Today’s lack of self-awareness in the Church

Adamantios Tsakiroglou, philologist and historian

 

 

It has been emphasized in writing and orally countless times that we are living in apocalyptic times, times in which madness reigns, along with the overturning/distortion of terms and institutions. In this oppressive madness and distortion, two principal elements/causes are dominant: ignorance and the renunciation of personal responsibility, together with the simultaneous attribution of responsibility only to others.

The source of all these things is the lack of self-awareness and its derivatives: arrogance, selfishness, the worldly spirit, the lack of a spirit of sacrifice for the prospering of the common good, indifference toward the other, the lack of love as it is taught by Christ and not by materialists, neoliberal activists, and Ecumenists, betrayal, not only toward one’s fellow man, but also toward the Truth. Thus Paul is confirmed when he prophesied that we people of today are “lovers of self, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, savage, despisers of what is good, traitors, headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying its power” (II Tim. 3:2–5). And what does the Apostle advise us, as he advised Timothy? “And from such, turn away.” We, however, unlike Timothy, do not obey, even though we speak constantly about obedience.

Consequently, this diseased condition is perpetuated in a vicious circle, since no one assumes his responsibilities, but, while willfully shutting his eyes, attributes them to others, and so on. For example, we attribute responsibility to politicians, as though they had elected themselves, as though we were not the ones who believed them and voted for them, chiefly out of personal rather than national interest. And when we are asked why we do not react, then we present our ignorance as to the manner of reaction, but chiefly as to the role, and therefore the responsibility, that we have in political affairs. Thus politics as a term also loses its meaning, and its diseased condition is perpetuated ever more toward the worse.

Unfortunately, this diseased lack of self-knowledge and self-awareness, and indeed to a higher degree, now also exists in the Church.

Her character as a Theanthropic body, with Christ as the head and all the faithful as the body, has been forgotten, and She is regarded as a human organization in which the leaders, bishops and priests, make the decisions, and the laity follow, criticizing the decisions of the leaders, yet not assuming their own responsibilities as members of the same Theanthropic body.

Naturally, on the one hand, this is due to the lack of proper catechesis of the flock on the part of the clergy, and to the severing of theology from the people, since whatever theologians there are function and address themselves, with their often-incomprehensible language, only to a “high-level” group of “chosen/enlightened” people, and not to the people. On the other hand, however, it is due to our personal spiritual sloth, to our cowardice, and, most importantly, to the degradation of the Church from the highest prerequisite and priority for our salvation into an institution, like the many others, in which we function as we do in the others. That is, we expect others to do what is necessary for us, and when they do not do it, then only the others are responsible, since we gave them the responsibility and renounced our own.

Thus, while we see the betrayal against the Faith, while we see heresy, secularization, and unbelief plundering the Sacred and the Holy, we say: As a layman, what can I do? Am I to blame if they betray? I can only protest. There are many texts and talks that reveal the evils that exist. Yet consistency between words and deeds, meaning and application, threat and realization, is absent. Naturally, this does not appear for the first time in the Church. St. John Chrysostom writes: “The priests have become an evil example to the people, insulting, bearing grudges, showing enmity, plotting, looking at persons, not reproving and correcting those who stumble, but by their silence sharing in injustices, like that ancient Eli; the laypeople, abandoning their own affairs, each busies himself with scrutinizing the affairs of the priests, and becomes an unavoidable judge. Am I not speaking the truth? Is our city not full of these evils?” (PG 61, 723). Unfortunately, however, we have not learned from the conditions of the past and from the word of the Saints. And thus, the situation continues from bad to worse.

Consequently, it seems right that we should remember again what our role is as laypeople within the most pure body of the Church, and what our responsibilities are.

In the Church, all must act and participate, fight and defend, regardless of position or rank. It is the highest duty of every believer, whether rasso-wearing or not, and regardless of spiritual level and social position, not only to participate in Her liturgical and spiritual life, but also to defend the Faith as one body. “For just as baptism is one, and the table one, and the fountain and the calling one, and the Father one” (St. John Chrysostom, PG 61, 528). Despite the different hierarchical grades and positions among the people of God, all acts and actions are regarded and understood as actions of the one body: “All of you come together at the same place in prayer; let there be one common supplication, one mind, one hope, in love, in the blameless faith, which is in Christ Jesus, in Whom there is nothing better. All of you, as one, hasten together to the temple of God, as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the unbegotten God” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Magnesians, 7:1–2).

The chief concern and highest responsibility of the layman, however, alongside his personal repentance, his struggle for salvation, and his service in the Church, must be the defense of the Orthodox Faith: “...it is made very clear that the laity are called not only to care for the affairs of the Church, but also to contribute to the administration of the Church in accordance with the canons. And it is characteristic that, at critical moments in the life of the Church, when unworthy clerics were overturning the laws of the Church, which they had been called precisely to protect and apply, the laity were the ones who saved the endangered ship of the Church... (note: for today’s shepherds this no longer applies, since the layman exists only to serve and follow). Nor, therefore, is it strange that the great Chrysostom, addressing his wonderful flock, declared: ‘Without you I will do nothing’” (K. Mouratidis, The Essence and Polity of the Church According to the Teaching of John Chrysostom, Athens 1958, p. 219).

Common, then, are the responsibilities of laity and clergy; common are the duties; common is the struggle against the enemies of the Church: “All Christians have one common obligation: not to oppose the will of Christ, but to order their life according to it and to keep His commandments with exactness. The commandments of the Savior are common to all the faithful, and without keeping them. it is not possible to be united with Christ” (see the entire passage: St. Nicholas Cabasilas, On the Life in Christ: Seven Discourses, Souroti, Thessaloniki, 2005, 302–307). And St. Chrysostom says: “For the teaching is common, and the wounds are common” (PG 50, 654).

Because not only the faith, but also the wounds are common, when the clergy betray instead of healing the wounds, then the responsibility belongs to the flock. Then obedience does not apply, as it would apply if it were a matter only of the personal passions of each cleric, as the sacred Chrysostom teaches us: “For if he has a distorted doctrine, even if he be an angel, do not obey him; but if he teaches rightly, pay attention not to his life, but to his words” (Commentary on the Second Epistle to Timothy, PG 62, 611).

Unfortunately, however, today it is not only the clergy who betray, but also we laypeople, even putting forward excuses analogous in hypocrisy to those of the betraying clergy. Let us look at a few:

A) Who am I to do anything?

This excuse is not in accordance with the Church’s Sacred Tradition. This Tradition is splendidly expressed in the well-known passages of St. Theodore the Studite:

“For it is a commandment of the Lord not to remain silent at a time when the faith is in danger... Therefore, when the matter concerns the faith, it is not possible to say, Who am I? A priest, a ruler, a soldier, a farmer, a poor man?... Woe! The stones will cry out, and will you remain silent and unconcerned?” (PG 99, 1321B).

“Not only if someone is preeminent in rank and knowledge is he obliged to contend by speaking and teaching the word of Orthodoxy. But even if one is merely a student, he is bound to speak the truth boldly and to speak freely” (PG 99, 1120).

Here we see that the Saint does not take into account, nor does he consider an obstacle, the conventional division into social classes when it comes to active participation in the struggles of the Faith. In the struggles of the Church, all must participate, regardless of position or rank. The defense of the Faith constitutes the highest duty of every believer, whether rasso-wearing or not, and regardless of spiritual level. Even if, through ignorance or excessive zeal, mistakes are made in this struggle, the fault does not belong to the lay strugglers, but to the clergy who refuse the leadership that has been given to them by the Lord Himself, namely, to stand at the head in the struggles of the Faith and to sacrifice themselves, giving the example as “good Shepherds” and not as “hirelings.” In the case where they lead the way in a God-loving manner, any “zealot” laypeople are easily admonished or isolated. But in the case where the Shepherds are absent from the struggles of the Faith, even the leadership of the laity is blessed, provided that they follow our ecclesiastical Tradition, some with their abilities, others with their deficiencies, but always for the defense of the Faith and selflessly.

B) If I react, I will be accused of being an enemy of the Church.

This excuse comes from the modernizing, clericalist teaching concerning the role of the laity. Naturally, many of us remain silent and do not react, as though these matters did not concern us, fearing that we might scandalize others, or judge, or fail to show obedience. No one disagrees. These things, however, apply in a healthy, Orthodox environment, where dogmatic truth, correct ecclesiology, true service, and love in Christ prevail. “The obligation of obedience toward the shepherds is self-evident, on the condition… that they also show obedience to the Gospel and the Tradition of the Church” (Fr. Arsenios Vliagkoftis, “The Disease of Secularization,” p. 22). Let us not forget that “Undoubtedly, just as then the Apostles ‘did not act according to their own opinion, but first gave an account to the multitude, so also now it ought to be done’ (John Chrysostom)” (Io. Karmiris, “The Position and Ministry of the Laity,” pp. 35–36).

Fr. V. Voloudakis wrote: “We presbyters do not act rightly when, referring to our ecclesiastical issues, we maintain in an un-Orthodox manner: ‘These are the bishops’ problems; let them solve them by themselves.’ The Church belongs to all of us, as do Her problems. Consequently, none of us is innocent through his indifference” (Fr. V. Voloudakis, The Manifestation of the Priesthood, p. 81). And: “It is not only despotocracy that is at fault; we too are all at fault, who nourish and foster it through our absence from ecclesiastical life” (ibid., p. 84).

Even the ecumenist-minded Fr. John Chryssavgis had admitted, without of course applying what he writes (Synaxi magazine, issue 38, p. 26): “The sense of contemporary man is that in the Church we have an establishment, consisting of those above and those below, those who govern and those who are governed. Certain individuals arrange things, while others are dependent on the imposed hierarchy. The former demand obedience, while the latter foster this situation in a space where the balance has already been overturned. The times, however, require that ecclesiastical authority be understood in terms of function, in relation to ‘ministry’ and dialogue, and not in terms of domination. For this to happen, the faithful must be regarded as subjects, not as subjects in the sense of subordinates or as ‘sheep’…”

Professor Ioannis Petrou emphasizes, regarding this excuse and the semiology hidden behind it: “the contemporary state of the Church shows that She avoids truly seeking what it means that the Church is the whole people of God, and how this is expressed in Her life. What is interesting is that even in the case where some raise such questions, they are accused of Protestant-type deviations or anti-ecclesiastical views. Behind these reactions is hidden the fear that the established situation might be disturbed, or that the achievement of power-seeking aims might be made more difficult. What is certain, however, is that Church and power are realities that are not theologically compatible” (“The Church and Her Work of Reconciliation in the Contemporary World,” journal Kath’ Odon, issue 10, Jan.–Apr. 1995, p. 18).

Such authority, as it is applied today, was also applied in other eras. And yet Christians reacted—the history of the Church is full of such brilliant examples—they did not remain silent. Some were persecuted, others were tortured, others were martyred, but they did not compromise with distortion, heresy, and unbelief.

C) I am a sinner; I am not worthy like those who wear cassocks. How can I resist?

This excuse too is rejected by our Saints. Once again St. John Chrysostom will admonish us (Homily Spoken to the Newly Illumined, SC 50, Catechesis III, 5): “Those who before yesterday were captives are now free and citizens of the Church; those formerly in the shame of sins are now in boldness and righteousness. For they are not only free, but also holy; not only holy, but also righteous; not only righteous, but also sons; not only sons, but also heirs; not only heirs, but also brothers of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also fellow heirs; not only fellow heirs, but also members; not only members, but also a temple; not only a temple, but also instruments of the Spirit.”

Therefore, as members of the body of the Church, having Christ as our head, and despite our sins, for no one is perfect, provided, of course, that we struggle to war against them, we are free, citizens of the Church, righteous, sons and heirs, brothers and fellow heirs of Christ, as well as a temple and instruments of the Holy Spirit. If we are conscious of what we truly are as baptized persons, can we put forward such excuses? Can we cooperate with or tolerate lawlessness? Can we, being free, submit to each successive antichristian plan?

Connected with the above excuse, and further with those who wish to avoid the Holy Patristic response to every heresy, namely the cessation of commemoration and of ecclesiastical communion with heretical bishops and priests and with those who commemorate them, is also the following beloved excuse:

D) I only want to attend the Liturgy. At the end of the day, the cleric ceases commemoration and communion as the one serving liturgically; I, the layman, have neither participation nor the right to do anything analogous. I only participate in order to receive Communion. The blame falls on the priest.

This excuse has been expressed many times and has influenced many faithful. Yet it is nothing other than yet another distortion of ecclesiastical teaching.

The cause of this distortion, according to Fr. Alexander Schmemann, is the aforementioned deep deformation of ecclesiastical consciousness, the broad perception that has become fixed among the faithful, not only concerning the nature of the Divine Liturgy, but once again concerning the Church Herself. Whereas in the Church of the first centuries, “in the consciousness, experience, and practice of the ancient Church, the Eucharistic sacrifice was offered not only on behalf of all and for all, but by all,” today the Church is experienced by each believer, but also by clerics, as “the service of the laity by the clergy, as the satisfaction by the clergy of the ‘spiritual needs’ of the faithful. In precisely this perception,” he says, “we must seek the cause of these two chronic illnesses, which run like a muddy river through the whole history of Christianity: ‘clericalism’ and ‘laicism,’ which usually takes the form of ‘anticlericalism’” (see The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to Liturgical Theology, Akritas Publications, Athens 2003, pp. 147 and 156).

Consequently, many of us unfortunately believe that prayer in the Divine Liturgy is exclusively the work of the priest, while the faithful person has a passive role and posture. This perception too, however, is innovative. According to Archimandrite Nikodemos Skrettas (Noetic Prayer: Expression of True Worship of God, Mygdonia Publications, Thessaloniki 2006, p. 123): “The common prayer of the Church is rational worship of God, and those who participate constitute a living assembly, which in no case can be transformed into a passive recipient of distant and unfamiliar sounds and movements. The faithful perform a spiritual and creative work; they do not simply stand, insensibly, in the space of the church. They pray and participate actively, in the parish or the monastery. They do not watch as mere observers the things taking place in supplications, processions, festal celebrations, and divine mystagogies.”

Our Saints have assured us countless times that in the Divine Liturgy we all participate, and through common participation we express, as faithful, clergy and people, the common mind, the common faith. St. Chrysostom writes: “For when an entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly fullness, and the fearful sacrifice lies before us, how shall we not prevail upon God as we entreat Him on behalf of these?” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, PG 62, 204).

And more analytically, in the Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (PG 61, 527–528):

“There are occasions when the priest is not at all distinguished from the one under his authority; for example, when it is necessary to partake of the fearful Mysteries. For we are all alike deemed worthy of the same things; not as under the Old Covenant, where the priest ate some things, and the one under authority ate others, and it was not lawful for the people to partake of the things of which the priest partook. But not so now; rather, one Body is set before all, and one Cup. And in the prayers also one may see the people contributing greatly. For both on behalf of those possessed by evil spirits and on behalf of those in repentance, the prayers are common, both from the priest and from them; and all say one prayer, the prayer that is full of mercy. Again, after we have excluded from the sacred precincts those who cannot partake of the holy Table, another prayer must be made, and we all alike lie upon the ground, and we all alike rise up. When, again, it is necessary to receive and give peace, we all alike greet one another. Again, at the most awesome Mysteries themselves, the priest prays for the people, and the people also pray for the priest; for the phrase, ‘And with thy spirit,’ is nothing other than this. The things of thanksgiving are again common; for neither does he give thanks alone, but all the people also. For after first receiving their voice, and then their agreement that this is fitting and right, then he begins the thanksgiving. And why do you marvel that the people utter words together with the priest, when indeed they also send up those sacred hymns together with the Cherubim themselves and the powers above? All these things have been said by me so that each of those under authority also may be sober, so that we may learn that we are all one body, having such difference toward one another as member has toward member, and so that we may not cast everything upon the priests, but that we ourselves also, as concerning a common body, should care for the whole Church. For this brings about both greater security and, for us, greater progress toward virtue. Listen, then, in the case of the Apostles, how elsewhere they took those under authority as sharers in their judgment. For when they ordained the seven, they first communicated the matter to the people; and when Peter appointed Matthias, he did so with all who were present at that time, both men and women. For the things here are not the arrogance of rulers, nor the servility of those under authority, but a spiritual rule, which has this special advantage: that it takes upon itself the greater part of the labors and of care on your behalf, and does not seek the greater honors. For the Church must be inhabited as one house, and all must be disposed as one body.”

And the ever-memorable I. Foundoulis reminds us of the above, presenting the contemporary tragedy with his own fearless word:

“Divine worship is the action of the whole mystical body of Christ, that is, of His Church, which, hierarchically ordered, is directed in the Holy Spirit toward God the Father and offers to Him its doxology, thanksgiving, and petitions. According to the will of the Lord and according to the special gift of the priesthood, the clergy preside over Her liturgical assemblies, serving the Mysteries and taking the lead in the sacred rites. Clergy and laity together constitute the holy people of God and, in the Holy Spirit, form the sacred community of those being saved through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and through the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are granted to the faithful, clergy and people, through the Mysteries and the whole sanctifying function of the institutions of the Church, naturally also through Her worship. In this sense, the priesthood performs a ministry for the salvation of the whole body of the Church; it cooperates and journeys together with the whole people of God on the way toward the noetic land of promise. It does not ‘lord it over the portions allotted’ (I Pet. 5:3), but becomes the bearer of the graces of God and the one who presides over the festal assembly of the choir of the saints, who have found the fountain of life and the way to the gate of Paradise. With these presuppositions, the demand for the participation of the laity in the worship of the Church constitutes, in a certain sense, the expression and painful outcome of a spurious problem, though unfortunately one that exists. The worship of the Church, from its birth, was, and is, the expression and creation of the whole body of the Church. In it a divine drama is ‘played out’ with two or three protagonists: the priest, the deacon, and the people. Each has his distinct and crucial role in the performance of the sacred work of divine worship. The priest has his priestly parts, the deacon his diaconal parts, and the people their choral parts. The Triodion, the Pentecostarion, the Parakletike, the Menaia, and the Psalter are liturgical books that belong to them, to the people; an entire library belongs to the people. If, now, adverse circumstances have given the role of the people to the one who leads the choir alone, the chanter, and the choral parts have become a solo; if the people have remained voiceless listeners, enclosed within themselves in a sacred assembly; if they do not understand the things said and chanted; if they do not offer their bread and wine, the precious gifts of their labor, and do not sit at the soul-nourishing table, and do not enjoy the Master’s hospitality; if they do not know what God they worship, and how and why they worship Him, and many other such things, these are matters that require study, discussion, self-criticism, repentance, and above all serious decisions and actions, with consistency and fear of God, within the holy and ever-living body of the Church”

(Excerpt from “The Participation of the Laity in Worship,” a lecture at the Academy for Theological Studies on 2-26-2005; see also p. 359 at

http://ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/128193/files/GRI-2011-7722.pdf)

The words of the ever-memorable professor are a rebuke to our conscience. The prevalence of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, of secularization, of clerical/despotocratic rule, of submission to an atheist state mechanism in reality, is due to the fact that the greater part of the flock does not know what God it worships, and how and why it worships Him. If we knew this, we would not find every kind of excuse pleasing to the ear, which lulls consciences to sleep and prevents self-knowledge. We would not obey spiritual fathers who tell us to look only to our own soul and to leave the other matters of the Faith to the supposedly knowledgeable guardians. We would know that since in the Divine Liturgy everything is common and held in common, then the commemoration of heretical/heresy-professing unrepentant clerics is also common and held in common. We would know that participation in the insult against the Holy Mysteries and the sanctity of the Holy Temple, which is taking place today with the permission, exhortation, and dictation of betraying clerics, is common and held in common. We would know that our walking together with any cleric who confesses would also mean a confession common and held in common. And likewise, our participation in the denial of God means a denial common and held in common.

 

Greek source: https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2026/04/blog-post_55.html

The Church in the Last Years

Hieromonk Theodoretos (Mavros) the Hagiorite (+2007)

 

 

All the faithful must understand that the Church is not where it appears to be. Liturgies will continue to be celebrated and the churches will be filled with the faithful, yet the Church will have no connection with those churches, nor with those rassas, nor with those faithful. The Church is there where the truth exists. The faithful are those who continue the uninterrupted tradition of Orthodoxy, this work of the Holy Spirit. Priests are those who think, live, and teach as the Fathers and Saints of the Church did, or at least those who do not deny them by their teaching. Where this continuity of thought and life does not exist, it is delusion to speak of the Church, even if all the external appearances speak of it. There will always be found a canonical priest, ordained by a canonical Bishop, who follows the Tradition. Around such priests the small groups of the faithful who will remain at the end of the times will gather together. Each of these small groups will itself be a local “Catholic” Church of God.

The faithful will find within them the whole fullness of the Grace of God. They will have no need of administrative or other bonds, because the communion that will exist among them will be the most perfect that can exist. It will be the communion in the Body and Blood of Christ, the Communion in the Holy Spirit. The golden links of the unaltered Orthodox Tradition will connect these Churches with one another, as well as with the Churches of the past, with the triumphant Church of the heavens. Within these small groups the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church will be preserved intact. Of course, it is wonderful when order and coordination can exist in the external manifestations of the various Churches, and when the less important Churches receive direction and guidance from the more important ones, as happens now among the Bishoprics, the Metropolises, the Archdioceses, and the Patriarchates. Yet at the end of the times such external relations and contacts will most often be impossible.

There will be such confusion in the world that one Church will not be able to be so certain of the Orthodoxy of another, because of the multitude of false prophets who will have filled the world and will say, “Here is Christ,” and “There is Christ.” Only within small groups will certainty of right faith and life be preserved. There may also be misunderstandings among truly Orthodox Churches because of the “confusion of tongues” that exists in the modern Babylon. Yet none of these things will break the essential unity of the Church. At the end of the times everyone will claim to be Orthodox Christians and that Orthodoxy is as they understand it. Nevertheless, those who have a pure heart and a mind illumined by divine Grace will recognize the Orthodox Church despite all the apparent divisions and the complete lack of external splendor. They will gather around the true priests and will become the pillars of the Church. Let the people of the world do whatever they want. Let ecumenical conferences take place, let the “Churches” unite, let Christianity be adulterated, let tradition and life be altered, let the religions unite.

The Church of Christ will remain unchanged, because, as Chrysostom says, even if one of her pillars remains standing, the Church will not fall. “Nothing is stronger than the Church. She is higher than heaven; she is broader than the earth. She never grows old, but always flourishes.” A pillar of the Church is every true faithful person who remains attached to the Tradition of the Fathers, despite all the terrible currents of the world that try to sweep him away. Such pillars will exist until the end of the world, whatever may happen. Moreover, when these things come to pass, the coming of the Lord will not be far off. This condition will be the most dreadful sign that His coming is drawing near. Then precisely “the end will come.” The mawkish and sentimental Christians regard the above as excessive and repulsive pessimism. As allies of the world, they cannot see the seal of the devil in what they themselves approve. Nor can they measure the immense chasm that separates the world from God, because then they would be forced to admit that the same chasm separates them also from God.

They therefore cannot tolerate anyone being pessimistic about the modern Babylon. They are so satisfied with their age. They see the future as so bright. Christianity for them is so compatible with the world, and they are so pleased about this, that they will not forgive you if you show them that they are deluded. They envision in the future a worldwide united Church, with all people united by the bond of love. Heretics of various shades are, for them, “their Christian brothers,” from whom they were separated by the egotisms and narrow-mindedness of bygone ages... For the people of the world, this prospect of a world state and a world religion is something very pleasant. The same is true for those who today long for the union of the “Churches” and pay no attention to the truth. For these latter people, dogmatic issues are hateful Byzantine quibblings. But, “For this reason God will send them a working of delusion, that they should believe the lie, so that all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Within this society of the Antichrist, the few who will remain genuine Orthodox Christians will constitute the stone of stumbling, the only discordant note amid so much diabolical harmony.

For them those days will be days of great tribulation.

“And ye shall be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.”

It will be a new period of martyrdom, a martyrdom more spiritual than bodily.

Orthodox Christians will be the outcasts of society within the immense world state.

“And he causeth that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark on their right hand, or on their foreheads, and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” (Rev. 13:15).

History presents to us twice the local Church of Constantinople without an Orthodox bishop. First, when it was under Arian domination, Gregory the Theologian, having gone there to strengthen the Orthodox flock, found it “also without a bishop” (MANSI 3, 532). Second, under the heterodox Nestorius, when the faithful, clergy and people, having repudiated him, gathered without him (MANSI 4, 1096). Consequently, the organic bond between bishop and truth constitutes a conditio sine qua non for the Orthodoxy of the local church over which he presides. For this reason St. Gregory Palamas also emphasized to his opponents: “Those who are of the Church of Christ are of the truth.”

And those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ either.” (Writings, vol. II, 627). Therefore, those who hold false doctrines are not of the Church, nor are they shepherds, but “wolves” in sheep’s clothing, working the destruction of the sheep, even if they are styled archpastors, All-Holinesses, and ecumenical. “And all the more so if they also falsely represent themselves,” the great Father continues, “calling themselves sacred shepherds and archshepherds, and being so called by one another. For we have been taught that Christianity is characterized not by persons, but by truth and exactness of faith.” (Ibid.) For this reason Professor Fr. G. Florovsky was right when he wrote: “Very often the measure of truth is the witness of the minority. It is possible for the ‘little flock’ to be the Catholic Church.”

Perhaps there are more heterodox than Orthodox. It is possible for the heretics to spread everywhere and for the Church to end up on the margins of History, or to withdraw into the desert. This has happened repeatedly in History, and it is very likely to happen again...” “The duty of obedience ceases when the bishop deviates from the catholic norm, and the People have the right to accuse him, and even to depose him.” (Holy Scripture, Church, Tradition, Thessaloniki, 1977, pp. 71, 75. Cf. I. Kotsonis, Problems of Ecclesiastical Economy, p. 113). “But why do Christians feel so very strongly the need to take refuge, at all costs, in an administratively organized Church?”

This happens because history has great power over our soul. Because, throughout the centuries, we came to know the Church organized into Patriarchates and Synods, we identified her with this organization, forgetting that during the periods of heresies this organization was lost for the Orthodox and became the weapon of false doctrine against them. Yet in the apocalyptic times in which we live, we have now left History behind and have entered into Eschatology. Our spiritual survival depends on becoming conscious of this fact. All our historical supports have now fallen. Apostasy has changed the shepherds into wolves, and the organized Church that we knew is now today a pack of wolves and the death of sheep. The devil is now loosed.

In order to survive, we must see the Church in her mystical and sacramental essence, stripped of the administrative organization by which we came to know her in History. In the arena, the martyrs faced the beasts naked. Naked also, the militant Church of the last times will struggle against them, without Synods, without Patriarchates, without any bond among the local small Churches other than Christ and their communion with the triumphant Church. Therefore the usual question, “Very well, let us leave Ecumenism, but to which Church should we go?” has no place today. For it is not a matter of going anywhere, but of remaining in the Church of Christ, in the Church of the Fathers. We must reject the falsifications and remain in the truth which we have known from our earliest childhood, but which we now find it difficult to recognize in what they tell us is supposedly the Church. This rejection of falsehood and falsifications we shall carry out where we are, simply by cutting off every communication with it.

And then, when we have taken the first step that God expects from us, He Himself will come to meet us and will open our eyes, which until then had the name of seeing, but were incapable of seeing the true Christ. And when we see Him, we shall run to our dearest friend, as Philip ran to Nathanael, and we shall call him to come and see also, however much he may doubt that anything good can come from Nazareth.

Thus the “little flock,” the small local church, is formed. The true Israelites find one another and come together to Christ: laypeople, Priests, and Bishops.

- Elder Theodoretos Mavros (+2007)

***

[Commentary by Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasious:]

Through the Encyclical of the Pseudo-Synod of Crete, Ecumenism was also established “synodically” as a declared pan-heresy within the bosom of the official Church; the ontological existence of other Churches possessing saving mysteries was officially recognized; and the unhindered course toward the union of all was legislated “pan-Orthodoxly.”

The silencing, censorship, and prohibition of everyone not conforming to the ecumenistic directives was secured “synodically”; the W.C.C. was legitimized, acquiring and securing an ecumenical character; and Orthodoxy was officially “identified” with Ecumenism!

The decisions of this Robber Pseudo-Synod have an ecumenical character. They now constitute internal law for the local churches and touch not only the clergy, but also the entire flock, which communes through its priests and bishops with those of the Ecumenical Throne who are outside communion.

Finally, the “Prayer for the union of all” from the Great Litany, which was recently interpreted so arrogantly, blasphemously, and irresponsibly by the Pontiff of the Phanar as the union of all churches of different dogmas, means this and only this: namely, the union of all people in the truth of the Orthodox faith, and their return to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as manifestly repentant and regenerated through Orthodox Baptism, blessed Christians.

Pray and make supplication!

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/04/blog-post_27.html

Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis): Freemason, Innovator, and Ecumenist

 

 

In a previous issue of Όρθόόοξος Ένστασις και Μαρτυρία, [1] we reprinted an important article, in which the blessed Confessor-Hierarch Chrysostomos (Kavourides), former Metropolitan of Florina, observes that, “the inspirers and pioneers” of the reform of the Church Calendar, Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis) of Constantinople (1871-1935) and Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens, “these two Luthers of the Orthodox Church,” “being devoid, unfortunately, of a deeply Orthodox spirit, knowingly or unknowingly became tools of foreign aspirations and designs, the aim of which was to sunder the unity of the Orthodox Churches." [2] Additionally, there are, in the same article and in the commentary on the text, detailed references to the self-proclaimed “Pan-Orthodox Congress" of 1923, in Constantinople (May 10-June 8), and the issues pertaining thereto. [3]

Now, certain of the Faithful may have considered these characterizations harsh and excessive. Hence, the following questions arise, which require a clear and properly documented response, lest we give the impression of being artful slanderers:

• Was Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis) a tool “of foreign aspirations and designs"?

• Was the calendar change carried out in good faith, and was it unrelated to the spirit of innovation and ecumenism that motivated Patriarch Meletios?

• Was Patriarch Meletios a great precursor of ecumenism, which is both destructive to, and deadly for, the Church?

Unfortunately, the historical evidence is conclusive and overwhelming, since it gives affirmative answers to these three inexorable questions. For the present, we will cite three witnesses only, in due course returning to them; and in the future, God willing, we will also publish a feature article on Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens.

***

I. Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis [4] as a tool of “foreign aspirations and designs.” In 1967, the editorial committee of the Τεκτονικόν Λελτίον [The Masonic Bulletin] assigned the Freemason Alexander J. Zervoudakis the task of compiling a study “that would sketch the life of yet another brilliant star, which shines upon and illumines the firmament of the ‘Greek Orthodox Church.'" [5] Zervoudakis in fact compiled an extremely detailed biography of Patriarch Meletios, which is very noteworthy from an historical point of view and which runs to twenty-five pages. The small section that we have reproduced certainly speaks for itself and requires no commentary from us. Still, it is worth observing at the outset that what Zervoudakis writes is beyond contestation—and this for a number of reasons, but most importantly because he had personal knowledge of Meletios Metaxakis in his capacity as a Mason. Zervoudakis met Meletios in Constantinople, during the tragic days of 1922, as a member of a three-man commission, and conversed with him. “As I departed," Zervoudakis notes, “I greeted him as one Mason greets another Mason. He smiled and said to me: I see that you understand me.’ This recollection inspired me to accept and carry out the request of the editorial committee of the Bulletin, by publishing a portrait of our brother" (see note 5). He concludes his article, many pages long, as follows:

With the spiritual virtues with which Meletios was endowed, with his sound grasp of logic, and with his independent mind, free from pettiness, it is not surprising that he was ready to receive the light of Freemasonry.

The first time that he passed through Constantinople (1906), he became acquainted with the Masons. He met with them, impressing them with his critical and straightforward spirit and with his knowledge and opinions on various encyclopedic, general, ecclesiastical, and religious issues. They were interested in learning what kind of man he was and what he had done up to that point. What they learned prompted them to propose to him, in an adroit manner, during his second stay in Constantinople, the idea of becoming a Mason. It appears that, in this circumstance, the Masons, members of the Greek Political Association of Constantinople, with which Meletios was consulting at the time about the burning question of the Arab-speaking Orthodox (1908), acted in precisely such a way that the intrepid and inquisitive spirit of Meletios— who had hitherto heard much about the Masons in Cyprus and elsewhere—prompted him to ask his colleagues, whom he respected, to give him information about Freemasonry, and, after he had listened to them, to decide, with his well-known impetuosity and resolve, to follow the example of many English and other foreign bishops and seek to learn about, and be initiated into, the mysteries hidden within Freemasonry.

These Masons then brought him to the 'Harmony' Lodge, No. 44,6 in Constantinople, which had gathered in its ranks the cream of Greek society in that city—all the best that the Greek population in Constantinople had at its disposal in terms of literature, science, and power—and which, in one way or another, by virtue of its members, who belonged to every social organization, ethnic or otherwise, exerted a substantial influence on Greek life. They asked the then-Grand Master of Greece for permission to initiate Meletios, and when this was granted, he received the light of Freemasonry, at the beginning of 1909. He remained in Constantinople for one more year and fervently studied Masonic teaching, which allowed him to give all of his deeds and words a truly Masonic stamp, as we saw in our brief account of his activity. In every instance, righteousness and the true Masonic virtues, one might say, naturally and spontaneously guided hint in what he should say and how he should act. A clear sign of the influence that Freemasonry has on the formation of a man's character is when he is spiritually prepared to accept its teachings, when, that is, he is a born Mason—as Meletios was.

After his initiation, Brother Meletios kept up his Masonic activities wherever he went during his tumultuous life, as circumstances and surroundings permitted it. [7]

When I, the author, had the honor of seeing the light of Freemasonry in my turn at the aforementioned 'Harmony' Lodge, I remember with what pride and joy all of the brothers spoke about Meletios' initiation, when he was elected into our lodge. And I shall always remember the explanation that my esteemed Brother, Demetrios Xanthos, gave when I asked why it was necessary for us brothers to keep this initiation a secret; he guided me to a correct understanding of this and to a furthering of my true inner initiation.

Few are those who, like Brother Meletios, accept Freemasonry and make it the experience of their life. It was a genuine loss for us that he was so quickly called from the Grand Harmony Masonic Lodge into eternal repose, before completing the tasks with which he crowned his passing from our world. [8]

II. Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis as an innovator and modernist. In 1929, Metropolitan Irenaeus of Cassandreia submitted a very important Memorandum to the “Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of Greece, convened on 14 June 1929," [9] which, among many other topics, deals with Meletios Metaxakis in astonishingly severe terms. What the ever- memorable Metropolitan Irenaeus says is indisputable, since it is corroborated by a host of other testimonies. Paragraphs four and five of this historic Memorandum serve as a veritable catapult against the truly “pernicious Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis." Let us, then, examine some extracts from the Memorandum by this Hierarch, which are indeed revealing.

The spirit of innovationism and rebellion against the good and sound canonical order of the Eastern Orthodox Church was incarnate in the person of the pernicious Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis, who, adopting ideas that are preached sporadically, according to the whim of each individual, in periodicals and the daily press and are given wide diffusion, opportunely and inopportunely, satisfying the sinful wishes and self-serving desires of heterodox churches and secret societies, [10] to which, blinded by vainglory and sacrificing everything for the enhancement of his own ego, he owed his successive accession to the highest positions in the local Orthodox Churches, [11] convened a Pan-Orthodox Congress—unusual nomenclature in ecclesiastical parlance—which was, in truth, an anti-Orthodox one, in May of 1923 in Constantinople, at which...he replaced the ecclesiastical Julian Calendar with the Gregorian, in spite of every prohibition relating to this; and he decided to replace the eternal Paschalion, which was drawn up for the Orthodox Church by a decision of the First Ecumenical Synod, entrusting the creation of an astronomically more perfect one to the observatories of Bucharest, Belgrade, and Athens; he allowed Priests to cut their hair and to replace their venerable clerical attire with that of Anglican pastors; in violation of the Canons, he introduced the marriage [after ordination— Trans.] and second marriage of clergymen; and he entrusted the determination of the days of fasting and the manner of their observance to the judgment of the local Churches, thereby destroying the uniformity and order that have prevailed in the local autocephalous Orthodox Churches of the East. [12]

Acting in this way, he opened wide the gates to every innovation, abolishing the distinctive ethos of the Eastern Orthodox Church, according to which she preserves, genuinely and without innovation, everything that she has received from the Lord, the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Ecumenical and local Synods....

What right did this outsider [13] have to convene a Pan-Orthodox Congress without consulting the local Metropolitans of the Ecumenical Throne? And according to what law or Canon did the leader of a single local Church decide to annul a decree made by all of the Patriarchs of the East—indeed, by those Patriarchs who were so distinguished in the history of the Church after the fall of Constantinople, to wit, Jeremiah II of Constantinople, Meletios (Pegas) of Alexandria, Joachim of Antioch, and Sophronios of Jerusalem—on the question of the calendar and the Paschalion? [14] Is it permitted, in civil matters, for a lower court to reverse the decision of a higher court? Does a court of the first instance, for example, have the right to overturn the decision of a court of appeal? Neither the rulers nor the people have any respect for Bishops who show disrespect for the established order of their own Church. The people have contempt and disdain for Priests of the Most High who try to make themselves popular and who, through various innovations, divert the Church from the sacred and holy royal path, which the Godly-Minded Fathers and the Divinely-Assembled Synods have marked out for her.

The innovations of Meletios Metaxakis have not only alienated from the sacred Churches those faithful children of Orthodoxy who believe correctly and with simple hearts, and who do not reckon the established order of the Church to be susceptible to additions or innovations, bringing about the depopulation of such Churches in rural areas..., but have also divided into three groups the ancient autocephalous Eastern Orthodox daughter Churches, who were formerly renowned for their enviable sisterly love, concord, unity of faith, and simultaneous worship and praise of God, Who is holy; into two groups, with regard to the calendar; and into a third, with regard to the Paschalion. [15]

And we have become witnesses of a grievous event: the fact that the Romanian Orthodox Church celebrated Holy Pascha this year five Sundays earlier than the rest of the Orthodox Churches, [16] in flagrant violation of, and contempt for, the decisions and wishes of the First Ecumenical Synod....

It is a known fact that the Romanian Church paid for this violation of unity in the celebration of the light-bearing Resurrection of the Lord with the secession of the Orthodox of Bessarabia and other Romanian Orthodox, about eight million people in all, who celebrated the Holy Pascha along with those who observe the ancient order of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

No one wishes to be a prophet of doom, but....

III. Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis as a great precursor of the ecumenists. As is well known, at the fourth session (May 21) of the self- proclaimed “Pan-Orthodox Congress" (so proclaimed at the third session, May 18), which met in 1923 (May 10-June 8) in Constantinople, Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis introduced to the Congress a “wise hierarch of the Anglican Church, His Grace, Charles Gore, the former Bishop of Oxford’’; subsequently, at the fifth session (May 23), “His Grace, Bishop Gore, the former Bishop of Oxford, approached, accompanied by his companion, the Rev. Mr. Buxton, and occupied a seat to the right of the Patriarch." Next, there was a very illuminating discussion between the Patriarch and Bishop Gore regarding the calendar question, the joint celebration of feasts, the movement for union, and the conditions for union, etc. [17]

Now, the Anglican Bishop Gore was not in Constantinople by chance. The fact that he delivered two documents to Meletios Metaxakis is proof of some “groundwork," since “the one bears the signatures of five thousand Anglican priests, who state that they find no difficulty in full union," while “the second document is a proposal concerning the terms of union; it represents the ideas of the en tire Anglican Church, because there is a spirit of good will throughout" (see note 17).

These events took place on Wednesday (May 23). But something occurred the previous Saturday (May 19) which in no way falls short of the carryings-on of the ecumenists today. Let us allow the journal of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to speak for itself:

+++

Anglican Hierarch in Constantinople

Last Saturday, His Grace, Charles Gore, the former Bishop of Oxford and President of the Permanent Committee for Inter-Church Relations of the Archdiocese of Canterbury, arrived in Constantinople.

His Grace is making a tour of the different centers of the Church in the East, in order to study the ecclesiastical issues that concern them. He first visited Prague, then Bucharest, and, after that, Belgrade and Sofia, and is leaving for Athens today. On the same day that he arrived, he went to the Patriarchate shortly before Vespers, accompanied by the Anglican priest in Constantinople, the Rev. Mr. Borrow, and the Rev. Mr. Buxton, his companion throughout the trip and the secretary of the committee over which he presides.

His All-Holiness received the distinguished hierarch, who visited him in his office wearing his Episcopal robes. Shortly thereafter, as the bells rang for Vespers, His Grace went on ahead and occupied a seat in the Church with his retinue, opposite the Patriarch's throne. After a short while, the Patriarch entered in the customary manner, and Vespers for the Feast of the Holy Fathers of the Synod in Nicaea was celebrated, with His All-Holiness and the synodal Hierarchs presiding together. After the dismissal, His All-Holiness addressed the Anglican hierarch from his throne, expressing his joy over the latter's presence and praying for the success of his continuing journey. His Grace, the former Bishop of Oxford, said in reply that he felt particular emotion over being at the center of Orthodoxy, and he concluded by praying for the union of the Churches. After taking from the hands of the Great Archdeacon the blessing Cross that was offered to him, he blessed the congregation with it, as the choirs chanted “Εις πολλά ετη, Αέσποτα" [“Many years, Master"].

After Vespers, His All-Holiness introduced the members of the Holy Synod to the honored visitor in the Patriarchal reception hall. On the following day, His All-Holiness paid a return visit to His Grace in the Hotel Tokatlian, where he was staying, and discussed different ecclesiastical matters with him for some time. When he learned about the Pan-Orthodox Congress, His Grace expressed a desire to go to one of its sessions and address the representatives of the Orthodox Churches. He did, indeed, attend the Wednesday session, and remained at the meeting for about half an hour; after the exchange of addresses, which were delivered in a spirit of complete cordiality and firm hopes for the sure progress of the God-pleasing work of union between the Churches, Orthodox and Anglican, through the prevalence on both sides of a yearning for union, there was a dialogue about the goal and proceedings of the Congress.

His Grace was escorted with honor as he departed from the Patriarchate. [18]

***

In view of the evidence set forth above, and in a compelling way at that, we think that the Confessor-Hierarch Chrysostomos (Kavourides), former Metropolitan of Florina, was absolutely right to characterize the inspirers and pioneers of innovation of the New Calendar as he did in the prologue of the aforementioned article. [19]

 

NOTES

1. See Όρθόόοξος ’Ένστασις καί Μαρτυρία, Vol. II, No. 17 (October-December 1989), pp. 67-78.

2. This article was a section of a marvellous work by the Confessor-Hierarch entitled, To Εκκλησιαστικόν Ήμερολόγιον ώς κριτήριον τής Όρθοόοξίας [The Church Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy], consisting of eighty-seven densely- written pages and completed on July 1/14, 1935, at the Holy Monastery of St. Dionysios, in Olympos, to which he had been exiled.

3. There were references to the Congress in footnotes 5 (p. 68), 6 (pp. 69-70, in detail), 7 (p. 70), 8 (p. 70), 14 (p. 73), 15 (p. 73), and 17 (p. 74) of the article in question (also see footnotes 1 and 2 in the present article).

4. Meletios Metaxakis (1871-1935). From the village of Parsas, Lasitheon, Crete, he was meddlesome, a troublemaker, a great innovator, and beyond doubt a Freemason. He served as Metropolitan of Kition, in Cyprus (1910-1918), Metropolitan of Athens (1918-1920), Patriarch of Constantinople (1921-1923), and Patriarch of Alexandria (1926-1935). In 1908, together with the then-Archimandrite Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos), he was expelled from the Holy Land by Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem for activity against [the Brotherhood of] the Holy Sepulchre. Metropolitan Methodios (Kontostanos) of Kerkyra (1942-1967) wrote about him: “But Meletios Metaxakis, this outcast from the Holy Land, from Kition, from Athens, from Constantinople, and subsequently from Alexandria, an unstable, restless, power-hungry spirit, an evil demon, did not balk at attempting to impose himself on the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, even all the way from Alexandria" (see Dionysios M. Batistatos [ed.]. Πρακτικά και Αποφάσεις τον εν Κωνσταντινονπόλει Πανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου, 10.5-8.6.1923 [Proceedings and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, 10 May-8 June 1923] [Athens: 1982], pp. iv and v. See also Monk Paul of Cyprus, Νεοημερολογιτισμός-Οίκουμενισμός [New Calendarism and Ecumenism] [Athens: 1982], pp. 48-59).

5. See Alexander J. Zervoudakis, «Διάσημοι. Τεκτ.: Μελέτιος Μεταξάκης» [“Famous Freemasons: Meletios Metaxakis"], Τεκτονικόν Αέλτιον: ’Όργανον τής Μεγάλης Στόας τής Ελλάδος [The Masonic Bulletin: Journal of the Grand Lodge of Greece], Vol. XVII, No. 71 (January-February 1967), p. 25.

6. “Permission for his initiation was requested (No. 130, 12 March 1910), Marios Polatos says in Διακόσια Χρόνια Ελληνικού Τεκτονισμού [Two Hundred Years of Greek Freemasonry] (Athens: 1962), p. 373, which is a mistake, according to what the author has since ascertained," ibid., p. 49, n. 83.

7. “In this regard, the esteemed Brother Evangelos Asteris, a 33rd degree Mason, the Worshipful Master of the ‘Zeno’ and ‘Hermes’ Lodges in the jurisdiction of Egypt, related to me that Archimandrite Brother Nicanor Kanellopoulos, Worshipful Master of the ‘Beicha’ Lodge, told him that Patriarch Meletios of Alexandria was present with him at two or three functions of the ‘Alexander the Great’ Lodge, No. 35, in Alexandria, in 1930 or 1931. The same information was given to the Worshipful Master of the ‘Society of Friends’ Lodge, the esteemed Brother Panagiotis G. Kretikos, uncle of the ever-memorable Brother Emmanuel P. Ladikos, a 33rd degree Mason in Egypt, who, off the record, recounted to Brother Kretikos that ‘they had notified Patriarch Meletios, when he was preparing to leave Athens for Alexandria, that all of the Freemasons in Egypt would organize a general Masonic reception for him. Meletios then sent them a telegram, asking them to refrain from this undertaking, in order to avoid creating problems from the side of those opposed to Freemasonry,”’ ibid., p. 50, n. 84.

8. Ibid., pp. 49-50 (emphasis ours).

9. Metropolitan Irenaeus of Cassandreia, Υπόμνημα εις τήν Ίεράν Σύνοδον τής Ιεραρχίας τής Ελλάδος, σνγκλειθεϊσαν τή 14.6.1929 [Memorandum to the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of Greece, convened on 14 June 1929] (Athens: 1929) (40 pages).

10. Freemasonry constitutes a “secret society." Secret societies are “associations and orders that keep then purposes and customs secret" (Μεγάλη Ελληνική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, Vol. XVII, p. 903).

11. Regarding his election to successive Sees, see the summary in A.D. Delembasis. Πάσχα Κυρίου (Athens: 1985): pp. 648-649 (as Metropolitan of Athens), and pp. 660-664 (as Patriarch of Constantinople).

12. See the “Resolutions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress" in Batistatou, Πρακτικά και Αποφάσεις, pp. 211-222. Resolutions: 1. Concerning the correction of the Julian Calendar and the determination of the date of Pascha “on the basis of astronomical calculations." 2. Concerning conditions for participation [by the Orthodox Church] in consultations regarding the creation of a more perfect calendar that would be acceptable to all Christians and concerning the reduction of the number of days in the week and a fixed date for the celebration of Pascha. 3. Concerning the marriage of Priests and Deacons after Ordination. 4. Concerning the second marriage of widowed Priests and Deacons. 5. Concerning various matters: the age at which clergy should be Ordained; the allocation of funds to pastors; the cutting of hair and the outer clothing of clergy; the keeping of monastic vows; impediments to marriage; the celebration on weekends of Saints’ Feasts that fall in the middle of the week; the fasts. 6. Concerning the celebration of the sixteen-hundredth anniversary of the First Ecumenical Synod at Nicaea and the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod. And 7. Concerning sympathy for Patriarch Tikhon of Russia, who was in prison. These innovations of Meletios Metaxakis were not received in silence. Even the Masons write of this: “But he met with strong resistance when he wanted to implement certain American methods in Constantinople, as well as his innovative ideas regarding the Calendar and the Paschalion, the marriage of clergy, and other ideas that he promoted at the Pan-Orthodox Congress, which created problems and an outcry ” (see Zervoudakis, «Μελέτιος Μεταξάκης,» p. 43 [emphasis ours]). Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens also does not conceal the reaction that resulted: “Unfortunately, the Eastern Patriarchs who refused to take part in the Congress rejected all of its resolutions in toto from the very outset. If the Congress had restricted itself only to the issue of the calendar, perhaps it would not have encountered the kind of reaction that it did" (see Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, Ή Αιόρθωσις τον Ίονλιανον Ημερολογίου εν τη Εκκλησία τής Ελλάδος [The Revision of the Julian Calendar in the Church of Greece] [Athens: 1933], pp. 31-32 [emphasis ours]). Specifically, with regard to the “Congress’s" resolution on the calendar, “it was rejected by almost all of the Orthodox world" (see [Metropolitan] Geimanos of Sardis and Pisideia, «Τό Ημερολογιακόν Ζήτημα» [“The Calendar Question"], ’Ορθοδοξία, No. 3 (30 June 1926), pp. 59-70; see also Delembasis, Πάσχα Κυρίου, pp. 671 -674). Very telling are the words of Patriarch Photios of Alexandria, who, writing to Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens (Protocol No. 2664, 1/14 August 1923), speaks “about all of the other issues, both the decrees that are being hurled from Constantinople with a zeal not according to knowledge, to the detriment of the whole Church, and the machinations and threats that are being made, with the rapacious ferocity of our eternal enemies, against the most holy Mother of the Churches..." (see Archimandrite Theokletos A. Strangas, Εκκλησίας Ελλάδος ’Ιστορία [History of the Church of Greece], Vol. II [Athens: 1970], pp. 1161-1162 [emphasis ours]).

13. The Greek word that we have rendered as “outsider" is έπηλυς, -υδος (έπί+ήλυθ<ήλυθον<ήλθον). (The literal meaning of this word is “one who has come to a country from elsewhere," an “alien," or a “foreigner," as opposed to a “native." The point that Metropolitan Irenaeus seems to be making is that Patriarch Meletios, as a modernist and ecumenist, was really a stranger to the traditions and mores of the Orthodox Church—Trans.)

14. See Athanasios Comnenos Ypsilantis, Τα μετά την Άλωσιν [The Aftermath of the Fall of Constantinople] (Constantinople: 1870), pp. Ill, 113, and 114; Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem, Τόμος Αγάπης κατά Λατίνων [Tomos Agapes Against the Latins] (Iasi: 1689)], pp. 538-540; idem. Περί των εν 7εροσολνμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων-Αωόεκάβιβλος [Twelve Books Concerning the Patriarchs of Jerusalem], Book X, Chapter 8, §6 (Bucharest: 1715), p. 1167 ([Thessaloniki: B. Regopoulos, 1983], p. 57); Meletios of Athens, Εκκλησιαστική ’Ιστορία [Church History], Vol. Ill (Vienna: 1784), pp. 402, 408; Philaret (Bapheides), Metropolitan of Didymoteichos, Εκκλησιαστική ’Ιστορία [Church History], Vol. Ill, Part 1 (Constantinople: 1912), pp. 124-125; C.N. Sathas, Βιογραφικόν σχεδίασμα περί του Πατριάρχον Ίερεμίου Β' [A Biographical Sketch of Patriarch Jeremiah IT] (Athens: 1870), pp. 91-92; Archimandrite Gerasimos Karavangelis, Επιστημονική διατριβή περί τής εορτής του Πάσχα [A Scientific Treatise Concerning the Feast of Pascha] (Constantinople: 1894), pp. 121-122; Nicholas Voulgaris, «Ή μεταρρΰθμισις τοϋ Ίουλιανοϋ Ημερολογίου» [“The Reform of the Julian Calendar”], a three-part article in the Trieste newspaper, Νέα Ήμερα, Vol. XXII, Nos. 1120-1122 (1896); J.N. Kaimiris, «Ιερεμίας Β' Πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως» [“Jeremiah II, Patriarch of Constantinople’’], in the Θρησκευτική καί Ηθική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, Vol. VI (Athens: 1966], col. 781.

15. “The previous unity and cooperation were sundered and shattered as a result of evil, or rather, sinful, actions...; the change [of the calendar] was not accomplished after study and preparation, but primarily under the influence of outside factors.... Between those who follow the Old Calendar and those who follow the New, there is a permanent difference of thirteen days with regard to the celebration of all of the so-called fixed Feasts, without exception. This is an unprecedented situation in the annals of the Church, because in spite of the diversity of calendars in the early centuries and the unsettled state of the festal calendar, there was never any difference in time between celebrations of one and the same event (e.g., the repose of a Saint), as happens today. The discord becomes more pronounced on the great Feasts of the Nativity, Theophany, and the Dormition of the Theotokos. Some are fasting, while others are celebrating. This discord leads to the question: Who is celebrating—we or the Church? The answer ‘we’ destroys the sanctity of the Feasts, making them an individual affair for each person. The answer ‘the Church’ postulates one celebration, for the Church is one.... The sole exception is the Orthodox Archdiocese of Finland, which, with the consent of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, always celebrates Pascha with the Catholics and Lutherans in Finland, according to the Gregorian Calendar" (See The Church of Greece, To Ημερολογιακόν Ζήτημα: Είαήγησις τής Εκκλησίας τής Ελλάδος προς τήν Πανορθόδοξον Μεγάλην Σύνοδον [The Calendar Question: A Proposal by the Church of Greece to the Great Pan-Orthodox Synod] [Athens: 1971], pp. 5, 8, 10-11.)

16. “In October of 1924, the New (or Gregorian) Calendar was uncanonically introduced into the Romanian Church by her ‘Primate,’ Metropolitan Miron Cristea (1886-1939), a former Uniate hierarch in Transylvania, very well-educated and energetic, in the mold of Meletios (Metaxakis), and was received by all with virtually no reaction. Only the Skete of Procov, under the leadership of its Abbot, Hieromonk (later Metropolitan) Glicherie, refused to recognize the calendar change. The Romanian Patriarchate, both in 1926 and in 1929, celebrated Pascha with the Latins, constituting an infringement of the Orthodox tradition of centuries. The common celebration of Pascha with the Latins was sinful, because this was intentional on the part of Patriarch Miron Cristea; he fully implemented the New (or Gregorian) Calendar even when it came to the reckoning of Pascha, ignoring the other local Orthodox Churches, which—even after the calendar change—‘(with the exception of Finland) celebrate Pascha according to the decree of the Synod in Nicaea, calculating its date on the basis of the Julian Calendar and accepting March 21, for the sake of convention, as the vernal equinox.’ Moreover, the action of Patriarch Miron was wholly ill-advised, because he failed to take into account the bitter experience of the Romanian people, who, on the one hand, had been so beleaguered by Uniate propaganda, and, on the other hand, had a former Uniate for then Patriarch. From a pastoral point of view, this was a totally reckless act! Indeed, on the second occasion that this was done. Patriarch Miron Cristea, having the undivided support of the Uniate (Greek-Catholic) Prime Minister, Julius Maniu, and several others among the clergy, compelled all of the Romanian Metropolises to proceed with the common celebration of Pascha with the Papists, a fact which evoked great commotion in the ranks of the Romanian Church. Metropolitan Gurias of Bessarabia (a region of Romania between the Rivers Prut and Dniester, north of the Black Sea, 44,420 sq. km. in area, now annexed to the Soviet Union [at the time of writing, in 1981—Trans.]) openly criticized Miron and, ignoring the Patriarchal decree, ordered his churches to celebrate with the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Patriarch Miron’s action also scandalized these other Orthodox Churches, many of which reacted in protest. As well, the White Russian clergy of Bucharest (also known as the Russian Church Abroad, under the Karlovtsy Synod) took a particularly strong position during those trying days, ignoring the Patriarchal order and celebrating Pascha according to the traditional canonical decrees. Even in the Parliament there were stormy discussions regarding this issue, and both the Patriarch and the Prime Minister were harshly censured by Representatives Trifu (Nationalist Party) and N. Lupu (Agrarian Party). The uncanonical and un-Orthodox celebration of Pascha with the Latins deeply scandalized the pious Romanians, many of whom returned to the Old Calendar. Among them were three Hieromonks, as well as two Romanian Hieromonks who had returned to Romania from the Holy Mountain. Hieromonk Glicherie, who had taken a leading position in the Old Calendar movement from the beginning, began to build churches in the vicinity of the Neamts Monastery. The first was established in the village of Vanatori. By 1936 he had built about forty large churches, the majority of them in Moldavia" (Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fill, Ή μαρτυρική Εκκλησία των Γ.Ο.Χ. Ρουμανίας [The Martyric Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania] [Fill, Attica: 1981], pp. 11-13). [The foregoing translation, by Archimandrite (now Archbishop) Chrysostomos, to which we have made some slight modifications, originally appeared in The Orthodox Word, Vol. XVIII, No. 1 [102] [January-February 1982], pp. 6-7—Trans.]

17. See Batistatou, Πρακτικά και Αποφάσεις, pp. 66, 84-88 (emphasis ours).

18. See the periodical Εκκλησιαστική Αλήθεια, published in Constantinople, No. 19 (26 May 1923), pp. 166-167 (emphasis ours). It should, of course, be noted that the ecumenist activities of Meletios Metaxakis had begun much earlier. Concerning these activities, see Delembasis, Πάσχα Κυρίου, pp. 625, 661. “At that time, he (Meletios Metaxakis) was in America, where he engaged in schismatic activities and communed uncanonically with heretical Protestants there. On December 17, 1921, ‘vested, he took part in a service in an Anglican church, knelt in prayer with the Anglicans before the holy table, which he venerated, gave a seimon, and blessed those present in the church’ of the heretics" (Strangas, Εκκλησίας Ελλάδος Ιστορία, Vol. II, p. 1118).

19. The judgments of other writers regarding Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis are also of interest, since they reveal what kind of man he was: The aforementioned Freemason, Alexander J. Zervoudakis, wrote this about the “pernicious Patriarch": "The struggle that he had in overcoming the reactions that he constantly encountered in his endeavor to impose radical, but beneficial, changes suddenly brought about an unexpected collapse," that is, his death on July 27-28, 1935 («Μελέτιος Μεταξάκης,» p. 48 [emphasis ours]). Metropolitan Nicholas of Nubia, Meletios Metaxakis’ successor in Alexandria, said about him: ''Optimism frequently impelled him to undertake bold and hazardous schemes, from which he had to be forcibly restrained by the Holy Synod" (ibid, [emphasis ours]). The Athenian periodical Ζωή wrote, among other things, on the occasion of the death of Meletios Metaxakis: “He made himself a singular figure in the Church, in which his political persona was absorbed in and subjugated to his ecclesiastical one. Frustrated by conservatism, he manifested liberal tendencies, which oftentimes proved uncontrollable, although—to use his own phrase—‘many hitches forced him to moderate’ these tendencies. Nevertheless, he had no trouble in adapting, or at least attempting to adapt, the Church and ecclesiastical affairs to expediency, regarding even the institutions of the Church as easily adaptable to expediency and the demands of the age. ...He turned his passion, whenever he had no other arena for his laborious efforts, to the institutions of the Church, seeking to provide an outlet for his restless initiatives through changes in the external life of the Church, before beginning the necessary work for its internal renewal" (Ζωή, No. 1195 [10 August 1935] [emphasis ours]).

 

Greek source: Όρθόόοξος ’Ένστασις και Μαρτυρία, Vol. II, Nos. 18-21 (January-December 1990), pp. 148-160.

English source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVII (2000), Nos. 2-3, pp. 2-11.

The Optimism of Orthodoxy

by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros

“Don’t be pessimistic,” say the false shepherds. “Orthodoxy is known by its optimism. God won’t abandon His Church, and ‘the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.’” Truly, Orthodoxy is optimistic, but only regarding things that pertain to God and come from Him. God is omnipotent love itself. He shall never abandon us. Rather, the fear is that we could abandon Him. The pessimism of those who do not willfully shut their eyes to reality is confirmed by man’s retreat from his Creator. Nothing shall ever happen to the Church of Christ, even if it is left with only two or three people on earth. It is not the Church that is in danger. We are in danger. The question is how many of us finally shall remain in the eternal and immortal Church of Christ which, like Him, is synonymous with the Truth.

Earthly prospects were never optimistic. Christians never expected the conditions of life to improve, spiritually or materially, in this decaying world. The course of history near the end times has been described in the darkest colors, as much by the Lord as by His disciples. Christians always foretold and anticipated the advance of sin and corruption, which shall reach their peak in the days just before the glorious Second Coming of Christ. The millenialists’ optimistic expectations of a thousand-year earthly kingdom in this world of corruptibility were condemned by the Church as soon as they first appeared in the early Christian centuries. It is not possible for the kingdom of God (where every true Christian lives in the depths of his heart as a betrothal of the Spirit) to prevail and shine forth in its glory on this corruptible earth. “New wine is not put into old wineskins.” “We look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Pet. 3:13). Without the resurrection of the dead and the renewal of all things which the Lord will bring with His Second Coming, it is not possible for us to speak of optimistic outlooks. Quite the contrary. “When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find the faith upon the earth?” (Lk. 18:8).

A Substitute for Paradise

The expectation of an earthly paradise is characteristic of religious and even political sentiments, which essentially become confused with each other. We Christians “have no abiding city here, but we seek the coming one” (Heb. 13:14). But the devil doesn’t want us to work for the future city but to be content with this corruptible earth as if we are to stay on it forever. This is the world we try to improve, as much as possible to make more lasting and comfortable. He fools us with the deception that a Paradise is possible without the resurrection and renewal of all things, without incorruptibility; in other words, without the risen Christ. We tried to replace the Paradise we lost with civilization. We departed from God and His creation and worshipped the works of our own hands to the point of being enslaved by them and allowing them to destroy us. The whole of men’s activity, the blood and sweat they spill have but one purpose: to make life more accommodating in our dark and gloomy prison. They didn’t believe in Christ because He offered heavenly, not earthly riches, and even asked them to deny themselves earthly and tangible riches in order to attain heavenly and intangible ones. But those who believed also expect that Christ will give them earthly riches in exchange for their faith and obedience. They expect Him to make everything easy in their lives. They want the law of God to be followed by everyone so an earthly happiness will cover the world. They seek a substitute for the kingdom of God and not the kingdom itself. Each substitution makes man lose the ability to live the real thing itself. When the devil tempted Christ in the wilderness, it was exactly this earthly happiness he asked Him to give to men, because it would have meant their eternal death. They use Christianity as a means to a better world and deceive themselves that they are Christians.

The Need for Tyranny

“What is truth?” The tired, agnostic question of Pontius Pilate is repeated by spiritual and political tyrants in every age. “Intangible truth doesn’t concern us,” they say. “What’s important is a solid administrative structure. What you say about internal unity which the truth supposedly brings, wherever it may be, we regard with ‘tolerance.’ We care about outward, tangible unity which all can see. They respect and fear it but it can’t exist without discipline and enforcement. The free and willing obedience of love you speak of is comical, and it’s for comical people. We want effectiveness. We’re not working for the soul of this or that person, but for the masses, for the whole world. We don’t tolerate schisms. You say the sheep must separate from the wolves. And we answer that the sheep need, if not the wolves, then at least sheepdogs and shepherds who herd them to slaughter and eat them. No, sirs, if the truth exists, it must always be mixed with untruth to render it harmless. The plain truth is a very dangerous thing. And these are not the times for dangers; the age of valor is past. We are pacifists! Down with war! Leave us in peace and let us live our little lives on this earth as comfortably as we can. Please, no naive zealotry.”

When Christ is present, no one perceives a need for administrative unity. Love for Christ is true unity. “That they may be one as We are one.” It is when we leave Christ that we feel the intense need for a monolithic structure and even for tyranny, e.g., the Papacy. In Orthodoxy there was never a monolithic structure; there were only paternal and familial relations. The Great Hierarch and King of Kings was not of this corruptible world even though He is omnipresent. The kingdom of God “is not of this world” even though all those who live in the kingdom began to taste of it in this world. This world belongs to the leader of this world, the devil. He is the first tyrant, the leader of all the tyrants of the earth, political and religious.

Only Christ binds people together, because only He binds them ontologically with God in His own Person. But Christ doesn’t force people to accept Him. When He is not present, the need for external continuity raises its head automatically, likewise the need for compulsory discipline and political or spiritual tyranny—democratic or oligarchic, it makes no difference. The granting of a monarch to ancient Israel was a concession that God made to a stiff-necked and unbelieving nation that wanted a visible and tangible king and wouldn’t let Christ dwell in its heart. He gave them a king so the devil wouldn’t give them his own; but He did so because of their hardness of heart and their little faith.

The same is true of the New Israel, us Christians. Even if by divine economy there’s some margin for state rule, there’s no margin for spiritual and ecclesiastical tyranny, because it undermines Christ and intrudes on territories that are His alone in the kingdom of heaven. The Papacy and other ecclesiastical tyrannies cast out Christ from the lives of the people and took over in His place. They “sentenced” Him to remain in heaven and to leave us alone here on earth. Ecumenism is characterized by its indifference to the truth (Christ) and its great concern for a monolithic continuity and structure they call “the unity of the churches,” a unity in the midst of doctrinal confusion and vagueness, a unity with global visions and religio-political dimensions.

The universal state is being built before our eyes. It will unite all religions and nations under its absolute power. Its underpinnings are essentially complete. It will be a state in the absolute sense because subjugation to it will not only be outward and material but, above all, spiritual. The world awaits it with nostalgia and yearning as the only hope of the millenialist dreams of all the ages for an earthly “paradise” in the midst of death and corruption.

Electronic Rule

The present-day computerized state is incomparably more effective than any tyrant mankind has known up to now. Its strength lies in its ability to know each citizen in depth and to seize hold of him from within, not only externally, as it always was until yesterday. And, as powerful nations unite, coordinating and multiplying their strength, their ability to impose their rule increases vertically. The super-effective means governments have today for exercising their authority over people were never even dreamed of by tyrants of the past. Beneath an innocent veneer of democracy, citizens are bound with fine and invisible yet superstrong threads. We are in the age of electronic brains and electronic information and mass communication. Very few understand this kind of tyranny because man’s subservience to contemporary government is mainly ideological. A centuries-long cultivation of thought has prepared man and made him desire such a subjugation. The state which is coming will be the realization of universal human desires. We expect from the state today what the pagans asked of their gods. We want it to be our wet nurse, protector, and god. We ask it to provide our food, clothing, housing, recreation, education, and health. And the state slyly accepts the invitation and fosters our expectations. It asks us to give only one thing in return: the freedom of our mind and heart.

We give our birthright for a bowl of lentil soup. We gave the state the right to come into our homes and our family relationships, to influence our thought, and to mold our children. We gave it our acceptance and the right to know whatever it needs to alienate us from one another. It channels our disputes into false quarrels so it can maintain the impression that we are free and able to express our views on such supposedly major conflicts as marxism and capitalism, the two facets in our times of the ancient worship of Mammon. Everything has become uniform today—people’s mentality, their lives, appearance, habits, desires, and expectations. That uniformity, which even extends to a common worldwide language, is the backbone of our subjugation to a single universal state mechanism which encloses us like a net. And like fish we don’t see it. In subtle psychological ways, they guide us to want, to agree, and to believe what we must do, what we must accept one way or another. The striped uniforms we’ll all be wearing on the global prison ship are already sewn. The changing of mankind into herds and masses has essentially been achieved. The “mystery of iniquity” has arrived at its final phase because people have “received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thess. 2:7, 10).

 

Source: The Ark, Number 13, July 1988, Ridgewood, NJ: George S. Gabriel. pp. 1-4.