-- Here we give a full translation of the first few pages of this article, followed by a synopsis of the rest --

Not too long ago a limited edition of a short brochure was published, whose cover is quite striking: against a black background stands the graceful edifice of a Georgian church which is being split apart by an unsightly, yellow shoot with heart-shaped leaves, on which is inscribed the word Ecumenism. The title above reads: Pascha Without the Cross.[2] This brochure had not even managed to be distributed widely among the faithful, when an alarming cracking sound was heard in the walls of our Church. The walls shuddered, and a tragic line appeared, which is menacingly growing wider, and it is on the verge of rending our Church into two mutually antagonizing parts.

What is this? Did the brochure prove to be an unexpected prophesy? Or was it a well-planned preparatory means, smoothing the way for the division which followed thereupon? But if so, then why did its author [Fr. Lazarus, himself], at the appearance of this tragic cracking, step back from the more zealous group of the "champions of Orthodoxy" who had boldly set out upon the path of separation from their ecumenistic hierarchs; and how was it that he [the author] was not found on that side where everyone expected to see him? Did he grow fainthearted? Did he place his personal interests before all else? Did he betray his views and thoughts concerning Ecumenism, which he had expressed so categorically in the brochure Pascha Without the Cross?[3]

My response is this: I do not consider that the symbolic depiction on the cover of my article reflects that which is presently taking place in the Georgian Church. In my opinion, it is not the "yellow shoot" of Ecumenism, grown to maturity, which is rending our Church, but someone's "hand" -- making use of this temptation to which to a great degree Ecumenism has given birth -- is strengthening this tare to sunder the already undermined walls of the church.

The drawing on the cover of my brochure symbolizes something else: Ecumenism definitely will -- sooner or later (most likely, sooner) -- divide the Universal Church! As soon as this treacherous fruit fully ripens -- most certainly at the level of the senior hierarchy of all the Autocephalous Churches, participants in the Ecumenical movement -- some sort of agreement, totally unacceptable to the Orthodox faithful, will be reached concerning liturgical communion with the heretics. Evidently, some sort of Council of the bishops of all the Autocephalous Churches will be assembled, the so-called "Eighth Ecumenical Council", at which several most important points of the Apostolic Canons will be abrogated, after which the division will take place. Then there will remain no doubt for the truly Orthodox people, that Divine Grace has departed from those hierarchs, and that it is no longer possible to remain in such a "congregation of evil-doers".[4] After that, nothing will remain but to save oneself on the "wreckage of the ship", i.e., with the, apparently, few bishops who will have separated themselves from the evil council. Precisely such a conception had been expressed in the symbolic depiction. Confirmation of this is to be found right there on the back cover, where we read:

"Do not be scandalized concerning all this, O reader; we in no wise desire this terrible schism, which will definitely take place if Ecumenism continues to grow… By this forewarning we wish to put off this tragedy for as long as possible…"

One can only wonder: how and why did such an abrupt change of position and attitude take place -- without any new scandalous facts or events whatsoever on the ecumenical horizon, and even in the face of an outward calm on their side?

(Being on Mount Athos at that time, I often telephoned to Georgia and inquired of those close to Fr. John, and who saw him often, concerning the Church situation. They answered me thus: "The situation is very bad, even to the point that the monasteries already want to stop commemorating their hierarchs". I asked: "What's the matter; what's happened; have the hierarchs made some declaration; have they decreed or approved something awful?" They answered me: "No, on the surface there is nothing new, rather even a suspicious lull, even your book denouncing Ecumenism was received without any reciprocal action being taken. On their side there is a total calm". In bewilderment I inquired: "If nothing is wrong, then what's the matter?" Answer: "Well, in general, this and that." And such conversations took place more than once. Already there, on Athos, we suspected that someone was hastening to fan the flames more brightly.)

Thus, for me it would have been inconsistent and perfidious to alter my convictions for no external cause whatsoever, and to join the side of the separatists simply because in the eyes of the people they appear as "zealous champions of Orthodoxy". Fr. John himself always felt and spoke the very same things that I am saying today, but for some reason has now had a change of mind. Since of late there have not been any external, new "jolts", any scandalous events, which might justify such an unexpected outburst of protest, but rather the opposite -- the hierarchs have become much more cautious in their defense of Ecumenism, and several have even begun to criticize it, then consequently these changes have occurred not on the level of Church life, nor on that of the spiritual atmosphere among the faithful, but on the level of personal feelings and moods, on an emotional level.

The brethren who have separated themselves from our Church become highly indignant when we pronounce the word "schism", or call them "schismatics". They say: "We are not schismatics; the Holy Fathers forbid one to associate with a bishop if he has fallen into heresy. We simply cease to commemorate those bishops who have deviated into heresy and associate with heretics. It is not we who are schismatics, but those hierarchs who violate the canons and thus scandalize us". However, separation from ones hierarch and the cessation of commemorating him during the Liturgy is justifiable, and not schism, only in the event that Grace has definitely departed from him owing to his crime. In such a case, verily not he who separates himself from his bishop divides the Church, but rather the bishop places himself outside of the Church, and the faithful then search for another bishop who is still within the Church and through whom the Grace of the Spirit still acts. But if a Christian should say that his bishop for the present still has Grace, and that the Holy Spirit still continues through him the Economy of our salvation, but at the same time the believer goes to seek for himself another bishop in that "church" which does not recognize the Grace present in our Church, then evidently such a Christian simply does not understand at all what he is doing. Here we are already dealing not with schism, but with something worse, with a certain blinding spiritual deception [prelest].

For although these people at present do not yet reject the presence of Grace in our Church, yet they are preparing to join those schismatics who chrismate anew those who come over to them, which is a total denial of the presence of Grace in our Church. If they become "children" of such a "church", then tomorrow they must deny not only the presence of Grace with us today, but also that It was ever in our Church in general all these years (evidently since the day of our entry into the World Council of Churches). Consequently, they must hold the position that all these years we have not partaken of any Gifts of the Holy Spirit, while serving pseudo-liturgies we have drunk plain wine and have eaten plain bread, thinking all the while that we were communicating the Body and Blood of Christ. But the Mysteries in our Church have been accomplished, and the schismatics -- to whom either today or tomorrow our scandalized ones will go -- notwithstanding all their ultra-Orthodox pronouncements, horribly blaspheme the Holy Spirit, spurning the Holy Things and calling upon the faithful to doubt the presence of the Divinity, there where God truly reveals Himself in Flesh and Blood.

For the present these people fear to say that there is already no Grace in our Church for the simple reason that we will immediately inquire of them: since what time? At that point they will be forced to "beat around the bush", for after all, this is the chief question. If the Grace of the Holy Spirit has abandoned our Church, then it is no longer a Church, and we must quickly seek where is that One Holy Church, in Which Alone is salvation. The Church is One, and the Holy Spirit acts in that One Church. Explain to us: when, after which transgression of our hierarchs, did the Holy Spirit leave us; and then we -- having repented that all this while we were outside of the Church -- will go in search of Her. But if the Grace of the Holy Spirit does act through our hierarchs, then why, whither, for what cause, should we depart? We came to the Church not on account of good and honest, kind or just hierarchs, but for the sake of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, for the sake of the Source of Life, which, through the Mysteries of the Church, grants us the possibility to live in the Spirit and to be born unto salvation. There where the Holy Spirit dispenses the Gifts of Grace, there is the Church, and to separate oneself from Her is the sin of sins.

Strange as it may sound, it is now the practice to allow that the Grace of the Spirit is present in the many so-called churches, each of which has its own separate synod, and categorically does not recognize the presence of Grace in the other churches. And nonetheless, in these many churches which spurn one another, the very same Spirit acts simultaneously? One hierarch bans a priest from serving, and the Holy Spirit departs from him as from one banned by the word of a bishop; then another bishop, from another "church", anoints this man anew with "chrism" and restores his rank to him -- and then the very same Holy Spirit once again acts through this priest? How then is one to understand the eleventh article of the Symbol of Faith: I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? Even if one were to allow that the Holy Spirit simultaneously acts in these eucharistically-divided parts of the One Church, which reject one another and do not recognize the action of Grace within one another -- even in such a case, both of these sides still constantly fall into the grave sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit -- declaring the stirrings of Grace to be a nonentity. That is what makes schism so terrible!

At this point our former brethren will resort to cunning, and say that they do not seek another bishop, but only break off the commemoration. But that is not so! They already were discussing going first to Cyprian, then to the Greek zealots, they also thought of the Church Abroad. (This is a well-known fact.)

Obviously no schismatic ever refers to himself as such -- he calls himself a representative of the True Church.

Our erring brethren do not even notice that they are being sly and equivocating, that they are playing on the emotions and minds of the faithful, in their desire to erect their own Georgian Church. This is not a small blasphemy to utter in the presence of the living, Spirit-filled Georgian Church which is One and unto the ages, so that it is not possible to build another! Apparently these people, having lost any fear before the mystery of the Church, think that they can "shop around" for the church of their choice.

And having lost this fear, it's only a matter of time before they break up into ever more groups based on their like or dislike of a particular bishop. Look at all the Old Calendar synods in Greece. And now all their divisions are being imported here: Cyprianites who re-baptize, zealots who re-chrismate, etc.

In defense, these fathers cite the words of the Holy Fathers that one is to severe communion with a bishop who participates in heresy or associates with those who do. Then they will threateningly demand an answer of us: "Is Ecumenism a heresy?" And just you try to object! They will declare: "Yes, a heresy. And if so, then all ecumenists are heretics, including our hierarchs." But a more detailed analysis of the question is to be found in my brochure. Therein Ecumenism is depicted as a most perfidious evil, a poison which paralyzes the chief spiritual centers of Christian life. But ecumenists vary in their understanding and level of involvement. So Ecumenism in not a heresy on all levels or stages; rather it is a form of spiritual deception [prelest]; but on all levels it is an evil and a poison. Not so heresy: on all levels heresy is always heresy. Therefore Ecumenism is more devious and therefore more dangerous -- it seeks to sidestep dogmas, and does not demand that one immediately betray Orthodoxy. Therefore not all ecumenists are heretics; it may be that they are only in prelest and not deprived of the Holy Spirit. Fr. Seraphim Rose writes that Ecumenism is only a heresy when it actually denies that Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. We can't call all Orthodox in the Ecumenical movement heretics. In our times being extreme in the struggle for true Orthodoxy only hinders (Not of This World, p. 914).

Ecumenism is rather a deviating from the path of salvation onto a false path, from the thorny narrow way leading to salvation, onto the broad smooth way leading to destruction, to the precipice. But the precipice itself, into which Ecumenism leads, is [the future] full liturgical communion with the heretics approved by the hierarchy of all the autocephalous churches, which Ecumenism is earnestly preparing for. But Ecumenism itself is [only] the path leading to the precipice -- it leads nowhere else; but one can still turn back! Therefore we must not consider the man following this path already lost, nor should we abandon him, even more so if he be our hierarch who has wandered from the true way. We must stop at the crossroads; we see that we can't follow; we must loudly call out after those who have been deceived by the smoothness and broadness of the path; we must cry out, plead, denounce, even frighten them; but not turn our backs and go away. But if even then they do not listen and they fall into the abyss, then in sorrow we must hasten to find such hierarchs as have not strayed from the true path. Remaining inseparable from our hierarchs and yet demanding from them strict adherence to the teachings of the Fathers, we may be able to restrain them, and many, many of the faithful, from falling into the precipice. Separation from them means that very many would be lost forever. Apostle Paul declares: "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away… For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy…" (1 Cor.: 12-14).

The brethren will say that the ecumenistic hierarchs have not listened to them. Yes, they have posed most categorical questions, to which the hierarchs cannot reply, or perhaps do not wish to. At present all the hierarchies of the autocephalous churches prefer to attend to the external appearance, order and well-being of the Church, to the detriment of the interior life. Precisely for this reason the edifice of the Church may begin to crack; but we must not desire or aid, or hasten this process. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with someone who helps bring about this destruction.

Much denunciatory material is now being published pointing out all the violations being committed, as though the whole church has now become guilty of associating with heretics. But time passes, the wounds heal, and the faithful by their protests do not permit those hierarchs to carry out their plans. For the most part our Church has remained true to Orthodoxy, and to hold the entire church to blame and to pass the death sentence upon her is extremism, this is "ultra-righteousness", a lack of spiritual sobriety, a "deviation to the right".

This is God's providence and protection, that despite the attempt of secular powers and some hierarchs to clothe the Church in the garb of treachery, She eventually (sometime after a long period) casts off these rags and remains true to her Bridegroom. Just as a sick body fights off a dangerous infection and rejects what is foreign to it, and then must convalesce for some time afterwards. (This was always one of Fr. John's favorite analogies.)[5]

Truly Ecumenism is an extreme evil! By means of it the devil seeks to drive the Grace of the Holy Spirit out of our Church. But we must balance the justice of God with His mercy. Too far in either direction is extremism. Either extreme is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Of course, the most difficult and thorny path is the middle way: to react in measure, exposing the canonical violations but hoping on the mercy of God; not loudly slamming the door and declaring that all have hopelessly perished. The Holy Fathers teach that the middle way is the correct one.

We must maintain the unity of the Church to the very end, as long as at all possible. Separation only seems to be a solution. Read Fr. Seraphim Rose's book and you will see that even in the Church Abroad, for all its zeal for the canons and Faith, there were always temptations and problems, even open heresy and schism.

Thus if one appeals only to ones emotions, to ones ardent feelings, then one can always find an ocean of excuses for schism. But that is precisely what the devil wants. If not careful, we run the risk of losing our Mother, the Church, amidst the many who are similar to her in appearance.

They respond: but how much is one to endure, so much has already happened?

First of all, there have always been scandals in the Church. Read the history of the Church and you will see. Many times it seemed that the Church would be capsized by the waves, but She rose to the surface again. The Church Militant on earth is comprised of weak, sinful, human beings -- especially in our days.

Secondly, don't think that those at the helm of the Church are more cold toward the Faith than others, simply they suffer from the same passions and failings as all of us. If we were to be at the top, then all of our own failings would also be that much more visible to the crowd.

But most importantly, it's not so much a question of our patience, as that of the long-suffering patience of God! Again and again we return to one and the same question: Has the limit of God's long-suffering been reached? Has God revoked the Grace of the Holy Spirit from the Church, or not? If He has not, then we cannot depart and seek other bishops and establish another "hierarchy". And if someone should leave, he sins, even if there were serious ground for scandal and temptations. He has rejected the Holy Things, has not recognized the Holy Spirit there where He is, which means that his spiritual vision has been darkened. If one is scandalized by the actions of certain hierarchs, then leave the church building, don't participate in the services, seek council from wise elders; but it is a dangerous affair to seek to turn ones temptation into a banner and invite others to join you!

A very important point to bear in mind here is the concept of Catholicity [Sobornost]: this is the fundamental principle of the very existence of the Church -- that spiritual truths are revealed not to one part of the faithful, but to many and everywhere. If the extreme moment should arrive and the Grace of the Spirit should depart from the ecumenistic hierarchs, then that fact will be spiritually made known to many people, esp. the monastics in every country: in Greece, Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem, etc. Therefore it is very important to have contacts with the fathers of all the autocephalous churches.[6] Our tempted brethren did not consult the monastics on Athos or Russia, but sent their completed announcement of breaking off communion. The cause for this was their total spiritual isolation and their independent action on such a grave matter. Only after composing their declaration did they seek opinions and reactions. As Fr. John himself said to me: "Fr. Lazarus, if it weren't for your contact with the Holy Mountain, you would be with us."[7] Yes, I asked advice on how to conduct myself in such an affair, and thus I have been strengthened to adhere to the middle way.

I also corresponded with the Elder, Fr. John Krestankin in Russia.[8] He quoted the New Martyr, Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd: "I do not fear for the fate of God's Church. More faith is needed; we must forget ourselves, our education etc., and give place to the Grace of God…" The Elder said: "Such is the forbearance of God, sowing tares and wheat. We must strive to remain wheat. We must not shrink from the struggle, but we cannot adopt methods not blessed by God. Not that which is achieved by prayer, but only that which is planned by the mind can become the begetter of schism. That we cannot permit to happen."

The fathers on Athos frankly say: "Fr. John [Sheklashvili] has anticipated events." The declarations of our tempted brethren contain nothing new to Athos. Greece has already seen schism long ago, and not just one. The Athonite fathers have heard plenty of such speeches and denunciations, and more than once have weighed all the pros and cons; and they have found that of two terrible evils it is still better to choose the less evil, schism being the greater evil of the two. And from their vantage point they are able to observe the spiritual state of those who have separated themselves from the unity of the Church. It is noticeable that there is not spiritual growth in those monasteries of the zealots, but a sort of turmoil; they are forever occupied in pouring over the canons. According to the teachings of the Fathers, deviating to the right is always more dangerous.

In his letters Bishop Ignatii Brianchaninov writes: "God permits apostasy to occur, don't try to stop it with your weak hand -- just protect yourself from it and that will suffice you. We should understand the times we live in, and not expect good order in church life; but just be thankful that on a personal level those who wish to be saved have the opportunity to do so."

Let those who are concentrating their attention on the canonical violations of our hierarchs recall an episode from Holy Scripture:

The High Priest Caiaphas pronounces sentence on the Saviour at the session of the Sanhedrin: "Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." (John 11: 50). At this point the Holy Scriptures explain that these most malicious words, spoken from the heart, contemplating the most foul and unjust crime -- these very words belong to the Spirit, Who was pronouncing prophesy by these very lips, and that Caiaphas prophesied because he was High Priest that year. Thus even then, when the Old Testament Hierarch, possessed by envy and malice, passed sentence on the Son of God, even then the Spirit of Grace of the Old Testament Church still continued to bring to pass through him the operation of Economy and salvation. Here is a paradox: the Grace of God so ordered things that even the evil actions of the clergy of the Old Testament Church served to establish the Holy Church and prepared the Victim for the All-redeeming Sacrifice! How terrifying it is then, when people lacking sobriety and found in a zealous state of mind and heart dare to meddle in the mystery of God's providence!

Those who seek to apply means foreign to the Church will only hasten her fall, not prevent it.

Had the sailors left the ship when St. Paul was bound for Rome, both they and all on board would have perished.

When Elias complained to God that only he was left, he was told that there remained seven thousand who had not bowed to Baal.

The master of the field forbade his hired servants, who were in a hurry to uproot the tares in the wheat field, lest they uproot some wheat also.

In the early days of the Church those who fled into the deserts, claiming it was the last days, perished there.

But the best example from Holy Scripture is the story of Lot in Sodom. In this Fr. John was quite correct, only he gave an incorrect interpretation to the tale and its application to our situation. And his erroneous interpretation exposes the error in his actions. He compared our Church to Sodom and Gomorrha. The sense being that as soon as Fr. John and his group of "righteous" (Lot's family) departed from our Church, then the source of Grace will cease and the Lord will punish those who remained in "Sodom". If we review the actual passage in Scripture, much will become clear to us:

First Abraham asked the Lord to spare the city for the sake of a number of righteous men. The Lord, in decreasing the demand, as it were, tested the citizens of Sodom and found them wanting and incorrigible. It was as if His patience had been exhausted, and only then did He lead out Lot and punish the town.

Can it really be that there are not ten righteous men in the entire Georgian Church?! For it was for the sake of these ten that God forbore. Why is it that Fr. John has passed over this detail? Can it be that only one righteous man and his family are left?

Consider another detail: it was not Lot, having lost patience, who left Sodom in anger, but the Lord Who led him out and indicated where he should go. And the Lord set the time for the exodus and revealed it by open signs and wonders. From this we can gain a profitable lesson: when found amidst terrible lawlessness, to endure, to pray, to show mercy and not leave off performing the Christian virtues, no matter how difficult it may become. And when the long-suffering of God will have reached its limit, and the time of the Righteous Judgment arrives, the Lord will clearly show us when and where to go.

Some may object, saying that we should not await signs and miracles. But we already have a sign -- that the Iberian Icon will leave Athos before the protection of God's Grace is revoked from the Holy Mountain. For the present She remains there, which means that Athos is found under Grace, and the monastics there are being saved. Athos is not separated from those other Orthodox Churches which are part of the World Council of "churches", however the Icon has not left Athos, which means that God is still covering this sin of the hierarchs. Then too, the Holy Fire still descends in Jerusalem on Holy Saturday at the Lord's Tomb while Patriarch Diodoros is serving (and he too has not severed Eucharistic communion with those Churches which belong to the World Council of Churches), which is also a clear sign that grace still abides in the Ecumenical Church! And that miracle does not occur with either the zealots, or Cyprian, or the Church Abroad. (Yet, as is known, in the year when the Eastern Patriarchs recognized the Living Church in Russia, the Holy Fire did not descend. [Not so!])

Returning to the subject of Lot: Fr. John is in error in his thinking, as in his actions, when he links God's punishment of Sodom to Lot's patience being exhausted. In like manner they expect God's wrath to follow upon their exhausted patience and indignation -- which explains the harsh, categorical tone of their demands and declarations. The truth of the matter is, they never expected that their demands would be met and that the Georgian Church would leave the World Council of Churches. They were expecting to be refused, then punished, and many would follow them. But just in case, it had been decided in advance to make further demands if the Georgian Church should leave the World Council of Churches. (We know this to be fact.)[9]

Everything was geared to draw as many as possible after them. That is why contacts were made with Athos and elsewhere only after a definite stand had been made -- the decision to separate no matter what. Seeing that the middle way would never have the effect they desired, they decided to take the most dazzling route, and establish their own little Georgian Church, to open monasteries and arrange life there in true monastic fashion. Such an approach can be very attractive; but is it from God?

Again Bishop Ignatii writes: "To uphold the Church grace-filled people are needed, but worldly wisdom only harms and ruins, even if in its pride and blindness it dreams of building up. Old buildings must be repaired with great circumspection, otherwise restoration can turn into destruction."

After such a review of the ideas and attitudes involved, the discussion with our separated brethren takes on a strained, painful nature. It's like the husband who, having fallen in love with another women, decides to leave his wife for her, and is already contemplating the pleasures of life with her. Thus he begins to carp at his legal wife and children till they are forced to drive him out of his own house. Then he, as it were, having no where else to go, joins the other women.

How terrifying it is in such matters to act upon ones emotions, in a bold frame of mind! Only later will such people see that it played into the hands of unchurchly people. Already throughout the whole world all sorts of interested parties and powers that be are seeking to divide the Orthodox Church.

Those who decided to break away from our Church, also seek to play upon the patriotic feelings of our people, promising that thanks to their zeal for Orthodoxy, pure faith will be reborn in Georgia and this will be the beginning of a true resplendence. However, they neglect to say that they plan to erect this "resplendent Orthodoxy" on the bones of their mother -- the Georgian Church. For by turning to the Greek zealots or the Church Abroad, they reject the succession of Grace which has been passed down through the ages by our martyrs and saints, from generation to generation, and they declare that the source has dried up and that we must now seek it from other peoples in other lands.

Again and again we must repeat: that, which already today has given birth in our Church to this extremist movement of ultimatums, is extremely pernicious. How many people attending services has it already caused to doubt the presence of the Holy Spirit? To doubt in the holy things, to doubt in Communion?

Thus the sin these people bear who started all this is not small, and the evil will only grow, unless God's providence does not halt the tragedy. Nor can they deceive themselves with the boldness of the undertaking. It may very well be that they have lost control of their minds and hearts: "And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully."(2Ti 2:5). Perhaps this is that very cross, boldly seized upon in self-will, which is not crowned by Pascha.

One last point: when you hear the accusation that one or another person -- priest, monk, or layman -- has not followed after Fr. John because of personal interests, politics, personal grievances, fear for ones career, desire to be the leader,[10] etc. -- don't be quick to believe it, lest you sin greatly. Anyone who makes a decision on this most important matter of the Church schism based on such petty reasons is a scoundrel and a traitor. How greatly we sin today by a hasty, and ill-considered word.

1) Returning again to the contradictory concepts of God's justice and God's mercy. Does not our whole earthly life consist of that mysterious interval between the present transgressions and the future punishment, that interval within which God's mercy still has time to act, before the advent of God's justice?

2) By their second declaration the indignant monks not only openly accuse all the autocephalous Churches of participation in Ecumenism, but they likewise demand the severing of Eucharistic communion with all these Churches. Inasmuch as Athos and Jerusalem have close ties with, and are in communion with, these hierarchs, then it follows that every commemoration of Athonite monks, the Christians of Jerusalem, etc., is also a grave violation, in these peoples' opinion, for which cause Grace must abandon us. Having taken the side of the "zealots", by tomorrow they will have to assert that both on Athos and in Jerusalem the Grace of the Holy Spirit has long been absent.

[Also found on this Web site, are three excellent Open Letters by Fr. Zurab Aroshvili, one of our recently ordained clergymen in Georgia. Fr. Zurab wrote them in response to the many harsh attacks (of which the above is but a mild example) made on the zealots for Orthodoxy by various clergymen of the official Georgian Orthodox Church. Fr. Zurab Aroshvili's excellent refutations of such sophistries deserve to be read.]

[1]  Formerly, Fr. Lazarus Abashidze had been one of Archimandrite John Sheklashvili’s disciples. Fr. John himself had tonsured him, recommended him for ordination, and then made him abbot of Betania Monastery in his stead. Archimandrite Lazarus composed this twenty-five page article in Russian, from which the present English translation has been made. Archimandrite Lazarus had assured the zealot fathers in Georgia that, out of consideration for them, he did not intend to publish this article officially, but would only be distributing photocopies "informally"!

Until recently Fr. Lazarus had been out of favor with the Patriarch on account of his anti-Ecumenical publications. He had written a public protest against an ecumenistic "Orthodox" textbook published by the Patriarchate. Patriarch Ilia removed him as abbot because of this.

Now, however, Fr. Lazarus is back in the good graces of the Patriarch because he has attacked his own spiritual father and mentor, Fr. John. The Patriarchate is quite pleased, and is even helping to disseminate this article, in which Fr. Lazarus now refers to Ecumenism as a great evil, but no longer as a heresy.

[2]  Fr. Lazarus is himself the author of this brochure, which attacks Ecumenism quite vehemently. In 1998 it was reprinted in a more attractive form by the ___ Publishers in Thessalonica, Greece.
By the title, Pascha Without the Cross, is meant the attempt to achieve bliss without labor or suffering, to seek the crown and reward without contesting lawfully, to reach Pascha while evading the Cross.

[3]  Fr. John comments that the original version of Fr. Lazarus’ article was so strongly worded -- even harsh, that he made him delete some passages and tone down others.

[4]  Ps. 25: 5. The word here rendered as "congregation" is, in the original Greek and Slavonic texts, ecclesia / tserkov, i.e., "church".

[5]  Fr. John comments that throughout this article Fr. Lazarus quotes him more or less correctly, but often out of context, and gives his words a different emphasis and interpretation than Fr. John himself intended.

[6]  Fr. John affirms that Fr. Lazarus' whole problem is that he puts too much faith in what the fathers on Athos tell him. Of course, for the faithful in Georgia, the Holy Mountain still has great authority, despite its many ecclesiological lapses of late. This is an issue which the Georgian non-commemorators need to explain to the faithful in more detail.

[7]  Of course, Fr. John meant that the Holy Mountain fathers had confused Fr. Lazarus, not that their wise council had prevented him from making a mistake. The re-interpretation here is Fr. Lazarus’.

[8]  A parish priest of the Moscow Patriarchate, who, after the death of his wife, was tonsured a monk at the Pskov Caves Lavra.

[9]  The fathers made no secret of this; leaving the World Council of Churches was meant to be only the first stage of their organized protest against Ecumenism.

[10]  Fr. John wonders if Fr. Lazarus is perhaps not speaking from the fullness of his heart here?