changed the church calendar in our days, assuredly did not take into account the gravity (of the anathemas), and for the sake of astronomy they paid no heed at all to the venerable tradition and spirit of the Church; and though occupying themselves with ecclesiastical matters, they used science only as a pretense to conceal the innovating inclinations that possessed them’. - Patriarch Christopher of Leontopolis 1939 –1966*

The question why anybody should write an article defending his following of the Old (Julian) Calendar appears especially moot. Articles, books and volumes, if not tomes, have been written defending and explaining the Old Calendarist position in the Orthodox Church today. However, insofar as it is the responsibility of every Christian to appropriate his faith and his belief, this article serves as my personal theological appropriation and internalisation of a question that has painfully split, and continues to split, the worldwide Orthodox community.

In order to better understand the issues involved in this discussion, it does us well to re-consider carefully the origins of the Old Calendarist problem (as it were) with particular reference to the motives of the principal actors who initiated decisions regarding the ecclesiastical calendar. Despite popular belief, our discussion does not begin in the year 1924 (although this date will have important bearing in subsequent discussion), but rather 1590 years earlier, in the year 325 A.D. when the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea was held under the auspices of the Emperor Constantine. In a Synodal Letter issued to all Churches at the end of its sessions, the Council ‘forever’ fixed the date of the Christian Easter (Pascha) as being ‘the first Sunday after the full moon after spring equinox’. This, undoubtedly, seems to be a rather quaint and obscure method of fixing a liturgical feast and may be relegated to a queer penchant on the part of the Fathers for number-counting. However, the decision was motivated by concerns more theological, than the merely banal. Firstly, as is explained in the Synodal Letter itself, the decision to celebrate Pascha on this date was made so as to coordinate the celebration of the Feast (the Brightest of all, commemorating as it does Christ’s resurrection from the grave) among all the various churches of Christendom (some of whom, understandably, were celebrating Easter on the same day as the Jewish Passover). The Council intended the fixing of this Feast to be a manifestation of the unity of Faith in Christ Jesus possessed by the Church. It was therefore meant to be a demonstration of love and unity that would, in turn, serve as an evangelical tool, manifesting the oneness of faith, oneness of baptism and eucharistic assembly that bound Christians, wheresoever they might be, from East to West, together.
Also, theologically, the date of reckoning Easter was deliberately chosen as a theological exposition of the Church’s faith that the in Jesus Christ, the hope of the Old Israel had been realized. Jesus the Christ was the True Passover promised by God to Israel, the True Lamb of the feast by whose blood all humanity, both Jews and Gentiles, like the Israelites in Egypt, may be saved from spiritual death. The Council believed that the conflation of the Christian feast of Pascha, expressing as it does the fulfillment of salvation for God’s people, through the death and saving resurrection of Christ, with the Jewish feast of Passover, which is only its type and prefiguring (and which, until today is impregnated with prayers for the coming of the Messiah) would serve as a contra-witness to the Gospel. The Council, therefore, decreed absolutely that the Church was not to celebrate Easter together with or before, the Jewish people, but rather, at least a week after, in order to prevent any confusion on so central a doctrine of the Faith. The other parts of the liturgical year, together with the reckoning of moveable feasts, were to be ordered from this calculation of the date of Pascha.
This decree has been, by and large, ignored and overturned by the Churches of the West (most particularly, by the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches, which still profess to follow a liturgical calendar). In all fairness, all Orthodox Churches, even the New Calendarist (with the glaring exception of the Finnish Church), have kept intact this ordering of Pascha (otherwise known as the Paschalion).
Sadly, before we can take much comfort from this fact, one needs to understand that the liturgical year works as a cohesive whole. For 1,600 or so years from the Council of Nicea, the Church had ordered its feasts in accordance to the decree of the First Council, arranging both moveable and non-moveable feasts (Saint’s Days etc), into a undivided whole that made logical and temporal sense insofar as the liturgical calendar was to re-present year after year the chief events pertaining to our salvation. In other words, the re-ordering of the non-moveable feasts was bound to have an impact on the rest of the liturgical year, even if it is kept unchanged. Fasts are often turned to feasts and vice-versa, in an almost perverse manner. (The prime example is the Apostle’s Fast – the Feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul is fixed on June 29th but the fast depends on the date of the ‘moveable’ Pentecost. This has lead to an extremely silly situation where in some years, the fast is non-existent. Or for that matter, Orthodox of the New Calendar are often celebrating the feast of the Nativity when the majority of Orthodox are fasting for the same event!). However, let us first consider how this re-ordering of the non-moveable feasts, or in other words, the introduction of the New Calendar, was effected historically. Before we do this, it is important to remind ourselves throughout this discussion that the liturgical calendar as a whole is a possession of the whole Church. As pointed out earlier, its change may not be affected in an arbitrary fashion, to satisfy theological and/or political fads and fashions.
The New (Gregorian) Calendar was first introduced by Pope Gregory XIII of Rome in the year 1582 on the advice of his astronomers who (quite rightly) pointed out that the Old (Julian) Calendar was out of sync with the natural year by about 11 days (now it is 13 days). The Pope of Rome, secular ruler of the Papal States as well as Bishop of Rome, used his supreme power (plenitudo potestatis) as Pontiff to simply declare that a new ‘updated’ calendar would come into effect on a certain day. This, of course, threw the entire liturgical order of the Western ecclesiastical calendar out of order with the rest of the Christian world, contravening at the same time the decree of the First Ecumenical Council. This explains why the Papal Easter celebration (as well as that of the rest of the Western heterodox Churches, which have all adopted the papal calendar) often falls on or even, before the Jewish Passover. But by this time, the Roman Church had fallen into schism and heresy and no longer considered herself bound by the decisions of the God-bearing Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. Her sole rule of faith was the word of the Sovereign Pope who could order and re-order matters of doctrine and discipline by his simple fiat. Pope Gregory thus accomplished his proposed calendar change with no too much trouble within the Papal Church. {However, not all countries in the West accepted this innovation eagerly. England did not change to the new calendar until late in the 18th Century.) Before we proceed further, it is also important to ask ourselves just why the Pope was so keen to change the calendar. Was it purely a love for science that inspired this change? Hardly. In the Papal Rome of the time, astronomer was just another name for astrologer. The ‘astronomers’ who proposed the change in calendar were studying the stars in order to predict the future. (There was a great fashion for astrologers in Renaissance Italy, including Papal Rome. Anyone who tells you that the Popes were keen astronomy enthusiasts are obviously lying. Ask Galileo Galilei.) There you have it, the calendar that the Pope proposed and imposed on his church by a simple decree, overturning the decision of the councils and Sacred Tradition, was the work of astrologers. It had never been discussed by Bishops, nor priests, nor men learned in Sacred Theology.
Pope Gregory XIII, in keeping with his universal ambitions, next tried to interest and persuade the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias II (called the ‘Illustrious’) to accept and promulgate the Papal Calendar in the Orthodox Churches. In 1583, the Patriarch convened a local Council in Constantinople which was attended by Sylvester, Patriarch of Alexandria and Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem. This Council issued a Sigillion, in which Papal pretensions as well as the newly-invented Papal paschalion and calendar [emphasis mine] were anathemised.
This anathema was repeated by a Pan-Orthodox Council in Constantinople is 1593, by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem and his Synod in 1670, Ecumenical Patriarch (of Constantinople) Agathangelos and his Synod in 1827, Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos VII and his Synod in 1895, and Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III and His Synod in 1902, Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem in 1903 and the Holy Synods of the Churches of Russia, Romania and Greece in 1903.
This was the calendar that was imposed (with the exception of the papal paschalion) on the Orthodox Church by an encyclical bearing the sole signature of Archbishop Chrysostom Papadopoulos of Athens on March 10/23 1924. The question begs to be asked: why? Why was the Church of Greece so eager to overturn centuries of anathemas to introduce a liturgical calendar constructed by the Pope’s astrologers and imposed by him on the Roman Church into the Orthodox religion?
The answer is simple: an overwhelming zeal for ecumenism. This is borne out by an encyclical issued by the Church of Constantinople in January 1920, addressed ‘To the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Might Be’*. In this encyclical, issued by the Synod under the presidency of Patriarchal locum tenens Metropolitan Dorotheos of Prusa, the Church of Constantinople expressed hopes that “love should be re-kindled and strengthened among the Churches, so that they may no longer consider one another as strangers and foreigners, but as kinsmen, and as being part of the household of Christ and ‘fellow heirs, and formed of the same body and partakers of the same promise of God in Jesus Christ (Eph 3:6)’”. Among the practical actions that was to achieve this, the encyclical proposed a 11-point action, the first of which was a common calendar ‘so that great Christian feasts may be everywhere celebrated simultaneously’. This, in brief, was the programme that led to the introduction of the new calendar into Orthodoxy in 1924. But by the time of introduction, the hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople had already undertaken even more radical actions to realise their vision of ecumenism. In February 1921, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Meletios Metaxakis visited Washington, where he ‘vested, took part in an Anglican service, knelt in prayer with the Anglicans, venerated their Holy Table, gave a sermon and later blessed those present.’ Moreover, under pressure from the same Patriarch, the Patriarchate of Constantinople accepted the validity of Anglican orders in 1922. No one can accuse the Church of Constantinople of not being true to its word as far as ecumenism was concerned!
Thus, it was ecumenism in its most indifferent variety that motivated the change in calendar. The encyclical and the subsequent actions of Constantinople and Athens bear out that that they were willing to go far, very far indeed, to foster ecumenism. As pointed out in the encyclical, the re-ordering of the calendar (in other words, the acceptance of the papal calendar) was done with the specific aim of fostering a dubious kind of unity among the various churches, most of whom were positively heretical. [As St Mark of Ephesus said, ‘We have cut the Latins off from us for no other reason that they are not only schismatics, but also heretics. For this reason it is wholly [emphasis mine] improper to unite with them. This is the sort of Church the 1920 encyclical called ‘kinsmen’ [to] and ‘of the same body’ as, the Orthodox]. Let there be no mistake, this encyclical was not motivated by a wish for the heterodox to come to the true Orthodox faith through which there is salvation. It was merely an attempt to reach a ‘lowest-common denominator’ Christianity, where ‘you compromise a little, I’ll compromise a little – and we’ll sweep the rest under the carpet, and lo and behold! we have union in sacraments – no matter how much we disagree on the essentials of faith.
It is the precisely the same sort of Christianity that the Church of Rome has traditionally offered to the Uniate Churches in Orthodox lands – the choice to keep their Orthodox traditions, even permission not to include the Filioque in their Creed – all as long as they commemorate the Pope and submit to Rome! Lowest-common denominator satisfies all. (And one would have thought that if they broke from the Orthodox Church over the filioque, they would at least insist the Uniates say it!). This is exactly the sort of Christianity the 1920 encyclical envisions. The calendar was the first compromise offered by the Orthodox, and they expect us to accept it!

Let us now consider the major objections to the New Calendar:
1. Theological – The calendar in the minds of the Fathers was the expression of unity in faith and sacraments. This was the basic reason for the Synodal Letter of the Council of Nicea quoted above. By introducing the new calendar, the New Calendarists have ruptured unity, forcing vast sections of the Orthodox people to pray separately in a purely temporal sense. As stated earlier, some sections of Orthodoxy keep a feast when the rest, fast. This is lamentable, especially when one considers that the new calendar was introduced so that the Orthodox may instead keep feast with heretics and schismatics.
2. Also, by tampering with the calendar, the New Calendarists have destroyed the internal rationale of the Church year, built up over 16 centuries, making an absurdity of the order of liturgical celebrations (consider the example of the Apostles’ Fast as quoted above). The Orthodox Church has, in its wisdom, decreed a period of time to prepare for the celebration of certain feasts. Similarly, there is also a period of time where we ‘take leave’ of the Feast. Both these periods are there to enable us to reflect more deeply on the mystery of the salvific events wrought by our God and Saviour, and thus, not merely to ‘plunge in and out’ of a Feast for a day, and then to promptly forget about it. This, the new calendar destroys, destroying at the same time, the usefulness of the liturgical year as a tool for instruction in, and preparation for, the spiritual life.
3. Ecclesiological – The very form of the introduction of the New Calendar has been anti-Orthodox in spirit. The hierarchy of Greece employed largely papistical tactics and arguments [and brutal state power] to ‘impose from on high’ the new calendar reform. This method may have worked well for Gregory XIII with his false and heretical notions of Papal supremacy, but for a Church that has ever defended the concept of ‘conciliarity’ (or as the Russians call it ‘sobornost’ – ‘togetherness’), this action cannot be called anything but unconscionable. In the introduction of the new calendar, the bishops were not consulted. The priests and theologians were hardly asked for their opinion. No other local Churches were asked for their assent. As noted earlier, almost all Patriarchates and local Churches had anathemised the new calendar. But to overturn all this, only the signature of the Greek Archbishop was necessary. How is this compatible with what Orthodoxy teaches about authority in the Church? 
4. Moreover, even if all Bishops were to agree, doesn’t Orthodoxy teach that is has to be received by the lay faithful before it can be ratified as a true teaching of the Church? One needs only to call to mind the many Arian and Iconoclastic Councils of the past, and Patriarch John Beccus’ ill-fated union with the Latins to realise that no matter how many Bishops may agree to heresy, the Orthodox Church as a whole, in its priests, monastics and laity has always been vigilant to guard the truth of the Faith. However, none of these, the true Orthodox ‘kinsmen’ and ‘fellow-heirs in the promise of God in Jesus Christ were consulted.’ What force in Canon Law can the arbitrary act of one small segment of Pan-Orthodoxy have on the Orthodox faithful as a whole? Can one local synod overturn the decisions of Fathers, Councils and the teachings of theologians and the faith of the laity in one stroke of the pen? All in the name of ecumenism? 
5. Lastly, one cannot accept the new calendar because it was motivated by the banal desire for compromise with the heterodox. In other words, there was, and is, no reason for introducing the new calendar. if the new calendar advanced the worldwide cause of Orthodoxy, if by its adoption, the Pope of Rome were to recant his errors, then one can claim (within limits) that it is an expression of charity that reconciles sinners to the Church (economia) – as enunciated by St Basil the Great. However, the introduction of the new calendar has done nothing like that. It has merely alienated Orthodox people among themselves. Other than that, it has been largely ignored by the other churches, which have no desire to learn about, or embrace Orthodoxy. In short, it was a bad decision, made criminal by intransigence after the fact. It approaches liturgical fratricide because it has set brother against brother, and all for nothing. 
There are some who will claim that in the final analysis, one must not spend too much time on ‘thirteen days’. True, and we agree with that. However, as stated above, it is the motivations and circumstances that surround these thirteen days that worry us. One realises that the circumstances and motivations behind the introduction of the new calendar are inimical to the very fabric of Orthodoxy that has preserved through the efforts of countless hierarchs, martyrs, ascetics and faithful. If one has to lose the very conciliarity of the Church, its sobornost, a reflection (as the Fathers say), of the internal relations between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, in order to preserve external unity, then what use is this unity? 
There are also some who would counsel obedience, stating that we must not oppose hierarchs who have made the decision to adopt the new calendar. To these one must point out that the ideal of ‘Obedience above truth’ is the motto of Papism. As pointed out earlier with regards to the Uniate Churches, Papal Rome has always elevated external unity to a supreme virtue, subjecting even truth to it. Anyone who counsels obedience to those who in conscience oppose the new calendar are in fact, suggesting a ‘Roman obedience’ that is blind and opposed to the freedom guaranteed by Holy Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy, by its very definition, is concerned with truth, rather than preserving an external, totalitarian unity. We are not Romans, nor Jesuits! If Maximos the Confessor, John of Damascus and Mark Eugenicus had thought like the supporters of the ‘Roman obedience’, Orthodoxy would have long ago been subsumed and deformed beyond recognition, by heresy. 
Lastly, it is worth highlighting that the new calendar was imposed brutally on Orthodox faithful through the use of state power. Countless Old Calendarist priests and monks were forcibly shaved, nuns insulted and faithful attending services battered by police working for the state. Holy Gifts were trampled upon and altars overturned, all in the name of installing the new calendar. The persecution reached its high points in 1927 and 1951. One remembers especially New Martyr Catherine Roustis, who was killed by a blow from a rifle butt while defending a old calendar priest in 1927. She reposed on 15/28 November 1927.
This persecution of Orthodox Christians was unleashed by the very same people who had introduced the new calendar innovation to Orthodoxy, in order to ‘re-kindle and strengthen love among the Churches’. 
So, the reason I am an Old Calendarist is very simple: I choose to be so because it is logical to be so. It enables me to be faithful to the traditions of the Church as taught by the Fathers and the subsequent local Councils. Old Calendarism (for all its misadventures) possesses the grace of forming saints and martyrs. Most importantly, the new calendarists have failed to give one good reason why I shouldn’t be so.

* Quotations from p46 and pp 23-24, The Struggle Against Ecumenism, The History of the True Orthodox Church of Greece from 1924 to 1994, Boston, Massachusetts, 1998

BAPTISM - The Baptism of Heretics and the Orthodox Church

One of the most serious accusations leveled against Traditional Orthodox Christians is that we ‘re-baptize’ non-Orthodox believers who have already been baptized using the Trinitarian formula in their former churches. The allegation is serious because if it is true then every Traditional Orthodox Bishop and priest who has administered the sacrament of baptism to non-Orthodox believers is liable to be deposed. The canons of the Church are absolutely clear on this point. Canon 47 of the Canons of the Holy Apostles of the Pedalion says:
If a Bishop or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and failing to distinguish priests from pseudo-priests.
Critics often use this Canon to claim (wrongly) that Traditional Orthodox priests and Bishops have all been ‘deposed’ for daring to ‘re-baptize’ those with ‘valid Trinitarian baptisms’. Well, there are two things we need to consider before we can even talk about depositions, excommunications and reductions to the lay-state – all catchphrases tossed about carelessly in today’s extremely chaotic ecclesiastical atmosphere.
Firstly, despite their fondest wishes, our critics may need to note one troublesome point: they claim that Traditional Bishops and priests are ‘automatically’ deposed by the very act of ‘re-baptism’. This is a very convenient thing, this ‘automatic’ defrocking – but unfortunately, it is not an Orthodox thing. It is a Roman thing. Only the canon law of the Roman Church knows excommunications and depositions incurred latae sententiae – in other words, automatically. Orthodox ecclesiology knows no such thing as automatic sentences. The juridical body in the Orthodox Church is the Holy Synod of Bishops canonically in charge of a particular geographical area – the province. Only the Synod may apply the rules (canons) of the Church in a particular case. In the Orthodox understanding, rules – no matter how perfectly framed – do not have immediate juridical power. They have to be applied by the living successors of the Apostles, the Bishops. Of course, these successors have to be successors in fact, not successors merely in name. For example, if you have a so-called ‘Orthodox’ bishop who has communion in prayer with heretics, schismatics and pagans, overturns the Church calendar so as to celebrate feasts in common with other so-called ‘sister-Churches of world(ly) Christianity’, allows the cremation of the dead – you get the idea…
So, you have a rule, given in wisdom by the Fathers. It has to be applied to a particular case by the living successors of the Apostles who carry on the mantle of apostolic authority given by our Lord. These successors have to be true successors in faith and not merely in name. Then, you have a valid deposition. (This is why, although we all know that Nestorius was an out and out heretic and heresiarch even before the Third Ecumenical Council was convened, he validly occupied the post of Patriarch of Constantinople until the Council met and deposed him. Church history is full of such examples.)
My question is this, then: when was this process completed against any Traditional Bishop or presbyter?
Now we come to the more interesting (and important) issue: critics attack the Church for ‘re-baptising’ heterodox who in their opinion already have a ‘valid Trinitarian baptism’ (that is baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’). Let us read Canon 47 again. The Canon does not make any reference to ‘a valid Trinitarian baptism’ – it only alludes to a ‘true baptism’. So, in the mind of the Orthodox Church, there isn’t any issue of a ‘valid Trinitarian baptism’. Either a baptism is a true baptism, or it isn’t. If it is a true baptism, then, well – you are baptized and fully in communion. If it is not a true baptism, oops - you have a false baptism and you are not in communion.
Therefore, when a Traditional Orthodox Bishop or presbyter baptizes an heterodox believer, he is not ‘re-baptizing’ the person, but baptizing him or her for the very first time with the true Orthodox baptism which alone guarantees salvation.
Thus, in the first instance, there is no such thing as ‘re-baptism’ when the issue concerns people joining the Church from a schism or heresy. There is only baptism. In the second instance, Orthodox priests and Bishops are specifically commanded by this Canon to administer this baptism - for if they do not administer true baptism to those who do not have it, then they would be guilty of mocking ‘the Cross and death of Our Lord and failing to distinguish between true priests and pseudo-priests.’
So, in effect, we have only one question we need to ask ourselves: what is true baptism? If we could define what true baptism administered by true priests is, then it would follow quite simply that everything else would be false baptism, thus requiring a true baptism to be administered at the point of admission to the Orthodox Church.
The problem is that today many Orthodox are caught up in the ecumenist propaganda and believe that what constitutes ‘true’ baptism is the mechanical repetition of the Trinitarian formula. In other words, as long as a person has had water poured, sprinkled, splashed on him or her with the words ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit’ – then, the person is magically and automatically baptized, no matter who the person saying the words (and doing) the action is.
Is this what we are to understand of the dogma of salvation – that it is merely mechanical thing, requiring nothing more than a magic act?
This bizarre theology is the product of the Western mindset, that as long as a man has had hands laid on him by a valid Bishop, then he too becomes a valid bishop. So, whatever this ‘valid’ Bishop does, whether baptizing, chrismating or ordaining also became automatically valid ad infinitum. This error was further perfected by Thomas Aquinas, the Latin doctor, who declared that as long as the baptism had the right ‘matter’ (water – poured, sprinkled or thrown, whatever) and the right ‘form’ (the ‘right’ words – the Trinitarian formula), then the baptism was valid.
[Thomas incidentally got his theology not from the Bible, but from Aristotle, and that, by the way of commentaries of Islamic scholars such as Avicenna. The idea of form and matter is an entirely Aristotelian concept. Thomas applied it to all sacraments (mysteries) until each one of them, in the Roman conception, has an appropriate ‘matter’ and ‘form’, that makes them automatically and magically valid. Well, if you said Hey Presto and you waved the wand…]
What is the Orthodox teaching, then? The mysteries (or sacraments), including baptism, are the continuation of Christ’s presence and work in the world, and the visible means of Christ’s invisible grace. They are, in short, the means to participation in the life of the Risen Lord. It is this life that transforms man by grace into god (theosis). This is the aim of the Christian life – to be transformed so that our very being closely resembles by grace what God is by nature.
This life is ever present in the Church, which is the True Vine into whom the life of Christ is forever flowing. It is for this reason that the Apostle St Paul makes the connection between faith and baptism in his famous line to the Ephesians ‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5). Only by knowing the One Lord may one come to the one, true Faith. If one’s knowledge of the one Lord, the Holy and Indivisible Trinity, existing in three hypostases (persons) of Father, Son and Holy Spirit – but sharing the one indivisible ousia (essence) is deficient, then one’s understanding of the Faith will also be deficient. If one’s Faith is deficient, then one’s baptism by which one enters in communion with the Risen Christ will also be deficient and non-existent. [St Maximos the Confessor teaches that the aim of Faith is the salvation of man. To him, perfect faith, or union with God is achieved by means of growing from simple faith based on hearing and keeping the dogmas of Revelation to a perfect faith, based on directly attaining union with God. St Maximos points out that the heretic who fails to keep the Revelation as received by the Apostles intact, loses any possibility of growing to perfect faith, and consequently, attaining union with God, and thus, salvation).
The Orthodox Church, by ever proclaiming the True Faith (orthos ‘right’; doxia ‘praise, belief) in the Holy Trinity, never deviating even for a moment into the errors of the Arians, Monophysites and Nestorians preserves the true knowledge of God. This allows it to worship rightly the ineffable Godhead in Three Persons. This preserves its baptism from error and invalidity.
Also, because the Faith is one, as the understanding of the one true God can only be one, then the Church is also one – because only a community that preserves and proclaims this true and one Faith can be the visible sign of the life in Christ. Anyone, who believes as this Church believes, is in communion with it. Anyone, who does not, is not. The true Church by its adherence to the truth of the Faith administers true baptism. Anyone, who believes differently from how this Church believes, administers false baptism.
This is why the Roman Church and the Anglican Church and the myriad Western Churches do not possess true baptism: because they do not possess the true faith and the true understanding of the Trinity. All of them, without exception, subscribe to a erroneous view of the Trinity, ascribing the procession of the All-Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. This degrades and destroys the monarchical principle of the Father who sends; the Son who is sent by the Father and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father.
Of course, one is forced to admit that they baptize in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit – but we ask with fear and trembling– which Father, which Son and which Holy Spirit are they referring to? Their error is as serious as the error of the Arians who by the word ‘Son’ believed in something altogether different from the Orthodox who believed that the Son of God was God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who is sent. To the Arians, the Son was merely a pre-eminent creature. This is why St Athanasius, whose words were confirmed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council says in his third discourse against the Arians [quoted in the commentary on the Pedalion by:D.Cummings, P 68, W.H. Houldershaw Ltd, 1908]:
“The Arians are in danger even in the very plenitude of the mystery – baptism, I mean. For while perfection through baptism is given in the name of the Father and of the Son, the Arians do not refer to the true Father owing to their denial of the likeness of the essence emanating from Him, thus they deny even the true Son, and conjuring up another in their imagination built out of nothing real, they call this one the Son…” (emphasis mine)
St Basil in his First Canon makes this point even clearer.
“But who, though he has attained the acme of wisdom, can maintain or believe that merely the invocation of the names of the Holy Trinity is sufficient for the remission of offenses and for the sanctification of the baptism, even when, the one baptizing is not Orthodox?” (Ibid., emphasis again mine)
These two examples, among others, show very clearly, how the baptism of heterodox Romans and Protestants, who like the Arians do not preserve the true knowledge of the work of, and relations between, the Persons of the Holy Trinity, is always invalid, and therefore, a false baptism. They have not known the One Lord, because they have not received the One Faith – therefore, their baptism is not the one baptism administered by the one Church, and is thus, void.
Lastly, our critics like to point to occasions in Church history when Romans and others were, indeed, received by chrism (even before the heresy of ecumenism). This was hardly an innovation! At various times in Church history, the baptism of heretics and schismatics has been accepted as valid as a measure of economy (see 7th rule of the Second Ecumenical Council and the 95th rule of the 6th Ecumenical Council). St Basil, who was nobody’s idea of an ecclesiastical compromiser, states in his First Canon that while schismatical baptisms are in fact, invalid, the decision of the Fathers of Asia to declare them as valid ‘for the sake of economy of the multitude’ may be accepted. As Cummings notes in page 70 of his commentary, economy was used to facilitate the returning of the heretics and schismatics to the salvific Faith of the Church so that they may not become even more confirmed and depraved in their error. It never meant that heretical and schismatical baptisms were valid. They just meant that the Church was exercising compassion to draw as many men to the true knowledge of Christ as possible by making up for the deficiencies in their baptisms by the authority it had received from the Lord to ‘loose and bind’. Receiving converts by chrismation was an exception to the normative rule of the Church that considered all baptisms outside the Church to be false and devoid of grace. It was always an extraordinary act of charity exercised by the deliberations of Synods of God-bearing Fathers. It was never a normative dogmatic decision.
It was in this spirit that the Church of Constantinople and Russia had accepted some heterodox throughout history by chrismation. The ecumenists attempt to subvert this exceptional act into a permanent ruling just shows a remarkable failure in their reasoning.
The Orthodox Church has never, God forbid, rejected the constant teaching of the Fathers that baptisms outside the Church are truly invalid, and all seeking admission to the One Fold of Christ must be baptized with the true baptism of the Church.
This is what the traditional Christians have done and continue to do. Those who reject and criticize us, only confirm more strongly their departure from the Patristic mindset and praxis. 
And this need not surprise us: their teachers, sadly, are no longer the Fathers of the Undivided Church, but the scholars and theologians of ecumenism and the lowest common denominator Christianity of present day Constantinople, Rome, Canterbury and Geneva.
http://www.egoch.org/english.html