EDITOR’S NOTE (Nick Stamatakis): The “official” theologian of GOARCH, John Chryssavgis, is presumably trying to protect the faith, but he ends up protecting the faithless, I wrote yesterday, referring to his recent essay “A Tempest Over A Baptism In Greece”…  He “is surveying the damages and doing what he does best; making them worse”, say our good friend George Michalopulos of Monomakhos.com, who dissects Chryssavgis’ essay and proves his lack of theological or rational basis…

There is one point though, that Chryssavgis may be partially right – regarding the supposed innocence of the Metropolitan of Glyfada (AND the church priests…).  How about the Archbishop of Greece, Ieronymos? Is he as innocent as he was presented to be? Why the imposed uniformity of the Holy Synod and why the silence on the letters sent to the Phanar?  Why not a “trial”?… But we will return to these issues in a few days…

For now, enjoy George Michalopulos cutting Chryssavgis in pieces…


As If the Archbishop Didn’t Have Enough Problems…

By George Michalopulos – monomakhos.com

Looks like the Rev Dn John Chryssavgis is surveying the damages and doing what he does best; making them worse.

Seriously, somebody needs to tell the brainiacs who advise Archbishop Elpidophoros what the first rule of holes is:  if you’re in one, stop digging.

You can read Chryssavgis’ not very well-reasoned defense of the Big Fat Greek Gay Baptism for yourself.  As for me, there were enough logical holes in it that I could have driven a tank through them.  https://religionnews.com/2022/07/25/a-tempest-over-a-baptism-in-greece-raises-questions-about-what-were-trying-to-protect/

Worse, even Chryssavgis admits that things weren’t completely done on the up-and-up.  Here’s one such admission:  “Are we afraid of opening Pandora’s box? Should the Metropolitan of Glyfada have been better informed about what was to happen in his diocese? Or is there another reason why he scrambled to wash his hands and cover his tracks? He admits he wouldn’t have had the courage to make such a decision.”

Now let’s parse this little chestnut, shall we?

First off, Chyrssavgis implies that the metropolitan was not operating with a full deck.  This is a cute little rhetorical trick, which suggests the metropolitan in question was informed and chose to look the other way.  It’s certainly possible.

It’s equally possible (probable, even) that he wasn’t informed —at all–and the metropolitan took umbrage at being made to look like a fool.

Chyrssavgis appears to be throwing him under the bus which is not a very gallant thing to do.  And given the accusatory letter the metropolitan wrote to Elpidophoros in the aftermath of this debacle, one can easily take the metropolitan’s word in the matter, even though we’re essentially left with a “he said/he said” situation.

If Chryssavgis or Elpidophoros have documentary evidence that can shed some light on this, they should proffer it immediately.




    Those babies should not have been baptized in any Orthodox Christian church. Surrogate mothers should be banned! Homosexual marriage is against the Laws of God. Period.

    This entire event is tragic. T R A G I C!!!

  2. Infant Baptism has a twofold requirement. Belief AND Ritual!

    Reading comments on a scandalous event that took place by a local Hierarch, I am disappointed at how many Orthodox lack the understanding of infant baptism.

    Infant baptism is a sacrament that initiates a child into the community of believers and washes away the ancestral sin of humanity, thus uniting them to God in Christ. It is done as both a commitment and conversion to God. It has the expectations that the one receiving baptism believes and professes the teachings of the Church. Scripture is clear that, “Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved” (Mk. 16:16).

    Clearly the ritual of baptism and the belief in the teaching of Christ can’t be separated.

    So how is a child able to proclaim a belief that they don’t comprehend? Since the time of the Apostles it was based upon the faith of the parents (and later the Godparents). It was their pledge to raise the child in the faith and instruct them that allowed a baptism of a child to be possible. Without that commitment it makes no sense, what you have is a ritual without belief! If a parent or godparent does not believe as the Church professes then a child should not be baptized out of some duty to custom.

    This is not a punishment on the part of the child, rather a mercy. If we as some comments proclaimed, believe that a child should not be denied baptism for the sins of the parents then why not secretly try to baptize all children in order to save them? That goes against the two fold requirement of both belief AND ritual.

  3. Many orthodox families baptize their children in the Orthodox faith, because that’s what Yia-Yia wants. Then, you never see them in church. Either, people are too busy to be bothered on a Sunday or the reward isn’t instant nor gratifying.

  4. Christening is what it is called at infancy. However, and pardon me for saying, it is an empty ritual. A ritual is religious in nature as it bares repetition in keeping with the tradition of a religion.

    True baptism in the Holy Spirit can only take place when one becomes old enough as either an enlightened teenager or adult to accept Christ as our Lord and savior. It’s a conscious decision made on the inside for life transformation on the outside.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here