II Timothy 3:5 "...from such, turn away."

Psychopaths in the Church

St. Paul instructions to Timothy (a bishop) on how to care for his flock:

2 Timothy 3:1–9
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

 

Having the form of godliness, but denying the power

 

The first thing I think of is a Pharisee.  Or a false Christ (many will come claiming to be Him).  But this description also fits a KGB infiltrator.  Having the form of a Christian while denying the power of Christ.  Somebody who pretends to be a Christian — they fool everyone and possibly they even fool themselves   These people are really unbelievers, believing only in themselves.   Our Church tells us that Antichrist, after taking control of the whole world, will come to believe himself to be Christ, the 2nd Coming.  This is when he will insist on being worshipped.   This will be the second phase of Antichrist's reign.  See book Ray of Light, Jordanville.

In the meantime, today, 2026, the demons are practicing for their grand finale.  Mini-antichrists are popping up everywhere these days, including in the churches, including the Orthodox Church.

One example of a  II Timothy 3:5  person living in the Church today that I know:  She was baptized as a young adult in the early 70s.  Prior to her baptism, she had developed a serious habit of lying.  Instead of allowing the grace of the Sacraments to heal her from lying, for 50 years she used her learning and her position in the Church-setting to perfect her Art of Lying.

Whether the pretender is a Pharisee, a KGB agent, or a psychopath — either way, our priests (and we) are instructed, "...from such, turn away."  We are not told to try to help them, or to go along with their pretense, or even to pray for them.  Although, I'm sure private prayer adding, "They will be done" would be acceptable.  We are told to have nothing to do with them.

This concept, of having nothing to do with somebody who assumes the form of a Christian...  I've seen where this idea has been applied in a broader sense to not just a person having the form only, but also to a whole group having the form only.  Examples would be the cult-churches like Jehovah's Witnesses and those speakin'-in-tongues churches.  (I guess those are called "Charismatics"?)  Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote about them in his book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future.  

Be alert that Orthodox parishes, especially when isolated, are perfect structures (nests) in which a cult can form.  

I've seen 3 such parishes in the ROCOR before the 2007 ROCOR-MP union.  One that went with the ROCOR-MP union was St. Silouan's in Walla-Walla, Washington.  I only spent one weekend there, but cult was written all over it.  None of the parishioners drink coffee because the priest does not drink coffee.  Nobody thought to provide Sunday morning coffee to their many guests from all over who came to help them celebrate their feast day and to welcome them into the ROCOR.  There were other indications of cultishness, but nothing seemed seriously harmful — just quirky.   

Another cultish-parish, St. Innocent's in Rogue River, Oregon, 2002.   After corresponding with the priest, my son-in-law, with his new bride and new baby, moved to Oregon intending to join that parish.  Soon after my kids (daughter + son-in-law) met the parish, I had a lengthy phone conversation with the priest.  After that phone call ended, I remember thinking, "boy am I glad he's not my priest!"    But the kids seemed happy, so I said nothing.  But after a month, one-by-one, the incidents started happening.  My son-in-law started telling me things.  Seemed like every Sunday another bad thing to report.   Finally, and I'm being very careful how I say this... my son-in-law told me about the priest revealing confessions during the mandatory hour-long sermons.  He would give 3 sermons each Sunday.  One during the liturgy, one after the liturgy, and one at trapeza.  None of the sermons were limited in time, and if you had to use the bathroom, you were out of luck.   A particular sermon revealed a particular confession that was way too disturbing:

   "... ... ... ... and I'm getting tired of you younger single men complaining about being lonely.  Are you sure it's loneliness? — or is it maybe something else?  something sexual?..."

 

According to my son-in-law's telling of this incident, when the priest said that, then everyone looked around the room at each other with a face-expression of:

 WHO confessed THAT! • 

Up until then, I was only uncomfortable with my kids being in that parish.  But now, hearing this, I was beyond uncomfortable.  I was horrified.  I told my son-in-law not to go back there.   My kids ended up in the nearby OCA. 

 

 I found that this is exactly what happened in the 3rd cult-parish, (again before the ROCOR-MP union,) where members who did not conform were chased away, and they ended up in world orthodoxy or sometimes left Orthodoxy altogether.  One case where a member left Orthodoxy altogether is that of Michelle Stewart.  She writes about it in her book:  Judas Girl © 2025  

•  

I want my readers to notice what happens at this point in the story.  The first thought of the parishioners was that they were the cause of this thing happening..  Which one of us brought this most embarrassing lecture upon our group?  Nobody threw a tomato at the priest.  They all just blamed themselves.  And this attitude, my friends, is exactly the attitude of cult victims.   Psychopaths themselves blame their victim — it is one of their favorite games.  THEY always get to play the part of the victim...  

     Diagnosed psychopath Tom Sells, executed some years back for serial rape/murder, once in an interview, speaking about a certain victim, he said, "I had to kill her.  She would not stop screaming."

.

I invite victims to email me: joannahigginbotham@runbox.com

also, I can post your comments anonymously.  

.

 

 

.

.

July 20/Aug 2 Holy Prophet Elijah

2 articles about the Holy Prophet Elijah:

   Orthodox Life magazine 1963 (4)

   Orthodox Life magazine 1978 (6) 

 

Both articles important to End Times teachings 

 

https://orthodoxlifemagazines.blogspot.com 

A  complete set of Orthodox Life magazines is in Joanna's Shared Library.

A website I am enjoying: 

https://russianicons.wordpress.com 

It is not a religious site — just real information.  It's so refreshingly NOT world orthodox. 

 

Forerunners of Christ's 2nd Coming: Holy Prophets Elijah & Enoch

.

NBC ABC Refuse to Air President's Address

President Trump Delivers an Address to the Nation

Jul. 16, 2026  

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/election-integrity/
  or here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIlqG0untYM

.

The Biggest Cover-Up in American History — Trump Exposes China’s Election Theft

On Thursday night, President Trump delivered a presidential address to the nation that every American deserved to hear — and that two major broadcast networks refused to air. The message: newly declassified intelligence proves that the People’s Republic of China carried out the largest compromise of election data in history, illicitly acquiring 220 million U.S. voter files over a period of years beginning with the 2020 election cycle. The stolen data includes names, addresses, phone numbers, party affiliations — everything needed to interfere with American democracy. China even assigned a dedicated data exploitation unit specifically to this operation. The full declassified intelligence is now public at whitehouse.gov/election-integrity.

When President Trump took to the airwaves Thursday night to share this bombshell with the American people, NBC and ABC refused to carry the address. President Trump called it exactly what it is: the networks “want to protect the Radical Left.” The blackout is now at the center of a growing national debate — should networks that use public airwaves have their broadcast licenses reviewed when they refuse to carry a presidential address of this magnitude? Congress is already moving.

.

Synaxis of All Saints of Diveyevo Convent

. 

  In 2004 ROCOR glorified St. Agathia, Abbess of Diveyevo  Convent who is associated with St. Seraphim of Sarov.   Her commemoration date is June 13/26.  In the Life of St. Seraphim (in English, translation by Fr. Lazarus Moore), it's recorded that she asked to be remembered. 

  Now, today, June 14/27, is the Synaxis of the Diveyevo Saints.  The service is not in our SJKP English menaion. But, be assured this commemoration has been established by our true old ROCOR Church, and not by MP or world Orthodoxy.  So, mark your calendar, and/or insert a note into your menaion. 

. 

.  

.

On Christian Love

True Love vs. Imaginary Love

from the book: St, Philaret of New York – His Collected Works  ISBN:979-833-571-5430
p. 152

". . .The whole life of a Christian is illuminated by the light of love, as it was in the first centuries, and still happens in the lives of saints.  With what love shone St. Nicholas of Myra, St. Seraphim of Sarov.  But this did not prevent St. Nicholas from even slapping the stubborn heretic Arius in the face, and St. Serpahim from angrily expelling such a person from himself.  They did not fall away from Christian love by acting like this.   Truth and loyalty to her were the most important, it was the foundation on which love itself rests.  When we are accused of not having love we must answer that the love of Truth should be the most important for a Christian. 



from the book: St. Seraphim of Sarov – A Spiritual Biography  ISBN: 1-880364-13-1
p. 71
 

A priest in the town of Spassk, Fr. Peter Theoktistov, described a case where St. Seraphim refused to receive a visitor who unworthily approached the Sacrament:  

. . . A Deacon, having been convicted of bad conduct by his Priest, in his turn accused the Priest before the Bishop through witnesses who swore a false oath in his favour.  The deacon was promoted ... transferred to the town to serve.  He continued to serve without being troubled by his conscience.  Soon the Deacon came to Sarov and went to Father Seraphim.  Seeing him, the seer went out of his cell to meet him, immediately turned him back and said with anger: "Go, away from me; this is not my business!"  The Deacon did not know what to do further.  A certain Monk advised him to confess first.  But neither did this help; St. Seraphim drove him away for the second time:  "Go, go, you perjurer, and do not serve!"

p. 79

. . .It is not our business to condemn others.  When we leave the Brotherhood [for solitude ~jh] it is not out of hatred for them, but chiefly because we have accepted and wear the habit of Angels, for whom it is unbearable to be where the Lord God is offended by word and by deed.  And therefore when we separate ourselves from the Brotherhood, we only avoid hearing and seeing [and participating in ~jh] what is repugnant to God's commandments which may happen in a multitude of brethren.  We do not run away from men who bear the same name of Christ, but from the sins which they commit.  As it was said to the Great Arsenius: "Flee from men, and thou wilt be saved."
 
__________________

. There is a happy ending to the Deacon Story.  God brought him to repentance by tying his tongue in the church for 3 years.  Finally the Deacon repented properly.  So we can see — it's not always as simple as saying "sorry."  You can't just say sorry, you have to actually be sorry.  Sorry enough to want to change yourself so that it does not happen again. ~jh

 

. I notice that St. Seraphim puts heretics and sinners in the same category.  Both are liars.  We can exclude both from our company without accepting criticism of being "unloving" or "unforgiving" or "condemning/judging." ~jh

Poor Poor Poor ROCOR-MP

Russia is backsliding, and the world is noticing...
 

 see this bcc report:

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cz63n6j7407o
 

   In Russia, 

not only do people not know what the future will hold, 

they don't know what the past will hold.  

The past in constantly changing.

 

Old Jordanville & old ROCOR were always aware of Russia's key role in the End Times. 

 St. Seraphim of Platina explained it to us in English:
https://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/2009/08/future-of-russia-and-end-of-world.html
This was his final writing to us, the last issue of the OW magazine that contained an original article he composed.

.

About ROCOR-MP Canonizing St. Seraphim of Platina

Editorial Commentary and Analysis
by Fr Anders Åkerström  
GOC in Sweden
https://www.ortodoxakyrkan.se/post/den-obekväme-heligel-seraphim-rose
 

Den "obekväme" Helige Seraphim Rose

Several news sites reported in May 2026 that the part of the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR-MP) that merged with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007 intends to canonize, glorify, Father Seraphim Rose (1934-1982).  He was an American monk and founder of the St. Herman Monastery in Platina (California) and is very well known for his books on the faith of the Orthodox Church, especially in the West.  The fact that he has already been glorified in 2024 by the part of the Russian Church Abroad that did not merge with the Moscow Patriarchate has not been mentioned in the news summaries I have seen.

It is really interesting to see some strong reactions to the news that have appeared, for example on the website Public Orthodoxy, which is a digital debate and article platform run by the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University in the USA.  The site serves as a forum where scholars, priests, and laypeople discuss Orthodox Christianity in relation to contemporary, political, and academic issues.  But it is equally interesting to see how other more conservative, often converts, are outraged that anyone would question this canonization, likely because St. Seraphim Rose's texts were the reason they became interested in the Orthodox Church and eventually converted.

So we have on the one hand those who are outraged that someone wants to canonize Father Seraphim Rose based on his criticism of the contemporary Orthodox Church and on the other hand those who are outraged that they do not want to see and understand his holiness and that his message is still relevant today.

Another very interesting detail is that St. Herman's Monastery in Platina, which owns the copyrights to Seraphim Rose's books, began to re-edit his texts in 2003 to tone down what was clearly problematic in its new church context.

After Father Seraphim Rose fell asleep in 1982, the monastery in Platina left the Russian Church Abroad, so that the abbot Father Herman Podmoshensky himself would avoid punishment in a canonical court for what he was accused of.  At first the monastery went to a wandering bishop, but when Father Herman was no longer abbot, they were accepted into the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States, to which they still belong today.

Since their "new context", the Serbian Orthodox Church, would not appreciate the criticism that Father Seraphim presented in his books, they chose to rewrite parts of his texts to tone down the criticism.

In other contexts this is called historical revisionism.  Changing someone's opinion in books for ideological reasons is nothing new.  An extreme and harmful example where ideological forces tried to deny or distort historical facts is the Holocaust, where against all scientific and historical evidence they tried to downplay its significance.  In the same way, then, Father Seraphim Rose's texts have been treated because his bitter message does not fit their own narrative.

Of particular interest is the fact that conservative Orthodox Christians today have managed to reinterpret Father Seraphim’s talk about the “Royal Path” within Orthodox faith and claim that it is the path they themselves follow, not going too far to the left (to modernism and ecumenism) or too far to the right (which would be fanaticism and Old Calendarism).

 (See The Royal Path - True Orthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy in The Orthodox Word, Vol. XII, No. 5 (70), pp. 143-149.)

https://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/2009/08/royal-path.html
A correct concept of the Royal Path is important.  The right-wing is world-Orthodoxy, official Orthodoxy.  The left-wing is like RTOC, ROAC, Matthewites.  Not all groups fit neatly into one category — Milan synod, for example, is a hybrid.  ROCANA schism is caused by "lust for power" and not caused by a heresy.  World Orthodox don't always start out as heretics, but they will drift into heresy.  See what happened to OCA, and see the exact thing is happening now to ROCOR-MP.  ~jh

But that is not exactly how Father Seraphim himself used the term.  During his active years as a writer in the Russian Church Abroad – from January 1965 until his death in 1982 – and not least in his perhaps most famous book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future from 1975, he used the expression in a different way, at least when it came to what he meant by “fanaticism to the right.”

For Seraphim Rose, the “Royal Path” does indeed mean the Orthodox path between two spiritual extremes: neither liberal indulgence nor fanatical exaggeration.  He takes the expression from the Desert Fathers, especially John Cassian and Dorotheos of Gaza, but he does not name them directly, as today’s conservatives like to do.  However, who he is referring to is fairly clear when you read his letters or talk to those who were actually there at the time.

He uses the expression especially about the situation of the Orthodox Church during the 20th century crisis of ecumenism and church compromise, and especially what he experienced in Orthodox jurisdictions during his lifetime.  According to him, the “royal path” goes:

...on the one hand, not into modernism, ecumenism and adaptation to the world (like the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the USA and Constantinople), but on the other hand, not into a self-righteous, harsh and sectarian “zealot” thinking where correctness and canonicity become a kind of spiritual arrogance (like the group around the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, which the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad had taken up and with which Father Seraphim had countless conflicts).

Who then is he talking about who follows the “royal path”, or is “on the right” or “on the left”?

This is where the book “Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future” and Father Seraphim’s views in general become too difficult to “digest” for the writers of “Public Orthodoxy.”

Father Seraphim points out who follows the royal path and are the true Orthodox Christians today: “[it is they who] have taken strong stands against the apostasy of our times: the Catacomb Church of Russia, the Russian Church Outside of Russia, the True Orthodox Christians (Old Calendarists) of Greece.”  Even those who are “on the left” are clearly pointed out in the book and mentioned by name.

When the monastery in Platina came to belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church, it became extremely difficult to explain how their “own church” did not follow the “royal path,” so the text had to be rewritten and from 2004 there is no longer any list [of names of exact jurisdictions]  [Also note in the rewrite the word "church" is deliberately unclear so that it could be interpreted either as jurisdiction or parish.]   His views on the Moscow Patriarchate naturally created great difficulties for the Serbian Orthodox Church and had to be toned down or removed.  Of course, this became extremely problematic in the Russian Church Abroad from 2007 when it was accepted into the Moscow Patriarchate.

The same theological problem naturally exists with Saint John (Maximovitch), Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco, who was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in 1993 and has become extremely popular in many Orthodox jurisdictions, where his criticism of the Moscow Patriarchate is simply ignored and his church views are simply not discussed.  Forgotten, for example, is that in 1993 the Bulgarian Orthodox Church officially called him a schismatic and denied his sainthood.

An article of particular interest on “Public Orthodoxy” is “Canonization and the Act of Betrayal: Fr. Seraphim Rose and ROCOR’s Ecclesiological Trap” by Sergei Chapnin,
 https://publicorthodoxy.org/2026/05/11/canonization-and-the-act-of-betrayal/

 [link not activated on purpose]
which is essentially a critique of the decision to begin the glorification of Father Seraphim Rose as a saint.

Our Vladyka Agafangel has posted this article on Internet Sobor with his own commentary ~jh:
http://internetsobor.org/index.php/sobytiya/sergianstvo/sergej-chapnin-kanonizatsiya-i-akt-predatelstva 

Sergei Chapnin argues along four main lines in his article:

1. He believes that Father Seraphim Rose was a symbol of an anti-ecumenical and isolationist church thinking that does not correspond to how the majority of Orthodox churches think today.
     He believes that Father Seraphim Rose represented a harsh “zealot” stance in which modernity, Western culture, and dialogue with other Christians were seen as spiritual decay. Chapnin therefore believes that canonization would legitimize an extreme and polarizing direction within today’s Orthodoxy, something he cannot accept and wants to warn against.

2. The Russian Church Abroad, [ROCOR-MP} he believes, risks returning to its former “schismatic” self-consciousness, which he does not want to see.  
     A central point for Chapnin is that during the lifetime of Father Seraphim Rose, the Russian Church Abroad was outside full communion with large parts of world Orthodoxy. Chapnin therefore believes that glorifying him implies a kind of rehabilitation of the Russian Church Abroad's former anti-ecumenical and separatist identity, and this is deeply problematic for him.

3. The canonization becomes an ecclesiastical political stance.
     The article argues that it is not just about personal holiness but about the direction the church wants to take.  According to Chapnin, the process signals support for militant traditionalism and a distancing from more “open” and “liberal” Orthodox voices, and Public Orthodoxy does not like that.

4. Finally, he has moral and historical objections to the circle around the Platina Monastery.
     The author also touches on controversies surrounding people close to Father Seraphim Rose, especially allegations linked to the abbot Father Herman Podmoshensky and the leadership of the St. Herman Monastery.


From our perspective, as conservative Greek Orthodox Christians who follow the old calendar, the article appears quite clearly to be written from a modernist and pro-ecumenical church perspective and we have four main objections:

1. The article assumes that anti-ecumenism is something negative, while ecumenism is the only right thing.
     For Old Calendarists, this is the very fundamental problem. What Chapnin describes as “extremism” we see instead as fidelity to the patristic tradition.  We do not perceive Father Seraphim Rose as radical but as a defender of the classical Orthodox self-understanding: that the Church is unique, true, and not just a branch among other branches on the “Christian tree”.
     From this perspective, his criticism of Father Seraphim Rose becomes an indirect criticism of:
Saint Justin Popović, the Serbian saint, who is respected by so many, Archimandrite Philotheos Zervakos, whom many in Greece see as a saint, many Athonite fathers and the older tradition of the Russian Church Abroad before the reunification with Moscow, which was represented by Saint Philaret (the third First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad), who, incidentally, is also proposed for canonization by ROCOR (MP).

2. The isolation of the Russian Church Abroad from other Orthodox churches during the 1960s is clearly not seen as a schism, but as a righteous protest against developments, just like what happened in Greece after 1924 when the Greek State Church introduced the so-called New Calendar.
     Chapnin seems to assume that the previously broken communion of the Russian Church Abroad was a problem in itself. Our Old Calendar analysis would rather ask: “why” did the separation arise and who is responsible for it?
     We answer that the Russian Church Abroad was only reacting to:

• Soviet control of the Moscow Patriarchate,
• ecumenism, where the Orthodox Church is no longer unique but just one church among many,
• modernist reforms,
• compromises with secular power (so-called “Sergianism”).

     In that light, Father Seraphim Rose becomes a witness of resistance to apostasy rather than an expression of sectarianism, as Chapnin claims.

3. Holiness is not primarily defined by “acceptability” or “acceptability”.
     Our Old Calendarist stance instead argues that modern Orthodox academic circles – especially those affiliated with the Fordham University Orthodox Christian Studies Center or Sankt Ignatios College here in Sweden – tend to judge saints based on academic and cultural acceptability or acceptability rather than ascetic life, repentance and spiritual fruit.
     For those of us who see the holiness of Father Seraphim Rose, the central things instead become:

• his asceticism,
• his conversion from nihilism,
• his mission among Westerners,
• his defense of patristic Orthodoxy,
• the strong popular veneration surrounding him.

4. The article reflects the deeper conflict in modern Orthodoxy.
     From our Old Calendar perspective, this is not really just about Father Seraphim Rose but about two competing visions of Orthodoxy:
     On the one hand, those who believe that the Church must protect its borders clearly and on the other hand, those who believe that the Church should be dialogical and open to current trends and therefore must be modernized.
     On the one hand, those who believe that ecumenism opens the door to relativism and on the other hand, those who believe that ecumenism is a pastoral necessity in a fragmented world.
    On the one hand, those who believe that patristic continuity must be emphasized and on the other hand, those who believe that contemporary relevance in a pluralistic world must be sought.
On the one hand, those who believe that asceticism and confession must be central to the life of the Orthodox Church and on the other hand, those who believe that academic and social legitimacy is the most important thing to establish.

For us Old Calendarists,• Sergei Chapnin's article therefore becomes almost an indirect argument for the importance of Father Seraphim Rose: if he provokes modernist circles so much, it shows that his message still challenges the spirit of the times and is just as relevant today as when it was written in 1975.

In conclusion, if one considers Father Seraphim Rose to be a holy person and that his message to the Church is important, then it is not possible to "tone down", ignore or erase the context to which he belonged and which groups within the Orthodox Church he points out that we should seek out if we want to be truly Orthodox Christians.

Today in 2026, there are groups that belong to the community of Saint Seraphim and they are the Russian Church Abroad under Metropolitan Agathangel, the Greek Orthodox Church following the patristic calendar (Old Calendarists) under Archbishop Kallinikos and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Photii.

Other churches that now find holiness in Father Seraphim's example and want to canonize him may therefore consider his words about where the true church is and why they are not included.

Father Anders Åkerström, Sunday of the 318 Fathers [2026]

 

• "Old Calendarists" here refers specifically to the Sister Churches who use the Church Calendar.  St. John Maximovitch always called it the Church Calendar, not the "old calendar."   There is the New Calendar, and there is the Church Calendar.   Repeat that to yourself...