The Orthodoxy of the Latins in the Twelfth Century

Tia M. Kolbaba, Rutgers University

Source: Byzantine Orthodoxies, edited by Andrew Louth and Augustine Casiday, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2006, pp. 199-214.

 

In previous research, I have dealt at length with those Greeks who knew - to the very depths of their being - that the followers of the pope, the Latins, were heretics. Interesting as it may be, however, the polemical output of these writers is not the whole story. To understand the continuous, plentiful flow of anti-Latin polemic, we must understand that works 'against the Latins' were hardly ever intended to convince or to convert Latins. The challenge confronting those who believed that the Latins were heretics and their rituals pollutions was a challenge within their own world - the Greek-speaking, Greek-rite world. As Paul Magdalino has put it, those who worked so hard in the twelfth century to define and guard the boundaries between 'us' and 'them', between heresy and orthodoxy, between 'orthodox' Greeks and 'heterodox' Latins, were setting up barriers 'across the main thoroughfares, and at the heart of the built-up area, of Byzantine culture. In other words, [the barriers] were going up at precisely those points where insiders and outsiders mingled and were therefore liable to become indistinguishable - points where forbidden zones look very accessible, familiar and safe .... In general, it can be said the guardians of Orthodoxy repressed tendencies to which they themselves were susceptible.' [1] Among these outsiders who mingled with insiders were the Latins-Christian brothers, fellow adherents of the seven ecumenical councils, fellow readers of the church fathers, fellow heirs to the philosophy of classical and Hellenistic Greece. There was much about them that seemed 'accessible, familiar and safe'. So the Byzantines who wrote anti-Latin treatises and diatribes were addressing compatriots who believed in the orthodoxy of the Latins. To understand this is to get a fresh perspective on their arguments and the forms and functions of the literature they wrote - a point I have argued at length elsewhere and do not want to belabour here. [2] Instead, this paper focuses on those Byzantines who maintained that the Latins were orthodox. Given limits of time and space, it can present only a few examples of such authors, but there were many more. This paper is part of a larger project - a detailed study of those who argued in favor of the orthodoxy of the Latins in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

Throughout the early Middle Ages, most Byzantine writers who perceived errors in ritual or doctrine within the Latin Church were nevertheless not overly concerned with such matters. They exhibited a certain condescension about Latin culture and a belief that Latins would naturally adopt Greek practices and doctrines - which were, of course, superior - if they were only instructed by magnanimous, charitable Greeks. Among other things, the Greek-speaking Byzantines were certain that Latin was an inferior language, incapable of adequately expressing theological ideas. Thus, for example, the Patriarch Photius (858-67, 877-86) noted that one of the popes of Rome had required that the creed be chanted in Greek because Latin was often inadequate for 'expressing sacred doctrine'. [3] In the eleventh century, too, such condescension was common, and many authoritative church figures considered the Latins to be orthodox or in error concerning only one crucial matter: the Filioque. If they were perhaps a bit out-of-line in their practices, they were certainly corrigible. But in the twelfth century this position gradually became untenable, more Byzantines adopted the opinion that the Latins were heretics, and those who defended Latin orthodoxy often had to go beyond tolerance of Latin differences to acceptance of them.

Two eleventh-century figures, in particular, are famous for having continued the traditional condescension and tolerance toward the Latins: Peter III of Antioch and Theophylact of Ohrid. Peter III, Patriarch of Antioch (1052-56), is best known for his reply to a heated letter from Michael Keroularios, Patriarch of Constantinople (1043-58). In his letter, written shortly after the papal legates had delivered their bull of excommunication and left Constantinople in 1054, Keroularios had included an account of the legates' behaviour, had claimed that the popes had not been commemorated in Constantinople since the time of Vigilius (537-55), and had listed various Latin 'errors', such as clean-shaven priests. Peter corrected him and admonished him for writing 'before examination and complete understanding, from vain rumour', rebuking him also for his intemperate criticisms of 'errors' and begging him not to make the schism worse through his excessive rigor. In the end, Peter asserted that even the Latin use of unleavened bread, which he had earlier considered a crucial difference between the churches, was not important enough to dismember Christ's body, the Church. [4]

Much more traditional than Keroularios's insistence that the Latin customs were serious errors, Peter's position was that of moderates throughout the history of Christianity. Confronted with the New Testament's distinction between cultural differences that could be embraced within a universal church and essential elements of the faith that could not be compromised, such moderates always needed to balance two truths - both important, but in constant tension with one another. Christ, they believed, was bigger than cultural differences, and did not care whether you were Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. Nevertheless, Christ himself surely made distinctions between Jews and Greeks, men and women; and if the rituals of the 'old law' were superseded, there were nevertheless rituals of the 'new law', including the Eucharist. If some cultural customs were irrelevant to God, others mattered a great deal. For Peter of Antioch and others, the precise form of rituals was important - wrong ritual might endanger one's salvation – and there were marked liturgical differences between Greeks and Latins. [5] Nevertheless, everyone also accepted that some differences in ritual were merely customary and could be accepted, so long as each ritual symbolized orthodox belief.

Peter of Antioch was certainly not the only person who held this position. Others in the later eleventh century agreed that Latin errors were not important - or at least that very few were (usually the Filioque and sometimes azymes). Theophylact of Ohrid insisted that only the Filioque was an issue worth dividing the churches over. To a correspondent who asked him about the Latin 'errors', he replied that only the Filioque mattered; the other differences were neither sufficiently numerous nor sufficiently important to divide the church. If there was strife between Latins and Greeks it was because of 'the cooling of charity which the present times have caused' and because everyone was in a rush to accuse his brothers of heresy. [6] Theophylact mocked accusations similar to those in Keroularios's letter to Peter of Antioch. On the other hand, the Filioque was an essential matter, but even here Theophylact tried to clear the Latins of blame for heresy. 'You err', he wrote, addressing the Latins, 'not so much because of malignity of judgment as through ignorance of the truth. For because you believe that "to proceed" [ekporeuesthai] is the same as "to be provided" [choregeisthai] and "to be given" [metadidosthai], and since you find that the Spirit was sent [pempomenon ], and provided [choregoumenon], and given [metadidomenon] by the Son, you think that you commit no error even if you say that the Spirit proceeds [ekporeuesthai] from the Son.' Theophylact speculates that this confusion results from the 'poverty' of the Latin language. Perhaps Latin has no way of distinguishing 'proceeding' from 'being given' and 'being sent'. If so, Latins may allude to the Spirit's procession from the Son in everyday speech, but they must not add this to the creed. [7]

It is as important to note what this opinion of the Latins is not as to note what it is. Theophylact and Peter are not 'pro-Latin'; each assumes the superiority of the Greek church and Greek culture. Far from admiring Latin ritual or theology, they barely tolerate it. On the other hand, they also are not part of the 'anti-Latin' forces who consider the Latins to be obstinate heretics. They are, in short, the moderates in this debate. [8]

A meeting of the Constantinopolitan synod in 1089 reveals that this moderate position - that is, that the Latins erred in some matters, but were not heretical and were in communion with the Constantinopolitan church - was common. In 1088, Pope Urban II (1088-99) wrote to Alexios I and Patriarch Nikolaos III (1084-1111), seeking an explanation of why the pope's name had been removed from the diptychs of the Constantinopolitan church. Urban seems also to have heard that Latins in Constantinople were being shut out of their churches, or at least that they were being forbidden to use unleavened bread. [9] When Alexios received Urban's query, he investigated the matter. It was true that the pope was no longer commemorated in Constantinople, but the emperor could find only that 'It was not from synodical judgment and decision that the church of Rome was cut off from us.' [10] So he called the bishops together in the patriarchal synod to ask them. As the emperor's report of the proceedings later explains it,

I presented the letter of the pope to them and I asked whether there are in our most holy and great church any documents that declare decisively that the church of Rome is in schism and that, for this reason, the name of the pope is not to be commemorated in the diptychs. On the one hand, the archbishops concluded that there were no such documents. The removal [of the pope's name] ... was not canonical, and yet for a long time it had been in force and existed among us. On the other hand, they said that there were canonical matters between the two churches and that these needed correction, since the Latins seem in these ways to stumble. [11]

Given, then, that there was no record of why the pope's name had been removed from the diptychs, Alexios argued that it had been removed in violation of canon law, and that it should be restored. But the patriarch and the synod, noting that the removal of the pope from the diptychs had been in force for a long time, continued to insist that the Latins needed correction of some 'canonical matters' before commemoration of the pope could be restored. In the end, they compromised: the emperor and patriarch would write to Urban and ask him to send a letter with his profession of faith. If that confession was orthodox, he would immediately be inscribed in the diptychs, but since the 'canonical matters' would still remain, he should also plan either to come to Constantinople himself or to send representatives to an ecumenical council that could render judgment about these matters. This council should be held within 18 months of the receipt of the pope's letter. After the synod, Patriarch Nikolaos III wrote to Urban, asking him to send his profession of faith and denying that the Latin churches in Constantinople had been closed. [12]

Alexios I and Urban II each had pressing political motives for seeking peace in 1089, [13] and most discussions of the synod's deliberations have focused on the political negotiations, rather than on the reasons the synod accepted this compromise. Here I want to focus, rather, on the metropolitans and archbishops gathered in the synod and their reasoning. All accounts agree that there was a schism between Constantinople and Rome, represented concretely by the absence of the pope's name from the diptychs of the Great Church. It seems, though, that the patriarch and metropolitans were open to friendly gestures from Rome that might heal the schism. Apparently, anti-Latin sentiment and knowledge of Latin deviance was at such a low ebb that they found Urban's question difficult to answer: Why and when had the pope's name been removed from the diptychs? To get an idea of the answers available to the synod in 1089, one could tum to a text written around the beginning of the twelfth century, probably by a chartophylax of the Great Church, and thus someone who had access to the archives of that church, which reports that there was a schism under Sergios II (1001-19), 'for what reason I do not know, but the quarrel was apparently over some sees.' [14] The main purpose of this text is to produce a list of all of the previous schisms between Rome and Constantinople, and it concludes that 'the schisms mentioned above were brought about by our own people' - hardly a likely conclusion for someone who shared Keroularios' view of Latin errors. Although the printed edition of this text includes a paragraph about Keroularios and a 'final' schism of the churches, that paragraph is at odds with the rest of the text, leading to the conclusion that it is a later addition; Anton Michel argued that it must have been added in the twelfth century. [15]

Thus, although Alexios' account has rightly been viewed with some skepticism, we should perhaps believe him when he writes that the bishops in the synod had no evidence for the reasons for the current schism. They may have thought, as the emperor claimed, that the Latins were erring in certain 'canonical' matters (such as the unleavened bread), but that these matters were not serious enough to divide the churches. [16] They therefore agreed that the pope should send his confession of faith and that if that confession was in accordance with apostolic canons and the decisions of the ecumenical councils, then his name should be restored to the diptychs 'kat' oikonomian' ('in accordance with oikonomia') until a council could be held regarding the other differences. [17] Oikonomia, an age-old principle of the eastern church, literally means 'management' or 'administration', but had come to mean the management or guidance of individual souls or of Christ's body, the Church. [18] Such management could involve a kind of mercy or compromise, within careful limits. In general, as John Erickson explains, 'By oikonomia a temporary concession can be made in matters of practice to avoid irremediably damaging the peace of the Church.' [19] This idea precisely matches Alexios's account of what the synod did in 1089: they temporarily conceded that certain Latin practices could be overlooked for the sake of peace. They did not exonerate the Latin church, and they did not say that Latin errors could be condoned or tolerated for political reasons or even for the sake of Christian unity. Indeed, as we have seen, they insisted on an affirmation of the pope's orthodoxy and a resolution of other differences in a council. This offer of a council was sincere, although there is also no doubt- as has often been pointed out - that the Greeks expected such a council to affirm their own ideas and condemn those of the Latins. [20] In other words, the actions taken by the synod and patriarch in 1089 conform again to that condescending tolerance which characterized the middle Byzantine attitude toward the west in so many spheres. Even those who opposed the decision of the synod did so not because they considered the Latins heretics, but rather because they considered Urban II an anti-pope, put on the throne by the forceful and barbarous methods of the 'godless Franks' (i.e., the Normans), who had also stolen imperial territory in southern Italy and were 'Latinizing' the churches there. [21]

In sum, those who think the Latins are not in error in any heretical way are still the dominant party in 1089. Not unaware of the complications caused by Norman conquests and papal pretensions, these churchmen maintain none the less that the differences between the churches are not sufficient to divide Christ's body. In this, they are utterly traditional. Their attitude corresponds to the attitudes of previous generations.

It should be noted that there is a common opinion of the situation in 1189 and of Theophylact in particular that is diametrically opposed to what I have presented here. In this view, Theophylact wrote his treatise deriding the anti-Latin forces because the Emperor Alexios asked him to. Given that Theophylact 'did not have the stuff of a polemicist', as we know from the rest of his biography, he would not have written his piece about the Latins without outside intervention. In short, he would not have engaged in this battle unless asked to by someone he could not refuse. Given his close connections with the imperial family, the proponents of this view argue that Alexios asked him to write a piece to persuade the clergy that the Latins were not heretics. Alexios did this because he knew that the majority in the Church opposed his rapprochement with the Latins. In other words, there was a gap between imperial needs (especially Latin military help) and the rigid, uncompromising attitude of the vast majority of the Greek clergy. [22]

This argument makes many invalid assumptions, three of which are particularly important here. It assumes that Theophylact's treatise about the Latins is essentially polemic; it assumes that Theophylact had no opinions of his own that he would defend even if they went against the communis opinio; and it assumes thatTheophylact's moderate position was a minority one.

On the first point, it is absolutely true that Theophylact 'did not have the stuff of a polemicist'. But, as Margaret Mullett has noted, 'the generic term "polemic" describes [the treatise regarding Latins] badly'. In its tone of moderation, it fits well with other things Theophylact wrote regarding variety in religious customs and beliefs. He consistently insisted 'on interpreting the spirit rather than the letter of the law' and 'was always prepared to show oikonomia where it would help.' [23] It is not, then, 'hardly credible' that 'Theophylact could have expressed, sponte sua, a personal view of the problem' of union with the Latin Church. [24] Quite the opposite, in fact; the treatise expresses views that fit well with Theophylact's other works.

On the second point, I cannot, of course, offer proof in any scientific sense. Nor, I think, will I persuade those who are determined to see the vast majority of Byzantine churchmen as lacking in backbone, performing proskynesis not only before the emperor, but before his opinions. This is fundamentally not my view of Theophylact and other secular clergy like him; it is a fundamental view of some western historians and of many Byzantine monks. What I know of Theophylact's character - and I acknowledge all the ways in which that knowledge is flawed and conditional - does not lead me to believe that he would have argued so eloquently and thoroughly for a theological position simply because the emperor asked him to. In fact, if he was writing at the emperor's request, Theophylact's insistence that the addition to the creed could not be accepted was probably not what Alexios had in mind. He was more his own man than the essentially negative view of Byzantine secular clergy will allow; in fact, I am willing to be incendiary and call that negative view a product of centuries of western prejudice. It seems that if Byzantine churchmen support union they are craven tools of the emperor, and if they oppose it they are heedless of the dangers that threaten the empire and hidebound in their conservatism. The idea that some of them might support union and even be responsive to a changing world for reasons which stem from genuinely Christian conviction is rarely expressed. [25]

Finally, we need have no difficulty with the thought of Theophylact suddenly swimming against the tide of anti-Latin opinion if we do not posit such a tide in the first place. My argument - again, I claim not proof, but persuasive evidence - is that there is no such tide of anti-Latin opinion in the late eleventh century. Instead, anti-Latin sentiment both changes its content and grows in intensity during the twelfth century. There are still Byzantines after 1100 who maintain roughly the position of the synod in 1089: namely, that the Latins are at least to be given a chance to explain themselves and to come to a council at which the differences can be resolved. This was allegedly the position of Niketas, Archbishop of Nikomedia, at the end of a public discussion with Anselm of Havelberg in 1136. [26] But something has changed by 1136, as well, for Niketas seems to have accepted the Latin teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit. Even if we doubt this - our only account of the debate was written by Anselm some years later - we know that around the same time Niketas of Maroneia, chartophylax of the Great Church and then archbishop of Thessaloniki, wrote dialogues defending the Latin teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit. This position is unlike the one I defined as moderate earlier in this paper. Theophylact of Ohrid, Peter of Antioch, and others were neither pro-Latin nor anti-Latin, but tolerant and condescending, seeing the Filioque as an error, but perhaps an accidental one. Niketas of Maroneia and a few otherS in the twelfth century actually argue that the Filioque is acceptable; it is not an error at all. Latin reasoning on the matter and Latin theological understanding of the Fathers is, in this instance, superior to Greek reasoning and understanding. This is a position more easily labelled 'pro-Latin' than the opinions of the eleventh-century writers. Meanwhile, the arguments of the anti-Latin forces were growing in strength, coherence, and vehemence. Byzantine churchmen were therefore increasingly polarized and the moderate position less and less viable. There are several reasons for this.

The most important reason for increasing hostility toward the Latins throughout Byzantine society in the twelfth century is too well known to be belaboured here: the conduct of crusaders, who found it difficult to distinguish between Byzantines and infidels; the permanent presence of Italian merchants in the empire with their visible wealth and palpable arrogance; the Latin occupation of lands and cities that Byzantines considered rightly theirs - these and many other aspects of waxing Latin power and waning Byzantine power challenged and threatened the Byzantines on many levels. In the religious circles we are dealing with here, the vehemence of anti-Latin sentiment increased as the western threat increased. The anti-Latin faction among churchmen of all kinds – from the more worldly secular clergy of the imperial court and the Great Church to the monks of Athas, Galesios, or Olympos - grew and became dominant. In part, this response of churchmen was similar to that of their lay compatriots in both its causes and its expression. Clerics did not inhabit a separate world. They suffered from the same depredations of Normans and other crusaders; they chafed at what they considered western arrogance; they resented the influence of Latins at the imperial court.

But there were additional arenas of contact between Latin and Greek churchmen, as well - arenas where issues of particular concern to clergy and monks arose. The Norman conquest of southern Italy, all of the multitude of enterprises we call the crusades, a continuing Norman threat to both the German emperor and the Byzantine one, and a continuing and complex set of relations between Byzantium and the crusader states necessitated an unending exchange of embassies between Byzantium and various western powers. The ambassadors in these negotiations - especially on the western side, but also on the Byzantine side, at least when negotiations with the papacy were part of the project - were often men of the cloth. [27] Their presence in Constantinople could and did inspire debates between Byzantine and western churchmen about their differing rituals and doctrines. So, for example, Niketas Stethatos represented the Greeks in debates about the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist against the papal delegation led by Humbert of Silva Candida. He addressed his treatise against azymes to 'men of Rome- both those who dwell among us and those who are travelling to our cities.' [28] The travelling men were the members of the papal legation with whom he was in direct contact; the others would have included Italian merchants who lived in Constantinople. He also wrote, 'I have often been questioned by various Romans who live among us about the azymes.' [29] Nor was Niketas unique. In 1112, Pietro Grossolano, Archbishop of Milan, part of a papal embassy, debated theology with several Greeks, while Anselm of Havelberg, leader of German imperial delegations, continued the tradition of discussing religious differences during his spare time on at least two missions to the east - one in 1135-36 and the other in 1155. [30] There must be many more such occasions which left little or no trace in the records. [31] Meanwhile, Latin churches and monasteries were established in Constantinople; there again the differences between Greeks and Latins could be noticed and debated - as, for example, when the Benedictine monks of St Mary of the Amalfitans complained that Byzantine clergy were putting pressure on them to abandon the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. [32]

From southern Italy to the Holy Land, then, Greeks and Latins - including clerics - were living side by side and noticing one another's customs. Probably many people cared little about those differences. Others, especially the clergy, who were more invested in the ritual forms and doctrines of their churches, did care and heatedly discussed and debated the differences between the Latin church and the Greek one. Emperors sometimes encouraged such discussion and sometimes tried to suppress it. Regardless, the evidence concerning twelfth-century Byzantine responses to the Latins indicates a murmur of conversation and argument both between Greeks and Latins and among the Greeks themselves.

Beyond these changes caused by the general increase in contact, there were changes within each church. While it risks distortion to extract analysis of the churches in either culture from the larger society, I do so here because three major changes - two in governance and one in theology - are among the necessary causes of the schism. For one might imagine a world in which hatred and mistrust could fester between Greeks and Latins without a permanent schism in the church. After all, the Germans and the Normans, the French and the English fought with, hated, and distrusted one another for decades at a time in the Middle Ages, but in the end remained in the pope's fold. So it seems to me that we must look beyond the general increase in hostility to explain the schism between Rome and Constantinople: its depth, its finality, its perdurance. Here I think three church-specific changes are crucial.

First, there were changes in the ecclesiastical culture of the empire - changes detailed by V. Tiftixoglu, P. Magdalino, M. Angold, and others. [33] In the early years of the Komnenian dynasty, the cathedral clergy of the Hagia Sophia and the bishops who made up the patriarchal synod had become the spokesmen of imperial orthodoxy, in large part by cooperating with Alexios I's determination to wipe out heresy in his empire. Their position was powerful, but not secure, and it required a kind of constant maintenance - restricting the size of the group, protecting its special status, spreading its values to the rest of society. This groupmaintenance led to a kind of narrowing of the scope of acceptable ideas. It is probably fair to call this narrowing repression; it certainly looked like repression if you were one of its victims, punished for advocating an idea that had been acceptable in earlier decades but was now anathema. [34] Most importantly for this paper, much of the polemical writing that survives from the twelfth century is about this group maintenance among the 'guardians of orthodoxy' - about protecting their internal purity and their separate status from those within their own society who threatened it. In the case of the Latins, this is clear: 'Anti-Latinism ... was directed at a group with a foothold, and sympathisers, within the citadel of Orthodoxy' [35] - not only Manuel I, a notorious Latinophile, but Niketas of Maroneia, Basil of Ohrid, and other churchmen.

Meanwhile, two other changes were taking place in the Latin world. In the twelfth century, the Latins were putting the finishing touches on a fully developed argument for papal plenitudo potestatis, and the Greeks were becoming ever more aware of that Latin argument. [36] To cite just one of many examples: in both of the debates between Anselm of Havelberg and Niketas of Nikomedia, the tone shifts from courteous to strident when the pope's authority is the subject. Anselm insists on seeing the schism in the terms defined by the papal reformers of the west: Constantinople, the daughter church, has wilfully separated herself from her mother. The Roman Church is first after God in authority. The pope presided over the councils, and his authority is the source of conciliar authority. Without his participation, a council is not valid; his authority is valid without a council. Niketas bridles and protests:

For if the Roman pontiff, sitting on his highest throne of glory, wishes to thunder at us and throw down his mandates from on high, and if he wishes, not with our counsel but of his own judgment and his own good pleasure, to judge us and command us .and our churches, what kind of brotherhood, or indeed what kind of parenthood, can this be? Who would ever be able to bear this with equanimity? In such a case, we should be and be called slaves of the Church - not her sons. [37]

Although Niketas and Anselm reach agreement on the procession of the Holy Spirit, they cannot agree on the pope's role in the church. On this subject, compromise with Rome has become impossible, and the Greeks are starting to realize that it has.

Finally, in addition to the development of an ideology of papal primacy, the Latin Church was also changing in other intellectual realms. The twelfth century was a time of immense turmoil and creativity in Latin theology. This, too, the Greeks knew, for they both learned the substance of certain Latin theological positions that they could not accept and became aware of the new methods in Latin theological reasoning. That growing awareness of both substance and method manifests itself in three famous Greek-Latin disputes of the twelfth century. Pietro Grossolano, Archbishop of Milan, discussed the Filioque with Greek theologians in 1112. He seems to have had no surprises for them. Probably educated in a monastery, he knew his Scriptures, of course, but he quickly grew frustrated with the Greeks for their over-subtle (as he saw it) use of logic. He himself invoked Scripture and elaborate analogies to justify the Latin position, did not resort to logic, and showed no knowledge of the writings of the Greek fathers of the church. In contrast, Anselm of Havelberg, the Latin debater in 1136, had been educated at the beginning of the twelfth-century renaissance in the cathedral school of Laon and he was more than willing to use logic. Moreover, he was fascinated with the Greek fathers and quoted them at length in defence of Latin doctrine. Their writings were available to him because there were several important Latin scholars living in Constantinople in the 1130s, translating Greek texts and becoming ever more familiar with Greek theological traditions and reasoning. Niketas, Anselm's interlocutor, was amazed and delighted at the Latin's knowledge of the Greek fathers. He exclaimed, 'I see that I have found a Latin man who is truly catholic! Would that [more] such Latins would come to us in these times!' [38]

But this positive response to Anselm's learning was not unmixed with dismay. The Greeks in 1112 had maintained the kind of condescension toward Latin learning that characterized earlier Byzantine attitudes. Like Theophylact of Ohrid, they assumed a low level of education in Latin lands and speculated that the Latin language was too impoverished to express theological ideas adequately. Latins could not be expected to understand theological subtleties. By 1136, such condescension was no longer an option. Now those who defended the orthodoxy of the Latins did so not as a matter of tolerance, but by actually claiming that the Latin use of the Filioque could be accepted.

A further step in Latin theological methods had been taken by the 1160s, when Hugo Eteriano, a Latin theologian who had studied dialectic in Paris, became one of Emperor Manuel I's (1143-80) theological advisers. When a controversy imported from the west began to disturb the peace of the church, Manuel - himself not a bad theologian - intervened. There ensued several heated debates in the imperial palace. The controversy was about a Christological matter being hotly debated in the west at the time: what did Jesus mean when he said, 'The Father is greater than I' (John 14:28)? Seeking an explanation of the Latin position, Manuel summoned the best authority on Latin theology he could think of: his friend and adviser Hugo Eteriano. Hugo's explanation so pleased the emperor that he adopted it as his own. Nevertheless, the controversy continued to divide the clergy of the capital. In the end, Manuel persuaded and/or coerced the members of the Constantinopolitan synod to accept the theological resolution he preferred. He had the resolution inscribed on plaques and placed in a prominent position on the walls of the Hagia Sophia.

Hugo's learned explanations, the sophistication of Latin theology, and - perhaps most of all - the emperor's support for the Latin position, caught many Greeks off-guard and put them on the defensive. Probably more people now found Latin ideas threatening and were prepared to resist them at all cost. It was bad enough that the Latins were 'innovators' and that they strenuously insisted that Greeks accept their 'innovations' because the pope commanded them to. It was even worse when they defended their innovations with a logical and sophistic skill that left the Greeks unable to answer. The only way to avoid their heresies was to utterly reject not only the innovations themselves but also the reasoning which led to them. Greeks did not stop talking about theology, of course, but they developed a tremendous suspicion of Latin methods and ideas, which led, in tum, to a rejection even of those Greeks who wished to use logic more intensively in defence of the eastern church's position. In rejecting logic and dialectic as 'Latin', many Greeks rejected much of their own tradition. As Aristeides Papadakis puts it, 'The rise of scholasticism has seldom been viewed as a cause of schism', but it should be seen as 'another alarming symptom of the disintegration of the common Christian tradition.' [39] The intellectual traditions of Greeks and Latins were diverging in remarkable ways. Even without the resentments stirred up by crusaders and merchants, Latin ideas about papal primacy and Latin theological innovations were making it increasingly difficult for Greeks to believe in the orthodoxy of the Latins. As the elite of the church concentrated on building the barriers between insiders and outsiders, the few Greeks who continued to defend Latin orthodoxy were usually forced - both by Latin teaching and by the adamant resistance of their compatriots - to choose between the two churches and the two systems of theology, between the orthodoxy of the Greeks and the orthodoxy of the Latins.

 

FOOTNOTES

1. P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 386–87.

2. T.M. Kolbaba, ‘Byzantine perceptions of Latin religious “errors”: Themes and Changes from 850 to 1350’, in A.E. Laiou, ed. and R.P. Mottahedeh, The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2001), 118–19, 129–32, 139, 141–43.

3. Photios, Logos peri tes tou Agiou Pneumatos Mystagogias (PG 102.376); trans. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit (Astoria, NY: Studion Publications, 1983), 110–11.

4. PG 120.795–816.

5. T.M. Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists. Errors of the Latins (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2000), chaps. 4–5.

6. P. Gautier, Théophylacte D’Achrida. Discours, traités, poésies (Thessaloniki: Association de Recherches Byzantines, 1980), 247.

7. Gautier, Théophylacte, 247–57.

8. Although I have been accused of being judgmental by the mere use of the word—for in today’s academic circles, it seems, the connotations of ‘moderate’ are all favorable—I maintain that it is still the best term to describe people in the middle of a spectrum of opinion. I do not mean by this to praise or condemn their moderation; one man’s moderation may be another man’s lukewarm faith or politically inspired compromise.

9. The documents for this exchange were published by W. Holtzmann, ‘Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios I. und Papst Urban II. im Jahre 1089’, BZ 28 (1928), 38–67. Urban’s letter is not extant, but Holtzmann, ‘Unionsverhandlungen’, doc. 2, records that he asked about commemoration and about the Latins in Constantinople being shut out of their churches, while the Latin chronicler Malaterra (cited by Holtzmann, ‘Unionsverhandlungen’, 47) records that Urban also reprimanded Alexios for forbidding Latins the use of azymes in their worship. In his reply (Holtzmann, ‘Unionsverhandlungen’, doc. 3), Patriarch Nikolaos III denies that the Latin churches had been closed. Other analyses of and commentaries on these texts: P. Charanis, ‘Letter to the Editor of the American Historical Review’, American Historical Review 53 (1948), 941–44. A. Papadakis and J. Meyendorff, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy. The Church 1071–1453 A.D. (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1994), 76–77. Some important corrections to Holtzmann’s dating were made by D. Stiernon, ‘Basile de Reggio, le dernier métropolite grec de Calabre’, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia 18 (1964), 189–222, with additional credit to C. Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, tr. M.W. Baldwin and W. Goffart (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 319 n. 42 and F. Russo, ‘L’ultimo metropolita greca di Reggio’, Bollettino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata N.S. 7 (1953), 163–78, repr. in F. Russo, Scritti storici calabresi (Naples: CAM, 1957), 87–99.

10. Holtzmann, ‘Unionsverhandlungen’, 61.

11. Holtzmann, ‘Unionsverhandlungen’, 61.

12. Holtzmann, ‘Unionsverhandlungen’, 61–64; T.M. Kolbaba, ‘On the Closing of the Churches and the Rebaptism of the Latin: Greek Perfidy or Latin Slander?’, BMGS (forthcoming).

13. Holtzmann, ‘Unionsverhandlungen’, 50–52.

14. PG 120.713–20. The text is credited merely to ‘Niketas the Chartophylax’ and there is much disagreement about which of several eleventh- and twelfth-century writers named Niketas might have authored this text. A. Michel, following J. Hergenröther, dated the text to the beginning of the twelfth century: Humbert und Kerullarios. Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI. Jahrhunderts (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1930), I, 26. M. Mullett pointed out that there could have been a Niketas in the office of Chartophylax of the Great Church between 1106 and 1111: see Theophylact of Ohrid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), 356. B. Leib also placed the author of this text in the early twelfth century: Deux inédits byzantins sur les azymes au début du XIIe siècle (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1924), 150. J. Darrouzès believed that the author of the history of the schism was Niketas tes Koronidos, Chartophylax under Michael Keroularios: see V. Grumel, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, 2nd rev. edn, J. Darrouzès, vol. I, fasc. II and III, ‘Les regestes de 715 à 1206’ (Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1989), no. 858; Darrouzès, Recherches sur les offikia de l’église byzantine (Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1970), 66 n. 2; Darrouzès, ed., Nicétas Stéthatos. Opuscules et lettres, Sources chrétiennes 81 (Paris: Cerf, 1961), 15–17.

15. Michel (Humbert und Kerullarios, I, 30) based his argument on the manuscripts; the best ones do not have this final paragraph. Moreover, the final paragraph’s message differs from the preceding text and is preceded by a paragraph that was evidently once the conclusion. Finally, the author of the final paragraph refers to westerners as ‘Latins’ – an ethnonym rarely used by Greeks before the crusades (A. Kazhdan, ‘Latins and Franks in Byzantium: perception and reality from the eleventh to the twelfth century’, in Laiou and Mottahedeh, The Crusades, 85–86) and never used by the author of the rest of the text, who refers invariably to ‘Romans’.

16. The extant documents from 1089 contain no details about these ‘canonical differences’. The main concerns of the Byzantines, c. 1060–1100, were azymes (Leo of Markianopolis, John II of Kiev, and others, as well as the reference in Malaterra, cited above) and the Filioque (John II of Kiev, Theophylact of Ohrid, and others). There is little radically anti-Latin polemic in this period, nor is awareness of papal primacy high. See H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Munich: Beck, 1959), 610; Leib, Deux inédits, 149.

17. Holtzmann, ‘Unionsverhandlungen’, 62.

18. For introductions to the history of oikonomia and its definitions, see J.H. Erickson, ‘Oikonomia in Byzantine Canon Law’, in K. Pennington, ed. and R. Somerville, Law, Church, and Society. Essays in Honor of Stephan Kuttner (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), 225–36, and ODB, s.v., ‘Oikonomia’.

19. Erickson, ‘Oikonomia’, 231 (my emphasis).

20. See, for example, J. Boojamra, ‘The Byzantine notion of the “Ecumenical Council” in the fourteenth century’, BZ 80 (1987), 59–76.

21. See, for example, Stiernon’s summary of Basil of Reggio’s position: ‘Basile de Reggio’, 213. The question of the speed and extent of ‘Latinization’ is immensely complex and contested. For introductions to the question, see G.A. Loud, ‘Byzantine Italy and the Normans’, Byzantium and the West, c. 850–1200, ByzF 13 (1988), 215–33; A. Guillou, ‘Grecs d’Italie du Sud et de Sicile au Moyen Age: Les moines’, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire 75 (1963), 79–110, repr. in Studies on Byzantine Italy (London: Variorum, 1970), art. XII; and the collection of articles in Italia sacra 20–22 – invaluable volumes dedicated to La chiesa greca in Italia.

22. For the most recent expression of this view see M.D. Spadaro, ‘Chiesa d’oriente e chiesa d’occidente sotto la dinastia dei Comneni’, ByzF 22 (1996), 79–97.

23. Mullett, Theophylact, 239–40.

24. Spadaro, ‘Chiesa d’oriente’, 94.

25. Many scholars are not blinded by such prejudice and present much more nuanced views; see, for example, Joseph Gill, ‘John Beccus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 1275–1282’, Byzantina 7 (1975), 253–66; repr. in Church Union: Rome and Byzantium (London: Variorum, 1979), art. VI. But the older view which I have described here is still all too common.

26. For the context of this mission, the biography of Anselm, and a thorough exegesis of the debate, see N. Russell, ‘Anselm of Havelberg and the union of the churches’, Sobornost incorporating Eastern Churches Review 1:2 (1979), 19–41; 2:1 (1980), 29–41.

27. Eg., a mission from Venice to Constantinople in 1112 was led by the Patriarch of Grado; Anselm of Havelberg led a mission from the German emperor to Constantinople in 1135–1136 and two other missions to the Byzantine emperor while he was in the Balkans and Greece in 1153 and 1155; William of Tyre travelled to Constantinople on behalf of King Amalric I of Jerusalem in 1168, and was again in Constantinople – this time for seven months – in 1179–1180. For almost every year of the twelfth century, one could cite one or more similar examples.

28. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, II, 321.

29. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, II, 322.

30. For introductions to each of these occasions, see J. Darrouzès, ‘Les documents byzantins de XIIe siècle sur la primauté romaine’, REB 23 (1965), 42–88.

31. Niketas Seides, one of the Byzantine theologians who participated in the debate of 1112, mentions that ‘ten or twelve years ago’ a Latin – ‘one of your people, from among those you call cardinals’ was in Constantinople. This reference has led more than one scholar to seek evidence of an official papal legation between 1100 and 1102, but none has been found. If Seides debated with Latin churchmen a decade or so before 1112, they were not papal legates. J. Darrouzès then suggested that this ‘cardinal’ might be connected to a mission sent by Baldwin I of Jerusalem (1100–18) to Alexios (Darrouzès, ‘Documents’, 53). Albert of Aix tells us of this embassy: the ambassadors were the Archbishop Gerhard and the bishop of Barzenona (a diocese, and therefore a bishop, which we cannot identify). The latter travelled on to Italy where he betrayed the confidence Alexios had in him and maligned the emperor to the pope. If Darrouzès is correct in connecting this mission to Seides’ reference, these bishops were emissaries of a secular lord, but that did not prevent them from discussing religious differences with Greek clerics.

32. A. Michel, Amalfi und Jerusalem im griechischen Kirchenstreit (1054–1090), OCA 121 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1939).

33. V. Tiftixoglu, ‘Gruppenbildungen innerhalb des konstantinopolitanischen Klerus während der Komnenenzeit’, BZ 62 (1969), 25–72; P. Magdalino, ‘The Reform Edict of 1107’, in Alexios I Komnenos, 1, Papers, M. Mullett, ed. and D. Smythe, Byzantine Texts and Translations 4.1 (Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Enterprises, 1996), 199–218; Magdalino, Empire of Manuel I, chap. 5; M. Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081–1261 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

34. R. Browning, ‘Enlightenment and Repression in Byzantium in the eleventh and twelfth centuries’, Past and Present 69 (1975), 3–23, but see also the important qualifications of this idea of repression in P. Magdalino, Empire of Manuel I, 382–412 and in Magdalino, ‘Enlightenment and Repression in Twelfth-Century Byzantium. The Evidence of the Canonists’, in Byzantium in the Twelfth Century: Canon Law, State and Society, N. Oikonomides, ed. (Athens: Etaireia Byzantinōn kai Metabyzantinōn Meletōn, 1991), 357–73.

35. Magdalino, Empire of Manuel I, 386.

36. Darrouzès, ‘Documents’.

37. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 3, De diverso Eucharistiae ritu Graecorum et Latinorum, videlicet azymi et fermentati, et de auctoritate Romanae Ecclesiae (PL 188.1219). J. Spiteris, La critica bizantina del primato romano nel secolo XII, OCA 134 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1979), 91–108; Darrouzès, ‘Documents’, 59–65.

38. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 2, De processione Spiritus sancti (PL 188.1204).

39. Papadakis and Meyendorff, Christian East, 167.

 

What Is Salvation?

Archimandrite Symeon Kragiopoulos (+2015)

 

 

When the word of God speaks of salvation—and more generally, within the Church, in the books of the Church, in its writings and services—when salvation is spoken of, it certainly means something different from being saved from various dangers. Of course, it also includes deliverance from illnesses and other dangers, from threats, disasters, and so forth; but this is not the main thing. And the unfortunate thing is that, although we are Christians, we do not know what the real danger is, nor precisely what this salvation is. Consequently, while God knows exactly the danger from which we are in peril and intends to save us from that danger, we understand something else, and in a manner of speaking, we fail to understand one another.

And it may well be that many times we receive the answer from God: “You are not really in danger from the things you think threaten you. The things you are afraid of amount to nothing. Everything you are trying to obtain when you say, ‘Save me,’ and ask for salvation, is not what you actually need. Since you are already making a mistake, since you are already going astray and missing the mark, do not expect”—God says, in a manner of speaking—“that I too will be carried along with you and, so to speak, act according to the way you think things are and the way you want them to be.”

Man’s danger, man’s threat, man’s destruction is the poison of sin. To understand the paradox: a person may, in the very act of sinning—that is, at the very moment he is committing a sin—be facing some danger and ask to be saved from that danger, which he thinks is the real danger. And indeed, not only may he ask to be saved from something that is not a real danger, but he may even ask to be saved from some danger precisely so that he can go on sinning and enjoy his sin undisturbed. What understanding can there then be with God? How can God entrust anything to us, when we do not know what we are saying or what we are asking for, when we do not know what the real danger is, and when we do not know exactly what the salvation is that God can give us and wants to give us?

For example, a fire comes and burns everything. As a Christian, you should reflect that whether you yourself are burned or not is not of such great importance; but what if the fire of sin burns up your entire being? Think about that, and let God see that this is what concerns you, that this is what causes you pain, and that you cry out: “My Lord, save me!” That is, let Him see that you are not deluded, that you are not distracted, that you are not, so to speak, running off in a direction where there is no need to go. Rather, you take occasion from anything that happens to look at your soul, to look at the things of your soul; and as, at that moment, you see the fire burning whatever it burns, you can understand very clearly what damage the fire of sin is doing within you, the downpour of sin within you, the earthquake of sin within you!

Pay attention to this: With the other fire, the natural fire, we, as human beings, will do whatever we can, but in the end, we do not know what God will do. As for this fire here, the spiritual fire, we are absolutely certain—we must be utterly certain—that the Lord has received the message. That is, the Lord has become assured that we have seen what we need to see, that we realize what our danger is, and that we know what we are saying when we say, “Lord, save me”; and we await this salvation, utterly certain that here, in this case, the Lord—for everything else, everything that happens, is meant to make us pay attention to this reality—we are utterly certain that the Lord will make this fire, however paradoxical it may seem, like a cool breeze, just as the natural fire, the tangible fire, became for the martyrs. Sometimes, indeed, God intervenes immediately and turns all that burning heat of sin into a refreshing coolness that refreshes the soul; and the soul feels and experiences—lives—this salvation that it asked of God. And God truly grants it, and one then has within oneself that other fire of God which refreshes, that other fire which burns away sin.

Very often, God either does not listen at all—in the sense that we are not saying these things for Him to hear them, just as a little child recites a poem—or, since God sees that we are not asking for what we ought to ask, that we are not seeing what we ought to see, namely what exists within us and constitutes a deadly danger, and that we are not asking for what we ought to ask, He does not listen to us, He does not respond, and we have no contact or communication with Him. And so I would say, with all the strength of my soul, that whoever passes over everything else, forgets everything else, and does not regard anything else—whatever it may be—as the danger from which he needs to be saved, but instead resolves to see the real danger that lies within him—and that danger is sin—and directs all his attention there, and this becomes his deepest concern, and at the same time he truly asks for salvation, he will have it.

I say it once again: precisely when we want to see the real danger, the Lord will grant us this grace. And when we want to be freed, to be saved, from the real danger to our soul—which is sin—the Lord will grant us this grace. And if this grace is not granted, it is because we are asking for other things.

For example, you may be suffering terrible pain, and God permits it precisely because He wants to do you good in this respect: He wants you to see your sin and to ask to be saved from sin. You are in terrible pain, and you cry out and shout and so forth; but God sees that what concerns you more is to be relieved of the pain, even though that bodily pain is rendering you a service at that moment. It is helping you to see your own nothingness and to humble yourself, to be broken in spirit, to see your hardness; yet you do not accept this, and you shout and cry out for the pain to go away. Whereas what you need to do—the other thing God will take away without your even realizing it—what God wants is for you to see that other poisonous sting of sin and all the poison that has spread throughout your entire being; and God is waiting for you to cry out to Him to save you. He can save you, but if He does not see, if He does not perceive, that you are asking for salvation, how is He to save you?

We need to understand these things. They are not games, and we must not waste our time doing what the rest of the world does.

 

Greek source: https://agiazoni.gr/ti-einai-sotiria/

An Imperfect Confessor: St. Paul the New of Constantinople (+784)

 

The holy Patriarch Paul IV, called the New, was from Cyprus. He was a reader in the Church, and shone both by his words and his virtuous acts when he was elected Patriarch against his will on the Second Sunday of the Fast in 780, after the see had long been empty because of the iconoclast heresy. Under pressure from the terrible Emperor Leo IV the Khazar, he had then to sign a document in which he declared that he would not venerate images. But the Emperor died soon after his consecration, and he retracted the undertaking. The heresy, however, continued to spread its venom; and as the Patriarch, being a sick man, felt himself powerless to resist it, he preferred to renounce his charge and retire to the Monastery of Florus; without, however, telling Empress Regent Irene (7 Aug.).

Informed at once of this, the ruler and her son Constantius VI went to the holy prelate to ask him why he had resigned. Blessed Paul, in tears, declared to them: ‘I should not have accepted the responsibility of being at the head of a Church that is out of Communion with the other episcopal thrones.’ Having left him with great sorrow and bitterness, the rulers sent him an embassy of patricians and members of the Senate, to try to persuade him to change his mind. He said to them very firmly: ‘If an Ecumenical Council is not summoned to rectify the error that is in our midst, there is no way of saving you.’ When they asked him why he had been willing to sign the libellous document of the heretic Emperor, he replied: ‘It is this that distresses me so much, and because of this I have decided to do penance, praying God not to punish me for having failed to preach the truth from fear of your folly.’ He fell asleep in peace two or three months later (784), calling forth great mourning in the palace and among the Orthodox, as he was admired by all for his virtue and piety. Through his exhortations and the firm resolution of the Empress, and of his successor Saint Tarasius (25 Feb.), preparations were begun for the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which was to re-establish the veneration of the holy icons (787).

 

Source: The Synaxarion of Hieromonk Makarios of Simonos Petra, Vol. 6., August 30, pp. 660-661.

Struggles Against the Sexual Passions: Counsels from Saints Barsanuphius and John

 

The question of Abba Dorotheus to the Great Elder:

-- Q: I am being strongly attacked by sexual passion; I am afraid that I may fall into despondency, and that from the infirmity of my body I will not be able to restrain myself; pray for me, for the Lord’s sake, and tell me, my Father, what I should do?

A: Brother! The devil, out of envy, has raised up warfare against you. Guard your eyes and do not eat until you are full. Take a little wine for the sake of the body’s infirmity of which you speak. And acquire humility, which rends all the nets of the enemy. And I, who am nothing, will do what I can, entreating God that He might deliver you from every temptation and preserve you from every evil. Do not yield to the enemy, O brother, and do not give yourself over to despondency, for this is a great joy to the enemy. Pray without ceasing, saying: “Lord Jesus Christ, deliver me from shameful passions,” and God will have mercy on you, and you will receive strength by the prayers of the Saints. Amen.

-- Q: The same brother, being attacked by the same sexual passion, asked the same Great Elder to pray for him and to tell him how to distinguish whether a man is being tempted by his own lusts or by the enemy.

A: Brother! Without labor and contrition of heart no one can be delivered from passions and please God. When a man is tempted by his own lust, this may be known from the fact that he is careless about himself and allows his heart to reflect about what he has done before; and then a man himself draws passion unto himself through his own lust. His mind, being little by little blinded by passion, begins, unnoticeable for himself, to pay attention to someone for whom he feels attraction, or to speak with him, and he finds occasions on which to converse with him or to sit with him, and by all means he strives to fulfill his desire. If one allows thoughts to pay heed in this, warfare will increase until a fall, albeit not in body but in spirit, in agreement with thoughts; and it turns that such a man lights the fire himself in his own substance. But a sober and prudent man who desires to be saved, when he sees from what it is that he suffers harm, carefully preserves himself from evil remembrances, is not drawn into passionate thoughts, avoids meetings and conversations with those for whom he feels attraction and avoids every occasion for sin, fearing lest he himself ignite a fire within himself. This is the warfare which proceeds from one’s own lust, which a man brings on himself . . .

Tame your steed with the bridle of knowledge, lest, looking here and there, he become inflamed with lust towards women and men and throws you, the horseman, to the ground. Pray to God, that He may turn “your eyes, lest they see vanity” (Psalms 118:37). And when you will acquire a manful heart, warfare will depart from you. Cleanse yourself, as wine cleanses wounds, and do not allow stench and filthiness to accumulate in you. Acquire weeping, so that it might remove from you freedom (looseness) in your relations, which destroys the souls that adopt it. Do not throw away the implement without which fertile land cannot be worked. This implement, made by the Great God, is humility: it uproots all the tares from the field of the Master and gives grace to those who dwell in it. Humility does not fall, but raises from a fall those who possess it. Love weeping with all your heart, for it also is a participant in this good work. Labor in everything to cut off your own will, for this is accounted to a man for sacrifice. This is what is meant by: “For Thee we are mortified all the day, we are accounted as sheep for slaughter” (Psalms 43:22). Do not weaken yourselves by conversations, for they will not allow you to prosper in God. Firmly bridle the organs of your senses: sight, hearing, smelling, taste, and feeling, and you will prosper by the grace of Christ. Without tortures no one is a martyr, as the Lord also has said: “In your patience possess ye your souls” (Luke 21:19), and the Apostle says, “in much endurance, in sorrows” (II Corinthians 6:4).

 

-- Q: Pray for me, my Father, I am very much disturbed by thoughts of sexual sin, despondency, and fear; and a thought says to me that I should converse with a brother to whom I feel attracted when I see him, lest by my silence I give him occasion for suspicion. I feel likewise that the demons are somehow pressing me, and I fall into fear.

A: Brother! You are not yet instructed in warfare with the enemy, which is why there come to you thoughts of fear, despondency, and sexual sin. Stand against them with a firm heart, for combatants, unless they labor, are not crowned, and warriors, unless they show the King their skill in battles, do not become worthy of honors. Remember what David was like. Do you not also sing: “Test me, O Lord, and try me, kindle my inwards parts and my heart” (Psalms 25:2). And again: “If a regiment arm itself against me, I will hope in Him” (Psalms 26:3). Likewise, concerning fear: “For if I should go in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me” (Psalms 22:4). And concerning despondency: “If the spirit of the powerful one should come upon thee, do not leave thy place” (Ecclesiastes 10:4).

Do you not wish to be skilled? But a man who is not tested by temptations is not skilled. It is battles that make a man skilled. The work of a monk consists of enduring battles and opposing them with manfulness of heart. But since you do not know the cunning traps of the enemy, he brings thoughts of fear and weakens your heart. You must know that God will not allow against you battles and temptations above your strength; the Apostle also teaches this, saying: “Faithful is the Lord, Who will not leave you to be tempted more than you can bear” (I Corinthians 10:13).

Brother! I also in my youth was many times and powerfully tempted by the demon of sexual sin, and I labored against such thoughts, contradicting them and not agreeing with them, but presenting before my own eyes eternal tortures. For five years I acted thus every day, and God relieved me of these thoughts. This warfare is abolished by unceasing prayer with weeping.

And the fact that the demons are pressing you proceeds from their envy; if they could, they would chase you out of your cell also; but God does not allow them to take possession of you, for they do not have authority for this. God could swiftly relieve you, but then you would not begin to oppose another passion (when it comes). May the demons not weaken you so as to turn your attention to a brother (to whom you are attracted), or to converse with him; but If you should happen unexpectedly to come together with him, against your desire, restrain your glance with fear and decency and do not listen attentively to his voice. And if this brother, out of ignorance, should himself begin to speak with you or sit next to you, then skillfully avoid him, but not suddenly, rather with decorum. Say to your thought: “Remember the terrible Judgment of God and the shame which will then overtake those who are attracted by these shameful passions.” Compel your thought, and you will receive help, by the prayers of the Saints, and God will have mercy on you. Do not be a child in mind, “but a child in malice” (I

Corinthians 14:20); in mind, O brother, be perfect. Pay heed to yourself, as to how you will meet God. Amen.

-- If you wish to be delivered from shameful passions, do not behave with anyone familiarly, especially with those toward whom your heart is inclined by a lustful passion; through this you will be delivered also from vainglory. For in vainglory is involved the pleasing of men, in the pleasing of men is involved familiarity of behavior, and familiarity of behavior is the mother of all passions.

-- Q: What should I do, my Father? I suffer from sexual passion.

A: As much as you can, wear yourself out, but according to your strength; and have hope not in this, but in love from God and in His protection, and do not give yourself over to despondency, for despondency serves as the beginning of every evil.

-- Q: What do the words you have spoken mean: “See to it, lest you be drawn away by a thought of sexual sin?”

-- A: This happens not only with regard to sexual passion, but in other cases also. The mind is subjected to this as a consequence of distraction, and when this happens a man should cry out to himself, saying: “O Lord! Forgive me for the sake of Thy holy Name; I have been subjected to this for my negligence. Deliver me from distraction and from every net of the enemy; for Thine is the glory unto the ages. Amen.” And let the following be for you the sign by which you may know that you are drawn away: if one is speaking with others and his mind is distracted here and there, it happens that when he speaks of one thing his thought passes over to something else; this is what it is to be drawn away. Likewise, if anyone is doing something and passes over in thought to something else; in his forgetfulness he either ruins what he is doing or does something more than necessary, and this is likewise (a case of) being drawn away. In the same way a sexual thought draws us away. It happens that one is conversing with another, and if the enemy succeeds in drawing his mind away from God-pleasing sobriety, then, as a consequence of distraction, a sexual desire appears in the mind. And this is likewise a drawing away, because it has happened not from reflection or remembrance, but a man is drawn away by it out of forgetfulness. And such a one is like a traveler who, by reason of grief that comes upon him, goes away from the straight road and finds himself on another road. But coming back to himself, a man should call out to himself, according to what has been said above, and hasten to God’s mercy. The Lord is merciful and will accept him like the prodigal son; we know with what mercilessness He accepted the latter. But when this warfare arises in the mind even without distraction, one must be sober, not take enjoyment of such thoughts, no tarry in them, but all the sooner hasten to God the Master.

 

Source: Saints Barsanuphius and John: Guidance Toward Spiritual Life, trans. by Fr. Seraphim Rose, (Platina, California: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1990), pp. 71 - 76, 113, 126-127 (selections).

The Crisis of Athonite Spiritual Leadership (2007)

 [Blog Admin. note: the crisis continues and is only getting worse.]

By Ioannis Kornarakis, Professor Emeritus of the University of Athens

 

 

Pope Benedict XVI did not merely take the Ecumenical Patriarchate by storm, but Mount Athos as well, in the person of its spiritual leadership! “Two birds with one stone,” as the people say! The Vatican usually hits its mark in its pursuits and objectives! Sometimes, indeed, it even strikes by... ricochet. At the Phanar, of course, it took aim and triumphantly trampled it underfoot. And it extinguished the beauty of the Orthodoxy of its host! But the darkness of the Phanar, like a black cloud, also covered the spiritual leadership of Mount Athos: the twenty abbots of its Holy Monasteries! The latest Announcement (December 17/30, 2006) of this leadership, which revealed the character of its stance toward the tragic heretical lapse of Patriarch Bartholomew, displays cowardice and confusion and... darkness!

The most recent text criticizing the aforementioned Announcement of the Abbots, written by a small number of Athonite monks (Open Letter II, Orthodoxos Typos, no. 1682/March 23, 2007), constitutes a crystal-clear mirror, of charismatic lucidity, which distinguishes things clearly and exposes the confusion and darkness of the logic of cowardice, since the twenty [correctly: nineteen] abbots “were there in great fear, where no fear was” (Ps. 13:5). Faced with the crime of heresy embodied in the patriarchal stance, they were overcome by the irrational fear of confession: of bearing witness through the Athonite presence!

In any event, as soon as the Phanar of Orthodoxy... was darkened by the triumphant advance of Papism, there emerged the fearful crisis of the spiritual leadership of Mount Athos! This crisis, to be sure, was not entirely unexpected, since for some time already the secularization of its inhabitants had become evident in the manner of life and thought of monks, and even of abbots. Witnesses to this secularization are the numerous pilgrims to the Holy Mountain.

In any case, however, it is widely known that many factors and many causes, over the course of time, allowed many monks, and especially abbots, to become accustomed to the worldly spirit. Moreover, the silence of Mount Athos throughout the long period of the heretical overtures of the Patriarch and the Archbishop of Athens contributed to the formation of an Athonite monastic spirit distanced from the vital problems of the life of the Church; and this very spirit is reflected in the controversial abbatial text [the Announcement of December 17/30, 2006]. That is to say, by what they write, the abbots appear to substitute for their duty of confessing and bearing witness to their Orthodoxy their preoccupation with their monastic duties, and their experience and enjoyment of spiritual pursuits in the services and sacred readings. They are content merely to contemplate the God-loving struggles of the Confessor Fathers!

“We live, as far as we are able, the mystery of the Church and the blameless Orthodox Faith, in accordance with what we are taught daily by the sacred services, the sacred readings, and the teaching of the Holy Fathers in general, as set forth in their writings and in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. We guard our dogmatic consciousness as the apple of our eye—a consciousness formed by immersion in the God-loving struggles and the achievements of the holy Confessor Fathers against the variously named heresies.”

Nevertheless, if contemplation of the God-loving struggles of the Confessor Fathers is to engender a desire for Orthodox confession, that desire must also find vigorous and militant expression on those occasions when Orthodox witness is required, both as rightly dividing the word of the Church’s Truth and as a God-pleasing confrontation with the variously named heresies. That is to say, we cannot write, “We desire and strive throughout our lives to preserve the deposit of the Holy Fathers,” while at the same time turning our backs on the patriarchal betrayal of Orthodoxy, especially while being [supposedly] leading figures of Orthodoxy! How, indeed, did all the terrible things that took place at the Phanar to the detriment of the Orthodox Faith leave at rest the dogmatic consciousness of the twenty abbots of Mount Athos, which is “guarded as the apple of the eye”? How did that consciousness not rise up, not become troubled, but instead grow dim and... drowsy? Was that consciousness not shaken by so triumphal a humiliation of Orthodoxy at the feet of authoritarian, heretical Papism—a humiliation accomplished through the maltreatment and profanation of the Divine Liturgy—when, moreover, the Pope was honored by the Patriarch with the Christological appellation, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”?

By means of its controversial Announcement, the abbatial leadership of Mount Athos shows that it is aware of everything that, up to the present, has been done by the heterodox to the detriment of our Church, and simply records these things in its text “with sorrow,” perhaps with the sense that it is thereby acting in a spirit of struggle! But this mere recording of them—even “with sorrow”—rather betrays a subconscious sense of guilt over the fact that, although they know, they do not act; they do not react militantly against the enemies of Orthodoxy, who, moreover, dwell within the walls!

The twenty abbots of the Holy Monasteries of Mount Athos are likewise aware of everything pertaining to the destructive activity of Uniatism in the Orthodox countries of Europe: criminal acts resulting in thousands of Orthodox Christian victims, as well as countless destructions of Orthodox holy churches! Nevertheless, when referring in their text to Uniatism, they limit themselves to charging the Pope with an “insincere stance” toward the problem of Uniatism, instead of holding Patriarch Bartholomew accountable for his support of the work of Uniatism through his disgraceful act, at the Phanar and in the presence of the Pope, of honoring the Uniate Cardinal Ignace Moussa Daoud (wearing an Orthodox kalimavkion) by presenting him with a gold cross!

By this act, the Patriarch honored and blessed the leading perpetrators of the criminal and destructive work of Uniatism against the Orthodox Church. By this act alone, Patriarch Bartholomew proved himself worthy of having his commemoration ceased!

* * *

What conclusions might one draw from the silence and cowardice of the spiritual leadership of Mount Athos in the face of Patriarch Bartholomew’s tragic lapse into the embrace of Papism? Or what might be the consequences of this unexpected stance of the twenty abbots of Mount Athos for the life of the Church and, above all, for the consciousness of her pleroma?

The consequences of the cowardice and silence of the leaders of Mount Athos in the face of what occurred at the Ecumenical Patriarchate during the incursion of the Papal heresy are perhaps, for the present, unpredictable. Nevertheless, what can be said with greatest certainty today is that these consequences will become manifest not only in our own days, but also in the near and more distant future of the life of the Church, given that this crisis has been inscribed in the consciousness of the Orthodox as an event of indelible and enduring memory!

Ecclesiastical history will preserve it and proclaim it as one of the most momentous events in the spiritual life of the Orthodox Church. It may perhaps judge it to be even more significant than the Patriarchate’s entanglement with the Papal heresy! For the latter is recorded as an external event, which occurred and may perhaps never occur again, whereas the crisis of the spiritual leadership of Mount Athos was hatched as an internal event, within the walls, after a period in which conditions of spiritual decline had been incubating!

Finally, as regards the question of the consequences of this crisis, it should not be considered unlikely that the Vatican will seek to take advantage of this crisis—the cowardice and silence of the leaders of Mount Athos—in order to arrange a visit by the Pope to the very heart of the Athonite monastic commonwealth! And then it is not inconceivable that the monks slaughtered in the time of Patriarch John Bekkos will rise from their graves to be slaughtered, at least once more, in order to prevent the Pope’s visit to Mount Athos!

At that same moment, the leaders of Mount Athos will be kept company by their immersion in the God-loving struggles and the achievements of the holy Confessor Fathers against the variously named heresies!

Lord, have mercy!

 

Greek source: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2026/09/blog-post_30.html

Zealot Walling-Off: Further Clarification

The Purpose and Deviation of the G.O.C.

Greek source: Ἀποστασία καὶ Διχασμός: Μελέτη–Ἀπάντησις [Apostasy and Division: A Study–Reply], by Athonite Fathers (Hieromonk Maximos Agiovasileiatis and Monk Basil Agiovasileiatis), “Agioreiton Pateron” Editions, Athens, 1981, pp. 69-82.

 

 

2. Purpose of the Sacred Struggle of the G.O.C.

Such, from the beginning (1902) until the present day, has been the state of apostasy created by the shepherds of the Church—both its direct perpetrators and their collaborators—which, when viewed canonically, is utterly condemnable and unacceptable to the genuine “Conscience of the Church,” together with the inexcusable and characteristic indifference of the Hierarchs of the individual Churches. These, in no way responding to the duty incumbent upon them “in piety and righteousness,” have to this day disdained to take the position required of them in the face of this situation. These things justly aroused the sacred indignation of the abandoned Pleroma of the Church and compelled it to raise an uninnovating voice of active protest and canonical disapproval. [43]

The uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece, consisting of the truly Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.), from the very creation of the Calendar Schism, began to resist, with a distinctive Patristic spirit of struggle and boldness, the apostasy which has continued ever since and has increased day by day. Thus, through its walled-off separation in 1924 from its then-innovating Hierarchy, in accordance with what is canonically enjoined by the Church, it laid full canonical and ecclesiological foundations for the purpose of the Old Calendarist struggle which it had undertaken.

The exact and unalterable observance of the objective purpose of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C., which secures unimpeachable ecclesiological foundations, concerns the preservation of the Orthodox character of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church. This purpose is achieved so long as, through its walled-off separation, this Pleroma remains uninvolved in the Calendar Schism and in the Ecumenist heresy now being proclaimed, in which the already condemned Hierarchy of the Church of Greece is implicated. It is likewise achieved so long as the uninnovating course of the Pleroma canonically continues “its mission and its history in the Orthodox sense.” The ultimate purpose of this active protest by the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church is the definitive restoration of canonical good order and unity, given that the disruption of liturgical unity within the universal Church, caused by the Calendar Schism, has destroyed the external mark of her unity. [44] This theological foundation renders the purpose of the Old Calendarist struggle unassailable, firmly established, and valid. For this reason, the uninnovating Pleroma of the Church (the G.O.C.) engaged in this struggle, precisely on the basis of this purpose, finds itself and remains proceeding “within the Church,” insofar as it thereby safeguards and preserves, without innovation, her Orthodox understanding and standing.

Accordingly, the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church of Greece (the G.O.C.), by pursuing a course in accordance with the canonical and traditional Patristic course, became the guardian and “protector of its Faith,” in accordance with the aforementioned declaration of the Patriarchs of the East (1848), provided, of course, that it remains wholly unrelated to and independent of the ecclesiologically erring “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.”

The canonically grounded act of the walled-off separation of this Pleroma from its ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which is erring “in piety and righteousness,” and which frees it from the guilt, responsibility, and liability to judgment arising from the schism and heresy existing “potentially,” constitutes a complete and clear means of safeguarding the “Orthodox understanding” and ecclesiological reality of its Church, within which, according to every principle of divine and ecclesiastical law, it duly stands.

Hence, in the present case, the “Orthodox understanding” and ecclesiological identity of the Church of Greece are safeguarded ONLY through the uninnovating line and direction of her Pleroma. Only on this SOLE condition is the existence of the “Uninnovating Pleroma” (of the G.O.C.) within the Church of Greece, and its ecclesiological standing within her, to be understood. In other words, the Church of Greece cannot be constituted, ecclesiologically and canonically and “in the Orthodox sense,” either by the “erring...” Hierarchy of Greece, or by its innovating Pleroma, or by the self-styled “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece,” but, by Divine Law, ONLY by her “Uninnovating Pleroma,” even if this consists of “two or three gathered together in the Name of Christ... and abiding in the truth of the Orthodox Faith.”

The right arising from the “Orthodox understanding,” character, and ecclesiological standing of the Uninnovating Pleroma (of the G.O.C.) of the Church of Greece is, when considered from both the ecclesiastical and legal standpoints, inalienable. Accordingly, this right may be freely exercised and asserted before every lawful ecclesiastical and civil authority and power, as constituting the “Genuine Conscience of the Church,” that is, her “supreme authority,” which, according to the “Practice of the Church,” is capable of ratifying or invalidating even decisions of Ecumenical Councils, whose “ecumenical authority it seals.” [45]

And this is so because the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, having deviated through the aforementioned acts—as continuing the schism of 1924 and being in communion with the Ecumenist heresy—ceased to preserve without innovation the Orthodox understanding and character of the Church of Greece, since it no longer safeguards the UNITY of the Church. For both the Constitution presently in force and Ecclesiastical and Canon Law “do not protect whichever particular Synod happens to exist at a given time, but rather the Synod that observes the Canons... unwaveringly.” (And especially those Canons relating to the dogmatic condition of the unity of the Church, which unity, in the present case, is safeguarded by the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church—emphasis ours.) (Cf. the Report of A. N. Marinos, Councillor of State, in Orthodoxos Typos, 1981, no. 452, p. 4.)

3. Deviation of the G.O.C. “Leadership”

The general conception and significance of the above-mentioned purpose—upon which, it should be noted, the act of walled-off separation of this Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece from its innovating Hierarchy in 1924 is founded in Canon Law, and in accordance with which the founding Episcopal Leadership of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. proceeded during the first years of its canonical, unerring, and uninfluenced pastoral governance—is radically OVERTURNED and REPUDIATED, in an entirely uncanonical and arbitrary manner, with all the ecclesiological ramifications and consequences arising therefrom, by the PRESENT-DAY “LEADERSHIP” of the G.O.C. of Greece. It should be noted that this entire “Leadership”—of all the parties—is of one mind among itself and remains a faithful adherent of the erroneous position concerning the “... Mysteries,” even to the present day!

This was officially proclaimed as a decision by the above-mentioned “Leadership” of the G.O.C. in its published Encyclical no. 1191/5 June 1974, by which the Mysteries celebrated by the New Calendarists are declared to be devoid of Divine Grace. Consequently, the Church of Greece is also declared by it to be schismatic “in actuality,” while it is further emphasized that “whoever does not accept this Encyclical is not an Old Calendarist, but deceives and exploits the Old Calendarists”!

The position proclaimed through this “decision,” “openly and publicly in the Church,” is judged canonically to be seriously contrary to the relevant provisions in this matter and to the polity of the Church. Consequently, being devoid of any ecclesiological foundation, it is condemnable and unacceptable for the following reasons:

1. Because the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece does not acknowledge that it constitutes the ecclesiastical leadership of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece, without rights of “hierarchical authority,” but has proclaimed itself to be another, separate Church of its own, the so-called “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.”

2. Because this act constitutes, on the one hand, a usurpation of synodal right and authority, and, on the other, an overstepping of the canonical right of walled-off separation, so that, instead of the “salutary” result for the Church that should come through such separation, the opposite results—namely, “divisions and schisms” within her (Canon 15 of the First-Second Council).

3. Because, canonically, no individual Local Church possesses the right, by a decision of “Synodal judgment,” to declare the Mysteries of a Church invalid (or to declare that grace has been lost from them)—much less an unrecognized body such as the so-called G.O.C.—but only a Council representing the universal Church, Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox, which would first declare a Church to be Heretical or Schismatic (that is, “in actuality”—what had previously been latent), thereafter out of communion, and finally devoid of sacramental grace.

4. Because, while it proclaims the loss of grace... and mandates rechrismation in connection with the Mystery of Baptism, nevertheless it regards its own episcopacy as valid, even though this derives in part from a New Calendarist hierarch; while, furthermore, it receives New Calendarist priests by means of a simple absolution prayer for penitents, which, as is natural, is read with the laying on of the spiritual father’s hand—the so-called “cheirothesia” according to them—and by means of a “confession.” *

5. Because the act of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C.—that is, its self-proclamation as a Church—apart from lacking ecclesiastical authority and validity, utterly destroys the aforementioned purpose and mission of the Old Calendarist struggle, upon which depend the existence and establishment of the Uninnovating Pleroma within the Church of Greece, whose aim, as stated above, is to safeguard her ecclesial identity and to continue her mission and “her history in the Orthodox sense” and character. Furthermore, the declaration, by the G.O.C. as a Church, “by Synodal judgment” of the invalidity of the New Calendarist Mysteries clearly constitutes a blasphemous expression against the Holy Spirit, while at the same time rendering the grounds for their walled-off separation from the Church of Greece devoid of canonical foundation.

6. The arbitrary and erroneous character of the aforementioned decision of the G.O.C. concerning the “... Mysteries” is evident, in addition to the foregoing, from the fact that even the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, which the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. ** supposes to be of one mind with it and considers to be in communion with it, holds a position entirely contrary to its own, declaring in this regard: “With respect to the question of whether grace exists among the New Calendarists or not, the Orthodox Church Abroad does not consider any official or Local Church to possess the authority to render a final decision, until a definitive ruling on this matter is made solely by a canonically convened competent Ecumenical Council, with the necessary participation of a free Russian Church” (September 12/25, 1974).

As regards the actual and true position of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, and the direction and course followed by it, it should be noted that until the beginning of 1970, these were not precisely known, since this Synod was in fact regarded by the Uninnovating Pleroma of the G.O.C. in Greece, as well as by us Athonite Fathers, as the sole Orthodox Church proceeding without innovation and as a faithful adherent of “Canonical Ecclesiastical Exactitude” in confronting both the Calendar Schism existing since 1924 and the Ecumenist heresy subsequently proclaimed down to the present day. The various actual events that followed thereafter, however, as they unfolded, revealed the ecclesiastical situation presently prevailing in the Church Abroad to be entirely different from what had been supposed above, owing to its manifest departure from the standard of applying “Canonical Ecclesiastical Exactitude” in the pressing and most fundamental matter of its ecclesiastical communion with other Churches that do not proceed without innovation.

The fact that the Ecumenist-minded Archbishop Anthony of Geneva (who had been accused as such by Presbyter Basil Sakkas of Geneva) was vindicated by the Great Council of the Hierarchy of the Church Abroad held in Canada in 1974, together with the condemnation of the latter and the inclusion therein of the “report” submitted there by the former, attests to and confirms the certainty that such communion is being maintained (see the relevant discussion of this matter in Memorandum–Report..., Mount Athos, 1979, pp. 4–7).

For this reason, the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church (the G.O.C.) of Greece is unable to maintain ecclesiastical communion with the aforementioned Russian Diaspora, or to place itself under and become ecclesiastically dependent upon it. Nevertheless, it would be highly desirable, and indeed the fulfillment of a just aspiration of the Uninnovating Pleroma, if the binding canonical considerations concerning ecclesiastical communion were seriously and duly taken into account by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, so that, through a forthright declaration and confession on this matter, it might thereby be enabled to preserve the uninnovating Apostolic Succession within the universal Church.

Only in this way could the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece (the G.O.C.), which is already canonically separated from its present “erring” “Leadership,” conscientiously entrust its complete ecclesiastical dependence and spiritual guardianship to the aforementioned Holy Synod (of the Diaspora), in the event that no Orthodox Hierarch proceeding without innovation should appear in Greece, or if none of the Bishops of the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. should be willing to recognize the enormous responsibility arising from the manifest decline of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. through their own fault, and resolve openly and clearly to repudiate the reasons and causes of this decline, with a view to the emergence of a new, worthy, and canonical Leadership of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C., that is, of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church.

It should be noted here that, with regard to all the matters discussed in this Chapter—namely, the purpose of the struggle, the right of walled-off separation, the erroneous situation, and so forth—the entire present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece has in the past been duly informed through successive written communications and oral reminders and admonitions. Nevertheless, despite all the foregoing, it continues, as it ought not, along its own ideological line and course, showing no disposition whatsoever to retract its erroneous position—the Lord knows for what reason—and, as usual, always invoking in this regard considerations of expediency, which admittedly place it outside the bounds of canonical conscience.

In this way, the “Leadership” in question appears to have been wholly unwilling to understand the indisputable ecclesiological truth according to which its walled-off separation from its erring ecclesiastical Hierarchy is canonically grounded, in accordance with the aforementioned canonical provisions, ONLY insofar as it constitutes the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece (comprising clergy and laity of every rank and order, together, of course, with its corresponding ecclesiastical Leadership), and not as the “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.” For the latter constitutes an overstepping of canonical jurisdiction, which inevitably creates a situation gravely contrary to the relevant provisions of the Church. [46] This, moreover, was sufficiently censured by the one-time rightly proceeding Leader of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C., the late Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, in his detailed “Clarification” of his Pastoral Encyclical dated January 18, 1945—a “Clarification” which, it should be noted, could not be revoked for any canonical reason, not even by its own author—in which the following characteristic statements are made, highly pertinent to the extremely chaotic and deplorable present-day condition of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. [47]:

“According to the spirit of the divine and sacred Canons and the administrative polity of the Orthodox Eastern Church, in the event that a portion of the clergy and laity, for ecclesiastical and canonical reasons, breaks ecclesiastical communion with the presiding Authority and, for reasons of religious conscience, separates from the governing Hierarchy and establishes its own altar, however much, through its separate worship, its own houses of prayer, and its own ministers, it may appear to constitute a separate Church from that from which it separated, nevertheless, canonically, it does not cease to belong to that same one and indivisible Church... (as constituting) an undefiled and inseparable part of her... (that is, her Uninnovating Pleroma), whose history it continues in the pure and uncorrupted form of the genuine and Orthodox understanding... And this until the dispute (between the Pleroma proceeding without innovation and the Hierarchy that introduced the innovation)... is adjudicated by a Greater Council, in which all the individual Orthodox Churches are represented.”

“But until this is done, ... insofar as (the Pleroma proceeding without innovation) has not received from the Greater Council the right and authorization to represent and exercise authority over the Church, it is indeed entitled to break ecclesiastical communion with the former and to cease commemorating him; nevertheless, although entirely Orthodox in all respects, ... it cannot maintain that it, and it alone, constitutes the one and indivisible Local Orthodox Church” (see the above-mentioned Clarification, pp. 8–9).

The position concerning the “... Mysteries” officially proclaimed in this case by the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. is judged not only to be erroneous and condemnable. It is also regarded as unacceptable because it is based on purely opportunistic considerations, as is evident from the very words of those who hold this position, for they say:

“It should not be said, much less written, that the Hierarchs who introduced the calendar innovation will be deprived of grace and of the right to impart it to the faithful only when they have been declared Schismatics ‘in actuality’ and deposed by a Greater Council, because this not only fails to benefit our sacred struggle, but actually harms it through the defection of our followers from our Orthodox faction, who are held within it by the idea that the New Calendarist clergy, even before being declared Schismatics by a Council, lack the power validly to perform any sacred rite. But this assertion, besides being erroneous, also contains a certain element of demagoguery and deception of the faithful, which is contrary to the divine mission of the Church, which is obliged everywhere and always rightly to divide the word of truth, as well as to the honor and ideology of our sacred struggle.... The error of this assertion lies in the mistaken notion that the Old Calendarists remained faithful to the traditions of their fathers because the Church of the New Calendarists had thereby been deprived of Divine Grace.... The informed Old Calendarists of our Orthodox party (and not Church), however, know well that adherence to the old festal calendar does not derive from whether the Mysteries of the New Calendarists are valid or invalid, a matter upon which ONLY a legitimate Council has the right to pronounce....”

“The demagogic and exploitative character of the contrary opinion lies, on the one hand, in the hope of gaining additional adherents to the traditional calendar by brandishing as a threat the invalidity of the Mysteries of the New Calendarists, and, on the other hand, in retaining their existing adherents, especially those who are credulous and lukewarm in our sacred struggle. But the use of such demagogic and illicit means to recruit adherents to our Orthodox party may perhaps be permitted by the Latin Church, which adopts as an ethical maxim the Jesuit saying, ‘the end justifies the means,’ but not by the Orthodox Eastern Church, which always rightly divides the word of truth” (Clarification, cited above, pp. 11–12).

By virtue of the canonical and ecclesiological reasons and criteria set forth above, it is clearly demonstrated that the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece, as a whole, stands in complete opposition to the fundamental purpose and mission of the sacred struggle of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church. Consequently, when judged according to the Canonical Practice of the Church, it is also liable to judgment before a legitimate Orthodox-minded Synod. For this reason, it can no longer rightfully represent, as its Leadership, the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. of Greece.

And since this “Leadership” may perhaps characterize as “headless” the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church, consisting of Old Calendarist faithful, clergy and laity, which is no longer subject to it and which, by virtue of the aforementioned canonical reasons, has duly broken ecclesiastical communion with it, the following must be emphasized: this “Leadership,” as has been duly explained above, insofar as through its ecclesiological decline in both its thinking and its conduct of the sacred struggle of the Pleroma of the G.O.C. it stands canonically “condemned” and “denounced” by the genuine Conscience of the pious Pleroma of the faithful, [48] HAS FOR THAT REASON CEASED TO CONSTITUTE ITS CANONICAL LEADERSHIP! And this quite apart from its manifold decline and fragmentation into NUMEROUS “LEADERSHIPS,” culminating in the complete degradation of the episcopal office through the episcopal consecrations recently carried out by it, and in the general undermining of the spiritual prestige of the pious, struggling, Uninnovating Pleroma of the truly Genuine Orthodox Christians.

The Uninnovating Pleroma, therefore, until the emergence of its proper Orthodox-minded and irreproachable episcopal Leadership, being ecclesiologically grounded as stated above, is not justified in maintaining any ecclesiastical communion with the aforementioned fallen “Leadership,” except with the pious and irreproachable clergy of the G.O.C. who think and proceed rightly and without error, and who repudiate the erroneous positions of the aforementioned “Leadership”; by such clergy it ought also to be shepherded. For only in this way can this Pleroma not be regarded as headless, without a bishop, or as a parasynagogue, insofar as, “distinguishing” itself from its “erring” bishops, it seeks the true Bishop who thinks and proceeds without innovation, as the healthy and living Head of the Church. [49]

For this reason, the faithful Pleroma of the G.O.C., clergy and laity, must make it a matter of conscience to secure the theological purification and safeguarding of its sacred struggle and to establish it upon an unimpeachable canonical foundation, as has been extensively set forth above. For only when it becomes free from the responsibility arising from its ecclesiastical communion with the aforementioned deviant “Leadership” will it be able to preserve its Orthodox character; and only then will it truly constitute a genuine part of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece, thereby ecclesiologically safeguarding both the purpose of the sacred struggle and that of its walled-off separation from the deviant Hierarchy of Greece, and thus securely placing itself on a course WITHIN the Church.

This obligatory duty has particular significance for the clergy of the Pleroma of the G.O.C., which, by virtue of its position, performs the Church’s preeminent pastoral work and, together with suitable representatives from among the laity, is called upon today responsibly to UNDERTAKE the salutary REORGANIZATION of this sacred struggle and the Orthodox guidance, without innovation, of its flock, since, for the present at least, there can be no question of subjecting the rightly believing Pleroma (clergy and laity) to the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C., which stands canonically “condemned.”

Parallel to the position and mission of the clergy, corresponding obligations and rights also belong, in this matter, to the lay faithful of the pious Pleroma of the G.O.C. Hence, in view of the deplorable situation that has thus developed, it is an incumbent duty upon them duly to REQUIRE of their pious clergy that they undertake, fully and in every respect, THEIR SPIRITUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL PASTORAL CARE AND, IN GENERAL, THEIR GUIDANCE AND OVERSIGHT, so that in this way they may render the purpose of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. truly unimpeachable.

After the fulfillment of this sacred obligation, which the mission of the clergy duly enjoins and requires, it will surely be directed toward a canonical and worthy Episcopal Leadership, whenever and however the Divine Counsel of the Lord knows. This, moreover, also occurred during the first years of the sacred struggle (1924–1935), when the Lord deemed the pious Pleroma of the G.O.C. worthy of its uninnovating founding Leadership.

If today it should choose to follow the uninnovating line and course laid down by that Leadership, free from “deviations and extremes,” what is impossible for the Divine Counsel and Providence of the Lord, that He should “bring forth one worthy from among the unworthy,” even from the Hierarchy of Greece itself, and thus once again deem this pious Pleroma worthy, as in the past, of an Orthodox-minded, lawful, and canonical Ecclesiastical Leadership?

Thereafter, both the clergy and the pious Pleroma of the G.O.C., by thus safeguarding their Orthodox identity, will assuredly preserve an “Uninnovating Altar” and a “pure sacrifice,” being freed from every notion and character of a parasynagogue.

Finally, this constitutes an element and an indispensable prerequisite for safeguarding the canonical standing and the overall purpose and mission of the sacred struggle of the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church, for her good and for the safeguarding of our Holy Orthodox Faith.

 

NOTES

* But the “confession” certainly restores the one making it—and repudiating the innovation, schism, or heresy (whether priest or lay believer)—to the right faith and mindset, while the prayer of absolution places him within the Uninnovating Pleroma of the faithful of the Church.

The question of the New Calendarist priest, however, if considered on the basis of the position proclaimed by the “Leadership” of the G.O.C.—namely, the loss of Divine Grace from the New Calendarist Mysteries—must be examined as to whether the ordained New Calendarist priest possesses the priesthood or not. For if he does possess the priesthood (as in fact he truly does), then he certainly celebrates valid Mysteries, irrespective of whether this priest, “because of his own sins”—in the present case, because of the sin of his communion with those who are schismatics and heretics “potentially”—is himself personally “hindered from [receiving] the grace of the Holy Spirit from the Gifts set forth” (Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great), that is, from the Divine Mysteries, which he has validly celebrated by virtue of the priesthood that has not yet been “suspended” in his case by a Synodal decision, something which could occur by reason of deposition, excommunication, or exclusion from communion.

But how is it possible, according to the position of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C., for the Hierarch who ordains the New Calendarist priest to perform a valid ordination, if—according always to the aforementioned position—the grace of the Holy Spirit does not operate in the Mystery of the Priesthood performed by him, having been lost?

** We say “supposes” because, as we explain below, the Russian Church Abroad in no way agrees or proceeds in accord with the position and course of the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece, either with regard to the invalidity of the Mysteries (among the New Calendarists) or with regard to its ecclesiastical communion with other Churches, whether of the New or Old Calendar. Nevertheless, the “Leadership” in question endeavors and seeks to maintain communion with the Russian Church Abroad, apparently for reasons of expediency.

Hence, according to the belief of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C., the Priesthood of New Calendarist priests cannot be regarded as valid, owing to the absence of the “lost” grace of the Holy Spirit necessary for the completion of this Mystery! This theory and position cannot but be judged erroneous, for only an Ecumenical Council, by a specific act and decision, can decree the “suspension” of the always indelible Priesthood from a Local Church and declare its Mysteries devoid of Divine Grace—something which, in the present case, the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. has done entirely arbitrarily, as though acting as a super-synod! Nevertheless, in complete inconsistency with its own belief, it recognizes the validity of the Priesthood of New Calendarist priests, as stated above, by means of a simple prayer of absolution!

The fact, moreover, that this “Church” of the G.O.C. is devoid of canonical standing is evident from the consideration that the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, which is liable to judgment—as likewise are all the innovating Hierarchies and those in communion with them—has not been judged by an Orthodox-minded Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council and has not undergone a “suspension” of the sanctifying grace operative within it (that is, in other words, the Priesthood within these Churches has not been rendered inoperative). This indicates and signifies that these Churches are not “in actuality” out of communion, nor “in actuality” Schismatic or Heretical.

For this reason, the case of schism or heresy existing “potentially” does not constitute a prerequisite providing lawful grounds for the creation of another Church possessing canonical authority and ecclesiological standing, as the parasynagogue-forming “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece has done in an entirely arbitrary manner.

The above-described course and position of the present-day “Leadership” as a whole of the so-called Church of the G.O.C. of Greece constitutes the fundamental cause of its self-proclamation as a Church, thereby depriving it of the dogmatic condition of unity with the universal Church and of recognition even by a single individual Local Church, given that even the Russian Church Abroad itself differs radically, both in principle and in practice, from this position and course.

Furthermore, the belief of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. as a Church, besides rendering its very existence devoid of any canonical foundation, as stated above, and depriving it of every valid ecclesiastical-synodal right, also renders unacceptable and rejectable for it the ONLY basic and fundamental ecclesiological justification and theological basis of the G.O.C.: namely, that, according to Canon Law, they constitute the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church of Greece. This, however, constitutes and signifies nothing other, for the “Leadership” in question, than a self-willed and deliberate act on its part, which inevitably places it OUTSIDE the universal Church, in the sense of the condition of her indivisible unity.

The foregoing clarification now clearly sets forth the entirely different direction and position that exist between the “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece” and the “Uninnovating Pleroma” (of the G.O.C.) of the Church of Greece (both being Old Calendarist), as well as which of them possess canonical ecclesiological standing and which, likewise, are devoid of it, as being in a parasynagogue.

It should therefore be emphasized, in view of the foregoing, that all the Churches of Orthodoxy, taking into account the aforementioned differing situation of the Old Calendarists of Greece, are OBLIGED to DISTINGUISH properly which of them they may IGNORE, as they themselves suppose, although the preeminent work of the Church is not to ignore those who have gone astray, but rather to strive to seek them out and gather them in, with a view to their restoration and salvation within the rational flock of Christ.

In view of the foregoing, it is inconceivable that the individual Orthodox Churches should IGNORE the Old Calendarists of Greece (even those among them who have gone astray), since their ecclesiological deviation is due, to a considerable extent, to the wrongly understood and applied “ecclesiastical economy” of ecclesiastical communion maintained by the aforementioned Churches among themselves—an economy which they continue to apply, with such harmful consequences, toward the Hierarchy of Greece and the other New Calendarist Hierarchies, resulting in the consolidation of the Calendar Schism and the Ecumenist Heresy.

 

FOOTNOES

43. S. Karamitsos, The Agony..., Athens, 1961, p. 73.

44. Monk Theodoretos, A Canonical Consideration of the Calendar Schism, Athens, 1976, pp. 20–21.

45. Ioannis Karmiris, Orthodox Ecclesiology, cited above, p. 349, n. 2.

46. Athonite Fathers, Memorandum–Report, cited above, pp. 1–4.

47. Athonite Fathers, Confession–Appeal, cited above, pp. 38–40.

48. Athonite Fathers, Confession–Appeal, cited above, pp. 36–38.

49. Athonite Fathers, Confession–Appeal, cited above, p. 42.