To His Eminence Saba (Isper), Metropolitan of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

Your Eminence,

Christ is risen!

With reference to Your Eminence’s article published on 25 April 2025 on the website of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, entitled “The Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Churches: An Objective Presentation,” my humbleness would like to draw Your attention to a letter I wrote to His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel and the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church in February 2013. This letter, as attached in this email, was published in the theological periodical, Theodromia, of the Centre of Patristic Studies in Thessaloniki.

Shenouda III, in his book The Nature of Christ, wrote of “one nature of Christ,” following the line of Severus’ heresy. In this nuance lies the Miaphysite heresy. According to Shenouda, Christ has a single divine-human nature, erroneously interpreting what Saint Cyril of Alexandria said: “one incarnate nature of God the Logos” (“μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη.”) In Greek grammar, both the adjective and noun are in the feminine gender and the adjective “incarnate” describes the noun “nature” and not “God the Logos.” Although this formulation belongs to a great Saint of the Church, it was avoided in the 4th Ecumenical Council, precisely so that there would be no ambiguities. In the spirit of the Council of Chalcedon, Saint Cyril’s phrase is understood as follows: one divine nature united with human nature, meaning two natures.

The book of the Miaphysite Patriarch Shenouda remains a reference for us Orthodox, so that we are able to understand that we have nothing in common with the Miaphysites and that there is no “terminological misunderstanding” to be found.

Saint John of Damascus says in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter III: “Now, if Christ, who is consubstantial with the Father, has one compounded (composite) nature, then the Father, too, will certainly be compounded and consequently consubstantial with the flesh, which is absurd and filled with every blasphemy.”

In the Menaion, at the Matins Service of the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon, Ode 6 reads: “Cyril preached Christ in two natures and two activities, cutting to pieces the heresy of the senseless Severus.”

With all my love in Christ,

Protopresbyter Matthew (Ion-Valentin) Vulcănescu

Parish of Saint Edward the Martyr and Saint Paraskevi of Rome

Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland

Relevant links:

https://www.antiochian.org/regulararticle/2407

Open Letter to the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church and His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel regarding the Monophysite Issue

Open Letter to the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church and His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel regarding the Monophysite Issue

To the attention of His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel and the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church, regarding the official acceptance by the Romanian Orthodox Church (1994) of the two joint declarations of Chambésy (1990 and 1993) in the context of dialogue with the Non-Chalcedonians.

Our Father, Your Beatitude Patriarch Daniel,

The Holy Apostle Paul tells us that each one of us is a member of the Body of Christ; therefore, when one member suffers or is in some danger, it is normal for the other members of the Body of Christ to react, as in a single living organism. For the same reason, as a member of the Orthodox Church, I express my concern regarding what the Romanian Orthodox Church, as a local hypostasis of the Catholic Orthodox Church, signed during the Holy Synod session of 8–9 December 1994, by which the “Non-Chalcedonian Churches” are recognized as Orthodox.

I believe this act adopted by the Synod should be re-examined. I am by no means against theological dialogue with the heterodox. I have seen published on the official website of the Romanian Patriarchate the following declarations, and I am thinking that perhaps they were not reviewed by qualified theologians. Therefore, I humbly draw your attention to the following:

According to the official website of the Romanian Patriarchate: 

“The Romanian Orthodox Church demonstrated great openness toward this dialogue. She was represented at almost all unofficial and official meetings (except the fourth unofficial, and the second and third official meetings) by Prof. Dr. Nicolae Chițescu, Prof. Fr. Dumitru Radu, His Eminence Dr. Antonie Plămădeală, Prof. Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae, and Prof. Fr. Nicolae Necula. [1]
In the meeting of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church on 8–9 December 1994, the texts of the two joint declarations were officially accepted. Thus, the Romanian Orthodox Church was the first Church to officially approve this dialogue after 1993.”

It seems that those who adopted the conclusions of the dialogue with the Non-Chalcedonians were not attentive to what they signed: 

“When we speak of the one composite hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not mean that a divine hypostasis is joined with a human hypostasis. We mean that the one and the eternal hypostasis of the second Person of the Trinity assumed our humanity, the created nature, through an act [2] uniting it to His own uncreated divine nature, to form a true divine-human being [3], united inseparably and unconfusedly, the natures being distinguished from one another only by contemplation.”[4] “This hypostasis of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, born before all ages of the Father, is the One who in the latter days became a human being [5] and was born of the Most Holy Virgin Mary.”[6] 

The first formulation: “we speak of the one and composite hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ” is not clear at all, and the explanation that follows is even more ambiguous. The statement “the natures being distinguished from one another only by contemplation” could suggest that the natures in Christ are only theoretical.

In the formulation “to form a true divine-human being” there is a confusion between the notion of “divine-human being” and “divine-human nature,” precisely as in the formulation of the heretic Severus of Antioch — namely, a composite divine-human nature.

The statement “He is the One who, in the latter days, became a human being” is again against the teaching of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, because the hypostasis of the Son did not “become a human being,” but “appropriated human nature.” In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, it is said that the Son “was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man” — the Greek term “ενανθρωπήσαντα,” which would be better translated as “the Son of God took human nature”.

Shenouda III, in his book The Nature of Christ, wrote of “one nature of Christ,” following the line of Severus’ heresy. In this nuance lies the Miaphysite heresy.[7] According to Shenouda, Christ has a single divine-human nature[8], erroneously interpreting what Saint Cyril of Alexandria said: “one incarnate nature of God the Logos” (“μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη.”) [9][10] Although this formulation belongs to a great Saint of the Church, it was avoided in the 4th Ecumenical Council, precisely so that there would be no ambiguities.

The Orthodox teaching as expressed by Saint John of Damascus in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Chapter XVI (In reply to those who say “If man has two natures and two energies, Christ must be held to have three natures and as many energies.” [11]):

“Everything that is found to be common to several things without being more in one and less in another is said to be essence. Therefore, since every man is made up of a soul and a body, in this sense men are said to have one nature. As regards the Person of the Lord, however, we cannot speak of one nature, because even after the union each nature retains its natural property and it is not possible to find a species of Christs. For there has been no other Christ made of divinity and humanity, the same being both God and man.”[12]

The human nature is en-hypostasised in the Person of the Son of God; thus, we cannot speak of a separate hypostasis of human nature. In the spirit of the Council of Chalcedon, Saint Cyril’s phrase is understood as follows: one divine nature united with human nature, meaning two natures.

Saint John of Damascus says (Book III, Chapter VIII)[13]:

“Thus, (the natures) being hypostatically one and mutually immanent, they are united without any confusion or transformation of one into the other and with each preserving its own natural distinction.”

And in Chapter III:

“Now, if Christ, who is consubstantial with the Father, has one compounded (composite) nature, then the Father, too, will certainly be compounded and consequently consubstantial with the flesh, which is absurd and filled with every blasphemy.”[14]

Saint Maximus the Confessor similarly states:

“It is not permissible for the pious to say that Christ is one composite nature… It would imply that the flesh is co-eternal with the Logos.” (Epistle to John the Cubicularius, PSB81, p. 85-86) [15]

In the Menaion, at the Matins Service of the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon, Ode 6 reads:

“Cyril preached Christ in two natures and two activities, cutting to pieces the heresy of the senseless Severus.”

Against the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, the “lifting of anathemas” was attempted: “The lifting of the anathemas in the context of dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church is based on the Christological Declaration of Chambésy and aims to remove obstacles to full ecclesial communion.”[16]

The sincere question one would ask is: Why do the Copts, Syriac Jacobites, and Armenians refuse to accept the formula of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon?

The answer is found in the book The Nature of Christ, of the Coptic Patriarch Shenouda III which clearly states that we Orthodox are Nestorian heretics![17]

“Once a common Christological agreement is accepted, a common liturgical agreement will follow. Although there is no longer a dogmatic separation, full communion remains an ideal. It seems that the Oriental Orthodox Churches do not have enough courage to fully recognize the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, perhaps due to historical circumstances, while the other Orthodox Churches delay the official ratification of the dialogue. In the liturgical subcommittee, the Romanian Orthodox Church is represented by Prof. Dr. Nicolae Necula.”[18]

How easily did the Orthodox commissions bypass the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon! We also see that the Miaphysite side (Copts, Armenians, and Syrians) was much more serious in its heretical stance, even admirable in a way, that even though the Orthodox rushed to “lift the anathemas” from the heretics condemned at Chalcedon, the Copts said that the lifting would not be reciprocal: they would not lift their anathemas against the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon!

Even if they wanted to “lift the anathemas,” the problem would remain because the anathemas they proclaimed against the Orthodox are invalid (it only confirms that we have different Christologies). However, the lifting of the Orthodox anathemas against them is also invalid. Any possible removal of Miaphysites or other heterodox from the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils can only happen through their acceptance of Orthodox teaching, not by some “magical” lifting of anathemas without a dogmatic basis. The book of the Miaphysite Patriarch Shenouda remains a reference for us Orthodox, so that we are able to understand that we have nothing in common with the Miaphysites and that there is no “terminological misunderstanding” to be found.

The Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church has officially adopted the work of Mr. Jean-Claude Larchet, Personne et Nature, a thoroughly documented patristic study which proves that the Non-Chalcedonians remain heterodox.

In light of the above, I believe that the Romanian Orthodox Church should reconsider the official document accepted on 8–9 December 1994, which to some extent places itself under the anathema of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and the subsequent Ecumenical Councils.

Because I know that You are animated by love and zeal for the Orthodox Faith, I dare to humbly ask for Your patriarchal blessing and prayers.

With humble obedience,

Presbyter Matei Vulcănescu
Cleric of the Metropolis of Veria, Naousa, and Kampania

Sources: In Greek Orthódoxos Týpos, February 2013.
Theodromia, January–March 2013

Endnotes:

[1] The Romanian Orthodox Church was represented at the unofficial meetings by His Eminence Antonie Plămădeală and Nicolae Chițescu between the years 1964–1970, Father Dumitru Stăniloae at the unofficial meetings between 1971–1979, Father Dumitru Radu at the first official meeting in 1985, and Father Nicolae Necula.

[2] dans un acte — (source links: http://eocf.free.fr/dialogl.htm, http://orthodial.com/textes.html)

[3] un réel être divino-humain — (source links: http://eocf.free.fr/dialogl.htm, http://orthodial.com/textes.html)

[4] uniquement dans la contemplation (theoria) — (source links: http://eocf.free.fr/dialogl.htm, http://orthodial.com/textes.html)

[5] devint un être humain — (source links: http://eocf.free.fr/dialogl.htm, http://orthodial.com/textes.html)

[6] Source: http://www.patriarhia.ro/ro/relatii_externe/dialog_intercrestin_1.html

[7] Miaphysitism is Monophysitism.

[8] “Thus He was able to say to the Jews while speaking to them, “Before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58). He did not say, “My Divine nature existed even before Abraham,” but He said, “I am,” which proves the unity and Oneness of His Nature.” (H. H. Pope Shenouda III, Nature of Christ, 1997, p. 25)

[9] Κύριλλος Αλεξανδρείας, Περὶ τῆς παναγίας Τριάδος ἐν κεφαλαίοις κη’, P.G. 77:19:1160:A:13.

[10] Shenouda incorrectly understands this phrase as meaning a single nature of the Word incarnate (“μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένου” or “One Nature of God, the Incarnate Logos”) — (H. H. Pope Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ, 1997, p. 19). See also: The One Nature of the Incarnate Logos, p. 27.
Translator’s Note: In Greek grammar, both the adjective and noun are in the feminine gender and the adjective “incarnate” describes the noun “nature” and not “God the Logos”.

[11] Ιωάννης Δαμασκηνός, Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, P.G. 94: Βιβλίον Γ: (16)60:1064:A. ΕΠΕ 1: Βιβλίον Γ: (16)60:376.

[12] Ιωάννης Δαμασκηνός, Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, P.G. 94: Βιβλίον Γ: (16)60:1064:C–1065:A. ΕΠΕ 1: Βιβλίον Γ: (16)60:378:9.

[13] Ιωάννης Δαμασκηνός, Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, P.G. 94: Βιβλίον Γ: (8)52:1013:B. ΕΠΕ 1: Βιβλίον Γ: (8)52:318:6; (English quote: Chase, Saint John of Damascus: Writings, p. 286)

[14] Ιωάννης Δαμασκηνός, Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, P.G. 94: Βιβλίον Γ: (3)47:989:B. ΕΠΕ 1: Βιβλίον Γ: (3)47:290:2; (English quote: Chase, Saint John of Damascus: Writings, p. 272)

[15] Μάξιμος Ὁμολογητής, Ἐπιστολὴ (ΙΒ’) πρὸς Ἰωάννην Κουβικουλάριον, περὶ τῶν ὀρθῶν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ δογμάτων καὶ κατὰ Σεβήρου τοῦ αἱρετικοῦ, P.G. 91:489:A–B. ΕΠΕ: Φ:15:Β:198:1.

[16] Source: http://www.patriarhia.ro/ro/relatii_externe/dialog_intercrestin_1.html

[17] “In spite of the fact that the Council of Ephesus had excommunicated Nestorius, the Nestorian roots extended to influence the Council of Chalcedon, where the trend to separate the two natures became so apparent that it was said that Christ is two persons, a God and a human being.” (H. H. Pope Shenouda III, Nature of Christ, 1997, p. 15)

[18] Source: http://www.patriarhia.ro/ro/relatii_externe/dialog_intercrestin_1.html

Arhim. Pavlos Dimitrakopoulos

Head of the Office for Combating Heresies and Sects

Holy Metropolis of Kythira and Antikythira

In Kythira, April 4, 2025

Beloved brother and concelebrant in Christ, Father Matthew,

May the Grace of God be with You.

Thank You for sending me the letter of Father Theodoros Zisis, from which I have been informed of the unjust persecutions Your Reverence is enduring, for having taken the fully justified canonical action of ceasing the commemoration of the name of Your hierarch, His Eminence Silouan, Metropolitan of the British Isles and Ireland of the Patriarchate of Antioch.

I praise You, my brother, for this courageous act of walling off from heresy, which You have undertaken, confessing the Orthodox Faith and following the example of the Holy Fathers. I fully agree with Fr. Theodoros that You should not accept any decision by the Patriarchate of Antioch to depose You, but should continue Your priestly ministry, ignoring any unjust decision.

Rejoice and be glad, my brother, in enduring unjust persecutions, for great will be Your reward in heaven and You will be counted among the Holy Confessors of the Faith.

I embrace You with much reverence and love in Christ and ask You to remember me in Your prayers.

May You have a blessed remainder of Holy Lent.

Fr. Pavlos Dimitrakopoulos

His Eminence Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira (Church of Greece) CONTESTS the deposition of Father Matthew Vulcanescu as uncanonical

HELLENIC REPUBLIC
HOLY METROPOLIS OF KYTHIRA & ANTIKYTHIRA
Postal Code: 801 00 KYTHIRA
Tel.: 2736031202 & 2736038359
Fax: 2736031202 

Kythira, 9 April 2025

Prot. No.: 95

To the Most Reverend Protopresbyter
Fr. Matthew Vulcănescu
Liverpool, United Kingdom

Most Reverend and beloved in Christ, Father Matthew,

May You have a blessed, peaceful, and Grace-filled HOLY PASCHA!

We have received Your letter dated 4 April 2025, in which You express, with profound sorrow and deep spiritual unease, Your concern regarding the dogmatic issues involving the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch, to which You belong spiritually and administratively. These issues (such as the participation in the “World Council of Churches”, the failure to condemn heresies contained in the texts of the pseudo-synod of Crete of 2016, the agreements of Chambesy (1989, 1990, and 1993), the synodal declaration of November 1991 regarding inter-communion with the Monophysites, the refusal to proclaim anathemas against all heresies, and the acceptance of the “baptism” of the heterodox in the name of the Holy Trinity) endanger our salvation, as previously stated in Your letter of 6 December 2023.

We share Your sadness and pain as an Orthodox clergyman; we praise your Orthodox confession and pray fervently that the All-Merciful God will strengthen You and the Most Holy Spirit will enlighten You, so that You may “grow in life, faith, and spiritual wisdom,” to struggle as one who loves God and is pleasing to Him in “the good fight of faith, taking hold of eternal life,” “following the Holy Fathers,” and “not moving the eternal boundaries established by the Fathers.”

“Strive for the truth unto death, beloved brother, and the Lord God shall fight for you” (Wisdom of Sirach). Let us also recall the timely words: “Behold, the Bridegroom comes in the middle of the night, and blessed is the servant whom He shall find watching; and unworthy is the one whom He finds negligent.” And another exhortation: “Let us love the Bridegroom, brothers; let us prepare our lamps, shining brightly through virtues and Orthodox Faith.“

“Stand firm as an anvil when it is struck, brother. It is the mark of a great athlete to be struck and yet to conquer.” (Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer, Bishop of Antioch, to Saint Polycarp of Smyrna)

With love and bright Paschal wishes, 

† Seraphim,
Metropolitan of Kythira and Antikythira

Moscow Patriarchate
Moldovan Orthodox Church
Diocese of Ungheni and Nisporeni

To
His Beatitude Patriarch John X
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East
Patriarchal Residence
Balamand
Koura
Lebanon

2 April 2025

Your Beatitude, Patriarch John,

With all due respect, I would like to bring to Your Beatitude’s attention my humble position regarding case reference number 2024-02 of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland, whose verdict to depose Father Matthew (Ion-Valentin) Vulcănescu I wish to appeal. Opening my heart to Your Beatitude, I express the pain caused by the persecutions endured by His Reverence due to His Orthodox confession in these troubled times, where the truth is mingled with the lie of heresy.

Father Matthew (Ion-Valentin) Vulcănescu is well-known and respected throughout the whole Church for his unwavering confession of the Orthodox Faith, something that should be an honour for the Antiochian Orthodox Church. His Reverence is also highly regarded for His valuable experience in inter-Orthodox dialogue as a representative of the Metropolis of Piraeus (Church of Greece), as well as for his collaboration with prominent contemporary Orthodox theologians.

While we were analysing the decisions issued on 23 December 2023 and 16 March 2025 (case reference number 2024-02) by Metropolitan Silouan Oner of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland, we reached the conclusion that Father Matthew has been deposed twice from the priesthood, without any canonical basis. Furthermore, only a Synod of Bishops holds the authority to depose a priest, not an individual metropolitan acting alone.

Additionally, a fundamental principle of natural justice has been violated, namely that no one should be a judge in their own cause (Latin: nemo judex in causa sua). This implies that Metropolitan Silouan, being the accused party, cannot impartially judge his own case; thus, the deposition of Father Matthew is invalid and cannot be accepted. In this situation, there is also a conflict of interest, as Metropolitan Silouan has made decisions and undertaken actions against Father Matthew following the accusations of a dogmatic nature made against His Eminence.

Having carefully examined the Encyclical of 16 December 2023 and the document entitled “Canonical Resources and Policies for the Reception of the Heterodox” dated 9 January 2024 (Edition 1.1), issued by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland, it is evident that Metropolitan Silouan in fact endorses the baptismal heresy (established by the 1950 Toronto Statement of the “World Council of Churches” and quietly reaffirmed by the controversial Council of Crete in 2016). This is demonstrated by the fact that Metropolitan Silouan, through the aforementioned Encyclical, forbids the reception by Baptism into the Holy Orthodox Church of the heterodox who were previously “baptised” in their own denominations, thus implicitly recognising non-Orthodox baptism: “Those who enter the Holy Orthodox Church from heretical or schismatic communions, who are nevertheless baptized in water and in the name of the Holy Trinity, are generally received by Chrismation, since it is forbidden to baptize twice.”

Furthermore, the above mentioned document “Canonical Resources and Policies for the Reception of the Heterodox” contains serious theological errors, including the affirmation of the existence of the Grace of Salvation outside the Orthodox Church, the distortion of the definition of salvation and the incorrect interpretations of the terms economia and akribeia. Moreover, this document introduces a new canon which stipulates the excommunication of lay persons and the deposition of clergymen who receive a “corrective” baptism (that is those who are baptised Orthodox after having been received into the Church by Chrismation), thereby reaffirming the recognition of baptism performed outside the Orthodox Church (on the condition that it was performed “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with water by a church that professes a trinitarian faith”).

In support of Father Matthew’s position regarding the baptism of the heterodox, we bring to Your attention the book entitled “I Confess One Baptism,” authored by Father Professor Georgios Metallinos of blessed memory, written with the blessing of his spiritual father, Elder Parthenios of Saint Paul’s Monastery on the Holy Mount Athos, a well-known contemporary saint. This work demonstrates that Holy Orthodox Baptism cannot be substituted, altered, or completed by any other practice or formula. Thus, the application of economia regarding the reception of the heterodox—who have been separated from the Church for centuries—is unacceptable. The reception of them without Baptism, based merely upon mechanically invoked formulas, contradicts the Holy Canons and the teachings of the Holy Fathers. In other words, just because the heretics used the formula “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” when they “baptised,” this does not mean that what they performed is an Orthodox Baptism.

The questions and positions expressed by Father Matthew and the community he shepherds are natural, legitimate, current and reflect the genuine concerns of any Christian with a living Orthodox conscience. In the letter to Your Beatitude dated 6 December 2023, Father Matthew also requested clarification regarding inter-communion with Monophysites who receive Holy Communion within the Antiochian Orthodox Church, yet there has been no response to date. Instead, the January-February 2024 edition of the St. Dunstan Antiochian Orthodox parish newsletter, Narthex, confirms that the decisions of the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch in November 1991 are being put into practice and that there already is a long-standing custom of communing Monophysites within the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland. This demonstrates that Father Matthew’s concerns are fully justified and the issues raised should indeed be clarified.

Therefore, the actions and positions of Father Matthew are entirely canonical and Orthodox. In light of the fact that His Reverence continues to serve, He has acted correctly and in accordance with Canon 3 of the Third Ecumenical Council, and we recognize him as a priest of the Church and concelebrate with him. Father Matthew deserves honour and support for His courage in confessing the Truth, even while assuming significant personal risks. A potential defrocking of Father Matthew cannot be accepted by the Orthodox faithful but only by those who either do not understand or do not have the Orthodox Faith.

We fully stand with Father Matthew and are aware of the support that He is already receiving from other Metropolitans of the Autocephalous Churches, who are carefully analysing this situation and intend to publicly express their solidarity, to the glory of God. Even our Father, Patriarch Kirill I of Moscow, appreciates Father Matthew for His courageous public stand against the Ukrainian schism, and has personally congratulated Him for this.

We approach Your Beatitude with confidence, believing firmly that You will make a wise decision in conformity with the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Church, as well as with the great contemporary spiritual fathers and confessors, who have always received all the heterodox into the Church through the one and unique Orthodox Baptism, such as Saint Porphyrios Kavsokalyvitis, Saint Augustine Kantiotis, Elder Ephraim of Arizona, Father Georgios Metallinos, Elder Parthenios (Abbot of Saint Paul’s Monastery on Mount Athos), together with all the abbots of the Athonite monasteries and other charismatic spiritual fathers of contemporary Orthodoxy.

Your Beatitude’s decision regarding this issue will remain in Church history as a testimony to the Orthodox Truth, which does not belong personally to Father Matthew, but to the entire Orthodox Church. We trust that through Your Beatitude’s pastoral guidance and spiritual discernment, peace will be restored within the Church, thus preventing significant disturbance at a pan-Orthodox level.

With all love in Christ,

 † PETRU
Archbishop of Ungheni and Nisporeni

Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis
Emeritus Professor of the Faculty of Theology
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Thessaloniki

To the Reverend
Protopresbyter Matthew Vulcănescu
Orthodox Parish of
Saint Edward the Martyr
and Saint Paraskevi of Rome
Liverpool

Thessaloniki, 31 March 2025

Beloved brother in Christ and concelebrant, Father Matthew,

I thank you warmly for informing me in a fraternal spirit, by sending the relevant documents regarding the persecutions which Your Reverence is undergoing, due to Your fully justified canonical action of ceasing the commemoration of the name of Your bishop, Silouan, Metropolitan of the British Isles and Ireland of the Patriarchate of Antioch.

I support and praise Your courage in confessing the Orthodox Faith and Tradition, following the Holy Gospel and the Holy Fathers, against all heresies, both old and new—among which are the anti-Chalcedonian Monophysites, with whom, unfortunately, the Patriarchate of Antioch has been in communion for many years, thereby mixing what should remain unmixed: Orthodoxy with heresy, Truth with delusion.

In particular, the cessation of commemoration of a bishop who publicly promotes heresy (αἱρετίζοντος ἐπισκόπου) is endorsed and upheld by the 31st Apostolic Canon and the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod (861) of Saint Photios the Great. The latter Canon describes bishops who publicly promote heresy as pseudo-bishops, and this is not an insult—as Metropolitan Silouan claims that Your Reverence has insulted Him—but is an act of rebuking heresy. In the New Testament and in the writings of the Holy Fathers, we frequently encounter references to false prophets, false apostles, and false teachers. This is not an insult, but a necessary rebuke for the return of those led astray and for the protection of the Orthodox faithful.

From the beginning, the Metropolitan reacted with anger and wrath rather than with fatherly understanding. His Eminence acted hastily and decided by Himself on Your deposition, although this is forbidden both by the Holy Canons and by civil law, since it is neither permissible for the accused to judge the accusation made against them, nor for the accused to judge themselves, nor for the accused to pass judgment on their accuser. Canon 107 of the Council of Carthage states: “It has pleased the Synod to decree that a single Bishop shall not be his own judge.” And Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, interpreting this canon in the Pedalion explains: “The present Canon decrees that a bishop shall neither pass judgment on the case of another bishop who has a dispute with him, nor of a presbyter who has any dispute with him, nor of any other cleric, according to Canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; as a presbyter accused by someone else or a deacon, cannot be defrocked by one bishop alone according to Canon 12 of this Council.”

Now, through a more recent decision—as His Eminence informed Your Reverence by letter on March 16, 2025, (case reference: 2024-02)—He refers Your Reverence to His own episcopal court, the members of which are appointed by Him and follow whatever the bishop decides. Therefore, nothing changes in essence. Instead of Himself judging Your Reverence, it is those whom He has appointed that now judge Your Reverence and they have decided without proper scrutiny that it has been proven that You have violated the Holy Canons, even though nothing has actually been proven. The communion with the Monophysites and the baptismal theology adopted by the Patriarchate of Antioch are indeed heterodox and heretical teachings, as Your Reverence has imputed to the Patriarchate, and they must be corrected, not regarded as insults.

As for the Metropolitan’s proposal for making an appeal within thirty (30) days to the Patriarchate, the Metropolitan should forward the case file to the Patriarch, so that the Synod, the synodal court, may decide accordingly. The Patriarch has already been informed of Your positions through a detailed text Your Reverence has sent His Beatitude on December 6, 2023. In any case, whatever the decision of the synodal court—even if it is Your deposition—since this is not a matter of administration or morality, but a matter of Faith and doctrine, Your Reverence will not accept the decision and will continue Your priestly duties, as Your Reverence has already stated. Woe unto us if the Orthodox were to obey the decisions of heretical bishops or heretical synods or of those who promote heresy[1]—there would be no Orthodoxy left today! This is what many Saints taught and practiced: Saint Athanasius the Great did not accept his defrocking by Arian synods, neither did Saint Gregory Palamas as a hieromonk accept it from the Barlaamite Patriarch John Kalekas; nor did Saint Theodore the Studite accept it from the iconoclasts; nor Saint John Chrysostom and many others who continued to serve despite their unjust and uncanonical defrocking. Saint Isidore of Pelusium writes in a letter that it is better to be defrocked than to be associated with scandal-causing clergy: “It is better to be persecuted and defrocked than to be counted among such men.” (PG 78, 1608B).

Saint John Chrysostom, the pride of Antioch, in the third discourse of his classic work On the Priesthood, says that a worthy priest must always be ready, as it is fitting for Christian men, to have his priesthood removed, knowing that an unjust defrocking carries no lesser crown than the priesthood itself: «Ἡ τοιαύτη καθαίρεσις οὐκ  ἐλάττονα φέρει τῆς ἀρχῆς τὸν στέφανον.» Moreover, when someone is defrocked without having done anything unworthy of the priesthood, this brings condemnation on those who unjustly defrocked him, and brings a greater reward to the one who was wrongfully removed. (On the Priesthood 3, 11, PG 48, 648).

The cessation of the commemoration of bishops—known as walling off —as Your Reverence know well, dear Fr. Matthew, when they fall into heresy and are in communion with heretics, is a God-given act and tradition of the Holy Fathers of the Church, practiced by many Holy Fathers and modern Saints, whom we confidently and assuredly follow as clergy who are concerned for our own salvation and for the small flocks we shepherd. The Church of Antioch, which from Apostolic times has offered Christianity many spiritual treasures and great figures among the Fathers and Teachers, has unfortunately, in recent decades, tarnished her Orthodox character by the decision of inter-communion with the Monophysite heretics. For Your Reverence, walling off was the only way—the only Orthodox way—since Metropolitan Silouan supports this decision. According to the Holy Canons, we must flee from communion with heretics, and furthermore, it is the bishop’s duty to labour in every possible way to bring them back to Orthodoxy. Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, interpreting the 122nd Canon of the Council of Carthage, writes: “Bishops ought not to neglect the heretics residing in their diocese, because they shall have to render an account of them and be held responsible for them; but they ought to make every effort to win them and to return them to the catholic unity, that is the Church”. In general, both the bishop and the presbyter are obliged to teach the pious and Orthodox dogmas to the clergy and the laity, in opposition to heresies. Otherwise, they themselves should be excommunicated and defrocked, not those who teach the Orthodox Faith. As the 58th Apostolic Canon says: “If any bishop or presbyter neglects the clergy or the laity, and fails to instruct them in piety, let him be excommunicated: but if he persists in his negligence and indolence, let him be defrocked.”

Nevertheless, since it is possible that Metropolitan Silouan may have been well-intentioned and that His harsh attitude towards Your Reverence stemmed from lack of knowledge, I would advise him to read two short works of mine on the matters in question: one is titled: «Δὲν εἶναι σχίσµα ἡ Ἀποτείχιση. Ὀφειλόµενες ἐξηγήσεις» (“Walling Off is Not Schism: Necessary Explanations”), and the other: «Ἡ Ὀρθοδοξία τῶν Ἀντιχαλκηδονίων Μονοφυσιτῶν» (“The Orthodoxy of the Anti-Chalcedonian Monophysites”). Your Reverence may send them to His Eminence for information. I believe He knows Greek, since He studied in Thessaloniki.

We, my dear Fr. Matthew, have ceased communion with and the commemoration of our bishops in order to be in unity with the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers because, as the great confessor and pillar of Orthodoxy—who walled off himself from the papist-minded Patriarch Mitrophanes of Constantinople—says, all the teachers of the Church, all the synods, and the Holy Scripture counsel us to flee from those who have a heretical mindset and to have no communion with them: «Ἅπαντες οἱ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας διδάσκαλοι, πᾶσαι αἱ σύνοδοι καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ Θεῖαι Γραφαὶ φεύγειν τοὺς ἑτερόφρονας παραινοῦσι καὶ τῆς αὐτῶν κοινωνίας διΐστασθαι». We are assured, as the same great struggler affirms, that the more we distance ourselves from them, the closer we come to God and to all His Saints; and when we wall off from them, then we unite ourselves with the Truth and with the Holy Fathers, the Theologians of the Church. Saint Mark gave the command shortly before his death that neither the patriarch nor any other philo-papist clergy should be present at his funeral, saying: “For I am absolutely convinced that the more I distance myself from him and from those like him, the more I draw nearer to God and to all the Saints; and just as I separate from them, so do I unite myself with the Truth and with the Holy Fathers, the Theologians of the Church.”

I pray that Christ, the source of Truth, through the intercessions of the Most Holy Theotokos and of all the Saints, may sustain and strengthen us on the one and only Orthodox way, in fleeing from the delusion of other religions and heresies, for Christ alone is the Life and the Truth, the only true Light, and only the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

With much love and appreciation for our common struggles for the Truth
and with heartfelt wishes for a blessed journey toward Pascha,

Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis

Endnotes

1. Translator’s note: Presbyters, bishops or synods not yet condemned, who preach heretical teachings which have been condemned or not yet condemned.

December 6, 2023 – Open Letter from the Parish of St. Edward the Martyr and St. Paraskevi of Rome to Patriarch John X and members of the Holy Synod asking for His Beatitude’s position on: the withdrawal from the World Council of Churches (WCC), condemnation of the so-called Synod of Crete, annulment and condemnation of the so-called “Chambesy Agreements” (1989 and 1990) and the 1991 Synodal decision for intercommunion with the Monophysites, the adoption of anathemas that condemn all heresies and the reception of every heretic who comes into the Orthodox Church with Holy Orthodox Baptism. Link

December 12, 2023 – Open Letter from the Parish of St. Edward the Martyr and St. Paraskevi of Rome to Metropolitan Silouan (Oner), requesting the condemnation and anathematization of the synodal agreements and decisions of concelebration and intercommunion with Monophysites, as we pronounce these anathemas on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Link

December 16, 2023 – Encyclical sent from Metropolitan Silouan (Oner) to the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland – in which the Metropolitan publicly teaches the baptismal heresy. Link

December 17, 2023 – Open Letter from the Parish of St. Edward the Martyr and St. Paraskevi Roman to Metropolitan Silouan (Oner) regarding Orthodox Baptism. Link

December 18, 2023 – Email to Fr. Matthew from Metropolitan Silouan with the Letter of temporary suspension of Fr. Matthew (where the motivation of suspension is the open letter regarding Orthodox Baptism from 17 December 2023) – in the letter it is stated that the suspension will be lifted from the moment when Fr. Matthew will have removed from his social media channels and personal websites all the articles related to Orthodox Baptism (the official letters to the Patriarchate of Antioch and the other letter related to the issue of communion with the Monophysites) with the threat that if he does not do so by December 30, 2023, he will be permanently deposed (suspended) (According to the statutes of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland, the ecclesiastical court protocols state that the Metropolitan can administratively suspend a clergyman for up to 6 months, during which time the court shall hear the charges and determine whether they are proved. This in fact did not happen). 

December 19, 2023 – Email to Metropolitan Silouan, from Father Matthew Vulcanescu in which he tells the Metropolitan that he is in obedience to His Eminence, and that he has removed all posts related to the Baptism from his personal website and social media.

December 20, 2023 – Email to Father Matthew, from Metropolitan Silouan with a Letter of Lifting the Suspension of Father Matthew Vulcanescu specifying that the lifting of the suspension takes effect from the moment when Father Matthew writes a letter of forgiveness to His Eminence and to all the priests of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland.

December 20, 2023 – Sending of the Letter of forgiveness (not for the statements made, but for the personal weakness and sinfulness) and cessation of the commemoration of Metropolitan Silouan (Oner) for preaching heresy based on Canon 15 of the 1st-2nd Council of Constantinople, by the Parish of St. Edward the Martyr and St. Paraskevi of Rome, together with Father Matthew Vulcănescu. Link

December 21, 2023 – Email to Fr. Matthew Vulcanescu, on behalf of Metropolitan Silouan with a letter in which the Metropolitan states that the suspension remains in place, invoking Apostolic Canon 55 regarding insulting the Bishop by using the term “pseudo-bishop” mentioned in Canon 15 of the 1st-2nd Council of Constantinople in the letter of the cessation of the commemoration.

December 23, 2023 – Live public broadcast on YouTube of the cessation of commemoration of Metropolitan Silouan during the Holy Liturgy in English. Link

December 23, 2023 – 9 hours after the live broadcast of the Divine Liturgy, publication on the Archdiocese’s website of the document of deposition of Father Matthew Vulcanescu, on the grounds that he ceased his Bishop’s commemoration according to Canon 15 I-II Constantinople. (The Archdiocese did not send any document or official letter of warning. There was no ecclesiastical court held before this decision.) Link to the website of the Archdiocese and Link to the deposition document.

December 24, 2023 – Live public broadcast on YouTube of the cessation of commemoration of Bishop Silouan during the Holy Liturgy in Romanian. Link

December 25, 2023 – Publication on the Orthodoxiacatholica website of the canonically null and void deposition and the declaration by the Parish of St. Edward the Martyr and St. Paraskevi of Rome, together with Fr. Matthew Vulcanescu that the Parish and Fr. Matthew Vulcanescu remain in the Church of Antioch. Link

December 28, 2023 – Open Letter to Metropolitan Silouan from the Parish of St. Edward the Martyr and St. Paraskevi of Rome, together with Father Matthew Vulcanescu of non-recognition of the deposition. Link

January 3, 2024 – Publication of the Narthex Newsletter, the January-February 2024 publication of St. Dustan’s Antiochian Orthodox Church in Poole, confirming that the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland communes Monophysite laity. Link

January 9, January 11, 2024 – Publication and amendment on the Archdiocesan website of the “Canonical Policies and Resources for the Reception of Heterodox” document (which changes the Orthodox definition of Salvation to the meaning of “spiritual health”, introduces the notion of the ubiquity of the grace of salvation outside the Orthodox Church, redefines the terms ‘economia’ and ‘akribeia’, and introduces a new “canon” that stipulates the excommunication of any lay person and the deposition of a clergyman who receives a “corrective” baptism). Link

January 17, 2024 – Open Letter to Metropolitan Silouan from the Parish of St. Edward Martyr and St. Paraskevi of Rome, together with Father Matthew Vulcanescu regarding the “Canonical Policies and Resources for the Reception of Heterodox” document. Link

August 21 and 29, 2024 – Re-sending of the open letter dated December 6, 2023 from the Parish of St. Edward the Martyr and St. Paraskevi of Rome to Patriarch John X and members of the Holy Synod. Link

October 16, 2024 – Open Letter to His Beatitude Patriarch John X and the members of the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch from the Parish of St. Edward the Martyr and St. Paraskevi of Rome which declares that the Parish fences itself from all those who allow heresy to spread within the Body of Christ. Link

The document “Canonical Resources and Policies for the Reception of the Heterodox” (made public on 9 January 2024, and updated on 11 January 2024) from the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland ruled by Metropolitan Silouan Oner, contains the following grave theological errors:

1. The change of the Orthodox definition of Salvation to the meaning of “spiritual health.”
   
   When quoting Saint Cyprian of Carthage in the preface, the document states the following: “There was ‘no salvation outside the Church.’ ‘Salvation’ in this context meant spiritual health. This approach mandated the exceptional remedy of baptism, NOT as some rigorists today suppose, for ALL heretics or schismatics, but for some of them.” This new interpretation and redefinition is contrary to the actual meaning of Salvation: being united to Christ in His One and Unique Body, the Orthodox Church. Also in the statement: “There was ‘no salvation outside the Church’”, the past tense is used, which presents the teachings of Saint Cyprian of Carthage as obsolete.
   
   This redefinition of Salvation is blasphemy against Christ Who was crucified for us in order that we may be united to Him, not for a vague notion of “spiritual health”. Baptism is not “an exceptional remedy” but is the only door of entry into the Kingdom of God, which is the Orthodox Church ( Mark 16:15-16, Matthew 28:18-20, John 3:5 ).

2. The ubiquity (state of being everywhere at the same time) of the Grace of Salvation outside the Orthodox Church (as condemned by the Synod of Carthage 258), which states that salvation exists outside the One and Unique Body of Christ.
   
   The idea of “incomplete baptism” is corroborated by the term “ubiquity” of the Grace of Salvation in the preface of the policy document. The term “ubiquity” of the Grace of Salvation is in direct contradiction to the Holy Gospel and the teachings of the Holy Fathers(e.g. St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Diadochus of Photice, St. Theodore the Studite and St. Ignatius Brianchaninov). There is only the One and Unique Church that is complete (catholic), where regeneration in Baptism and Salvation can be found. 
   
   
3. The redefinition of the terms ‘economia’ and ‘akribeia’ contrary to their well-established meanings according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers and to the Holy Canons.
   
   The document states that “Two common misconceptions are to think that economia means a dispensation and that akribeia is the norm. In fact, economia means ALL the possible rules of the household, akribeia being the strictest of those.” In fact, there is no misconception, as according to Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, the well-established definition for ‘akribeia’ is exactitude, meaning the use of the formally valid canons, and the definition for ‘economia’ is tolerance regarding the temporary, exceptional adaptation of the Holy Tradition for the spiritual benefit of persons who find themselves in exceptional situations. In other words, ‘akribeia’ is in fact the rule whereas ‘economia’ is the exception.
   The transformation of economia into rule of the Church is not in the spirit of the Holy Fathers.
   
   
4. A new “canon” that stipulates the excommunication of any lay person and the deposition of a clergyman who receives a “corrective” baptism.
   
   According to the abovementioned policy document, a new “canon” of the Church was promulgated without any synodal approval in Section F, which states that: “Any lay person who receives a ‘corrective’ baptism will be excommunicated and a clergyman will be deposed. This is a serious offence breaking the unity of the Church and as such, is dealt with in an uncompromising manner,” where “corrective” baptism is when a person receives an Orthodox baptism after being received by Chrismation only. The “canon” also states that a person who receives a “corrective” baptism is not eligible for ordination. An accusation is also made against the laity and clergy who desire the Orthodox Baptism of all non-Orthodox, as “a minority and often schismatic tendency in the Orthodox Church” and “extremists”.
   
   It is a misnomer to call it “corrective” baptism, it is actually the one and unique Baptism in the Orthodox Church. According to Saint Cyprian of Carthage, “we declare that no one can be baptised outside of the [Orthodox] Church, there being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the [Orthodox] Church.“ This means that the Sacrament of Chrismation can neither replace an Orthodox Baptism, nor “perfect whatever was lacking in [a] non-Orthodox baptism.”
   

A bishop cannot make decisions against the Holy Gospel and the Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church. This policy document has also misinterpreted and misused the Holy Canons, ignored Apostolic Canons 46 and 47, and misquoted the Holy Fathers Saint Cyprian of Carthage and Saint John of Damascus.

By adopting this Anti-Gospel policy document, the Doors of the Kingdom of God have been closed to the heterodox in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland.

Please see the attached “Canonical Resources and Policies for the Reception of the Heterodox” document, from 11 January 2024 and the “Open Letter in Response to the Archdiocesan Policy on the Reception of the Heterodox” from 17th January 2024. 

Speakers: Michael Goh and John Walsh – members of the Parish of Saint Edward the Martyr and Saint Paraskevi of Rome in Liverpool
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland

The main reasons for the cessation of commemoration of our bishop Metropolitan Silouan Oner:

1. The agreements with the Anti-Chalcedonians, the so-called Chambesy agreements (1989, 1990 and 1993) and 1991 synodal statement of the Church of Antioch on the relations with the ‘Syriac Orthodox Church’, that decided to allow inter-communion and concelebration with heretics that have been condemned by the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils, and their implementation in our Archdiocese[1].
2. The heresy of the ubiquity[2] of the Grace of Salvation outside the Orthodox Church (as condemned by the Synod of Carthage 258), which states that salvation exists outside the One and Unique Body of Christ. The idea of “incomplete baptism” as found in the Encyclical to the Clergy dated 16 December 2023, is corroborated by the term “ubiquity” of the Grace of Salvation in the Archdiocesan policy document for the reception of the heterodox dated 9 January 2024.
   The term “ubiquity” of the Grace of Salvation is in direct contradiction to the Holy Gospel and the teachings of the Holy Fathers. Whatever is in contradiction with the Holy Gospel and the Holy Fathers is called opinion or heresy. There is only the One and Unique Church that is complete (catholic), where regeneration in Baptism and salvation can be found. The idea of “incomplete baptism” (that is found in the aforementioned policy document) which leads to the idea of “incomplete Churches” is in contradiction to the Holy Gospel and the Holy Fathers.[3]

The agreements with the Anti-Chalcedonians and Archdiocesan statements mentioned above are in direct contradiction to the Holy Gospel and the teachings of the Holy Fathers. Further details of these contradictions can be found in the correspondences linked below.

Open Letter to Patriarch John X and the Holy Synod
https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2023/12/16/open-letter-to-patriarch-john-x-and-the-holy-synod/?lang=en

Open Letter to Metropolitan Silouan Oner
https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2023/12/17/open-letter-to-metropolitan-silouan-oner/?lang=en

The Response Letter of Father Matei Vulcanescu to the Letter of Metropolitan Silouan Oner to Clergy
https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2023/12/22/the-response-letter-of-father-matei-vulcanescu-to-the-letter-of-metropolitan-silouan-oner-to-clergy/?lang=en

Letter of Apologetics and the Cessation of Commemoration
https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2023/12/20/letter-of-apologetics-and-the-cessation-of-commemoration/?lang=en

Open Letter in Response to the Archdiocesan Policy on the Reception of the Heterodox
https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2024/01/17/open-letter-in-response-to-the-archdiocesan-policy-on-the-reception-of-the-heterodox/?lang=en

References:

1. January-February 2024 issue of The Narthex, the newsletter of St Dunstan’s Antiochian Orthodox Church (Poole, UK) <https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2024/03/17/confirmation-that-the-antiochian-orthodox-church-in-the-uk-communes-monophysite-laity/?lang=en>

2. Ubiquity means the state of being everywhere at the same time, being omnipresent

3. Saint John Chrysostom. Ἅπαντα τά ἔργα 16 Β, Ὑπόμνημα στήν πρός Ρωμαίους ἐπιστολή, Ὁμιλία ΣΤ΄ [Complete Works 16 B, Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily VI], ΕΠΕ 71 (in Greek) Greece, 1984, pp. 448-459.

Saint Cyprian of Carthage: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Liber de Unitate Ecclesiae 6 PL 4:503A) [Migne, J.-P. Patrologia Latina, Vol. 4, 1841-1855. (PL)]

Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. Ascetic sermons and letters to the laity, Volume IV, “On the “salvation” of heretics”, “Hanul Coltei” Parish Newsletter 176 (in Romanian), 31 July 2016. accessed on 14 Mar 2017 <https://sfantul-ilie.ro/www/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/buletin-nr.176-31.07.2016.pdf> ,

Saint Diadochus of Photice, Ascetic Word 76, Philokalia, vol 1 (in Greek) Athens, 1982, p. 258

Saint Theodore the Studite: “Τό γάρ κοινωνεῖν παρά αἱρετικοῦ ἤ προφανοῦς διαβεβλημένου κατά τόν βίον, ἀλλοτριοῖ Θεοῦ καί προσοικειοῖ τῷ διαβόλῳ” (Letter 220 to the Spatharian named Mahara 2, PG 99:1668D) [Migne, J.-P. Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 99, 1857-1866. (PG)]

Synodicon of the Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod for Orthodoxy, Anathema 50 (4th against Barlaam and Akindynos and the 9th chapters), in the Triodion Katanyktikon, Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece (in Greek) Athens, 2017 (5th edition), p. 364. [Συνοδικόν τῆς Ἁγίας καί Οἰκουμενικῆς Ζ΄ Συνόδου ὑπέρ τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας, ἀναθεματισμός 50ός (4ος στά Κατά τοῦ Βαρλαάμ καί Ἀκινδύνου θ΄ κεφάλαια), στό Τριώδιον Κατανυκτικόν, ἔκδ. Ἀποστολικῆς Διακονίας τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος, Ἀθήνα 2017 (ἔκδοση 5η), σ. 364.)]

The open letter sent by the Parish of Saint Edward the Martyr and Saint Paraskevi of Rome, on the 6th of December 2023, to Patriarch John X and to the Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Church has remained unanswered.

Since the answers to the questions raised in the open letter are intended to clarify the teaching of the Faith of the Patriarchate of Antioch, the parish decided to resend the letter on 21 August 2024, but again no response has been received.

Furthermore, Mr. Michael Goh, a member of the parish, with the blessing of Father Matei Vulcănescu, resent the letter on 29 August 2024, addressed personally to each member of the Synod, and he has neither received any response.

Below, you can read the follow-ups to the open letter, addressed to Patriarch John X and to the members of the Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF SAINT EDWARD THE MARTYRAND SAINT PARASKEVI OF ROME
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland

21 Aug 2024

Your Beatitude John X, the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East,
And Your Eminences the Metropolitans of the Holy Synod,

With reference to our open letter that was sent to Your Beatitude and to the Holy Synod, dated 6 December 2023, signed by our parish of Saint Edward the Martyr and Saint Paraskevi of Rome in Liverpool, my humbleness would like to bring to Your attention that we are still awaiting Your response to the important theological matters raised in the open letter.

As the least and smallest in our big Antiochian family, our parish and my humbleness neither have pretensions that we are “rescuers” of the Church, nor do we have an exalted image about ourselves but our Orthodox conscience compels us to raise these questions for the salvation of our souls.

We have confirmation from the postal courier that You received the letter on 13 December 2023. However, we have not yet received a response from Your Beatitude. With all humility and eagerness, we await the response of Your Beatitude.

My humbleness has enclosed copies of our open letter for Your convenience.

With all my love in Christ,

Protopresbyter Matthew (Ion-Valentin) Vulcanescu

Parish of Saint Edward the Martyr and Saint Paraskevi of Rome

Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland

Enclosure: Open Letter to Patriarch John X and the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch, dated 6 December 2023

Link to the Open Letter to Patriarch John X and the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch, dated 6 December 2023

---

His Beatitude Patriarch John X
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East
Patriarchal Residence Balamand
Koura
Lebanon

29 August 2024

Your Beatitude John X, the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East,

My name is Michael Goh and I am one of the members of the Parish of Saint Edward the Martyr and Saint Paraskevi of Rome in Liverpool, UK, of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland. I work as a civil engineering consultant and am involved in major infrastructure projects such as the design of hydropower dams, airports and railways. I am very grateful to be baptised into the Orthodox Church in this Antiochian parish after a long journey to find the One and Unique Body of Christ.

With all my love in Christ and in all obedience, I humbly address this letter to Your Beatitude. With all pain of heart, my Orthodox conscience compels me to take the initiative, with the blessing of my spiritual father, to write directly to Your Beatitude humbly requesting Your response to questions which are crucial for the salvation of our souls.

These questions were raised in an open letter written by our parish with its shepherd, Protopresbyter Matthew Vulcanescu, to Your Beatitude Patriarch John X and to the Holy Synod on 6 December 2023. I was one of the co-signatories of the letter. To date, there still has been no response from Your Beatitude nor from the Holy Synod. In case Your Beatitude has not received the original letter, please kindly see enclosed a copy of the letter for Your convenience.

A letter with similar questions was also sent on 12 December 2023 to our Metropolitan, His Eminence Silouan, whom I deeply love and respect as one of the bishops of our Antiochian family. However, His Eminence has not responded to the questions raised in the letter addressed to Him.

In light of this, with all humility and eagerness, I look forward to the response and guidance of Your Beatitude as these questions and their answers are important for our salvation.
In all obedience and with all my love in Christ,

Michael (Wei Jin) Goh
Civil and Environmental Engineer
Chartered Geographer and Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society

Enclosure: Open Letter to Patriarch John X and the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch, dated 6 December 2023

Link to the Open Letter to Patriarch John X and the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch, dated 6 December 2023

Synodikon of Orthodoxy

24 March 2024

1. To Arius, the first fighter against God: Anathema!
2. To Wulfila the semi-Arian, to Nestorius, to Macedonius – who say that the Holy Trinity suffered – and to Valentine: Anathema!
3. To Peter the Fuller and fool, who said: “Holy Immortal, Who was crucified for us”: Anathema!
4. To Paul of Samosata and to Theodotion: Anathema!
5. To Peter the Paltry, the heretic, who was surnamed Lycopetrus, to the evil-minded Eutychius and Sabellios: Anathema!
6. To Jacob the Armenian, to Dioscorus of Alexandria and to Severus, Sergius, Paul and Pyrrhus, together with Sergius, the disciple of Lycopetrus: Anathema!
7. To the Origenists and to those along with them: Anathema!
8. To the fallen and the anti-canonical patriarchs denying the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Karekin II of Armenia, Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria the Coptic Patriarch, Abune Mathias of Ethiopia, Ignatius Aphrem II of Antioch of the Syriac-Jacobites, Baselios Marthoma Mathews III of the Malankara Indians, who mistakenly call themselves “orthodox” and those who are in communion with them: Anathema!
9. To those who deny the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Holy Ecumenical Councils, monophysites, monothelites and monoenergists: Anathema!
10. To the Eutychianites, Jacobites and Artzivurites: Anathema!
11. To the dreadful assembly against the venerable icons: Anathema!
12. To those who deny the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council, to those who do not worship our Lord Jesus Christ represented in the icon according to His human nature: Anathema!
13. To Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akyndinos, Prochoros of Kidonis, Nikiphoros Grigoras, Giorgios Lapithis and their successors: Anathema!
14. To those who teach the neo-Barlaamite heresy, saying that the Grace of God is created, instead of uncreated: Anathema!
15. To the blasphemer of Christ, Francis of Assisi with all the false “saints” of the papists: Anathema!
16. To the baseless heresiarch Pope Francis I of old Rome, who has fallen according to the Canons, and to those who are in communion with him: Anathema!
17. To those who teach that the Orthodox Church is a “sister Church” of the Roman Catholic congregation and other heresies: Anathema!
18. To Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwigli, Henry VIII – the ungodly king, and to those assembled together with them and to all the Protestant groups: Anathema!
19. To the heresiarch of the religious congregation of Anglicanism, Justin Welby, and to those who are in communion with him: Anathema!
20. To those who deny and defame the Mother of God and the Trinity One in essence and undivided: rabbis of Judaism, Islamists and members of the “Watchtower” society of the pseudo Jehovah’s Witnesses: Anathema!
21. To those who defame the sacraments of the Church: the Baptists, Adventists, Methodists and Pentecostals and to all the groups of non-denominational congregations: Anathema!
22. To those who affirm that Baptism and Chrismation have equal status in the economy of the Church, and that the heretics who have been “received” by Chrismation do not need to be baptised in the Orthodox Church by triple immersion, promoting through this the baptismal heresy that recognises heretical “baptism”: Anathema!
23. To those who preach and teach the pan-heresy of inter-Christian and inter-religious ecumenism: Anathema!
24. To those who preach and teach the post-Patristic and post-canonical heresy, saying that the teachings of the Holy Fathers are obsolete: Anathema!
25. To those who deny the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils, from the time of Saint Photios the Great and Saint Gregory Palamas, to the Papal-Filioquists: Anathema!
26. To the so-called “World Council of Churches” (of heresies) which teaches that each Protestant branch is part of the Church of Christ and to those who take part in common prayers in the blasphemy and transgression of the Canons, the so-called “Week of Prayer for Christian unity” in January, who consider the heretics as “brothers in Christ”: Anathema!
27. To the Toronto Statement (1950), to the Agreements of Balamand (1993) and Chambesy (1994) in which the anti-Chalcedonians were falsely recognized as Orthodox, and to the declarations from Porto Alegre (1997) and Busan (2013): Anathema!
28. To those who teach that the Church includes all confessions that have departed from Her as “incomplete churches” and to those who say that there are Holy Sacraments, saving Grace and holiness outside the Orthodox Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: Anathema!
29. To the ethno-phyletists who place their nation, family, tribe, or clan above the Church of Christ: Anathema!
30. To the parasynagogue which is deceptively named “The Army of the Lord” and to their oath which blasphemes Holy Baptism, denying the fact that this is the washing of regeneration and considering it ineffective for salvation: Anathema!
31. To those who teach that the Ecumenical Patriarch is “primus sine paribus”, that is the first without equals: Anathema!
32. To the heretical texts of the ecumenist pseudo-synod of Crete in June 2016, called “The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church” and to those who accept them and put them into practice, the texts which:
    • Enshrine the so-called “restoration of Christian unity” and the historical name of churches for heretics;
    • Enshrine the Constitution of the so-called “World Council of Churches” as a basis for dialogue with heretics – dogmatic minimalism;
    • Enshrine the Toronto Declaration, which states that there are members of the Church outside the walls of the Orthodox Church and that the Church of Christ is more inclusive than each and every member “church” of the so-called “World Council of Churches”;
    • Enshrine mixed-marriages (with heretics) through false economia;
    • Enshrine John Zizioulas’ concept about the “human person”: Anathema!
33. To those who claim that not participating in the ecumenical movement creates a stumbling block to the Gospel of Christ, through lack of mutual understanding and cooperation with heretics: Anathema!
34. To those who deny the truth that the Church of Christ is One and Unique, just as Christ the Head of the Church is One and Unique, having One Body which is the Orthodox Church: Anathema!
35. To the Protestant theory of “the invisible Church as the Mystical Body of Christ”, where visible unity is achieved through cooperation and dialogue, forming the idea that the Orthodox Church and heterodox congregations are in the same House but have divisions between them: Anathema!
36. To those who do not believe that only the Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ: Anathema!
37. To the co-mingling of the Local Orthodox Churches with heterodox groups into a so-called “fellowship of churches that accept our Lord Jesus Christ as their God and Saviour”, and to the idea that by this, the Orthodox would give a common witness with these groups: Anathema!
38. To those who affirm that the Church of Christ is in construction, “Christ gathering His children together to build His Church”, where the children are the Orthodox together with the heterodox groups: Anathema!
39. To the Theosophists, Mormons, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Scientologists, Gnostics, Esoterics, Neo-Marxists and to those who mix the Orthodox teaching with pseudo-scientific theories and pagan teachings: Anathema!
40. To the Sergianists and to all those who are obedient to the secular state and the political powers to the detriment of the obedience to Christ and His Church: Anathema!
41. To the so-called Christian yoga, bio-energy, homeopathy, crystal therapy, therapeutic radiesthesia, reiki therapy, acupuncture, neo-shamanism, practices and objects related to classical shamanism and witchcraft wrapped in science (crystals, healing metals, Torser – the star of bioenergetic medicine, anti-WiFi/4G/5G charms): Anathema!
42. To the theistic evolutionary theory that states that the world and man are continuously evolving since the primordial state of creation, and denying the existence of a complete and unchanged human nature throughout time, thereby negating the purpose of the Incarnation of Christ by which He fully assumed human nature and opened up the possibility of salvation to the whole human race: Anathema!
43. To the heresy of papal primacy and to any other form of papism or semi-papism introduced into the Orthodox synodal collegiality system (which has its origin in the way the Apostles gathered fraternally in the Synod of Jerusalem), a heresy proliferated today especially by the Patriarchate of Constantinople: Anathema!
44. To the heretical theology of “Primus sine paribus” as expressed in the anti-canonical “Tomos of Autocephaly” granted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the schismatic Ukrainian construct of Epiphany Dumenko and his pseudo-synod: Anathema! To the Tomos of Autocephaly: Anathema! To Epiphany Dumenko and his pseudo-synod: Anathema!
45. To all heretics: Anathema!