Orthodox Tradition Magazine No. 1/2003

Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies
orthodox
tradition
ORYODOJOS
PARADOSIS
Volume XX
Number 1
2003
ORTHODOX TRADITION
Published with the blessing of His Eminence,
Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
_____________________________________________________________
Editor: Bishop Auxentios Volume XX (2003)
Managing Editor: Archimandrite Akakios Number 1
Art and Design: Chrestos Spontylides ISSN 0742-4019
_____________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2002 Nativity Encyclical of Metropolitan Cyprian 2

An Orthodox Auto-da-Fé 5
The Restoration of Human Nature 21
Homily on Priscilla and Aquila 24
The Resurrection of our Savior 33
Book Reviews 35
Synod News 37
Annual Clergy Conference 2003 43
Publications 44
“The Old Calendar movement is neither a heresy nor a schism,

and those who follow it are neither heretics nor schismatics, but
are Orthodox Christians.”
Archbishop Dorotheos of Athens (1956-57)
State (New Calendar) Church of Greece
_____________________________________
Orthodox Tradition is published three times yearly (winter, spring, and summer) by
the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies. Postage paid at Etna, CA. Subscrip-
tion is by voluntary donation. Suggested donations, to defer publication costs and
postage, are as follows: $12 U.S., $15 Canada, and $25 foreign [via Air Mail]. Sub-
scriptions are for one year, beginning in January. Subscriptions are accepted after Jan-
uary for the entire year only. Back issues are available solely by subscription and for
the current year. Office of publication: St. Gregory Palamas Monastery, 1307 Sawyers
Bar Rd., Etna, California. Address all inquiries to: C.T.O.S., P.O. Box 398, Etna, CA
96027 U.S.A.
Nativity Encyclical
THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD AND THE
DIVINE GARMENT OF MAN: ADOPTION TO SONSHIP
AND BECOMING CHRIST
Beloved Brethren in Christ and Children in the Lord:

A. Holy Baptism and our Adoption to Sonship
Blessed be God, Who has found us worthy once again, today, to cel-
ebrate radiantly, Divinely, and thankfully the great Mystery of the Dis-
pensation of the Incarnation, by which the Son and Word of God, through
the Good Will of the Father and the coöperation of the Holy Spirit, be-
comes man, that man might by Grace become God.
Our Orthodox worship reveals Divine mysteries to us. The Divinely
inspired hymns and overshadowing of the All-Pure Mother of God, who
became “a heavenly ladder by which God descended”1 and who has
proved to be the “bridge conducting those on earth to Heaven,”1 have al-
ready initiated us into the “Divine darkness”2 of Orthodox theology.
Yet, for edification and spiritual consolation, let us attempt to enter a
little further into the lofty dimensions of this great Feast, with the Disci-
ple of Love, the Holy Apostle John the Theologian, as our guide: “The
Word was made flesh and dwelt in us”; “but as many as received Him, to
them He gave power to become the sons of God.”3
With holy Baptism, every Christian is born anew in Christ. He re-
ceives the divine gift of Adoption to Sonship in Christ. He becomes a
child of God.
This great gift of Adoption to Sonship has very striking results: It
makes us temples of the Holy Trinity, since holy Baptism is accom-
plished not only “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit,”4 but it is made effective by the three Divine Persons, “the anoint-
ing God, the anointed Son, and the anointment of the Spirit.”5
Beyond this, we should take note that this Adoption to Sonship,
through holy Baptism, holy Chrismation, and holy Communion, means
that we receive a kinship and likeness to our Saviour Christ, so that we
are literally “clothed” in Him; that is, we become by Grace what He is by
nature: “For as many as have been Baptized into Christ,” says the Holy
Apostle Paul, “have put on Christ.”6
Children in the Lord:
B. We are Clothed in and Become Christ
And thus, our clothing and garment of Light is the God of Lights
Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has given us the “Spirit of Adoption
to Sonship”;7 that is, He has given us abundant Divine Grace, that we
Volume XX, Number 1 3
might become and be called “sons of light,”8 of noble birth, and free in
Christ our Saviour.
The direct response, on our part, to the gift of Adoption to Sonship is
a continuous effort to become Christ, that is, an effort to preserve this “in-
effable and incorruptible and spiritual garment”;9 to remain continuously
clothed in “the garment of salvation, in our Lord Jesus Christ, the ineffa-
ble light,” “in power and truth”;9 to be transfigured radically and entirely
into a new being, that “Christ be formed in us.”10
The Divine Paul instructs us that all that are truly “sons of God,” are
governed and directed by the Holy Spirit: “...for as many as are led by the
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”11
It is a common teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church that all
who are clothed in Christ are clothed, likewise, in the Holy Spirit, for the
Divine Comforter is also called the “clothing of the faithful.”12 Now, our
putting-on of Christ and the Holy Spirit is not, of course, something ex-
ternal, but is rather an internal transfiguration: “Christ and the Holy Spir-
it,” says St. Photios the Great, “we do not put on like a garment cast over
us from outside, but as the heart and thoughts are filled with light and the
face with Grace.”13
St. Basil the Great describes the consequences of our being clothed
with Grace in this image:14 iron, the Saint tells us, when it is immersed in
the furnace and is clothed in fire, is changed and transformed; it is puri-
fied of corrosion; instead of being hard, it becomes pliable; while it used
to be black, it now is fiery and glows. The same sort of thing happens to
the Christian when he is Baptized in the fire15 of the Holy Trinity and
clothed in the fire of Divine Grace: he acquires spiritual purity, he casts
off the hardness of wickedness, he is enlightened and enlightens, and he
is warmed and gives off warmth.
“For the true God Himself,” says the St. Athanasios the Great,
“wears us all, so that all of us might wear God. As many as are bearers
of the Spirit bear light; those who bear light are clothed in Christ; and
those who are clothed in Christ are clothed in the Father.”16
Indeed, only those who remain faithful to the Adoption to Sonship of
holy Baptism have truly been clothed in the Holy Trinity and will be
found worthy of the perfect Adoption to Sonship after the general Resur-
rection; for the former Adoption to Sonship is “like a seed and a root and
a beginning,” whereas the latter is the “fruit and result of the former.”17
Beloved children in the Lord:
C. Love and our Becoming Divine
The indescribable Condescension of the Word which we celebrate
was the outcome of Divine Love: “For God so loved the world that He
gave His Only-Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should
not perish but have everlasting life.”18 Therefore, it is Love, as I con-
stantly remind you, that must be the chief characteristic of the sons of
God in power and truth. A reliable criterion for our progress in becoming
Christ and Divine is Love, since it is through Love that we become like
4 Orthodox Tradition
unto God and are clothed in Christ and in the Holy Spirit.
“When a person acquires love,” Abba Isaac the Syrian instructs us,
“together with it he clothes himself in God.”19
Therefore, let us always have before us this Love of God for man; let
us maintain continuous communion with the source of Love through the
precious Mysteries; and let us cleanse our hearts from dark passions with
constant repentance and the watchful, prayerful, and ascetic life of our
Church. Then we will abide in Love; then we will abide in God; then we
will be, in power and truth, living temples of the Holy Trinity.
The Saints assure us with amazement—“Oh, what a great and inex-
plicable gift of Grace!”—that “a person that dwells in love, this person
dwells in the Holy Trinity. And likewise, the Holy Spirit dwells in him.
Do you see the great gift of Grace, my brother Christian? Do you see the
dignity that is gained by a person who has love for God and his brother?
For he is a temple and dwelling-place and abode of the super-essential
and most royal Trinity, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”20
the one true God, to Whom is due all glory and worship and thanksgiv-
ing unto the ages. Amen!
Your Intercessor Before the Incarnate Lord,
† Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
President of the Holy Synod in Resistance
Notes
1. Akathist Hymn, Oikos 3.
2. See St. Dionysios the Areopagite, Mystical Theology, chapter 1: “What is Di-
vine darkness?”
3. St. John 1:14, 22.
4. St. Matthew 20:19.
5. Cf. St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, chapter 12, § 28.
6. Galatians 3:27.
7. Romans 8:15.
8. St. John 12:36; I Thessalonians 5:5; cf. Ephesians 5:8.
9. St. Makarios of Egypt, “Homily 20,” §§ 1-3.
10. Galatians 4:19.
11. Romans 8:14.
12. St. Photios the Great, in St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, “Commen-
tary on Galatians 3:27.” See also the expression of St. Makarios of Egypt in the homi-
ly cited above: “the garment of the Spirit,” “which is the power of the Spirit.”
13. St. Photios, ibid.
14. St. Basil the Great, On Baptism, “Homily 2,” § 10.
15. Cf. St. Matthew 3:11: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
16. St. Athanasios, in St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, “Commentary on
Romans 13:14.”
17. St. Photios, in St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, “Commentary on Rom.
8:23.”
18. St. John 3:16.
19. Abba Isaac the Syrian, “Homily 81” [Greek text].
20. St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, “Commentary on I John 4:16.”
An Orthodox Auto-da-Fé
Critical Comments on a
Recent Book on Sects
by Archbishop Chrysostomos
I HAVE BEFORE ME a very troubling book, perhaps ill-advised in

its very conception and without doubt stridently disputatious. It is the
second volume of a work entitled Invazia Sectelor (Invasion of the
Sects), by Deacon P.I. David, who teaches at the Patriarchal School of
Theology at the University of Bucharest. I am both disquieted and
somewhat perplexed that, rather than earn its author non placets ga-
lore from his academic colleagues, this work even bears the impri-
matur of the Patriarch of Bucharest; and, though produced under the
imprint of “Editura ‘Europolis’” in Constanta (1999), that it is an of-
ficial publication of the Patriarchate’s “Centru Cultural.” One can on-
ly lament that his academic and ecclesiastical colleagues did not dis-
courage Father David from publishing these volumes, which lack a
good scholarly base and stray from the loftiness of Orthodox theolo-
gy and the level of comportment and sobriety that seems appropriate
to that loftiness.
In the first place, I have grave reservations about books of this
kind, which sometimes rather imprudently take a polemical view of
any religion which differs in its creed from the beliefs and theological
presuppositions of the Orthodox Church. I say this, not because I have
anything but absolute commitment to the doctrines, teaching, and
ethos of Orthodoxy as the “kriterion tes aletheias” (“criterion of
truth”), as one Church Father calls it, but because among civilized
people, disagreements about what are often the most cherished of
truths must be handled in an objective, responsible, and irenic man-
ner. One cannot simply throw around the word “sect,” whenever an
established ecclesiastical body is threatened by those who hold dif-
fering views, any more than the Fathers of the Church used terms like
“heretic” or “schismatic” in any but the most extreme circumstances,
and this in a doleful spirit and with reluctance. The violation of this
sense of Patristic sobriety simply opens one up to the accusation of
sinecurism and corresponding charges that a preoccupation with self-
serving positions of authority, rather than doctrinal fidelity, underlies
the unrestrained hostility and pejorative epithets that typically adorn
writings of this overtly polemical kind.
In his introductory comments to this volume, Dr. Adrian Nastase
makes some very important observations about the danger of sectari-
an activities in Romania, correctly pointing out, in my opinion, that
proselytism by various foreign sects throughout Europe is a definite
menace, posing a threat to the continent’s traditional moral, religious,

social, and cultural legacy. This threat was especially acute for coun-
tries behind the Iron Curtain (most of them overwhelmingly Orthodox
by confession) in the years immediately following the collapse of
Communism, when religions and cults of every kind literally “invad-
ed” societies newly tasting of the freedom of thought and conscience
so long denied to them under their former ideological and political
systems. Proselytization under these circumstances was reprehensi-
ble, when one realizes that it was carried out with wealth from the cof-
fers of religious believers from the West (and the Far East, for that
matter), who saw in the impoverished people of Eastern Europe fruit
ripe for the picking. So-called “rice Christians” were often the result
of this wholesale and repulsive form of proselytism. Sadly, this post-
Communist onslaught of proselytization can still be seen, though now
somewhat limited in scope, in many Eastern European—and espe-
cially Orthodox—countries.
However, while affirming the correctness and necessity of Dr.
Nastase’s observations, I must at the same time say that one of the
prices of a pluralistic society, and of democracy, is a spirit of tolera-
tion with regard to diversity in belief. Like it or not, another cost of
freedom is also a certain submissiveness in the face of tactics and
methods of religious conversion which are not always palatable to
those of us who prefer a more refined approach to religion, in gener-
al, and evangelization, in particular. Moreover, one must, in evaluat-
ing these new waves of proselytization, clearly distinguish established
religions from mere sects or cults, since the intentions, tactics, and so-
cial impact of the former are quite distinct from those of the latter.
Simply calling a religion a sect does not automatically make it such;
nor, again, does it fairly characterize a religion that is not, in fact, sec-
tarian in its teachings and practices. For example, in the present vol-
ume, Father David includes the Methodist Church, Quakers, and the
Salvation Army in his list of sects (pp. 342-348). In point of fact, there
are many respected and renowned adepts of these religious creeds and
philosophies who hold, or have held, important and responsible posi-
tions in American society and in various Western European countries.
They could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called sectarians
or cultists. The Methodist Church (which was first organized in Eng-
land) operates some of the most prestigious institutes of higher edu-
cation in the United States. The Salvation Army, in turn, is widely re-
spected and honored for its social work and altruistic outreach to the
poor and downtrodden. And President Nixon, Father David should be
reminded, was a Quaker. Whatever infractions may have taken him
from his seat of power, he was most assuredly never called a sectari-
an by even the most vitriolic of his detractors or accusers. Indeed, one
man’s sect is often another man’s religion.
It behooves us, then, to be very careful to establish objective cri-

teria by which to separate clearly dangerous and exploitative sects
from religions with an established history and a record of positive so-
cial benefit. These criteria cannot be formulated haphazardly or in an
ad hominem manner. They must be absolutely objective and of schol-
arly provenance; otherwise, we fall to unfair, inaccurate, and vacuous
invective that rightly invites others to label us as religious bigots or
sectarian in our confessional outlook. I dare say that, if Father David’s
book were translated into English, he would immediately find himself
labelled—fairly or not—a misanthropic bigot or sectarian, on account
of the shrill language of his book and his indiscriminate inclusion of
well-respected religious groups among what he calls sects. Unfortu-
nately, his general portrayals of various religious groups are also often
superficial and banally encyclopedic; and, lacking clear and objective
criteria by which to distinguish religious belief from sectarian manip-
ulation or cultism, his observations are at odds with established
methodology in comparative religion. They evidence a complete lack
of understanding of prevailing scholarship in the study of sects and
cults. Indeed, he follows the style of the sectarians and cultists them-
selves, who—and particularly among the more militant Protestant
fundamentalists in America—call any religious group that deviates
from their doctrinal or dogmatic principles “sectarian” or “cult-like.”
It is worthy of note that Father David juxtaposes Methodists and
Quakers with such sects as the “Church of Satan” (pp. 323-326),
Moon’s Unification Church (pp. 260-268), the Ku Klux Klan (pp.
316-318), wrongly identified as the “Ku Klus Klan” in the “Contents”
(p. vii), and, for some curious reason that he never explains, acupunc-
turists (p. 260), with the same aplomb with which the aforementioned
fundamentalists frequently dismiss Roman Catholicism and Ortho-
doxy as mere cults.1 The author also relegates almost every major Far
Eastern religion to the level of a sect, casually discussing the ancient
Lamaist religion of Tibet and Mongolia (p. 273) in the same chapter
in which he describes the Unification Church (op. cit.) and Falun
Gong (pp. 271-272), describing the latter, in keeping with the pro-
nouncements of Chinese Communist propaganda, as a cult dedicated
to sexual liberation, or “libertatea sexy (sic),” operating under the
mask of “anti-Communism” and having its source in the U.S.! Such
an indiscriminate association of historical religions, politico-religious
movements, and sectarian groups is, as I have said, inconsistent with
the prevailing scholarly standards for the study of religion and reli-
gious beliefs and does little more than create an eccentric categoriza-
tion of religious groups which is, to reiterate what I said above, more
in the style of backwater American fundamentalist writers than that of
serious religious scholars. I leave it to someone more facile in the va-
garies of religious polemicists to explain how Father David suffered
no discomfort in including Opus Dei (though long tied to certain fas-

cist figures, an organization approved by the Vatican and also closely
tied to some of Spain’s more important intellectual traditions and cen-
ters of learning) and apartheid (notwithstanding the contemptible
racial theories of apartheid and the violence which such theories can
engender, essentially a political ideology and not a sect) under reli-
gious sects tainted by terrorism (see “Contents,” p. vii), or citing (p.
271) the practitioners of the Japanese tea ceremony—while, oddly
enough, admitting the positive effects of this relic of ancient Oriental
cultural refinement on Japanese youth—in his section on “Occultism
and Asiatic Fanaticism under the Guise of Religion” (Section C, pp.
260-273).
Serious, scholarly investigations of sects and cults do not always,
of course, agree on what constitutes a valid religion or a sect; first, be-
cause the criteria established by various scholars may differ and, sec-
ondly, because the standards which they in fact apply are often sub-
jective in nature and can lead even a perfectly well-intentioned re-
searcher to unfounded conclusions. However, such divergences arise
from nothing more than the imperfections of methodology, the ulti-
mate limitations of any scholarly pursuit, and honest dissimilarities in
how one approaches religion phenomenologically, socially, and con-
ceptually. They are inevitable foibles that scholars of comparative re-
ligion must acknowledge and confront, with varying success. But
simply setting up one’s own religion as the standard against which all
other religions are measured is, as I have strongly argued, not a schol-
arly pursuit. It involves a weakness that lies outside the domain of the
academic study of religion. This strategy may enjoy some repute as a
commendable confessional approach—and then, I would think, only
if it avoids all passionate personal opinion, bigotry, and sectarianism
within a given confessional context—, but it is not the stuff of gen-
uine scholarship or a useful or valid research strategy. Again, to reit-
erate an important caveat about such an approach, Father David is
himself open to the accusation of sectarianism, in view of his some-
times vexatious prepossessions about various religions and sects and
his uncareful, uncritical, and desultory approach to his subject matter.
This is regrettable, since one does not like to see such a lapsus in
someone whose work could have implications both for the academic
and the ecclesiastical worlds and whose obvious skills could be so
much more positively and effectively applied.
In the context of these general introductory remarks, I would like
to turn to and examine one of the sections in the volume in question,
entitled “The Anti-Calendarist Movement (Old Stylists).”2 A friend
recently called my attention to a striking quote from Thucydides,
which very much applies to this section: “Amathia men thrasos, lo-
gismos de oknon pherei” (Historion, II, 40). Herein, the reputedly
greatest historian of antiquity tells us, in essence, that, while studious

thought prompts caution in our observations, careless scholarship en-
genders a certain insolence. Father David’s comments on the Old Cal-
endarist movement vividly demonstrate the perspicacity of this apho-
rism. At a rudimentary level, one wonders, of course, how a portion
of the indigenous faithful of the Orthodox Church of Romania—albeit
a faction which calculates its Festal Calendar according to a formula
abandoned by the New Calendar Church of Romania in the 1920s—
can be characterized as “invaders,” and especially since, fixed since
time immemorial on the land of their ancestors, these believers main-
tain religious rites and customs that have remained unchanged for
centuries. But beyond this point, I cannot but be astonished at the
multitudinous and endless historical and conceptual errors contained
in this section of Father David’s book, adorned as they are by con-
temptuous portrayals of the leaders and followers of the Old Calendar
movement so inappropriate and insolent as to defy credulity.
We read in this essay on the Old Calendarists that monks without
“cultura teologica si cultura generala” (p. 11), refusing to accept the
calendar reform instituted in 1923 by an inter-Orthodox conference in
Constantinople, eventually created, under the influence of Athonite
monks with pretensions to enlightenment and sobriety and “Stylist ag-
itators,” “o perturbare” (“a disturbance”) in Romania’s “viata reli-
gioasa si sufleteasca” (“religious and spiritual life”) (p. 13). We are
told of the “partisan stylists”—obdurate (“indaratnici”) priests and
monks primarily located in the province of Moldavia—and their in-
citement of the faithful to reject the calendar reform. Gathered in
monastic communities marked by “ignorance and fanaticism” under
the “cloak of humility,” we further learn, the Old Calendarists fo-
mented disobedience to the Church, accusing it, “vai!” (“alas!”), of
having instituted “a change in dogma, tradition, and the canons” (p.
12). Despite its adoption of the New Calendar for reasons of astro-
nomical accuracy (p. 11),3 the Church was besieged by these apparent
“native” invaders, who in time created their own “uncanonical and
schismatic” hierarchy (p. 13), realizing certain “political” aims, as
perhaps evidenced by the fact that they first gained recognition from
the Bolsheviks, as we are also gratuitously informed by Father David
in a title note to this section: “Stilistii au fost recunoscuti la noi de
catre bolsevici inainte de 1949...” (p. 11). The supposedly insignifi-
cant, scattered communities of peasants and fanatics that make up the
present-day Old Calendar Church of Romania are a mere legacy of
the political chicanery of exploitative opportunists, we are left to be-
lieve.
Like characters in an elaborate Orthodox auto-da-fé parade, the
“uncanonical” Old Calendarist “schismatics” are marched before us
amidst the most shocking claims and accusations, most of them at-
tested by footnotes and references that are inadequate, inaccurate, bi-

ased, and frequently outrageous. Burned at the stake of Father David’s
unfortunate inquisition are such figures as Metropolitan Galaction
Cordun (whom he mistakenly identifies as Galaction “Gordun”) (p.
13), who Consecrated the first Bishops for the Old Calendar move-
ment and who, we are blithely informed, was excommunicated in
1955 (p. 14). The Bishops Consecrated by Metropolitan Galaction
(i.e., Bishops Meftodie, Evloghie, and Glicherie) are also presented
by the author in less than flattering language. In addition to taking
glee at pointing out the dates of their excommunications as Old Cal-
endarists by the Romanian Patriarchate (ibid.), he describes them with
such unpleasant terms as these: “un om simplu si bigot” (“a simple
and bigoted man”), referring to Bishop Evloghie, or, in describing
Metropolitan Glicherie, “un om limitat si fara carte” (“an unlettered
and limited man”) (p. 14, notes 25 and 26, respectively). Naturally,
the ecclesiastical titles of the Old Calendarists are invariably placed in
quotation marks, a convention, oddly enough, seldom employed in
portraying non-Orthodox clergy who come under the author’s disfa-
vor. He correctly traces the succession of the Metropolitans of the Old
Calendar Church of Romania from Metropolitan Galaction to Metro-
politan Glicherie (whose Glorification as a Saint by the Old Calen-
darists in 1999 he ridicules with expressions too distasteful to repeat
here, in our text proper) to Metropolitans Silvestru and Vlasie. Given
the other deficiencies in his historical account, one is surprised by this
accuracy, albeit in an account which is marred by Father David’s con-
tention that Bishop Cozma was proclaimed a schismatic, in order to
accommodate the election of Metropolitan Vlasie as the present Met-
ropolitan (ibid.). This fatuous accusation is wholly false and without
veridical substance.
I will dismiss as whimsical, and thus not consider at length, the
author’s prattle about the Old Calendarist monasteries having stores
of meat, cheese, and olives during the days of Communist domina-
tion,4 while monastics under the Patriarchate were, at this very time,
being persecuted (p. 14). But his comments ex maleficio about Archi-
mandrite Flavian, Abbot of the Monastery of the Dormition of the
Mother of God in the military district of Bucharest, are so extravagant
that they cannot be ignored. In his parade of Old Calendarist figures,
for some reason Staret Flavian becomes an obsessive object of Father
David’s attention. The ad hominem invective heaped on the former is
simply abhorrent. Among several astonishingly invidious references
to Archimandrite Flavian, we see the following, in the context of a
snide and vile charge that, among those diverse individuals posing as
clergymen in the Old Calendar movement, are “former prisoners” (p.
15): “Insusi staretul Flavian, ca multi altii, a avut condamnari. Pentru-
ce? ramanc de vazut” (“The aforementioned Staret Flavian, like many
others, was condemned [by the courts]. Why? It remains to be seen”)

(ibid., note 27). This offensive remark is followed by charges that the
Old Calendarists have wrongly accused the “official” Church of Ro-
mania (the Patriarchate) of collaboration with the Communists, when
in fact the Old Calendarist monastics supposedly enjoyed favored sta-
tus under the Communists. Father David does not go on to tell us
“what remains to be seen,” with regard to the reasons for Archiman-
drite Flavian’s imprisonment under the Communists, nor does he offer
any evidence for a special status afforded the Old Calendarists under
their rule. In addition to my comments in footnote 4, supra, I will
have more to say, below, about this oversight by our author. Suffice it
to say, here, that a professor and scholar would do well, at the very
least, to avoid tabloid-type gossip in his academic endeavors and pub-
lished works.
I believe that I have adequately captured the spirit and general
content of the auto-da-fé parade that is Father David’s purported ex-
posé of the principals and spectacles of the Old Calendar Church of
Romania. There are endless foibles, errors, astonishing absurdities,
and outrages that I could include in my critical comments on this ex-
posé; yet, I think it unnecessary to belabor the point or to embarrass
the author further for what I can only hope he sees, as I said at the out-
set of this short review, as both an ill-conceived and an ill-advised
work. What I must do, however, is offer some corrective responses to
all that I have cited in my examination of Father David’s book: not to
the end of defending the Old Calendarists—which is neither my task
nor of prime importance, given the vacuousness of the many mani-
festly inane claims and often perfidious accusations that I have re-
counted—, but for the purpose of giving some balance to the study of
a disenfranchised group that, often being unable to speak for itself, is
known more through the mouth of its detractors than the voice of its
own soul. About this disenfranchisement and its sad effects on the
very psychology of people who are persecuted for following their
consciences, and misused by those who would exploit them, I have
written a great deal in other places.5 Vis-à-vis my present comments,
I will simply say that fairness, justice, and the principles of democra-
tic pluralism empower me to affirm that attacks against any minority
religion are ultimately inconsistent with the values which we Ortho-
dox hold dear and which the Romanian state, now breathing freely the
sweet air of an open and progressive society, strongly upholds and
champions. But I will forego that empowerment for the sole right to
set the record straight with regard to the Romanian Old Calendarist
community, which is a significant and important part of the overall
landscape of Romanian Orthodoxy and Romanian life.
When I first visited Romania in 1980 (see note 4, supra), I had the
pleasure and honor of meeting Metropolitan Glicherie and the Hierar-
chy of the Old Calendar Church of Romania at their main monastery

in Slatioara, the Monastery of the Transfiguration. We were greeted by
a crowd of some 20,000 believers, which overwhelmed us, and later
we visited a number of large and thriving parishes and monastic in-
stitutions. I was deeply impressed by the orderliness of the monastic
life, the piety of the faithful, and the hospitality and kindness shown
to us everywhere. I also had the opportunity to meet a number of cler-
gy, a few of whom had embraced the Old Calendar despite having
been reared in the New Calendar Church of Romania.6 In all of my
dealings with these Old Calendarists, I would be hard-pressed to de-
scribe anyone I met as lacking “theological” or “general” culture. I
found the theological training available to the clergy—of necessity
confined to Old Calendarist monasteries, since Old Calendarists are
not allowed to study in the theological faculties sponsored by the New
Calendarist Patriarchate7—to be of first quality. I found the clergy and
monks to be well-read in the Church Fathers, the Canons, and Church
history. Their services showed a broad knowledge of liturgics. In fact,
after the fall of Communism and the installation of Metropolitan
Vlasie as President of the Synod of Bishops of the Old Calendar Or-
thodox Church of Romania, the advisors and faculty of the Center for
Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, in Etna, California, which I then
served as Academic Director, granted the degree of Licentiate in Or-
thodox Theological Studies to His Eminence on examination and
evaluation of his monastic training and broad knowledge of Orthodox
theology. I should note that among the examiners who issued the de-
gree were some very distinguished scholars and theologians,8 most of
whom were not, in fact, Old Calendarists. My experience may, of
course, be anecdotal, but it is based on personal knowledge of people
about whom Father David has only scarce, if any, knowledge. This all
stands aside, of course, from the issue of whether scholars should call
people “unlettered,” “bigoted,” and “uncultured.” First, we should
have firsthand evidence of such traits before using them in an ac-
cusatory way; secondly, we might, as scholars and as Christians, find
more cultivated ways of making such observations, if we must, and
then without the added dimension of ad hominem denunciations.
I should also emphasize that Metropolitan Galaction and the first
Bishops whom he Consecrated for the Old Calendar movement were
not shadowy figures. Metropolitan Galaction had been Confessor to
the former royal family of Romania, and, indeed, the late Mother
Alexandra (the former Princess Ileana), to whom I was close during
my formative years as a monastic (like her, years that came rather late
in life),9 spoke of the positive regard in which he was held by her fam-
ily. Bishop Evloghie I have never heard described as a simple man or
a bigot; rather, he is revered by many very well-educated and cultured
Old Calendarists for his theological wisdom and spiritual insight.
Metropolitan Glicherie was not a simple monk at Neamt at the time

of the calendar reform, as Father David wrongly claims, but the Su-
perior of one of the monastery’s sketes. Nor was he an unlearned or
unlettered man. When I met him, advanced as he was in age and very
infirm, I was astounded by his very presence.10 As for the particular
target of Father David’s ire, Archimandrite Flavian, Abbot of the Dor-
mition Monastery, I met Father Flavian during my first visit to Roma-
nia. I now serve regularly with him at his monastery in the military
district of Bucharest, and I know him as an upright, brilliant, and in-
credibly active individual. He has built almost a dozen monastic in-
stitutions throughout Romania, drawing monastics, both monks and
nuns, from among young and educated Romanians who, discovering
in the angelic life the roots of Romania’s rich cultural and religious
life, represent the best that their country has to offer. Inspired by a
man of singular charism, they have discovered within themselves the
richness of Orthodoxy lived in its fullness and in the arena of monas-
tic struggle. They adorn not only the Old Calendar movement, but the
whole Orthodox Church and their homeland. They also stand as trib-
utes to a man whom Father David has wrongly maligned as a “former
prisoner” and about whose “infractions” we are warned but never in-
formed.
This issue of the “former prisoners” who putatively make up the
body of Old Calendarist clergy is one that brings up the whole matter
of calumny against the Old Calendarists—calumny which was direct-
ed at them by the fascist regime, at the inception of the movement,
and later by the Communists, and the legacy of which persists in un-
justified accusations in our own day. For almost two years, both dur-
ing my Fulbright teaching assignments in Romania and now as Exec-
utive Director of the U.S. Fulbright Commission in Romania, I have
been collecting personal accounts of religious persecution under the
Communists from Old Calendarists, as well as other Orthodox be-
lievers and clergy. Among the many stories which I have heard is that
of Archimandrite Flavian, a student in Physics at the University of
Bucharest and a monk under Bishop Evloghie (vide supra) when he
was arrested by the Securitate and threatened with imprisonment un-
less he disavowed his religious activities and agreed to act as an in-
formant. Just before his arrest, seeing that it was imminent, together
with Bishop Evloghie Father Flavian visited the Romanian Patriarch,
predecessor to the current Patriarch Teoctist. Despite assurances from
the Patriarch that he would intercede on their behalf, their monastery
was almost immediately bulldozed, the monks scattered, and Father
Flavian arrested. (Their monastery was of necessity under construc-
tion illegally, since, despite Father David’s suggestion that they re-
ceived special treatment under the Communists, the Old Calendarists
did not have the status of a recognized religious body and thus could
not acquire permission to build churches and monastic communities.)

Two of the present Old Calendarist Bishops, Demosten and Pahomie,
like Father Flavian, also spent many years in prison for refusing to
abandon the Old Calendar, when specifically offered their freedom for
doing so, as they have both testified to me personally. It is their con-
viction that the New Calendar Church was able to escape further per-
secution itself by leaving the Old Calendarists to take the brunt of the
anti-religious policies of the Communist government. I take no stand
on this matter, since I have no evidence to confirm or deny it, beyond
the testimony of former religious prisoners. I do, however, find repre-
hensible Father David’s reference to various Old Calendarist clergy as
“former prisoners,” and especially in view of the fact that he does not
bother to answer his own question with regard to the reason for their
imprisonment. I would hope that his silence was simply a matter of
negligent scholarship.
With regard to the depositions of the Old Calendarists by the New
Calendarists, I should simply say that constant references to this fact
are neither edifying nor productive. These depositions were unjusti-
fied and an unwise mistake, as were other instances of the mistreat-
ment of the Old Calendarists by New Calendarist Church authorities
(and a few of the more charitable and honorable among the latter will
readily admit this fact). If the “official” Churches in those places
where Old Calendarists have not abandoned the Church Calendar
argue that words like “schismatic” and “heretic” should not be used in
describing Roman Catholics and Protestants, one wonders precisely
how they justify using these same terms against their Orthodox
brethren who follow the Church (“Old”) Calendar. And since the ma-
jority of the Orthodox world still follows the Church Calendar, how is
it that this issue is of such moment? More to the point, if anathemas
can be lifted against the Papists, who still believe firmly that the Pope
is the Vicar of Christ on earth, whereas we Orthodox dogmatically
and everywhere affirm that Christ alone—and no human being—is
the Head of the Church, how is it that excommunications of a purely
procedural kind (for alleged disobedience to Church authorities) are
somehow firmly binding when applied to the Old Calendarists—and
to the point that freedom of conscience has little or no significance
and their very status as Orthodox Christians has been challenged by
some extremist voices? Is the argument really one of sectarianism ver-
sus Church order, or is the genuine issue one of submission to au-
thority? If there are errors and mistakes, perhaps, on all sides, are
these errors effectively addressed by a constant retreat into canonical
and procedural technicalities, or are they better addressed by avoiding
epithets and personal resentments? If, indeed, in providing a hierarchy
for the Old Calendarists under circumstances that were severe, extra-
ordinary, and, in his mind, singular, can we now just offhandedly re-
proach Metropolitan Galaction for his establishment of an Old Calen-

darist hierarchy in legalistic terms, without objectively examining his
motivations and actions and without an appeal to dialogue and mutu-
al understanding? Is this how we approach a matter which, in the case
of certain parallels in Church history, were resolved by mere concel-
ebration or informal reconciliation? Or is the matter, again, simply
one of authority and power?
With regard to Communist collaboration, Father David, on the
one hand, chastises the Old Calendarists for having enjoyed a special
status under the Communists (citing a proclamation made in an his-
torically peculiar situation that had no general application) and, on the
other hand, uses their imprisonment under the Communists as a mark
against their personal integrity. One cannot have it both ways. In fact,
as Father David knows and as I saw with my own eyes and in my own
personal experience, the Old Calendarists suffered miserably under
the Communists. Metropolitan Glicherie’s imprisonments were fre-
quent and brutal, and they occurred, in many instances, during peri-
ods when the New Calendarist Church was itself officially recognized
by hostile authorities. It is no secret, as Father David also knows, that
collaboration between the Communists and the Patriarchate took
place, and this at a time when the Old Calendarists undertook all of
their activities illegally and at the cost of their hierarchy serving long
prison sentences in the most horrible of circumstances. In saying this,
I am not commenting on the compromises and accommodations that
marked the actions of many Church leaders in Eastern Europe during
the Communist yoke. I question them neither ecclesiologically nor
personally, since I was not in their shoes. I am also acutely aware of
the fact that members of the “official” Churches likewise suffered hor-
ribly in prisons and were persecuted for their beliefs. In circumstances
of the kind posed by the Communist yoke, one must allow for great
latitude in evaluating personal actions and motivations. What may ap-
pear to be betrayal can actually be heroism for the sake of the Church,
and, indeed, vice versa. The matter is not an easy one. I do, however,
challenge anyone who would accuse the Old Calendarists of collabo-
ration, given the price that they have paid for their witness, and would
call the “official” Churches in Eastern Europe (that is, Churches that
enjoyed at least the public approbation of Communist authorities) to
show the same generosity to resisters and dissidents that I do to them.
From their prison cells, the Old Calendarists (and others who were
imprisoned for their Faith) paid a far greater price for their acts of
conscience than those who were able to work “within the system,”
and this should not be denied. Time and patience will bring to light
the truth about all things. Idle accusations, name-calling, and retribu-
tive attacks will not.
Let me, at this point, say something about the Old Calendar itself.
If one reads with sedulous study the proclamations of the Old Calen-
darist resisters, whether in Romania, Greece, or Bulgaria, and not the
polemical works of this-or-that individual, he will see that the Old
Calendarists have never claimed that the calendar is a dogmatic mat-
ter. Rather, they have tied the calendar to a diminution in the clarity
with which the Church speaks, in recent times, of its ecclesiological
identity, partly because of political ends posed by an ecumenical
movement not so much aimed at mutual theological understanding
and a tolerant agreement to disagree as at compromise for the sake of
political and social coöperation among religions—coöperation which,
while desirable and attainable at one level, must not come at the cost
of ignoring the doctrinal and ecclesiological purity and primacy of
Orthodoxy. They have also expressed, under the banner of the Old
Calendar, their concern about a neo-Papal trend in Orthodox theolo-
gy, which, mimicking the Papal theories of the Latin Church, tends to
see the Orthodox Patriarchs, not as Bishops equal in authority and
drawing their indispensability in the Church from the conscience and
primacy of the People of God, but as virtual counterparts of the Pope.
Indeed, a spokesman for the Œcumenical Patriarchate recently equat-
ed the “primacy of equality” of Constantinople with the “sole prima-
cy” of the Pope of Rome (something which would certainly prompt
another missile against Papal-like primacy from Saint Gregory the
Great, Pope of Rome, were he writing in our day). And finally, many
Old Calendarists, seeing that theology is not written or studied, but
lived, have expressed through their traditionalist movement growing
concern that the “externals” of Orthodox life, inextricably bound up
with the internal mysteries of the Faith in the way that an Icon is tied
to its Archetype, are fading from consciousness. We are losing sight
of an Orthodoxy expressed in the way that we eat, talk, move, and act;
an Orthodoxy inexorably fixed on fasting, prayer, the Mysteriological
life, and humility and love. There are undeniably, of course, some
who have misused the Old Calendar movement, who misinterpret it,
who distort it, and who have led it into strange vagaries of an un-
healthy kind. But this is true of New Calendarist Orthodoxy, too, and
is not, and should not be, the substance of our discussion.
As for the astronomical “correction” that the New or “Revised Ju-
lian” Calendar (to use a cute euphemism that one sometimes sees in
written defenses of this innovation) presumably represents, this
should be more a cause of embarrassment to the New Calendarist for-
mulators than anything else. In the first place, Old Calendarists are not
“Old” Calendarists, since they maintain the Church Calendar, which
is not the Julian Calendar. The Church Calendar is a calendar unto it-
self and, unlike the Julian Calendar, of purely Patristic origin. The
Prelates who met in 1923 in Constantinople to reform the calendar
were frightfully ignorant of astronomy and the Church Calendar and,
thinking themselves equal to the Fathers who met in Œcumenical

Synods to establish the Church’s Festal cycle, undertook the calendar
change for reasons wholly unrelated to astronomical exactitude. Con-
temporary babbling about the “equinox” and astronomical issues de-
rives from the most banal of reflections on the calendar issue and
should be set aside for its silliness. The Church Calendar is, in fact, an
invention of the Church Fathers and a unique combination of solar
and lunar calendars, fixing the solar Julian Calendar to the formula-
tion of the date of Pascha, which is based on a lunar event and which
forms the base-point of the festal cycle of the Church year. Anyone
with rudimentary training in the astronomical sciences (and this, un-
fortunately, was not the case with the Bishops who reformed the
Church Calendar in 1923) knows that the Julian Calendar is still used
by scientists, because of its precision, for certain astronomical calcu-
lations. Furthermore, the lunisolar Church Calendar is so elegant that
Gauss, the famous mathematician, struck by its amazing intricacies,
took the time to devise a formula for the calculation of Orthodox
Pascha. This fact is almost wholly unknown to the dilettantes who
today argue the virtues of the supposedly astronomically “exact” Gre-
gorian Calendar, which such giants in the history of science as Coper-
nicus refused to endorse, on account of its clumsy inadequacy. Let us
once and for all dispense, then, with the endless astronomical ne-
science that Father David cites in his comments on the Old Calen-
darists (see footnote 3, supra).11
Finally, I would advise anyone who wishes to study the Old Cal-
endar Orthodox Church of Romania in an objective, critical, and
irenic spirit to begin with an essay by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oro-
pos and Fili, a Greek Old Calendarist Hierarch. His work, which ap-
peared in The Orthodox Word in 1982,12 is still probably the best sum-
mary of the movement available. I would also remind the reader that,
since the fall of Communism, despite Father David’s attempts to min-
imalize the Old Calendarist witness, many new and magnificent Old
Calendarist Churches have been built in Romania. At present, the Old
Calendarists have 110 parishes—not a few with as many as a thou-
sand members—and scores of monasteries, convents, and sketes, and
this not just in Moldavia, but throughout Romania. They cannot be
simply dismissed as a redundant religious community, as fanatics and
illiterates, or as a sect. They must be seen as individuals who are in-
tegral members of the Romanian Orthodox Church, with their roots in
the very soil of Romanian religious culture. The time has come when
a new generation of Old Calendarists will not idly endure slander, suc-
cumbing, as some weaker believers have, to various concocted no-
tions of “officialdom” that negate and neutralize the important and sa-
cred witness of believers who have sacrificed their all, suffering im-
prisonment and violent persecution, for their principles. Insult and co-
ercion cannot replace patience, slow and cautious dialogue, structured

and careful contacts, and mutual respect. Essays like that of Father
David, whose motivations and intentions are not mine to judge or im-
pugn, will no longer silence a generation of Old Calendarists who, en-
joying the privileges of religious freedom and conscience that are part
of the true Romanian intellectual and cultural heritage, are not sectar-
ians, schismatics, heretics, or troglodytes, but advocates of an Ortho-
dox purity which is faithful to the finest traditions of Patristic Ortho-
doxy. Today’s Old Calendarists will undoubtedly one day play an im-
portant role in the establishment of true Orthodox unity and partici-
pate in the triumph of reason over the spirit of antagonism which cur-
rently wounds the Church and renders her every action, and especial-
ly those in the realm of ecumenism and religious toleration, subject to
severe criticism. By the presentation of a truthful, objective assess-
ment of the Old Calendar Church of Romania in my response to Fa-
ther David’s unfortunate study, I hope to have made a small contribu-
tion to the spirit of peace and brotherhood that ultimately unites—or
at least should unite—all Orthodox.
Notes
1) See my article, “Orthodoxy and the Cults,” which appeared in The
Greek Orthodox Theological Review, XXV (1980), pp. 37-48.
2) The reference here is to the Julian Calendar and those Orthodox who
adhere to the traditional Orthodox Festal Calendar, which is, as we shall see
subsequently, derived from (but not the same thing as) the Julian Calendar.
The eccentric epithet “Anti-Calendarists” is rather frivolous, if not absurd, as
is the pejorative term “Stylists,” which is derived from the fact that dates ac-
cording to the Julian Calendar are often designated by scholars and scientists
as dates according to the “Old Style.”
3) See, as well, footnotes 21 through 24 (pp. 12-13), which touch pri-
marily on historical matters that add little to our understanding of the sub-
stantial issues pertinent to the calendar reform. See, as well, Father David’s
historically and scientifically cursory and somewhat shallow discussion of
the adoption of the New Calendar by the 1923 inter-Orthodox conference in
Constantinople (pp. 17-36). In comments marked by non sequiturs and basic
scientific errors, his virtual twisting of the canonical, Patristic, and scientific
witness is yet another example of the faulty conclusions to which one can
come on the basis of scholarship formed in carelessness and by an insuffi-
cient examination of the complex factors that must be taken into considera-
tion by anyone wishing to study the intricacies of the calendar reform. In ad-
dition, his assertion (p. 16) that the Old Calendarists consider the Church
Calendar a dogma is simply ludicrous.
4) In addition to preserving the traditional Church Calendar, the Old
Calendarist monks in Romania also refrain from eating meat, an ancient
monastic tradition that is, in our days, not universally followed. Therefore,
the author’s charge takes on an especially bizarre character. As a matter of
fact, when I visited the Old Calendarists in Moldavia in 1980 with a delega-
tion of Churchmen from the Old Calendar Church of Greece, I was aston-
ished by the utter poverty of the Romanian Old Calendarist communities,
which were deprived of what we in the West would consider the basic ne-
cessities of life. Moreover, while travelling with several Old Calendarist Hi-
erarchs, I was detained and held, along with my fellow clergy, by the Com-
munist authorities, who, in fact, mistreated some of the members of our en-
tourage. And this, despite the fact that I and several others were travelling on
American passports and had both valid visas and permission for our visit. I
saw no evidence whatsoever that the Old Calendarists enjoyed special status
under the Communists. In fact, as subsequent observations will aver, quite
the opposite was true. It was not until the overthrow of Communism that the
Old Calendarist Church finally enjoyed relatively full religious freedom.
5) While teaching as a Visiting Professor at the Theological Institute of
Uppsala University in Sweden, I published an article on discrimination
against the Old Calendarists, “Social psychological dynamics and the pow-
erless minority group” (in Swedish) (see The Scandinavian and Ethnic Mi-
nority Review, XV [April 1988], pp. 28-32 ), which may be of interest to the
reader. Also see my essay, “The Old Calendarists: a social psychological pro-
file of a Greek Orthodox minority,” in the American journal Pastoral Psy-
chology, XL (1991), pp. 83-91.
6) This point is perhaps worthy of mention, since Father David cites,
among other things which I have not specifically mentioned, several former
Old Calendarist clergymen who have embraced the New Calendar Church,
as though this were a pertinent argument against the Old Calendar move-
ment. As we see, New Calendarists have also embraced the Old Calendar
movement (which Father David tries to present, not as acts prompted by the
freedom of conscience which the Orthodox Church so values, but as “intense
proselytism” by the Old Calendarists, evidence of which I have seen no-
where); as a matter of fact, the entire Hierarchy of the Greek Old Calendarist
movement was originally made up of New Calendarist Bishops, all in good
standing at the time of their return to the Old Calendar. Included among them
was the “father” of the Greek Old Calendarist movement, Metropolitan
Chrysostomos of Florina, a highly refined and sensitive man and an accom-
plished theologian, whose Deacon subsequently became Patriarch Athenago-
ras of Constantinople.
7) It is a matter of some sadness that Old Calendarists are even now rou-
tinely denied admission to the theological faculties of Romanian universities,
though this policy is unjustifiable and not officially upheld by educational au-
thorities. It is a matter of some hope and joy, however, that Patriarch Teoc-
tist has been instrumental in challenging this policy de facto. In the autumn
of 2001, I was the first Old Calendarist ever to lecture the students at the Pa-
triarchal Faculty of Theology in Bucharest, and this with the blessing and ap-
proval of the Patriarch himself. If, indeed, the Old Calendarists can be paint-
ed as illiterate or uncultured (and I deny this charge categorically), allowing
them to attend theological schools would obviously be a far more effective
way to treat this alleged deficit than denying them admission to those facul-
ties.
8) Among these, Dr. Constantine Cavarnos, the Harvard-educated By-
zantinist and theological writer; the late Dr. John Rexine, Dean of Humani-
ties and Professor of Classics at Colgate University; and Father Gregory
Telepneff, a Yale-educated theologian then at the Graduate Theological

Union, Berkeley.
9) Mother Alexandra wrote the introduction, shortly before her death, to
the English text of my book Smerenie, which was recently published (2002)
in Romanian translation by the Bucharest publishing house Editura Vremea.
10) Indeed, so impressed was I by his life and example, that I authorized
the translation and publication of his life in English by the Center for Tradi-
tionalist Orthodox Studies. I was also present at his Glorification in 1999,
presided over by what Father David crudely calls a Synod of “Pharisaical-
Sadducean Stylists” (p. 38). See Metropolitan Vlasie, The Life of the Holy
Hierarch and Confessor Glicherie of Romania, trans. Sorin Comanescu and
Protodeacon Gheorghe Balaban (Etna, CA: 1999).
11) On the calendar issue from a theological standpoint, see the brilliant
essay by Constantine Cavarnos, “Orthodox Ecumenism as a Divisive Force,”
in Orthodox Tradition, XVIII (2001), pp. 22-26. Regarding the scientific
merit of the Julian Calendar, as opposed to the Gregorian Calendar, see Hi-
eromonk Cassian, A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calen-
dar: or The Old Calendar and Science, eds. Archbishop Chrysostomos and
Hieromonk Gregory (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies,
1998).
12) Bishop (now Metropolitan) Cyprian, “The True Orthodox Christians
of Romania,” The Orthodox Word, XVIII (1982), pp. 5-15. Trans. from the
Greek by Archimandrite (now Archbishop) Chrysostomos.
The Restoration of Human
Nature in Christ*
“We Shall Bear the Image of the Heavenly”1
OUR HOLY TRIUNE GOD created man out of His exceeding good-
ness, so that he might be in a communion of love with Him and so that
man, as a unified psychosomatic entity—as a person—might partici-
pate in the Holiness and Glory of God; that is to say, that he might be
in a state of union with God, as one called to Deification.
The Biblical phrase, “And God said, Let Us make man according
to Our image and likeness,”2 encapsulates the very profound mystery
of humanity: God created us wholly noble and good, in order that we
might become perfect; we were given by nature “that which is ac-
cording to the image,” so that we might attain by choice to “that
which is according to the likeness.”
In the primordial state of blessedness in the “Paradise of delight,”3
the first-fashioned human beings existed in a state of illumination,
“cultivating” and “keeping”4 the gift of Grace. That is, obeying the
commandment that they had been given, they functioned according to
nature, “in a natural way,”5 being elevated to that which is above na-
ture; their minds were in a state of noetic prayer, of continuous and
unceasing remembrance of God through the energy of the Holy Spir-
it, and they were in the process of being raised up to a state of theo-
ria (spiritual grandeur), that is, of Deification.
But man, having free will, as a creature endowed with freedom of
choice, was also susceptible to the passions, “that his free will might
be put to the test,”6 on account of which, moreover, he was given the
commandment not to eat “from the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil.”7
Man’s upward journey towards perfection, towards “that which is
according to the likeness” was interrupted—by way of the envy and
deceit of the Devil—through disobedience. This most tragic happen-
ing was a precursor to death—namely, the termination of the relation-
ship of love and communion between man and God—and man’s de-
parture from Paradise.
This departure was the consummation of a primordial drama, be-
cause it introduced man into the “world,” that is, into the realm of the
cultivation of the passions and of sin. “‘World’ is an inclusive term,”
“and when we want to name all of the passions in general, we call
them ‘the world.’”8

Disobedience transformed man’s senses into “what is contrary to
nature,”9 and thus man could not remain in a state of glory; his sens-
es were now distorted. His mind, deprived of Divine Light, now lust-
ed after depravity and impurity. He became jealous and envious and
lied against others; haughty and arrogant, he became angry and came
to hate his neighbor.
The passions were aroused and kindled. There was a rupture and
dislocation between the internal or spiritual and the external or phys-
ical. Man became a slave of corruption, sin, and death. His struggle
and toil appeared to be “in vain”; he came to be nourished physically
and spiritually on the “bread of sorrow.”10
The Son and Word of God, “the second Man, the Lord from Heav-
en,”11 “was made flesh,”12 that is, made perfect Man in every respect
“save sin.”13 He took pity on man and restored him to Paradise, be-
stowing the glory of His Kingdom upon all who follow in His foot-
steps and keep His commandments. Our Lord healed human nature,
which He assumed and united to His Divine Nature in his Divine Per-
son, freeing it from corruption, sin, the Devil, and death.
He accomplished this “through His holy Body,”14 Which was
filled with the Holy Spirit; a Body which was, after His saving Pas-
sion and glorious Resurrection, a “Heavenly” Body,15 in which He
clothes His “earthly” servants, restoring them and transforming them
from “natural” men to “spiritual” men.16 The “natural” man is he who
lives a merely biological existence; the “spiritual” man participates in
the Grace of the Holy Spirit, Which he receives as a gift in the Church
of Christ, through the holy virtues and the holy Mysteries.
To this end, our Lord appointed “holy worship” and a “pure
law”17 for us in His new Paradise, the Holy Church. Man returns to
his first, natural state and unifies his disrupted and dissipated senses;
and, in worshipping God “in spirit and in truth”18 and in “cultivating
and keeping” the holy law of the Divine commandments, he is nour-
ished by the Life-giving Bread “unto the remission of sins and life
eternal” and is illumined by the Grace of the Holy Spirit.
This is achieved with great toil and struggle and constitutes pre-
cisely the self-denial which is required of a man if he is to take up his
cross and be freed from the slavery of sin and the wickedness of the
Devil. He who has a deep and living faith, and who believes with ex-
actitude and consistency, can, according to our Holy Fathers, attain to
union with God. This sacred, salvific path is beautifully summarized
by St. Maximos the Confessor in the following words:
He who believes fears, he who fears is humbled, and he who is humbled
becomes meek, acquiring the habit of rendering inert those movements
of insentience and desire which are contrary to nature; the meek man
keeps the commandments, he who keeps the commandments is purified,
he who is purified is illumined, and he who is illumined is vouchsafed

to consort with the Bridegroom-Logos in the inner chamber of the mys-
teries.19
Transcending mind and understanding, this passionless union,
with the Bridegroom-Logos in the present life, in the “inner chamber
of the mysteries,” in a heart made contrite by tears of repentance,
wounded by Divine love, and exhausted by crying out unceasingly for
mercy day and night, signifies man’s birth “from above,”20 the advent
of the Kingdom within him,21 and his union with the Holy Trinity.22
This ineffable union constitutes the unerring pledge of future
glory and the assurance that, after the general Resurrection, we will
bear the image—indeed, the likeness—of the “Heavenly,” that is, the
incorruption and immortality of God; for, “there shall be no more
death”!23
Notes
1. I Corinthians 15:49.
2. Genesis 1:26.
3. Genesis 2:15.
4. See note 3.
5. Abba Isaiah the Anchorite, Discourse 2: “Concerning Natural Law,”
§2.
6. Abba Isaac the Syrian, “Homily 41,” p. 171.
7. Genesis 2:16-17.
8. Abba Isaac, “Homily 30,” p. 131.
9. See note 5.
10. Psalm 126:2, Septuaginta.
12. St. John 1:14.
13. Hebrews 4:15.
14. See note 5.
16. I Corinthians 2:14-15; St. Jude 19.
17. See note 5.
18. St. John 4:23.
19. Chapters on Theology, First Century, §16.
20. St. John 3:3, 7.
21. St. Luke 17:21.
22. St. John 14:23.
23. Revelation 21:4.
* Translated from the Greek original in A

Ü giow KuprianÒw, No. 298 (Sep-
tember-October 2000), pp. 337-338.
Homily on Priscilla and Aquila*
by Saint John Chrysostomos
Patriarch of Constantinople
1. I suppose that many of you are puzzled about this passage in

the Epistle reading, or rather, consider this part of the Epistle to be ir-
relevant and superfluous, because it consists only of a succession of
numerous salutations. For this very reason, I am setting off in a dif-
ferent direction today. I am prepared to digress from my main theme
and turn my attention to this topic, so that you might learn that noth-
ing in the Divine Scriptures is superfluous or irrelevant, be it one jot
or one tittle, but that a mere salutation opens up a great ocean of
meaning for us. Now, what do I mean by a “mere salutation”? Often-
times, the addition of a single letter introduces an entire host of con-
notations, as can be seen in the case of the name “Abraham.”1 Now,
how could it not be absurd, when one who receives a letter from a
friend reads not only the body of the letter, but also the greeting
placed at the end, and on that basis conjectures the attitude of the
writer, for us to reckon, when Paul is the writer—or rather, not Paul,
but the Grace of the Spirit, dictating the letter to the whole city and to
so great an assemblage, and through them to the entire inhabited
earth—, that any of the contents is superfluous and simply to pass
over them and not to realize that all of these words have turned every-
thing upside down? For it is this attitude—I repeat, it is this attitude—
that has filled us with great laziness, that we do not read all of the
Scriptures, but select those parts which we reckon to be clearer, tak-
ing no account of the rest.
This mentality of not wanting to read the entire body of a text, in
the belief that something in it is superfluous and irrelevant, has also
introduced heresies. Hence, we are zealous about everything else, and
not only about superfluous things, but also about unprofitable and
harmful things, whereas knowledge of Scripture is disregarded and
despised. Some people get excited about watching equestrian con-
tests, and they can tell you, with complete accuracy, the names of the
horses, from which herd each horse comes, what breed it is, its place
of origin, how it was trained, how old it is, its track record, which
team will carry off the victory, and which horse, released from which
starting-gate, controlled by which charioteer, will win the race, and
outrun its rivals. Others, who frequent theatres, display no less fanati-
cism than the former, but even more, about people who put on inde-
cent performances in such places, I mean actors and dancing-girls,

and they can recite their family background, what country they come
from, what kind of training they received, and everything else of this
kind. But when we are asked what and how many Epistles St. Paul
wrote, we cannot even enumerate them; and should there be any who
are able to list them, they are at a loss if asked which cities received
these Epistles. Now, there was a foreign eunuch who was distracted
by innumerable cares and countless items of business; and yet, he was
so devoted to books that he did not take a break from them even when
he was travelling, but, while sitting on his chariot, applied himself
with great diligence to reading the Divine Scriptures; whereas we,
who do not have even a fraction of the business to deal with that he
did, are unfamiliar even with the names of the Epistles, despite the
fact that we congregate here every Sunday and enjoy the advantage of
hearing the Scriptures.
However, so as not to use up our sermon solely in issuing re-
proofs, come; let us bring to the forefront this salutation which seems
superfluous and irritating. For, when we explain it and show how
much benefit it confers on those who pay careful attention to it, then
greater will be the reproach for those who neglect so many treasures
and cast such spiritual wealth from their hands. What, therefore, is
this salutation? “Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in the Lord”
(Romans 16:3). Surely this seems to be a mere greeting and not to in-
dicate to us anything important or special. Well then, let us devote our
entire discourse just to this phrase. Or rather, we will not be able to
draw out for you all of the meanings contained in these few words
even today, no matter how eager we might be, but must store up for
you until the next day the abundance of ideas generated by this brief
greeting. For, I am not prepared to discuss all of it, but only part of it,
its beginning and exordium: “Greet Priscilla and Aquila.”
2. We must first admire Paul’s virtue, because, having been en-
trusted with care of the entire inhabited earth, both land and sea, and
all the cities under the sky, both foreign and Greek, and encompass-
ing so many peoples by himself, he showed so much concern for one
man and one woman. Secondly, we must marvel at how vigilant and
solicitous he was in soul, being mindful not only of all people in gen-
eral, but also privately of every single worthy and noble individual. It
is not at all amazing that leaders of Churches should do this now,
since they have calmed disturbances and undertaken care for only one
city; but back then, in Paul’s case, not only the magnitude of dangers,
but also the distances of journeys, the multitude of cares, the succes-
sive waves of adversity, and the fact that he was not always assiduous
in visiting everyone, and many other factors than these were sufficient
to banish from his memory even those who were very close to him.
But such cares did not banish Priscilla and Aquila from Paul’s mind.
How is it, then, that they were not banished? On account of Paul’s
magnanimity and his fervent and genuine love. He kept them so much
in mind that he frequently mentioned them in his Epistles.
But let us see who they were and what kind of people they were
who bound Paul to themselves with such affection and elicited such
love from him. Were they consuls, or generals, or prefects, or did they
possess some other eminent office, or were they invested with great
wealth, or were they governors of the city? We cannot say any such
thing; quite the contrary, they were poor and needy people, who lived
from the work of their own hands. They were, Paul tells us, tentmak-
ers by occupation (Acts 18:3); and Paul was not ashamed of them, nor
did he consider it a disgrace for an imperial city and a people who had
a high opinion of themselves if he bade them greet those artisans, and
he did not think that he was insulting the Christians of Rome by his
friendship with Priscilla and Aquila. This is how he taught everyone
in those days to behave.
And yet, if we have relatives who are a little poorer than our-
selves, we avoid familiarity with them and we reckon it a reproach if
we are ever caught associating with them. Such was not the case with
Paul, who even took pride in this state of affairs and made it clear, not
only to his contemporaries, but also to all of posterity, that those tent-
makers were among his closest friends. Let no one say to me: “And
how is it great and admirable that he, being involved in the same oc-
cupation, should not be ashamed of his fellow-artisans?” What do you
mean? This is, in fact, the greatest and most admirable thing about
him. For, those who can speak about illustrious ancestors are not as
ashamed of their inferiors as those who were once in the same low es-
tate, but have suddenly risen to distinction and eminence. It is clear to
all that there was no one more distinguished or eminent than Paul; in-
deed, he was more illustrious even than royalty. For he who gave or-
ders to demons, raised the dead, and was able, by a mere command,
both to make people blind and to heal the blind, whose clothing and
shadow dispelled every kind of disease, was plainly no longer re-
garded as a man, but as an Angel descended from Heaven.
Nonetheless, although he enjoyed such great glory and was ad-
mired everywhere, and converted everyone wherever he appeared, he
was not ashamed of the tentmaker, nor did he think that the honor be-
longing to those who held high office was thereby diminished. For it
is likely that there were many prominent individuals in the Church of
the Romans whom he compelled to greet those poor people. For, he
knew—he knew clearly—that it is not splendor of wealth or financial
affluence that is wont to create nobility, but rather virtuous conduct;
since those who are deprived of the latter, but pride themselves on the
glory of their progenitors, are adorned merely by the name of nobili-
ty, not by nobility itself; or rather, the very name is often withdrawn,
if one goes back to the more remote ancestors of these noble persons.
For, if you examine carefully the eminent and illustrious man who can
claim that his father and grandfather were distinguished men, you will
often find that he had a great-grandfather of humble origins and of no
repute—just as, when we investigate in detail the entire families of
those who appear to be lowborn, we will often find that their more re-
mote ancestors were prefects and generals, whose descendants even-
tually became horse-keepers and swineherds. Knowing all of this,
therefore, Paul did not set much store by such accidents of birth, but
looked for nobility of soul and taught others to admire this quality. In
the meantime, then, we reap the not insignificant fruits of not being
ashamed of anyone of lower birth, of seeking after virtue of soul, and
of reckoning all our external attributes to be superfluous and vain.
3. It is possible for us to derive another gain no less significant
than this, which, if we are successful in acquiring it, is particularly
conducive to sustaining our life. And what is this? Not to censure mar-
riage and not to think that having a wife, bringing up children, pre-
siding over a household, and plying a trade are impediments and ob-
stacles on the path that leads to virtue. Look, here were a man and a
woman who were in charge of workshops, engaged in a craft; yet,
they displayed a much more perfect way of life than those living in
monasteries. How do we know this? From the words that Paul ad-
dressed to them, or, rather, not from the words that he addressed to
them, but from the testimony that he offered after these words. For,
having said, “Greet Priscilla and Aquila,” he added their station in
life. Now, what station was this? He did not say that they were
wealthy, eminent, or of noble birth. Well, what? “My helpers in the
Lord.” There could be nothing equal to this as an commendation of
their virtue; and their virtue can be discerned not from this alone, but
also from the fact that he stayed with them, not for one, two, or three
days, but for two whole years. For, just as secular rulers would never
choose to lodge with simple and lowly people, but seek out magnifi-
cent houses of grandees, lest the magnitude of their dignity be tainted
by the lowliness of their hosts, so also did the Apostles: they did not
lodge with just anyone, but, even as rulers seek out magnificent hous-
es, so they sought after virtuous souls and, inquiring diligently into
those who were suitable for them, they lodged with such people. And
this was, in fact, enjoined in a law laid down by Christ: “Whatsoever
city or house ye enter into, enquire who in it is worthy, and there
abide” (St. Luke 9:4; St. Matthew 10:11). Hence, Aquila and Priscil-
la were fit for Paul; and if they were fit for Paul, they were fit for An-
gels. I would confidently call that little house of theirs both a Heaven
and a Church. For, wherever Paul was, there Christ was also: “Seek
ye a proof of Christ Who speaketh in me?” (II Corinthians 13:3).
Wherever Christ is, there also Angels constantly visit.
As for those who had previously made themselves worthy of min-

istering to Paul, consider what they became while living with him for
two years, observing his outward appearance, his gait, his glance, how
he dressed, his comings and goings, and everything else. For, in the
case of the Saints, not only their words, or their teachings and exhor-
tations, but also every other aspect of their behavior suffices to teach
those who are attentive how they ought to live. Consider what Paul
looked like when dining, when chiding, when exhorting, when pray-
ing, when weeping, when going out and coming in. For if we, having
only his fourteen Epistles, carry them everywhere throughout the
world, what would Priscilla and Aquila, who had access to the source
of the Epistles, the tongue of the inhabited earth, the light of the
Churches, the foundation of the Faith, the pillar and bulwark of the
Truth, not have become through living with such an Angel? For, if his
clothing was fearful to demons and possessed such great power, what
great gift of the Spirit would dwelling with him not have attracted?
Would not seeing Paul’s bed, bedding, and shoes have been sufficient
to arouse his hosts to unceasing compunction? For, if demons trem-
bled at seeing his clothing, much more would the Faithful who lived
with him have been moved to compunction by the sight of it.
It is also worth inquiring why, when addressing them, he put
Priscilla’s name before that of her husband. For, he did not say, “Greet
Aquila and Priscilla,” but “Greet Priscilla and Aquila.” He did not do
this without reason; rather, it seems to me that he knew that she was
endowed with greater piety than her husband. And we can ascertain
from the Acts of the Apostles that what I have said is not a conjecture.
For, it was Priscilla who took aside Apollos, “a learned man and
mighty in the Scriptures,” but who knew “only the Baptism of John”
(Acts 18:24-25), and who expounded the way of God to him and
made him a perfect teacher. For the women who lived in Apostolic
times were not concerned about the things that prepossess the women
of today, such as wearing splendid clothing and adorning their faces
with cosmetics; today’s women pester their husbands, forcing them to
buy them dresses that are more expensive than those of their neigh-
bors and peers, white mules, bridles sprinkled with gold, eunuchs to
serve them, a large flock of maidservants, and every other kind of
ridiculous frippery. No, shaking off these vanities and rejecting
worldly affectation, women in Apostolic times sought only one thing:
to become colleagues of the Apostles and to share in the same pursuit
as they. Hence, Priscilla was not the only such woman, but all of the
others were like her. For, Paul speaks about a certain Persis, who “la-
bored much for us” (Romans 16:12), and he marvels at Mary and
Tryphena (Romans 16:6, 12) for their labors, because they toiled
along with the Apostles and girded themselves for the same contests.
And yet, how is it that, in writing to Timothy, he says: “I suffer not a
woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man” (I St. Timothy
2:12)? He allows a woman to teach when the husband is pious, pro-
fesses the same faith, and partakes of the same wisdom; but also when
he is an unbeliever and in error, the Apostle does not deprive her of
the authority of teaching. In one of his Epistles to the Corinthians, he
says: “And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not..., let
her not leave him”; “For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou
shalt save thy husband?” (1 Corinthians 7:13, 16). Now, how can a
faithful wife save her unbelieving husband? By catechizing and
teaching him, and leading him to the Faith, just as Priscilla did with
Apollos. In any case, when Paul says, “I suffer not a woman to teach,”
he is talking about teaching from the ambon, about speaking in pub-
lic, and about the kind of speaking that is incumbent on Priests by
virtue of their office; he did not forbid women from exhorting and
counselling in private. For, were this prohibited, he would not have
praised Priscilla for so doing.
4. Let men hearken to these points, and let women also hearken
to them: women, so that they might imitate one who is of the same sex
and nature as themselves; men, so that they might not give the ap-
pearance of being weaker than this woman. For, what defense will we
have, what forgiveness will we obtain, when women display such ea-
gerness and love of wisdom, whereas we are constantly preoccupied
with the things of this world? Let rulers and those subject to them
learn these lessons, and let Priests and lay people learn them: rulers
and Priests, so that they might not admire the rich or frequent the
homes of grandees, but might seek after virtue through poverty and
not be ashamed of their poorer brethren, and so that they might not, in
passing over the tentmaker, the tanner, the seller of purple, and the
coppersmith, pay court to those in positions of power; and those who
are ruled, so that they might not suppose that there is any impediment
to their welcoming the saints, but, reflecting on the widow who re-
ceived Elias, having only a handful of meal, and on those who gave
hospitality to Paul for two years, might open their homes to the needy,
sharing everything with those who are strangers. And do not tell me
that you do not have servants to take care of guests. For, even if you
have innumerable servants, God orders you to reap the fruit of hospi-
tality yourself. For this reason, in talking about a widow and bidding
her offer hospitality, Paul enjoined her to do this, not through the
agency of others, but herself. For, after saying, “if she have lodged
strangers,” he added, “if she have washed the saints’ feet” (I St. Tim-
othy 5:10). He did not say, “if she have spent money” or “if she have
ordered her servants to do this,” but “if she have done this herself.”
For this reason, Abraham,who had three hundred eighteen home-born
servants, himself ran to the flock and carried back a calf, ministered
to all of the other needs of his guests, and made his wife a sharer in
the fruits of hospitality (Genesis 17:23-18:8). For this reason, our

Lord Jesus Christ was born in a manger and from infancy was brought
up in a house, yet after He had grown up had nowhere to lay His head,
so as to teach you, by all of these means, not to gape with awe at the
splendid things of this life, but everywhere to be a devotee of lowli-
ness, to pursue poverty, to shun affluence, and to adorn yourself in-
wardly. For, it is written, “All the glory of the daughter of the King is
within” (Psalm 44:13, Septuaginta). If you are inclined towards hos-
pitality, you have all the resources for hospitality, even if you possess
only a single obol [an ancient coin; a “penny”]; but if you are misan-
thropic and detest strangers, even though you are surrounded by all
manner of possessions, your house is too cramped to receive guests.
Priscilla’s house did not have beds overlaid with silver, but she did
have great chastity; her house did not possess bedding, but she had a
kind and hospitable disposition; her house did not have gleaming
columns, but she had a radiantly beautiful soul; her house did not have
walls covered with marble, or a floor decorated with mosaics, but she
was a temple of the Spirit. It was the latter qualities that Paul praised;
it was these that he loved; it was on account of these that he stayed in
her house for two years without departing thence. It was on account
of these that he constantly mentions her and Aquila and composes a
great and wondrous laudation, not in order to make them more illus-
trious, but in order to lead others to the same zeal and to persuade
them to bless, not the rich or officeholders, but the hospitable, the
merciful, the philanthropic, and those who show great kindness to-
wards the saints.
5. Having learned such lessons from this greeting, let us display
what we have learned through our very deeds: let us neither witlessly
call the rich blessed, nor denigrate the poor, nor be ashamed of trades;
and let us not consider manual labor a disgrace, but rather idleness,
having nothing to do with it. For, if it were a disgrace to work, Paul
would not have undertaken it, nor would he have gloried in it, as when
he said: “For though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to glory in....
What is my reward, then? That, when I preach the Gospel, I may set
forth the Gospel of Christ without charge” (I Corinthians 9:16, 18). If
handiwork were a disgrace, he would not have ordered those who do
not work not to eat (II Thessalonians 3:10). The only disgrace is sin;
idleness is wont to engender sin, and not only one sin or two or three,
but every kind of wickedness. Hence, after showing that idleness
teaches all manner of evil, a certain sage said: “Send him to work, lest
he be idle” (Ecclesiasticus 30:27). For, what a bridle is to a horse,
work is to our own nature. If idleness were a good thing, the earth
would bring forth everything without sowing or ploughing; but it pro-
duces no such result. In times of old, God commanded the earth to
yield everything without plowing; now, however, He does not do so,
but has ordained that men should yoke oxen, pull plows, cleave fur-
rows and sow seeds, and should cultivate many other things—vines,
trees, and spores—, so that the work itself might distract the minds of
those engaged therein from all wickedness. In the beginning, to be
sure, in order to manifest His power, He brought it about that all
things should be produced without our labors. For, God said, “Let the
earth bring forth the herb of grass” (Genesis 1:11), and at once all
things flourished. Thereafter, it was not so, but He commanded them
to be produced from the earth through our labors, so that you might
learn that He introduced toil because it is useful and advantageous for
us.
When one hears the phrase, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou
eat thy bread” (Genesis 3:20), it sounds like a punishment; in reality,
however, it is an admonition and a reproof and a remedy for the
wounds deriving from sin. This is why Paul worked unceasingly, not
only during the day, but also at night, as he exclaims: “For we labored
night and day, so as not to be a burden on any of you” (I Thessaloni-
ans 2:9). And it was not merely for the sake of pleasure and recreation
that he undertook work, as did many of his brethren, but he put forth
so much effort in this regard so that he could be of help to others. For
“these hands,” he says, “have ministered unto my necessities, and to
them that were with me” (Acts 20:34). A man who commanded
demons, who was the teacher of the inhabited earth, to whom were en-
trusted all those who dwelt on earth and all the Churches under the
sun, and who looked after peoples, nations, and cities with great dili-
gence, the same worked night and day and had not even a slight
respite from those labors. But we, who do not have even a fraction of
his cares to cope with, or, rather, cannot so much as conceive of such
cares, lead lives of constant idleness. And tell me, what excuse will
we have, what pardon will we obtain? It is precisely because many
people consider it the greatest dignity not to ply their own craft, and
deem it the ultimate reproach to appear to have any such knowledge,
that every kind of evil has swept into our lives. Paul, for his part, was
not ashamed at wielding a knife and stitching hides together, and at
the same time he was not abashed at conversing with those in posi-
tions of authority, but took pride in this very fact, since thereby innu-
merable brilliant and distinguished men had recourse to him. And not
only was he not ashamed at doing these things, but he even divulged
his occupation in his Epistles, as on a bronze plaque. What he had
learned from the beginning, therefore, this he also practiced subse-
quently, even after being caught up into the third heaven and translat-
ed to Paradise, and even after God had communicated ineffable words
to him. Whereas we, who are not worthy so much as to step into his
shoes, are ashamed at those things in which he gloried. Sinning each
day, we do not turn back in repentance, nor do we consider this a dis-
grace; and yet, we avoid living from honest work as if it were some-
thing shameful and ridiculous. Tell me, therefore, what hope of salva-
tion shall we have? One who has a sense of shame ought to be
ashamed at sin, at offending God, and at doing anything that he should
not do; but he also ought to take pride in crafts and occupations. For
in this way, by keeping busy, we shall easily banish evil thoughts from
our minds, we shall assist the needy and shall not be a nuisance to oth-
ers, and we shall fulfill the law of Christ, Who said: “It is more
blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). This is why we have
hands, that we might help ourselves and offer everything we possibly
can from our own resources to those who are physically incapacitat-
ed. But if anyone persists in idleness, though he be healthy, he is more
wretched than those who have fevers, for the latter have some excuse
on account of their illness and will easily find someone to take pity on
them; but the former, who despise bodily health, are deservedly
loathed by everyone as transgressors of God’s laws, who ruin the table
of the infirm2 and degrade their own souls. And the frightful thing is
that, whereas they should be feeding themselves at their own expense,
they go to other people’s houses and pester them, and on top of this
they become worse than everyone else. For there is nothing, ab-
solutely nothing, that is not destroyed by idleness. Stagnant water be-
comes putrid, but water that runs and meanders everywhere preserves
its own vitality. Iron that remains idle softens and deteriorates, eaten
away by rust; but when it is employed in manufacturing, it is more
useful and better-looking, and shines no less brightly than any silver.
One can see that fallow earth produces nothing healthy, but only
weeds, thistles, thorns, and unfruitful trees, whereas, when it benefits
from tillage, it abounds in cultivated fruits. To put it simply, every-
thing that exists is corrupted by idleness but is rendered more useful
when it functions in accordance with its own nature. Knowing all this,
therefore, both how much harm results from idleness and how much
gain from activity, let us eschew the former and pursue the latter, so
that we might live the present life in a fitting manner and help the
needy, as far as we are able, and, by improving our own souls, might
attain to the good things of eternity. May we all attain thereto, by the
Grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be the
glory and the dominion, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit,
now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Notes
1. “And thy name shall no more be called Abram, but thy name shall be
Abraham, for I have made thee a father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5).
2. This is probably an allusion to ancient soup kitchens, designed to pro-
vide relief for those unable to look after themselves.
* Greek text from the Patrologia Græca, Vol. LI, cols. 187-196.
The Resurrection of Our Savior
and the Completion of
the New Creation*
Our Life as a Process of Continuous Renewal. On Great and Ho-
ly Saturday, the Orthodox Church chants with a loud voice:
This is the day of rest, whereon the Only-Begotten Son of God rested
from all of His works. Suffering death in accordance with the œconomy
of salvation, He kept the Sabbath in the flesh; and, returning again
through the Resurrection to what He was, He hath granted us life eter-
nal, for He alone is good and loveth mankind.1
Now, what are “all of the works” from which our Lord rested in
the body? They are all of His works that pertain to our salvation: the
Son of God, moved by exceeding love for sinful mankind, became in-
carnate. Throughout His life, He acted with such great condescension
and humility that it seemed, in a certain way, that “He came out of
Himself, though remaining inseparable from Himself,” “[came] forth
from the dignity of His natural Divinity,” “and thus suffered, died, and
was buried.” But when “He arose, He returned again to Himself and
was restored to the former dignity of His Own Divinity.”2
After the Resurrection, the Body of our Lord became “suitable”
for the manifestation, through It and in It, of the glory of His Divini-
ty. It was, of course, Divinized from His very Conception through the
hypostatic union of His two natures; but, for the sake of the œconomy
of salvation, it was passible, corruptible, and without glory.
That is to say, after the Resurrection of our Savior, His formerly
passible Body became impassible; the corruptible became incorrupt-
ible; the inglorious was made radiant, beautiful, and glorious with the
same glory of Divinity with which it was hypostatically united from
the beginning, without confusion or division. And it was when our
Lord’s humanity became impassible, incorruptible, glorious, radiant,
and beautiful, that our nature was glorified and “He granted us life
eternal.”1
A new Creation was therefore accomplished through the life-
bearing Resurrection of Christ, since what had previously been cor-
rupted and degraded by the Fall was created anew. The Incarnation of
the Logos inaugurated a new Creation; the Resurrection brought it to
completion amid the uncreated Light of the Godhead.
It is noteworthy that this is precisely the reason why, on the Great
Sunday of Pascha, at the Divine Liturgy of the Resurrection, we begin

to read the Gospel according to St. John, in which the Divinity of God
the Logos is proclaimed most brilliantly.
The intensely theological preface to this sacred Gospel introduces
us immediately into the realm of Creation, with the well-known
phrase: “In the beginning was...[the Logos].” 3
He Who brought about the first Creation was the Logos; and He
Who renewed it, thereby inaugurating a new Creation, is the Incarnate
Logos.
Mankind now participates in the new creation in Christ, in that
through the Church it participates in the resurrected and glorious
Body of Christ.
It is blessed repentance, centered on the Divine Eucharist, that re-
news us. And since repentance must be continuous, our whole life is
a process of continuous renewal.
‘Have you sinned today?’ asks St. John Chrysostomos; ‘Have you made
your soul decrepit? Do not despair, and do not be disheartened, but
renew it by repentance, tears, and confession, and by doing good deeds.
And never cease from doing this.’4
Through repentance, we are freed from the decrepitude of sin and
the passions and we are perfected and Deified through Divine Com-
munion.
The Saints portray our Lord as speaking to us and as saying, with
a realism that is truly astonishing:
For your sake I left My Father and came to you.... I united and joined
you to Myself. ‘Eat Me, drink Me....’ I am not simply mingled with you,
but I am entwined with you, masticated, and refined into small particles,
so that the blending, commixture, and union may be more complete.... I
am interwoven with you.... It is My will that we both be one.5
Let us live in unceasing repentance, so that we might participate
continuously in the new Creation and that our life might thus be an
unending Resurrection!
Notes
1. Orthros of Great Saturday, Doxastikon at the Praises.
2. St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, SumbouleutikÚn ÉEgxeir¤dion [Hand-
book of Spiritual Counsel] (Volos: 1969), pp. 173-175.
3. St. John 1:1.
4. St. John Chrysostomos, “Homily 20 on Romans,” §2, Patrologia
Græca, Vol. LX, col. 598.
5. Idem, “Homily 15 on I St. Timothy,” §4, Patrologia Græca, Vol.
LXII, col. 586.
* Translated from the Greek original in A
Ü giow KuprianÒw, No. 307 (March-April
2002), pp. 122-123.
T
Book Reviews
__________________________________________
NICHOLAS FENNELL, The Russians on Athos. Bern: Peter Lang AG, 2001. Pp.
348.
An engaging historical study, The Russians on Athos examines the causes
and the consequences of a latter-day manifestation of the phenomenon of “the
desert a city.” Familiar to any student of Early Church history, this image refers
to the stupendous flowering of monastic life in the fourth and fifth centuries
under the spiritual direction of the great Desert Fathers, when thousands—in-
deed, tens of thousands—of men and women flowed to the ascetic arena of the
deserts—a time when monasticism literally became a mass movement. In our
own days, when Orthodox monastic life appears to be at its nadir, it is perhaps
tempting to think that these numbers have been piously exaggerated or that
they remain an unrepeatable feature of the distant past. However, such doubts
are quickly dispelled by reading the work at hand. From about 1840 to rough-
ly 1910, the “200 Russians on Athos...grew to about 5,000” (p. 48), swelling
the population of the Holy Mountain to “over ten thousand monks..., probably
more than at any time in its history” (p. 39). This tremendous population ex-
plosion and the influx of Russians on Mount Athos was not without its prob-
lems, as is the case with any such sudden increase in a population. The chief
and most persistent of these problems was a spiritually artificial and destruc-
tive division of the Athonite Fathers into ethnic “Greek” and “Russian” fac-
tions. This phyletistic split both reflected and reinforced a pre-existent friction
found in the Orthodox world at large; but this split was made more intense by
the very demographic make-up of the Holy Mountain, “a microcosm of the
Balkan Christian people” (p. 21).
The explicit intention of Dr. Fennell’s study is to present an objective and
impartial account of the tensions between Russians and Greeks during this
seminal period of Athonite history. His commitment to this goal is immediate-
ly apparent in the opening glossary, which contains both Greek and Russian
terms used equitably throughout the text (although his transliterations are more
than a bit eccentric and needlessly exotic at times; e.g., “ekliziarkh” for “ec-
clesiarch” and “isihastirion” for “hesychasterion” [pp.10-11]). He convincing-
ly avers the genuine need for a fresh, detached, and fair treatment of this con-
flict in his “Introduction,” where he justifiably bemoans the inadequacies of his
Greek and Russian source materials. Not surprisingly, because of “the obfus-
cation and passion surrounding...[this]...subject,” the Greek texts are “extreme-
ly one-sided,” while the Russian texts are “no less biased...and present a dia-
metrically opposite view” (pp. 24-25). Despite the paucity of his primary
sources, Dr. Fennell admirably and successfully sifts these texts, dismisses the
falsehoods, and distills the truths.
This study is divided into two parts. “Part I: The Russians on Athos” de-
tails the historical impetus for the flood of Russian pilgrims and monastics to
Mount Athos; how the overcrowding caused by this inundation led to compe-
tition for wealth and power; how the behavior of the Russians was often
marked by crudity, haughtiness, and ostentation, while that of the Greeks by
xenophobia, rancor, and jealousy; and how these psychological foibles hard-
ened into mutually antagonistic mentalities. “Part II: The Prophet Elijah [Elias]
Skete” is a case study of one representative Athonite foundation, of “its com-
plete history and day-to-day running at its apogee,” and of “how well..[it]...fits
into the more general historical scheme” (p. 22).
Looking at the Skete of St. Elias in the general scheme of the conflict
which is the subject of his research, the author points out that, at its height in
1914, the skete “was a tolerant, happy community” where “Christian charity
triumphed over human weakness” (p. 284). He observes sadly that, in 1992,
the Skete’s Fathers—members of the traditionalist Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad—were arbitrarily expelled from their skete—and replaced with Greek
monks—by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who despicably ex-
ploited local anti-Russian sentiments in order to further his own neo-Papal am-
bitions. Indeed, he observes that even Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, himself a
clergyman of the Œcumenical Patriarchate, forcefully criticized this action as
deplorable, barbaric, and a violation of conscience (pp. 311-312). Noting that
“the expelled brethren were given shelter at the Old Calendarist Monastery of
SS Kyprianos and Iustina [Sts. Cyprian and Justina] near Fili, Athens,” and re-
ceived legal assistance from “Metropolitan Kyprianos [Cyprian] of Oropos and
Fili” (p. 310), the author provides us with evidence that the minor differences
between Greeks and Russians can be easily surmounted—at least for those em-
bracing proper spiritual priorities.
The Russians on Athos is an excellent and indispensable contribution to
the study of modern Athos. But it must be remembered that it is an historical
work, not a hagiographical one; as such, it of necessity focuses on the prosaic
and mundane rather than the elevated and sublime: “...on political, worldly and
therefore sensational events” (p. 234). In recognizing this, Dr. Fennell writes:
...[T]he potential for ethnic discord has always existed on Mount Athos.
Monks are, of course, humans and prey to temptations; they cannot be ex-
pected to live in Christian peace and harmony in a small space for over a thou-
sand years, particularly when different nationalities rub shoulders in physical-
ly and mentally demanding conditions. However, as a[n] historian I have to
focus on the exceptional—on clashes and disunity; I pass over the majority of
Athonites who have spent most of the time getting on with the business of
being monks in prayer, toil and self-denial [p. 70].
The author is thus able, even while recounting various scandalous and even vi-
olent episodes, motivated by greed, politics, and the desire to fulfill unhealthy
ethnic agenda, to separate the personal failures of certain monks from the high
standards of their monastic calling, for which he has obvious respect. Let us
hope that the efforts of those Athonites who “[get] on with their daily monas-
tic business” (pp. 234-235) may overturn the fanaticism currently rampant on
Mount Athos, returning it to its ideal as a pan-Orthodox bastion of Holy Tra-
dition.
HIEROMONK GREGORY
Center for Traditionalist
Orthodox Studies
Synod News
Publications
In the summer of 2002, the book Paths and Means to Holiness,
by the distinguished Harvard-educated Byzantinist, philosopher, and
Orthodox religious writer Constantine Cavarnos, appeared in Roman-
ian translation under the imprint of the publishing house of the Ro-
manian Orthodox Patriarchate in Bucharest. The Romanian version of
this popular volume was based on the English translation, by Arch-
bishop Chrysostomos and Bishop Auxentios, of the original Greek
text. The English text was published by the Center for Traditionalist
Orthodox Studies (C.T.O.S.) and is now in its third printing. Professor
Cavarnos, who has served on the Board of Advisors of the C.T.O.S.
since its inception, is President of the Institute for Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies in Belmont, MA. The Romanian Patriarchate
plans to publish a series of Dr. Cavarnos’ books in Romanian.
Teaching Appointment
With the blessing of Bishop Kyrill of San Francisco and Western
America, in the fall of 2001, Father Gregory Telepneff, a clergyman
of the American Exarchate of our Church, was appointed an instruc-
tor at the St. John of San Francisco Orthodox Academy, a co-educa-
tional day school operated by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
Attached to the Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco, the St. John
of San Francisco Orthodox Academy offers a full curriculum from
kindergarten through twelfth grade. Using prayer and fasting as focal
points, “the goal of the school is to direct its pupils toward an active
church life, to develop their Christian consciousness, to maintain
healthy and obedient relationships with their parents, relatives and
teachers, and to strive for excellence in intellectual pursuits.”
Father Gregory, a married clergyman Ordained to the Priesthood
by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna, holds a B.A. degree from Yale
University, an M.A. degree in theology from the New Brunswick The-
ological Seminary, a Licentiate in Theology from the Saint Sophia Or-
thodox Theological Seminary, and a doctoral degree in Patristics from
the Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley.
Adjunct Faculty Appointment

Archbishop Chrysostomos, who is currently Executive Director
of the U.S. Fulbright Commission in Romania, was appointed an Ad-
junct Professor, this last autumn, at the Ion Mincu University of Ar-
chitecture and Urbanism in Bucharest, Romania’s foremost school of
architectural studies. His Eminence, who is also a Guest Lecturer for

the 2002-2003 academic year at the University of Bucharest’s Center
for American Studies, teaches in the graduate program in ecclesiasti-
cal architecture at the Ion Mincu University.
Church of the Dormition

In early autumn 2002, Archimandrite Akakios, Abbot of the St.
Gregory Palamas Monastery, and a small crew of Fathers from the
monastery completed basic work on the interior of the new parish
Church of the Dormition in Port Townsend, WA, which is served by
two married Priests, the Reverend Father Gabriel Lee and the Rev-
erend Dr. Joseph Miller. The Icons on the Templon and Beautiful
Gates were donated to the parish by the Convent of St. Elizabeth the
Grand Duchess in Etna, CA. The Church will eventually be frescoed.
Feast of St. Paraskeva

On Sunday, October 14 (Old Style), Metropolitan Vlasie, Presi-
dent of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Old Calendar Orthodox
Church of Romania (at center in the photograph below), invited
Bishop Auxentios and Archbishop Chrysostomos (first and third
from right) to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy in Iaéi, Romania, on
the occasion of the Feast Day of the city’s beautiful Old Calendarist
parish (see below), dedicated to St. Paraskeva. Also participating in
the Feast Day celebrations were
three other Romanian Hierarchs,
Their Graces, Bishops Demosten,
Ghenadie, and Pahomie (second,
fifth, and, though only partially
visible, sixth from the right).
Bishop Auxentios and Archbi-
shop Chrysostomos were joined
by Hieromonk Patapios, from the
St. Gregory Palamas Monastery in
Etna, CA, who, with the blessing
of Archimandrite Akakios, made a
short pilgrimage to Romania, fol-
lowing a visit to his native Great
Britain. Father Patapios is Acade-
mic Director of the Center for Tra-
ditionalist Orthodox Studies at the
monastery in Etna.
Church of the Dormition

On the weekend of November 3 and 4, 2002 (Old Style), Metro-
politan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, President of the Holy Synod in
Resistance, along with some sixty pilgrims, made an official visit to
our Sister Church in Bulgaria, headed by His Eminence, Bishop
Photii of Triaditza. Metropolitan Cyprian was also accompanied by
Archimandrite Glykerios and Hierodeacon Joseph from the Holy
Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina and a married clergyman from
one of our Church’s parishes in Northern Greece.
On Sunday, November 4 (Old Style), Metropolitan Cyprian and
Bishop Photii were joined by Archbishop Chrysostomos and Bishop
Auxentios, who travelled to Sofia for the Divine Liturgy at the mag-
nificent new Cathedral of the Dormition. The services, sung in Church
Slavonic and Greek, were attended by a large number of Priests and
Deacons and an immense crowd of Faithful, some of whom had trav-
elled from distant parishes in the Bulgarian countryside. (See below
the Bishops and clergy during the Great Entrance.) The accom-
plished cathedral choir added greatly to the beautiful service, which
was marked by perfect liturgical order and a feeling of contrition and
piety that left all of the visitors deeply moved.
Shortly after the Liturgy and the agape meal and before returning
to Greece, Metropolitan Cyprian and the clergy and pilgrims with him
visited the historical Convent of the Protection of the Mother of God
in Sofia, which was for many years the seat of the Old Calendarist re-
sistance during the years of the Communist yoke and persecution.
Feast Day of Sts. Cyprian and Justina

On October 2, 2002 (Old Style) the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cypri-
an and Justina in Fili (Athens), Greece, celebrated its annual Feast Day.
The services, attended by a large crowd of Greek Faithful and visiting
Bishops, clergymen, and Faithful from Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, Aus-
tria, Sweden, Australia, and the United States, were celebrated in the
temporary Chapel in the basement of the immense new Cathedral
under construction at the monastery. On the Sunday following the
Feast, a Nameday tribute to Metropolitan Cyprian was held at the
Novotel Convention Center in downtown Athens. The festivities,
which featured lectures and presentations by the monastery’s superb
Byzantine choir and traditional Greek folk music, were attended by
Faithful from all over Greece, who filled the huge facility to capacity.
During the week of activities, the Holy Synod in Resistance met
at the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina. The Bishops posed
for an official photograph, which appears below.
Left to right, top row: Bishop Chrysostomos of Christianoupolis,

Bishop John of Makarioupolis, Bishop Symeon of Lakedaimonia,
Bishop Auxentios of Photiki, Bishop Ambrose of Methoni, Archi-
mandrite Cyprian (Secretary of the Holy Synod); left to right, bot-
tom row: Bishop Michael of Nora, Archbishop Chrysostomos of
Etna, Metropolitan Cyprian (President of the Holy Synod), Bishop
Chrysostomos of Sydney and New South Wales.
Ordination to the Diaconate

With the blessing of Metropolitan Cyprian, Reader George Chee
was Ordained to the Diaconate on December 23, 2002 (Old Style), the
Sunday before the Feast of the Nativity and the Feast Day of the Ten
Martyrs of Crete, at the parish Church of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in
Etna, CA. The Liturgy was served by Bishop Auxentios of Photiki and
Archbishop Chrysostomos, who was visiting from Romania for the
Christmas holidays.
Deacon Father George is a native of Hong Kong and both he and
his wife, Diakonissa Catherine, are retired high school teachers and
the parents of ten grown children. Father George, a former stockbro-
ker, received his Bachelor of Science degree from Southern Oregon
University and the Licentiate in Orthodox Theological Studies from
the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies.
Following the Ordination, the parish community sponsored a fast-
ing banquet in a restaurant in nearby Yreka, at which Archbishop
Chrysostomos, Bishop Auxentios, Archimandrite Akakios (Abbot of
the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery), and Mother Elizabeth (Abbess
of the Convent of St. Elizabeth the Grand Duchess of Russia) praised
the newly-ordained Deacon and his Diakonissa for their faithful ser-
vice to the parish and the two monastic institutions in Etna. Father
George will be assigned to the Etna parish and will, from time to time,
serve at the Dormition Church in Port Townsend, WA, near which he
and Diakonissa Catherine have family. (Below, serving clergy with
Deacon Father George, his wife, and one of his daughters.)
Exarchate Clergy Conference
Saturday, June 7, and Sunday,
June 8, 2003 (New Style)
With the blessing of Metropolitan Cyprian, the American Exarchate

of our Church will convene a clergy conference on June 7 and 8 at
the St. John the Baptist Church in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
•
Participants are asked to arrive on Friday evening or Saturday morn-
ing. The conference program, with talks and a discussion period, will
begin at 12:00 noon on Saturday, June 7, and end at 4:30 p.m. (We
suggest that participants have a late breakfast.) There will be a break
in the program at 2:00 p.m. for complimentary refreshments. Vespers
will follow these sessions at 5:00 p.m. Participants may then return
to the hotel for dinner. On Sunday morning, following Matins and
the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy (the Liturgy proper will begin
promptly at 9:00 a.m.), an agape meal (a full buffet lunch) will be
served in the atrium of the Collins Plaza Hotel, 1200 Collins Rd.,
Cedar Rapids, IA. Reservations for lunch must be made at least one
month in advance through Father John Abraham (see below).
•
Lay people and interested clergy and Faithful from other jurisdic-
tions are also invited to attend. There is no charge for the conference,
though attendees will be responsible for the cost of their accommo-
dations, meals, and the post-Liturgy buffet.
Note. As indicated above, those in attendance will be responsible for their own ac-
commodations and meals. However, we have arranged for a limited number of
rooms at an excellent discount price of $37.00 per night, single or double, at the
Crowne Plaza Hotel (AAA three diamond-rated), located at 350 First Ave. N.E.,
Cedar Rapids, IA. Phone (888) 363-3550 (toll free) or (319) 363-8161 for reser-
vations, which should be made at least one month in advance of the conference.
State that you are part of the “St. John’s Church group reservation.” The cost per
person for the post-Liturgy agape meal is $15.95, plus tax and tip.
Cedar Rapids is accessible by air and bus. The hotel provides a free shuttle to and
from the Cedar Rapids airport, for those arriving by air. The same free shuttle ser-
vice is available for transportation between the Church and the hotel.
For lunch reservation confirmations or questions, e-mail Father John Abraham

at <frjohn@msocp.com> or call (319) 362-8601. You may also find conference
details on the Internet at <http://www.msocp.com/stjohns/2003Conference.htm>.
Publications
The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies has published
more than than forty-five books, thirty-four monographs, and numer-
ous booklets on themes in Orthodox theology, Patristics, Byzantine
history, pastoral psychology, and Orthodox spirituality, as well as var-
ious original translations of classical Patristic texts and the lives of the
Saints. A catalogue of publications is available from:
C.T.O.S. Publications
Post Office Box 398
Etna, CA 96027-0398
U.S.A.
For online orders, see our website at:
www.sisqtel.net/~sgpm/ctos
CENTER FOR TRADITIONALIST ORTHODOX STUDIES
Replacement copies and back issues of Orthodox Tradition are not avail-
able. Subscribers who plan to move or to change address should arrange
with the postal authorities to have standard mail forwarded to the new
address. A change of address notice should also be sent immediately to
the C.T.O.S.
St.-Gregory-Palamas-Monastery NON-PROFIT
Post-Office-Box-398 ORGANIZATION
Etna,-CA-96027-0398 U.S. POSTAGE PAID
PERMIT NO. 14
U.S.A. ETNA, CA 96027
www.sisqtel.net/~sgpm/ctos
Orthodox
CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED Tradition

Orthodox Tradition Magazine No. 1/2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Orthodox Tradition Magazine No. 1/2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Orthodox Tradition Magazine No. 1/2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies

2002 Nativity Encyclical of Metropolitan Cyprian 2

“The Old Calendar movement is neither a heresy nor a schism,

Beloved Brethren in Christ and Children in the Lord:

I HAVE BEFORE ME a very troubling book, perhaps ill-advised in

menace, posing a threat to the continent’s traditional moral, religious,

It behooves us, then, to be very careful to establish objective cri-

no discomfort in including Opus Dei (though long tied to certain fas-

greatest historian of antiquity tells us, in essence, that, while studious

tested by footnotes and references that are inadequate, inaccurate, bi-

others, was condemned [by the courts]. Why? It remains to be seen”)

chy of the Old Calendar Church of Romania at their main monastery

Metropolitan Glicherie was not a simple monk at Neamt at the time

not acquire permission to build churches and monastic communities.)

proach Metropolitan Galaction for his establishment of an Old Calen-

thinking themselves equal to the Fathers who met in Œcumenical

ercion cannot replace patience, slow and cautious dialogue, structured

Telepneff, a Yale-educated theologian then at the Graduate Theological

them ‘the world.’”8

he who is purified is illumined, and he who is illumined is vouchsafed

* Translated from the Greek original in A

1. I suppose that many of you are puzzled about this passage in

cent performances in such places, I mean actors and dancing-girls,

As for those who had previously made themselves worthy of min-

the fruits of hospitality (Genesis 17:23-18:8). For this reason, our

Sunday of Pascha, at the Divine Liturgy of the Resurrection, we begin

Adjunct Faculty Appointment

architectural studies. His Eminence, who is also a Guest Lecturer for

Church of the Dormition

Feast of St. Paraskeva

Church of the Dormition

Feast Day of Sts. Cyprian and Justina

Left to right, top row: Bishop Chrysostomos of Christianoupolis,

Ordination to the Diaconate

With the blessing of Metropolitan Cyprian, the American Exarchate

For lunch reservation confirmations or questions, e-mail Father John Abraham

You might also like