Is the Septuagint the Authoritative Version of the Old Testament for the Orthodox Church?

Fr. Stephen De Young has repeated made the claim that the Septuagint has no more authority in the Orthodox Church than does the Masoretic Hebrew Text (for example, in his interview with Fr. Thomas Soroka, entitled: "Orthodoxy, the Old Testament, & the Septuagint"). This is simply not the case. Now, Fr. Stephen is obviously an extremely intelligent man, and well educated. I have learned a lot from listening to him, and have often found him to be very insightful. But the idea that the Septuagint has superior authority to the Masoretic Text is not an urban legend -- this has been the consistent teaching of the Church.

The Orthodox Study Bible went to the trouble of producing a translation of the Septuagint (albeit an imperfect one) for a reason. In the introduction to the Orthodox Study Bible, Bishop Basil (Essey) of the Antiochian Archdiocese writes:

"It is helpful to keep in mind that, like the earliest Christian community, the Orthodox Church of today continues using the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). The Septuagint -- referencing the seventy finest Jewish scholars, from all twelve Jewish tribes, who made the translation from the Hebrew into Greek -- became the universally accepted version of the Old Testament...." ("Overview of the Books of the Bible," in The Orthodox Study Bible, ed. St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008), p. xv).

Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) notes:

"...the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint, a Greek translation by the "seventy interpreters" made in the third to second centuries BCE for the Alexandrian Hebrews and the Jewish diaspora. The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the "Masoretic," was edited up until the eighth century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services (in other words, this text became part of the Orthodox church Tradition). Taking into account the three factors enumerated above, St. Philaret of Moscow considers it possible to maintain that "in the Orthodox teaching of Holy Scripture it is necessary to attribute a dogmatic merit to the Translation of the Seventy, in some cases placing it on equal level with the original and even elevating it above the Hebrew text, as is generally accepted in the most recent editions" (Orthodox Christianity, Volume II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, (New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2012) p. 34).

And in the above quote, when it says "some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text," it is awkwardly worded that I assumed something was lost in translation, and so I contacted Metropolitan Hilarion and asked him if what he was saying in Russian was that most (not just "some") of the quotes of the Old Testament in the New Testament are based on the Septuagint, and he confirmed that this was correct.

Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy, in his classic catechetical text, wrote:

"...it is clear why the Church prefers the Septuagint and Peshitta translations for the authoritative text of the Old Testament, and principally the first, for the Septuagint text was produced under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the concerted effort of the Old Testament Church" (The Law of God: For Study at Home and School (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1994) p. 440).

Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware), in his book The Orthodox Church, likewise says:

"The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament, it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint" (The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity. 3rd ed. London: Penguin Books, 2015, p. 194).

St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, in the classic canonical text of the Orthodox Church writes:

"As for editions or versions of the Old Testament the principal ones are five in number, namely, the Greek, the Syriac, the Arabic, the Aramaic (formerly called “Chaldaic”), and the Latin (or Roman). The Greek is divided into four main versions. Of these the first and most ancient is that of the LXX (or LXXXII), commonly known as the Septuagint in English, which, in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, interpreted not only the Pentateuch, as mistakenly maintained by Scaligerus and other modernists, but the entire Old Testament, as is attested by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others, before the times of the Maccabees, which is the same as saying 230 years before the birth of Christ. It was from that version, indeed, that the divine Apostles drew the predictions of the prophets. But if Bellarminus the Jesuit says that that version is incomplete as it now stands, citing as witnesses St. Jerome, who says in the preface to the Chronicles (or Paralipomena) that the ancient and genuine version was corrupted and that originals thereof were extant wherein it could be seen that they differed from one another, as well as Justin, who says in the Dialogue with Pryphon that Aristeus, an aide-de-camp of King Ptolemy, bears witness that the Septuagint Version agreed with the Hebrew originals, though by his time (the saint asserts in his own declaration) it had come to differ in many points from the Hebrew manuscripts. Nevertheless, let Bellarminus learn that the Septuagint Version (i.e., the text of the genuine LXX) was directly in the beginning judged by the Church to be genuine and authoritative; and the divine Apostles used it in testimony; and it was recognized by the whole Church—not only the Eastern, but also the Western—before the translation made by St. Jerome into the Latin. Even Philo the Jew praises the LXX, not only as interpreters of the Scriptures, but also as prophets inspired with divine Spirit. And St. Augustine (in his book concerning the City of God) says: “the Spirit which illumined the prophets when they preached, the same Spirit illumined also the LXX when they interpreted the writings of the prophets.” Both divine Justin and Tertullian say that each of the LXX interpreters translated the Scripture separately in separate houses, and, miraculous to relate! not one of them was found to have added or to have omitted a single thing even of the slightest kind in the books which they had severally written, but, on the contrary, identically the same very words were found to have been written in all of them. So who can prefer any other version to this God-inspired version of the LXX?" (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 157).

The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 is a document that was signed by all the Patriarchs of that time, and was endorsed by the Russian Church, certainly has Pan-Orthodox authority, and it says:

"Our Church holds the infallible and genuine deposit of the Holy Scriptures, of the Old Testament a true and perfect version, of the New the divine original itself" (Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848: A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, ‘to the Easterns,' Orthodox Christian Information Center, accessed August 20, 2026, http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx).

Fr. Eugen Pentiuc, who certainly could not be described as an absolutist on the question of the Septuagint, writes:

"For [the] Eastern Orthodox Church, the Septuagint has first of all a religious value. It is the Bible witnessing to all phases of the church history, beginning with the New Testament and apostolic times through to church fathers, ecumenical councils and beyond. The Septuagint is doubtlessly the Bible of the undivided Church" (The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 90 emphasis in the original).

I am well aware that the history of the Septuagint is complicated, but whether or not one takes the same view of the origins of the Septuagint that Bishop Basil or St. Nicodemos expressed in the quotes cited, or if one takes the view of contemporary Orthodox scholars, like Fr. Eugen Pentiuc, who lays out his more complicated view, there is no serious question that the Septuagint has "pride of place" in terms of its authority in the Orthodox Church.

What is the Septuagint?

Now as to the question of what we mean by the term Septuagint, Fr. Stephen takes the position that this only really refers to the texts of the Pentateuch, and that the rest of the texts that are commonly referred to as being in the Septuagint are simply a collection of various Greek translations that came to be used by the Church. And the biggest example of this is the book of Daniel, which is usually said to be the work of Theodotion, who was a second century Anti-Christian Jew. The real story seems to be more complicated, because we have "Theodotion" citations in the New Testament itself, which would obviously be impossible if Theodotion actually lived in the second century and was the original translator of these texts. A number of examples can be cited, but two fairly clear examples are 1 Cor. 15:54 quoting Isa. 25:8, and John 19:3 quoting Zech. 12:10. So it would seem likely that either Theodotion lived in the first century or before, or that Theodotion may have simply reworked some translations that were already in existence and already widely known in the first century, and so his name came to be associated with texts were actually the work of an earlier translator or translators (See Moore, Colton. “Theodotion Zechariah in the Fourth Gospel.” Novum Testamentum 63, no. 2 (March 17, 2021): 221–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27068126). Whatever the case may be -- and we may never know -- the version of Daniel that the Church chose to use is what we find in the Greek Old Testament, and we have long referred to the entire collection as the Septuagint.

Is the Russian Synodal Bible a Translation of the Masoretic Text?

Another point that Fr. Stephen has often made is that the Russian translation of the Bible (The Russian Synodal Bible) was made from the Masoretic Text, but this is not really true either. There was a great deal of controversy on what texts to use for the translation of the Old Testament, and the best book in English on this subject that I am aware of is aptly titled "Russian Bible Wars: Modern Scriptural Translation and Cultural Authority," by Stephen K. Batalden. To sum up the history, there were many who wanted to just stick with the Slavonic Bible as it was. There were those who wanted a straight translation from the Septuagint, and there were those who wanted a straight translation from the Masoretic Text (not among the bishops, as best as I can tell, but among some Russian biblical scholars). What they ended up deciding on doing was a translation that used the Masoretic Text as the base text for those parts of the Old Testament that could be found there, but then noting in brackets which were imbedded in the text (note just footnotes) where the Septuagint was different. This is not evident in Protestant editions of this translation that have removed these bracketed texts, but if you look at the original published text, or at the editions currently published by the Russian Church, you will see that they have these Septuagint translations in abundance. If you look at Genesis 4, for example, you will see that the word "Lord" (Господь) is frequently by the word "God" (Бог) in brackets, and this is because the Hebrew texts in this chapter usually have the name of God (YHWH), which the Septuagint (and also in the New Testament) is translated with the word "Lord." But here the Septuagint simply has "God," and so the Russian translation notes this difference. There is a more significant difference in verse 8, where the Hebrew text literally reads: "And Cain said to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him." But what Cain said to Abel is absent, and so the text doesn't make much sense as it is, though translations generally smooth this over. However, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate all contain this missing clause which tells us what Cain actually said: "Let us go out into the field." The Russian Synodal Bible thus reads "И сказал Каин Авелю, брату своему: [пойдем в поле]. И когда они были в поле, восстал Каин на Авеля, брата своего, и убил его." Which in English reads: "And Cain said to Abel his brother: [Let us go out into the field.] And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him."

There are also blocks of texts that are lacking in the Masoretic Texts, that are included in the Russian Synodal Bible, for example at the end of Job we find:

42:17a«Написано, что он опять восстанет с теми, коих воскресит Господь. 42:17b О нем толкуется в Сирской книге, что жил он в земле Авситидийской на пределах Идумеи и Аравии: прежде же было имя ему Иовав. 42:17c Взяв жену Аравитянку, родил сына, которому имя Еннон. Происходил он от отца Зарефа, сынов Исавовых сын, матери же Воссоры, так что был он пятым от Авраама. 42:17d И сии цари, царствовавшие в Едоме, какою страною и он обладал: первый Валак, сын Веора, и имя городу его Деннава; после же Валака Иовав, называемый Иовом; после сего Ассом, игемон из Феманитской страны; после него Адад, сын Варада, поразивший Мадиама на поле Моава,- и имя городу его Гефем. 42:17e Пришедшие же к нему друзья, Елифаз (сын Софана) от сынов Исавовых, царь Феманский, Валдад (сын Амнона Ховарского) савхейский властитель, Софар Минейский царь. 42:17f (Феман сын Елифаза, игемон Идумеи. О нем говорится в книге Сирской, что жил в земле Авситидийской, около берегов Евфрата; прежде имя его было Иовав, отец же его был Зареф, от востока солнца.)»

Which in English, reads:

42:17a “It is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord will raise up. 42:17b Concerning him it is explained in the Syriac Book that he dwelt in the land of Ausitis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his former name was Jobab. 42:17c And he took an Arabian wife, and begat a son, whose name was Ennon. His father was Zereth, the son of the sons of Esau, and his mother was Bosorah, so that he was the fifth from Abraham. 42:17d And these are the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also possessed: the first was Balak the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Denaba; and after Balak, Jobab, who was called Job; after him, Assom, governor of the country of the Temanites; After him, Hadad, the son of Barad, who defeated Midian in the field of Moab, and the name of his city was Gatham. 42:17e And his friends came to him: Eliphaz (son of Zophan), king of Teman, of the sons of Esau; Baldad (son of Amnon the Chebarite), ruler of the Sabhaeans; Zophar the Minean king. 42:17f (Teman, the son of Eliphaz, governor of Idumea. It is said of him in the book of Syria that he dwelt in the land of Ausitis, near the banks of the Euphrates. His former name was Jobab, and his father was Zareth, from the east.)"

This text is liturgically significant, because we read it at the Vesperal Liturgy of Holy Saturday.

Furthermore, many of the translations of the texts that are not bracketed nevertheless reflect Septuagint influence, though this is not noted in the text, and these texts are still retained in Protestant editions of this version.

What we find in the the Russian Synodal Bible is in some ways similar to the Orthodox Study Bible, which took the New King James text (which is based on the Masoretic Text in the Old Testament), and corrected it with the Septuagint. The big difference being that when the Orthodox Study Bible corrected the text, they made no effort to note this, but they also do not always actually correct the text, and so in some cases, the Russian Synodal Bible more accurately reflects the Septuagint.

The other important thing to note here is that the Russian Synodal Bible was never intended for Liturgical Use. The Slavonic Bible remained the text that one would hear in the services of the Church, but it was intended as an aid to study the Scriptures, especially for those who were not able to adequately understand the Slavonic texts.

Conclusion

It remains a fact that in every local Orthodox Church, we continue to use either the Septuagint itself, or translations that are based on the Septuagint. This is true even of Fr. Stephen De Young's own Archdiocese. So this alone underlines the unique authority that the Septuagint has in the Orthodox Church.

All of this is not to argue that the Hebrew Masoretic Text or other ancient versions of the Bible should be ignored. Personally, I think when we can see that the Hebrew text aligns with the Septuagint, the best method of translation would be to use the Hebrew text in conjunction with the Septuagint. And I think noting differences between the Masoretic Text, when they are significant, would be worth including in a translation. 

It is a fact that there are many parts of the Septuagint that are difficult to understand without a knowledge of Hebrew, and it is also true that there are parts of the Masoretic Text which are corrupted or simply unintelligible, and every translation uses the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Vulgate to translate those parts of the texts in question -- including the King James Version. For example, if you look at the footnotes for the book of Habakkuk in the NRSV there are 5 places in which it states that the Hebrew text is uncertain, and 3 times in which they state that they are simply translating from the Septuagint, Peshitta, and/or the Vulgate, because the Hebrew text is so unclear.

Most of the Fathers could not read Hebrew, but they did generally have access to Jewish translations which gave them a good idea of what was in the Masoretic Text, and while it is clear that they favored the Septuagint, they often make comments on the differences, and even provide alternative interpretations of the text based on those differences. 

Personally, I regularly read from translations that are based on the Masoretic Text as well as those based on the Septuagint, because for one thing, Protestants that I come into contact with are generally going to be more persuaded by references to translations from the Masoretic Text, than they will be from those based on the Septuagint. So I want to be familiar with both, and I think this is generally a good idea for others as well. But when it comes to the services, my parish, like every other parish, uses translations based on the Septuagint when it comes to the Old Testament texts that are part of the fixed parts of the services, the Psalms, and the Old Testament Lectionary.

Is Orthodoxy Too Foreign?

 

Dr. Alan Harrelson is an historian, musician and Southern Agrarian who was raised Pentecostal, but has converted to Roman Catholicism. I find his cultural commentary to be very interesting, and usually agree with him. I have no doubts that Dr. Harrelson is completely sincere in his beliefs, and is a good man.

However, in a recent video, he decided to address the question of Orthodoxy in the American South. He said that almost every 3 or 4 days, he gets an email or comment on his channel asking him why he become Roman Catholic rather than Orthodox. And so in this video, he answers this question.

He says: 

"I think that Culturally, Orthodoxy is very very foreign to the American South.... There is a history of Catholicism in the South. Particularly around New Orleans and around different coastal regions, Maryland... people moved from Maryland to the bluegrass region of Kentucky. I fail to understand why, particularly young Southern men, are becoming attracted to Eastern Orthodoxy. It's a different culture. It's not our people. It's Christian, but it's not a part of the universal papacy."

I first came across Dr. Harrelson when he gave some lectures at the Abbeville Institute (e.g. "The Origin and Character of Southern Music," "The Southern Origins of the Bluegrass Sound," and "Gospel Music and the Rural South"). The past president of that organization is Dr. Donald Livingston, who is himself an Orthodox Christian, and he doesn't feel he has adopted a foreign religion. He is also one of the founders of the Ludwell Orthodox Fellowship, which has as its purpose, the spreading of Orthodoxy in the South.

It is certainly true that there is a longer history of Roman Catholicism in the South, and that the numbers of Roman Catholics have certain been much larger, but it is not true that Orthodoxy has no history in the South. My cousin Philip Ludwell III (1716 – 1767) was the first known convert to Orthodoxy in colonial America. He came from a prominent Virginia family, and was related by blood to both the Washingtons and the Lees (who are also my cousins). As a member of the Royal Governor’s Council he played a key role in obtaining a commission for George Washington as Colonel of the Virginia Regiment in 1755. By that time, he had already been an Orthodox Christian for about 17 years. George Washington courted his sister-in-law, Lucy Grymes, who to his sorrow, ended up marrying Henry Lee II, and together they became the parents of General Henry "Light Horse" Lee, and the grandparents or General Robert E. Lee. He translated “The Orthodox Confession” of St. Peter (Moghila), and this translation is still in print to this day. He also translated the text of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts of St. Gregory the Dialogist.

There was a prominent Serb who fought in the Texas Revolution -- Đorđe Šagić, AKA George Fisher. By the time of the Civil War (AKA the War to Prevent Southern Independence), there were Orthodox parishes in Galveston Texas, and in New Orleans. There were Serbs that fought for the Confederacy in the Cognevich Company which was part of the Fourth Regiment of the European Brigade which was part of Louisiana Militia. There were also Serbs who fought with the Slavonian Rifles at the Battle of Gettysburg, at least one of which was killed there. There were also Greek Confederates, some of whom also lost their lives in battle.

As, I am sure, Dr. Harrelson would acknowledge, the dominant religion in the South has always been Protestant, and to Protestants, Roman Catholics have generally been seen as very foreign too. And, as a matter of fact, Orthodox Christians in the United States have been using English in their services for a lot longer than Roman Catholics have. 

Aside from that, the current forms of worship found in most Roman Catholic parishes in the United States today would seem very foreign to Southern Roman Catholics of previous generations. I am sure that Flannery O'Connor would feel far more at home in an Orthodox Liturgy today, than she would in a Charismatic Catholic Church Mass, or at Pope Leo's recent LGBTQP pilgrimage to the Vatican, or even in a more common Novus Ordo Mass. I also don't think she would be a big fan of Pope Francis's decision to bless gay couples (a decision which has gone unchallenged by the current Pope).

I would also note that the kind of worship that takes place in most Protestant churches in the South today bears little resemblance to the kind of worship that I remember when I was growing up, prior to Protestant worship essentially becoming the adult version of what used to be called "children's church," with its focus on entertainment and with contemporary music and vapid lyrics taking the place of the old hymns that had been standard fare for generations.

For a typical Southern Protestant, an Orthodox Liturgy which is conducted in English is no less foreign than a traditional Roman Catholic Mass... and a lot less foreign than a Mass conducted in Latin. And the fact that the Orthodox Church is not a part of the "universal papacy" makes it even less foreign to those from a Protestant background.

"When you have a culture that is dedicated to the principles Western civilization -- which is what the South is -- Orthodoxy doesn't fit very well into that. Orthodoxy is more or less an ethnic religion. You have Russian Orthodoxy. You have Ukrainian Orthodoxy... so forth and so on. It's ethnic."

Most Roman Catholic parishes in the US were divided along ethnic lines until the last several decades, and some still are. But while you still can find some very ethnic Orthodox parishes, most parishes are very mixed. Of the adults in my parish, about 30% to 40% come from a traditional Orthodox ethnic background, but the rest are converts that consist of typical American white folks, black folks, Asians, and Hispanics of various varieties.

To sum up his answer to the question of why he became Catholic and not Orthodox, Dr. Harrelson says:

"Because I believe in the universal papacy. I believe in the teaching authority of the magisterium. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the heartbeat of Western Civilization. And anything Southern that we can celebrate comes out of the heartbeat of Western Civilization. So, no. I say "no" to Orthodoxy in its relationship to the South. I say "yes" to my Protestant brothers and sisters. I say "yes" to Roman Catholicism. That is where the religiosity... the older religiousness of the South truly exists."

Does Dr. Harrelson not consider Greece to part of Western Civilization? Would he want to categorize Dostoyevsky and his writings, which are considered to be among the best works of literature ever written in any language, as Asiatic? Did Tesla play no role of significance in Western Civilization?

Furthermore, though I would agree that Protestantism is a product of the "universal papacy," the excesses of which spawned it, I doubt most Southern Protestants would be inclined to agree that the Papacy is the heartbeat of Western Civilization.

The reality is that Orthodoxy is booming in the South, and men and women, both old and young, are flocking to it precisely because they are rejecting what the "universal papacy" and its offsprings have come to, and it is that "older religiousness" of the South that is largely motivating them to move in that direction.

The Ludwell Orthodox Fellowship is hosting a conference in Kentucky (where Dr. Harrelson currently lives) on September 12th, and I hope he will come and give it a fair hearing.

Southern Agrarianism and Orthodoxy

Converts and Culture

Becoming a Catechumen

Becoming a catechumen is analogous to being betrothed before a marriage. In fact, there are many parallels between the making of a catechumen and the subsequent baptism, with the service of betrothal and the marriage service. And in the Orthodox Church, it should be understood that a betrothal already counts as a marriage. If a betrothal is broken, this requires an ecclesiastical divorce -- which is why we usually do the betrothal service immediately prior to the marriage service, in contemporary practice. In our culture, it is not uncommon for people to say that they are engaged to be married, and then to call it off, and move on without much ceremony. But a real betrothal is a far more serious thing than that.

Likewise, one should not become a catechumen in the first place, if they are not sure that they want to ultimately be baptized.

Just as a couple is betrothed to be married, for a period of time so that they can become better acquainted with each other before they enter into the intimate relationship of marriage, a catechumen is entering a time that is to be dedicated towards them coming to better understand the teachings of the Church, and for them to enter into the beginnings of living the Orthodox life, keeping the fasts, learning the disciplines of the Christian life, and working to prepare themselves for receiving baptism, and then beginning the full sacramental life of the Church.

When anyone asks me about being made a catechumen, the first thing I do is have them review the renunciations and affirmations that converts from other faiths make. We incorporate these renunciations and affirmations in the service for the making of a catechumen. I asked people to review these renunciations and affirmations in advance, because I want them to be sure that they know what they are committing to. If someone is prepared to sincerely make these renunciations and affirmations, and are fully committed to entering the Church, they are ready to become a catechumen.

Here are the renunciations that are made by most converts from Protestantism (though Lutheran converts have a slightly different renunciation with regard to the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist):

Priest:  Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit the declaration of our Savior Christ himself: 'who proceedeth from the Father': doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: 'and from the Son': is required?

Answer: I do.

Priest:  Dost thou renounce the false doctrine, that the predestination of men to their salvation, or their rejection, is not in accordance with the Divine foreknowledge of the faith and good works of the former, or of the unbelief and evil deeds of the latter; but in accordance with some arbitrary destiny, by reason of which faith and virtue are robbed of their merit, and God is held accountable for the perdition of sinners?

Answer: I do.

Priest:  Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the bread and wine are not transmuted into the Body of Christ, and doth not become the Body and Blood of Christ, and are merely emblems of the Body and Blood of Christ?

Answer: I do.

Priest:  Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers who reject five Sacraments: Chrismation, Confession, Marriage, Anointing with Oil, and the Priesthood itself, which administereth the other Sacraments, and presume to administer Baptism and the Eucharist, never having received, through the laying-on of hands by a Bishop, that Ordination which hath been transmitted from one to another, even from the Apostles?

Answer: I do.

Priest:  Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers who receive not the traditions of the Holy Church reverence not the Saints, and deprive the dead of spiritual aid and the living of spiritual consolation, in that they reject prayers for the dead?

Answer: I do.

Priest:  Hast thou renounced all ancient and modern heresies and false doctrines which are contrary to the teachings of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Church?

Answer: I have.

The specific renunciation regarding predestination is only done by those who come from a Reformed background, which pertains to their view of double predestination.

These are the renunciations that are made by converts from a Roman Catholic background:

Priest: Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit the declaration of our Savior Christ himself: 'who proceedeth from the Father': doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: 'and from the Son': is required?

Answer: I do.

Priest: Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that it doth not suffice to confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Universal Church; and that a man, to wit, the Bishop of Rome, can be the head of Christ’s Body, that is to say, of the whole Church?

Answer: I do.

Priest: Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that the Holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual power, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince: And that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor: And that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and other are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles?

Answer: I do.

Priest: Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?

Answer: I do.

Priest: Dost thou renounce all the other doctrines of the Western Confession, both old and new, which are contrary to the Word of God, and to the true traditions of the Church, and to the decrees of the seven Ecumenical Councils?

Answer: I do.

Priest:  Hast thou renounced all ancient and modern heresies and false doctrines which are contrary to the teachings of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Church?

Answer: I have.

There are also specific renunciations made by those coming from a Monophysite, Jewish, or Muslim background.

The affirmations are the same for all converts:

Priest: Dost thou accept the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Canons framed and established at the Seven Holy Ecumenical and Provincial Councils, and the other traditions and ordinances of the Orthodox Church?

Answer: I do.

Priest: Dost thou acknowledge that the Holy Scriptures must be accepted and interpreted in accordance with the belief which hath been handed down by the Holy Fathers, and which the Holy Orthodox Church, our Mother, hath always held and still doth hold?

Answer: I do.

Priest: Dost thou believe and confess that there are seven Sacraments of the New Testament, to wit: Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist, Confession, the Priesthood, Marriage, and Anointing with Oil, instituted by the Lord Christ and his Church, to the end that, through their operation and reception, we may obtain blessings from on high?

Answer: I believe and confess it.

Priest: Dost thou believe and confess that in the Divine Liturgy, under the mystical forms of the holy bread and wine, the faithful partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto the remission of sins, and unto life eternal?

Answer: I believe and confess it.

Priest: Dost thou believe and confess that it is proper to reverence and invoke the Saints who reign on high with Christ; and that their prayers and intercessions before God avail with the beneficent God unto our salvation: and that it is well-pleasing in the sight of God that we should do homage to their relics, glorified through incorruption, as precious memorials of their virtue?

Answer: I believe and confess it.

Priest: Dost thou confess that the images of our Savior Christ; and of the Ever-virgin Mother of God, and of the other Saints are worthy of being possessed and honored; not unto idolatry, but that, through contemplation thereof, we may be incited unto piety, and unto emulation of the deeds of the holy persons represented by these images?

Answer: I do.

Priest: Dost thou confess that the prayers of the faithful which are offered up to God, and more especially when accompanied by the oblation of the unbloody sacrifice, for the salvation of those who have departed this life in the faith, are favorably received, through the mercy of God?

Answer: I do.

Priest: Dost thou believe and confess that power hath been given by our Savior Christ unto the Orthodox-Catholic Church to bind and to loose: and that whatsoever, by virtue of that power, is bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven?

Answer: I believe and confess it.

Priest: Dost thou believe and confess the Foundation, Head, and Great High Priest and Chief Shepherd of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; and that Bishops, Pastors, and Teachers are appointed by him to rule the Church; and that the Guide and Pilot of this Church is the Holy Spirit?

Answer: I believe and confess that this Church is the Bride of Christ, and that therein is true salvation, which was in the Ark of Noah at the Flood.

Priest: Dost thou promise true obedience, unto thy life’s end, in guidance which is salutary unto the soul, to the Most Holy Synod; to the Most Holy Patriarch, the Equal-of-the-Apostles (or to the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Autocephalous Provincial Church); and to the Bishop of this Diocese, as the true Pastors appointed by the Holy Spirit; and to the Priests ordained by them?

Answer: I promise it, with heart unfeigned.

One thing a catechumen has to decide on is on a patron saint. Archbishop Peter, of blessed memory, had a directive that said that anyone who already has a Christian name needed to keep it. Often, there are many saints with the same name, and so one still has to decide on which saint they will choose. If someone doesn't have an obviously Christian name, they should speak to the priest because often there is a saint whose name has the same meaning as their name.

After one is made a catechumen, we have catechumen meetings via Google Meets, and also some face to face meetings to help prepare people for baptism. How long someone remains a catechumen varies, but it depends on how long they were studying Orthodoxy before they were formally made catechumens, and also depends on when both they and the priest agree that they are ready.

One of the great blessings of being a catechumen is that the Church has specific prayers that are said for them during the divine liturgy, and also during the presanctified liturgies during Great Lent.

One frequent question that catechumens often ask is whether or not they are supposed to leave the Church at the dismissal of the catechumens. This is not generally done in parishes, though some monasteries require it, and some parishes do have the catechumens leave the service, but then take them to an instructional class for catechumens. We, as of yet, do not do this, though we have discussed the idea, and may incorporate this practice if we can get a sufficient number of catechists committed to making this possible.

Before baptism, a person needs to decide on who their godparent will be. It is possible to have both a godmother, and godfather, but it is necessary to have at least one godparent who is of the same sex as the person being baptized.

Before a catechumen is actually baptized, they make a life confession, which should be discussed with the priest ahead of time, but basically consists of the catechumen confessing all of the types of sins that they have committed in their life, that they are able to remember.

We have an article that covers the practical things that a person being baptized needs to do to prepare for the actual service.

"Worship" as a False Friend

What is a "False Friend"?

As a Bible nerd, I have spent a lot time watching videos from a Protestant podcaster by the name of Mark Ward, who spent several years doing videos about "false friends" in the King James Bible. A "false friend" is a word you think you know, but that actually means something different. You find this phenomenon when the same word in one language means something completely different in another, such as "Burro," which in Spanish means "donkey," but in Italian means "butter." But you also encounter this over time within a language, when a word changes meaning. For example, the word "villain" once meant "villager," but now has a very different meaning.

False Friends in the King James Version

You find many examples of such false friends in the King James Bible, for example, "conversation," which in contemporary English means "to have a discussion," but in the King James Bible, usually means "conduct" or "behavior." When we read in Philippians 1:27, "...let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ," this does not just mean we should speak to each other in a Christian way, it means we need to live and act in a way that becomes the Gospel. There are many editions of the King James Version that have notes that explain what these words actually mean in contemporary English, and of course we have many more contemporary translations that eliminate these known false friends altogether. But one word which even these contemporary translations generally continue to use is "worship," as a translation for words in Hebrew and Greek which literally mean "to bow." In contemporary English, when we speak of "worship," most people immediately think of the worship which is due to God only, but these words in the original languages of the Bible do not have this limited meaning.

With My Body, I Thee Worship

It is a fact that the word "worship" in English had a broader meaning than is usually understood today. For example, in the old Anglican wedding service, the groom said to his bride, as he placed the ring on her finger: "With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Even though I was married in a Chinese Baptist Church, I said these words too, because this Anglican service was often used as the standard Protestant wedding service, though you are unlikely to hear these words used in a wedding these days. It was obviously not the intent of those who composed this service that the groom was to render to the wife the worship which was due to God alone. What this actually meant at the time it was composed was "with my body, I honor you." So what the word used to mean in English is "to honor," or "to reverence," or "to venerate," and often it was in reference to bowing to someone or something to show reverence, such as in Matthew 9:18, when we are told that Jairus came to Christ and "worshipped him...." More contemporary translations translate this as saying he "knelt before him," or "bowed low before him." The key word in Greek here is a form of the word "proskuneo." Obviously, at that time, Jairus would have not had reason to believe that Christ was God, and so he was not offering to him that worship which was due to God only. 

Worshiping the LORD and the King

Another clear example of this is found in 1 Chronicles 29:20, which speaks of the people of Israel, in response to King David, "bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." Here, the same verb, "shachah" is used with two objects, the LORD and King David. This clearly did not mean that the people were rendering to King David the worship that was due to God alone. Many modern translations translate this verse as saying that the people "paid homage" or "prostrated themselves" before the LORD and the King.

Worshiping the Ark of the Covenant

We also see in Scripture that we are to bow to (or "worship") holy things. The Ark of the Covenant, for example, is referred to as "the Footstool" of God's feet:

"Then David the king stood up upon his feet, and said, Hear me, my brethren, and my people: As for me, I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God, and had made ready for the building" (1 Chronicles 28:2).

And in the Psalms, the people of Israel were commanded to bow to it:

"We will go into his tabernacles: we will worship at his footstool. Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength" (131[132]:7-8).

"Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship the footstool of His feet; for He is holy" (Psalm 98[99]:5).

Now, in the first verse we have the phrase "worship [or "bow"] at his footstool," and in the second "worship [or "bow to"] the footstool." In both cases, there is a preposition ["ל" which is the Hebrew letter lamed] which is translated as "at" in the first case, and not translated in the second. But we find the same construction in Psalm 28[29]:2 where we have the command "worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness." The primary meaning of this Hebrew preposition in these contexts is "to" or "toward," not merely "in the general vicinity," and so indicates the object of the bowing.

The Second Commandment

The second commandment in the King James Version reads: 

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them...." (Exodus 20:4-5a).

There are several things that need to be understood about what this commandment is really saying, and it is not saying. First off, what does the word translated "graven images" mean? The Hebrew word is "pesel" (פּסל), which is only used in reference to images of false gods, and never of the images that God commanded the Israelites to make (such as the images of Cherubim on the Ark, which God commanded the Israelites to make only five chapters later in Exodus 25:10-22), and so it simply cannot be understood as referring to images in general. Our best guide, however, to what Hebrew words mean, is what they meant to Hebrews—and when the Hebrews translated the Bible into Greek, they translated this word simply as "eidoloi", i.e. "idols." So clearly the reference here is to pagan images rather than to images in general.

Secondly, the second commandment says that you cannot make these images in the first place, and so if this commandment was speaking of images in general, the Ark of the Covenant would be the first of many examples of God contradicting Himself on the same issue.

Thirdly, we find the King James translating the word "shachah" as "bow" here, which is the word "proskuneo" in the Septuagint. And the word translated as "serve" here is "‛abad" in Hebrew and "latreuo" in the Septuagint, and this refers to sacrificial worship, which is true worship due to God alone. 

So this commandment says you cannot make idols, you cannot bow to idols, and you cannot offer sacrifices to idols. It obviously does not say you cannot make any images of any kind, and it also does not say that you cannot bow to any images of any kind.

The Temptation of Christ by the Devil

In the Gospels, we are told that Christ responded to Satan's offer to give Him all the kingdoms of the world, if he would "worship" (or "prostrate") him, by saying: "Get thee hence, Satan [or "Away with you, Satan!"]: for it is written, Thou shalt worship ["proskuneo"] the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve ["latreuo"]" (Matthew 4:10). So while "proskynesis" can be offered to persons or things other than God (though obviously not to the Devil, or to false gods), "latreia" is true worship, which can only be offered to God.

Conclusion

So why do we continue, even in modern translations, to use the "worship" to translate words that mean "to bow" or "to prostrate" or "to honor," except when God is not the object? I think it is because many of these translations are so deeply imbedded in our culture. For example, we have the Psalm verse: "O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel [the LXX and Vulgate read "weep" rather than kneel here] before the Lord our maker (Psalm 94[95]:6). This could more precisely translated as "Come, let us prostrate ourselves and fall down..." but that doesn't quite have the same ring as the older translations, and when the word "worship" is used in reference to God, it causes no problems for Protestant sensibilities, and Protestants are generally the ones producing most of these translations, and Protestants are also the primary audience.

There are some instances in which "worship" is probably still the best way to translate "proskynesis" into English. For example, in John 4:20-24, where Christ is speaking to the Samaritan woman about whether proper worship was to be offered in Jerusalem (as the Jews did) or in Mount Gerizim (as the Samaritans did), the word is being used in the broad sense of the totality of the religious worship of the two respective religions, and so to translate it here as "to bow," or to translate the closely related word "proskunetes" ("worshipers") as "bowers" would not only be awkward, but too limiting, given the way it is used in this context.

I am not proposing that we should never use the word "worship" in these translations, because I generally prefer using traditional forms of English, especially with texts that are going to be used liturgically, but I do think we need to educate people to understand what these words actually mean, and do not mean.

For More Information, See:

The Icon FAQ

Old Testament Exegesis on the Hebrew Terms for Prostration and Worship, by Edwin Yamauchi

Stump the Priest: The Veneration of the Cross

Getting Started with Franklin Covey Planners

When I hear the confessions of many people, I often see that many of the problems they are having spiritually are the result of them not balancing their priorities very well, and as a result, they spend their time in ways that are not focused on what is really important, and so I often suggest that they need to look into using a good planner. The best one that I know of is the Franklin Covey planner.

I had developed a system of keeping track of things that needed to be done while in college, but I only discovered the Franklin Covey planner when I was a supervisor, working for the Texas Department of Human Services (which is now the Texas Health and Human Services Commission). I had to spend a day in training in which the system was explained, and I got my first planner for free in that training. I came away from that training, not very impressed by it. I thought it was "a bunch of crap" and a waste of time. However, since I had a free planner out of the deal, I thought I would give it a try, and soon discovered that it was amazingly helpful... both in terms of keeping on top of my job as a supervisor, but also, in terms of keeping focused on my spiritual and family life. I then bought a CD set that covered the same ground as the training that I was initially unimpressed with, and listened to it repeatedly, first weekly, and then ever few months, for about a year or so. Once I had the system down, I found it indispensable, and began telling others about it. To my surprise, I found many people were already using it. I thought, "Why didn't you tell me about it sooner?"

Unfortunately, the Franklin Covey website doesn't have a "Here's what you need to get started" page that would make it easy for someone who wants to get started to figure out what to get, but here is what I would recommend. For everything listed, make sure you select the "Classic" size:

Starter Pack

Original Two Page Per Day Ring-bound Planner (pay attention to the start dates of the calendar, before you order, you can select a start date at the beginning of any of the four quarters in a year).

Storage Binder (if the binder you carry, you keep the previous month (for reference), the current month, and the next month, to facilitate planning in the near future, but the storage binders are for archiving past months, and storing future months you are not ready to use yet).

Simulated Leather Zipper Binder (There are a lot of good options, but this is what I would recommend).

Metal Hole Punch (this is crucial for being able to add things to your planner).

Clear Zipper Pouch (you can put things like band aids and postage stamps in this).

One big advantage to the classic size planner is that each page is exactly one half of a standard letter size page, which makes adding things to your planner easy. One thing I do is take the Church wall calendar, fold them in half, punch holes, and then I stick each month behind the Franklin Covey monthly tabs. This makes your planner an Orthodox Planner as well.

For how to use the planner, I would recommend the same CD set I used, but there may be better options out there that I am not familiar with:

Focus : Achieving Your Highest Priorities

The Franklin Covey system was produced by people who are not Orthodox, but it is a great tool. It has you identify what is important to you, and what roles you fill in life, and then to prioritize things accordingly. You could be an atheist who wants to get rich, and use this tool for that. But if you are an Orthodox Christian, your priorities should reflect that, and this system can help you to be more focused on what is truly important.

There is a completely electronic version of the planner. I personally prefer to use the paper planner for various reasons. In the training, they speak of the Core Four things you need to be organized: 1. Tasks, 2. Scheduling, 3. Notes, and 4. Contacts. For scheduling, I primarily use Google Calendar, and for contacts, I primarily use Google Contacts and my parish directory, but for Tasks and Notes, I have found nothing that works as well as the paper versions.

In the Tasks section, I put things like morning prayer, evening prayer, pre-communion prayer, my morning walks, Bible reading, various other reading, and then plug in anything else that I need to get done. Anything I didn't get to on one day, gets moved to another day... however things like morning prayers are either done on a day or not, and you keep yourself accountable by either being able to check it off, or to "X" it out, because you failed to do it.

There are also extra tabs that can be used to organize various things. For example, I keep all of my passwords in my planner (written in a code only I know). When I worked for the State of Texas, I used to have instructions on how to do anything that was complicated enough to warrant writing them down. I also kept the floor plan of my office, and the office directory in my planner. Essentially, any important information I might need to access, I keep in my planner, and so I don't have to hunt for that information.

No two people use Franklin Covey planners the same way. You can watch countless videos from different people showing how they use it, to get good ideas. For examples, see: Franklin 2022 Preliminary Setup/Flip-Through and 2020 Franklin Planner Setup and Flip Through.

See also: Stump the Priest: Time Management

Congressman Joe Wilson Declares War on the Orthodox Church

Congressman Joe Wilson, of South Carolina, wrote a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi in which he accused the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and "other Russian Orthodox Churches" of engaging in espionage on behalf of the Russian government. He of course made these assertions without the slightest evidence, but let's consider how absurd his claim actually is. The alleged espionage consisted of an effort by clergy and laity of ROCOR, the OCA, the Serbian Patriarchate, and the Antiochian Archdiocese to lobby members of our government. What were they lobbying for? Was it to eliminate sanctions against Russia? No. Was it to pass on military secrets to the Russian government? No. Was it to end military support of Ukraine? No. It was to stop the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. If this is what the Russian government put these people up to, you would have to conclude that the Russian government was the most selfless, altruistic, and Christian government that exists today, and perhaps has ever existed.

Some will claim that this effort was an attempt to embarrass the Ukrainian government, but that is also a ridiculous claim, because the only thing Ukraine would need to do to stop the embarrassment would be to stop persecuting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

What kind of persecution is happening? Clergy are being beaten. Parishioners are being beaten. Churches are being stolen, and then often just padlocked. Clergy and monks are being drafted into the Army, despite the fact they cannot fight, by profession.

This video cannot be embedded, but it shows another violent raid of a Church.

This video shows the brutal beating of Metropolitan Theodosy of Cherkassy.

Several bishops have been imprisoned on trumped up charges, and kept under inhumane conditions.

In this video, Robert Amsterdam, who represents the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was interviewed by Tucker Carlson, and it also shows scenes of the persecution of the Church in Ukraine: 

My daughter Catherine Whiteford did a video which also elaborates on the truth of what is going on in Ukraine:

Congressman Joe Wilson faced so much backlash for his ridiculous claims, that he attempted to walk it back, and say he was only talking about the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, but he would have us believe that they are Russian agents. Our primate, Metropolitan Nicholas was born in New Jersey. Prior to his repose a year ago, my bishop was Archbishop Peter, who was born in San Francisco. My acting bishop right now, Archbishop Gabriel, was born in Australia. Congressman Wilson's mother was my 7th cousin, and his father was my 8th cousin. My ancestors were among the earliest settlers in Virginia who arrived long before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth, and some of my ancestors were among the Indians that were already there to greet them. He is not attacking foreigners. He is attacking Americans, and he is attacking them for daring to speak out about the abuse of innocent people.

This persecution has nothing to do with the war, because it actually began in earnest in 2019, three years prior to the Russian invasion. The war is a pretext for intensifying and accelerating the persecution, but it was going on before that, and would have continued regardless of anything Russia did. This persecution was encourage by the US government, which established a fake Ukrainian Church back in 2018. You can see Mike Pompeo take the credit for it in this video, in which he thought he was speaking with Petro Poroshenko.

If you want to help speak out about the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and want to show Joe Wilson that we still have religious freedom and the right to petition our government for the redress of grievances, come to Washington, D.C. on December 16th, and register with the organizers.

For more information, see: 

Robert Amsterdam's first full interview with Tucker Carlson

Robert Amsterdam's second full interview with Tucker Carlson

Sermon: The Schism over Ukraine

An American Perspective on the Ukraine Crisis

What's Going on in Ukraine? Part 1: The Historical Background

What's Going on in Ukraine? Part 2: The Canonical Issues

A Rejoinder Regarding St. John of Shanghai on the Moscow Patriarchate

Subdeacon Nektarios Harrison, who was made subdeacon in ROCOR, but subsequently has become a Greek Old Calendarist and a popular apologist for them, has written a rebuttal to my article "St. John of Shanghai, the Moscow Patriarchate, and Other Local Orthodox Churches." While he characterized my article as being "amateur historiography and proof-texting," he essentially confirms the basic thesis of my article, which was that St. John did not consider the Moscow Patriarchate or other local Orthodox Churches to be either graceless or pseudo-churches. He begins his article by going into a subject that was not addressed in my article, and then goes on to bring up everything but the kitchen sink, but I want to begin my response with his concession that what I said in my article was correct:

"When we consider Saint John, we must acknowledge the truth plainly: he was indeed pastoral and more lenient in his approach toward those in the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate, the Metropolia, the Paris Jurisdiction, and World Orthodoxy at large. This is indisputable [Emphasis added]."

So since Nektarios (MA, History) agrees that the thesis of my article is indisputable, one might ask why he went on to dispute it anyway. The reason is that St. John is a universally venerated saint of the Church, and so this is an inconvenient truth for those who wish to maintain the extreme ecclesiology that those of like mind with Nektarios wish to promote.

It is interesting that Nektarios never engages the quotes my article provided, and that is because they indisputably prove what my article was all about.

"At the very outset of his article, Whiteford dismissively brands those who rejected the false union with the Soviet-created Moscow Patriarchate as “people in ROCOR who took more extreme views.” What he will not admit is that these supposed extremists, according to this Moscow Patriarchate apologist, were none other than Saint Philaret of New York, Saint Vitaly (Ustinov), Archbishop Averky, Bishop Gregory, and the remnant of ROCOR who refused to betray the legacy of the Catacomb Church and ROCOR by submitting to Moscow."

I never denied that these bishops had views at odds with those of St. John, in fact I specifically cited Metropolitan Philaret as saying that this was the case. But while Metropolitan Philaret may well be numbered among the saints, and is considered to be one by Old Calendarists, he is not officially recognized as a saint by the Orthodox Church as a whole, and is certainly not on the same level as St. John. My primary point was that those who like to throw around labels like "New ROCOR," as if the views ROCOR holds today are at odds with "Old ROCOR," are demonstrably incorrect, and St. John is indisputable evidence that this is so.

"This polemic comes in the wake of my own recent article, The False Shepherd: Moses McPherson’s War Against the True Orthodox Church, wherein I laid out definitively the historical stance of the Russian Church Abroad toward the Old Calendarist Orthodox Christians. There I demonstrated beyond doubt that ROCOR always recognized the Old Calendarist Orthodox Church—not as schismatic, as the deceitful clergy of the new ROCOR-MP now assert—but as true confessors of Orthodoxy. Saint John, Saint Philaret, Saint Vitaly, Archbishop Averky (Taushev) of Jordanville, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), together with a host of other towering hierarchs, consistently affirmed them as faithful and canonical Orthodox Christians."

My article was written and published in January of 2025, and so was not written in response to anything Nektarios has written since then, and if you read my article, you will see that it did not discuss St. John's view of the Greek Old Calendarists. The history of ROCOR's relationship with the Greek Old Calendarists is complex, but if we stick to the facts on the question of St. John's view of the Old Calendarists, it is fair to say that he was sympathetic to them. He also, along with the rest of the Synod of Bishops declared the consecrations of the Old Calendarist bishops to be invalid. In Nektarios' book "The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad & the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece: A History," he attempts to argue that most of the bishops did not actually agree with this decision, but to substantiate this, he quotes several bishops who argued that Archbishop Leonty of Chile (who had just performed one of these consecrations a few days prior to this Synod meeting) should be treated leniently. No doubt, some of the bishops supported what he did, but St. John is only quoted as saying that Archbishop Leonty's explanation for his actions should be accepted. He did not, however, reject the decision... at least not according to any document that I have seen. Nektarios' only proof that he rejected this decision is a letter he signed with other bishops, thanking Bishop Petros (one of the Greek Old Calendarist bishops in question) for his hospitality (The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad & the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece: A History," p. 26f). Apparently, the fact that this letter referred to him as a bishop is taken for proof of this, but that is a pretty big leap, and a very thin reed to lean on. St. John was a trained lawyer, an expert in the canons of the Church, and it is highly unlikely that he would not have taken the decision of the Synod of Bishops on this question seriously. St. John was a very kind man, he did seem to have a warm relationship with Bishop Petros, but there is no evidence that he ever concelebrated with him.

It is true that after St. John's repose, ROCOR reversed this decision, recognized these consecrations as valid, and briefly entered into communion with the Old Calendarists, but the extremism of many Old Calendarists (particularly their declaration that the Church of Greece was without grace, and their subsequent schisms and infighting) eventually led to ROCOR severing communion with them. A second attempt at communion with the Old Calendarists began in 1994, and for a couple of years there were a lot concelebrations with them, but relations quickly began to cool. The relationship remained intact officially, until 2007, when that Synod severed communion because of our reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate, and refused to even discuss the possibility of a reconciliation with their mother Church of Greece -- which was a disappointment to me, because I well remember Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna saying that they were willing to talk to the Church of Greece anytime, but it was they who refused to talk, but here a golden opportunity was presented to them, and they refused to take it. Had they engaged in talks, and found the terms unacceptable, it would have at least been consistent with their principles, but they showed no interest in talking with them on any terms.

The group ROCOR went into communion with (the "Synod in Resistance" under Metropolitan Cyprianos) was chosen precisely because it took a moderate stance when it came to other local churches -- it did not consider them to be without grace, but only ailing. This was also true of Bishop Petros, by the way, who actually joined ROCOR as a retired bishop before his repose. Back in 1994, many in ROCOR saw this group as having a similar mindset to our own, but as happened in the previous attempt at communion with the Old Calendarists, it became clear that we actually did not see things as closely as we thought. This attempted union happened under Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov), by the way, who was not a supporter of St. John, and who took a much dimmer of view of the Moscow Patriarchate then did he.

Even Metropolitan Philaret was not as extreme as many of those in the Greek Old Calendarist movement today. In fact, his actual position on the Moscow Patriarchate was attacked as heretical by more extreme elements who were then in ROCOR (especially by those who later joined the Panteleimonite schism, which left ROCOR to protect a sexual predator -- see The Response to Elder Tavrion). And when they actually went into schism with ROCOR, to protect this sexual predator, Metropolitan Vitaly, whom they had always supported, suddenly became a modernist and an ecumenist.

Nektarios wants to argue that St. John agreeing to enter into communion with Patriarch Alexei I, while Joseph Stalin was running the Soviet Union tells us nothing about what he would have thought with regard to entering into communion with Patriarch Alexei II, while Vladimir Putin was the president of Russia, after the persecution of the Church in Russia had ceased, after the Russian Church had glorified the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, and after they issued statements which condemned what we define as Sergianism and Ecumenism. He is free to think so, but that is preposterous on the face of it. Things are not perfect in the Russian Church, but they were far less perfect when St. John actually did enter into communion with it (see Status Quo ROCOR?).

Nektarios goes on to cite a source which affirms that St. John, when he learned that ROCOR was still in existence, ceased commemorating Patriarch Alexei I, and resumed commemorating only Metropolitan Anastasy. This is to argue a point that is not in dispute. However, St. John wrote about why he did this, and it was not because he discovered that the Moscow Patriarchate was actually a graceless pseudo-church -- he stated clearly that he did this out of obedience to his oath he gave at his consecration as a bishop, but that he hoped to see all of ROCOR eventually reconcile with the Moscow Patriarchate, and he continued to commemorate Patriarch Alexei I at the proskomedia:

"Every day at the proskomedia I commemorate Patriarch Alexy. He is the Patriarch. And our prayer still remains. By force of circumstances, we were cut off, but liturgically we are united. The Russian Church, like the entire Orthodox Church, is united in the Eucharist, and we are with her and in her. And administratively, for the sake of our flock and for the sake of certain principles, we have to follow this path, but this in no way violates our mysterious unity of the entire Church" (About Vladyka John, by Bishop Basil Rodzianko).

Nektarios raises the issue of the Moscow Patriarchate's membership in the World Council of Churches, and in the Ecumenical movement in general. The fact is that what is allowed to happen in the Russian Church today is far less objectionable than many things that were allowed prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, and even things that were allowed in ROCOR prior to the repose of St. John of Shanghai.

For example, when Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) was consecrated as a bishop, this was done with a vested Anglican Bishop standing on the kliros.

St. Tikhon of Moscow attended the consecration of an Anglican bishop wearing his mantia:

Archbishop Leonty of Chile was sent by ROCOR as an observer to Vatican II.

Sending a representative to Vatican II was, as a matter of fact, supported by the future Metropolitan Vitaly:

"Archbishop Vitalii felt that an opportunity existed to speak about Orthodoxy, on the situation in the Orthodox world, and about the persecution of the Church in Russia. If they leave, Moscow will stay" (A chapter from Psarev’s Masters thesis, “The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad toward Non-Orthodox Christians and the Ecumenical Movement (1920-1964): A Historical Evaluation”).

ROCOR in fact sent many representatives to meetings of the World Council of Churches as well, and only stopped doing so after the Moscow Patriarchate began sending their own representatives. In my opinion, the arguments against participating in the World Council of Churches are now outweighed by the arguments against it, but it is a fact that the ecumenical atrocities that took place at WCC gatherings in the 90's were stopped due to the efforts of the Moscow Patriarchate to reform it, which put at an end to inter-religious worship services, and also forced the WCC to no longer issue statements that were not agreed to unanimously -- which effectively gives the Moscow Patriarchate a veto over such things. The Russian Church has stated that it would withdraw from the WCC, if all the other local churches did as well, and there is a concern about ceding the floor of the WCC to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which could then present itself as the voice of the Orthodox Church there. I know Nektarios doesn't find that a compelling case for staying in the WCC, but I think it is an understandable position, even though I personally don't agree with it. But this is a debatable question, and not a question of apostasy, as Nektarios would like to suggest.

Nektarios brings up the fact that in 1969, the Moscow Patriarchate approved communing Roman Catholics in extremis -- a decision that was set aside in 1986. While I agree that this was a bad decision, the fact is that it was not without precedence. In 1847, Tsar Nicholas I agreed to a treaty that made similar provisions for Roman Catholics (see Decision of the ROC Synod in 1969). 

Along these lines, Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin) recounts:

"I had a minor experience, which I will now dare to relate. In 1952, I had a parish in Bradford, England. There were many refugees in this industrial city that had their own churches: Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and others. There was a substantial community of Galician Ukrainians here, who were Uniats. I was told that they were quite hostile towards us Russians. Once, at night, I had a call from the local hospital telling me that a woman “of your religion” was near death. Taking the Holy Gifts I hurried to the hospital. The night was not only dark but a heavy fog covered everything. One had to walk from one streetlight to another. I reached the hospital and was shown the ward where the seriously ill woman was laying in an oxygen tent. Here I learned that she was not Orthodox but a Galician Uniat. Her husband was sitting next to her, crying. I told him that she was not Orthodox but belonged to the Roman Catholic faith. It was urgent that any Roman Catholic priest be called. At the same time I assured the husband that I will not allow her to die without Communion, and if the Catholic priest could not come or does not come in time, I will give her Communion myself. The Catholic priest arrived quickly. He was an Englishman and did not know Russian or Ukrainian. I offered my help. I asked the sick woman if she repents of her sins and does she want to receive Communion. She answered, “Yes, Father” in her Ukrainian accent. I related her words for the priest and he gave her Communion. I was at the hospital several days later and was overjoyed to see that the sick woman was recovering quickly, and she was happy to see me. After this, I was walking on the street past a Galician club and was pleasantly surprised when all those who were outside the building doffed their hats and greeted me, a Russian priest, warmly. I told of this to our great hierarch, Archbishop John [Maksimovich] and said to him that I would have given Communion to the dying woman even though she was a Uniat. After this I was ready to accept any punishment that the Holy Orthodox Church would give me. Archbishop John’s reply was worthy of his sanctity and love towards people: “No punishment would have been given to you”" (On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches).

If I was in Fr. Ambrose's situation, and had a Roman Catholic priest not been available, I would not have done what he said he would have done, but his actions were not driven by adherence to the heresy of ecumenism, but by compassion for human beings who were in a desperate situation, and evidently St. John didn't see it as a grave sin. 

On a Synodal level, ROCOR discussed something similar on October 26/November 8, 1962:

"Archbishop Nikon noted that we are giving communion to Uniats for missionary purposes. Archbishop Vitalii [the future Metropolitan of ROCOR] argued that this is so because in the Carpathians people never knew that they were not Orthodox and they continue to live as in olden times. Their bishops were recognized by the Pope, but the people still think they are Orthodox. Archbishop Afanasii noted that it all depends on how to understand membership in the Orthodox Church. If a person goes to an Orthodox church for communion then he is Orthodox. Ruthenians by the thousands took communion in the Pochaev Lavra, and nobody ever questioned if they were Orthodox, because they were such in spirit. Archbishop Averkii [of Jordanville] confirmed that simple Carpatho-Russian people never suspected that they were not Orthodox; the intelligentsia, however, needed to be received through the special rite" (A chapter from Psarev’s Masters thesis, “The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad toward Non-Orthodox Christians and the Ecumenical Movement (1920-1964): A Historical Evaluation.”)

Archbishop Leonty of Chile, the same bishop who consecrated the original Old Calendar bishops that constituted the various Old Calendar synods that exist today, had views on this that run somewhat counter to those of the Old Calendarists:

"Igor’ Andruskiewitsch, secretary to Archbishop Leontii when he lived in Buenos Aires, recalled at a meeting with the author, that he once asked the archbishop if it would be permissible to call for a Catholic priest if he were in an accident. Archbishop Leontii replied:

I do not know how I would have answered you before Vatican II, but now, after Vatican II, I will not answer you. When the moment comes, our Lord and Savior will tell you what to do. You will be able to decide without me. Because after Vatican II, I have my doubts. They changed the canon of the Eucharistic liturgy again, which had been changed earlier. Therefore I do not know whether their Eucharist is valid.

Andruskiewitsch mentioned that Archbishop Leontii used to say that before Vatican II Roman Catholic Communion was of benefit to faithful Catholics" (A chapter from Psarev’s Masters thesis, “The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad toward Non-Orthodox Christians and the Ecumenical Movement (1920-1964): A Historical Evaluation”).

I do not cite these facts because I think these things were good. I simply cite them as evidence that Church History is more complicated than Old Calendarists would like their people to believe. And the fact is, the views of the bishops of ROCOR today are far more conservative than the views of many of the bishops of "Old ROCOR" or the prerevolutionary Russian Church were.

And on the question of communion with New Calendar Churches, we have this:

"[In] A letter dated September 27, 1961, from the Synod of Bishops of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, a copy of which was sent to Archbishop Iakovos, states:

"Our Church adheres to the old calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar a grave mistake. However, its policy has always been to maintain spiritual communion with the Orthodox Churches that have adopted the new calendar, as long as they celebrate Easter in accordance with the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. Our Church has never declared the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America to be schismatic, nor has it severed spiritual communion with them" (Machine translation of Икуменически възгледи и контакти на Руската Задгранична Църква (РЗЦ) [Ecumenical views and contacts of the Russian Church Abroad (ROCA)]).

Concelebrations with other local Churches continued throughout the time leading up to reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate. I was present (as a laymen at the time) at the glorification of St. John of Shanghai and well remember that a Serbian priest concelebrated with the assembled clergy. Nektarios interviewed Fr. Andrew Kencis who tried to dismiss this by saying that he asked Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) about it, and Metropolitan Vitaly reportedly replied, "That is on Vladika Anthony's neck" -- who was the ruling bishop of the ROCOR Diocese of Western America, and in whose cathedral this glorification took place. Had Archbishop Anthony allowed a Roman Catholic priest to concelebrate, does anyone think Metropolitan Vitaly would merely have said "That is on Vladika Anthony's neck"? He would have put his foot down, and this would not have been allowed to happen. The fact that he did not put his foot down in this case is evidence that he did not think this priest was a graceless heretic.

I also know that concelebrations like this happened prior to 2007, because as a deacon, and later as a priest, I often concelebrated with Serbian clergy, and always did so with the blessing of my bishop.

And when it comes to the current stance of the Moscow Patriarchate when it comes to praying with the heterodox, I would invite those interested to compare the following documents:

In 1974, under the leadership of Metropolitan Philaret, the Synod of bishops sent out a document entitled "Regarding the Behavior of an Orthodox Priest towards Heterodox." 

The draft document "On Issues Concerning Prayer with Non-Orthodox Christians,” which will likely approved at the next All-Russian Council.

These two documents are remarkably similar.

It is certainly true that prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a wide range of opinions about the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Anastasy and St. John were on the more charitable end of the spectrum. Metropolitan Philaret and Metropolitan Vitaly were closer to the other end of the spectrum. It would be dishonest to pretend that either views were not part of "Old ROCOR." But as for myself, I feel very comfortable aligning myself with those on the end of the spectrum with St. John of Shanghai.

For more information, see:

Stump the Priest: Old Calendarism

"Anti-Patristic: The Stance of the Zealot Old Calendarists, by Monk Basil of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory (Grigoriou), Mount Athos.

A Rejoinder to Hieromonk Patapios’ “A Reply to Patrick Barnes: The Deficient Scholarship of Monk Basil’s Comments on the Allegedly Anti-Patristic Stand of the So-Called “Old Calendarist Zealots”