Monk Seraphim (Zisis)
The recent developments in the
Church throughout the world, due to the heretical Council of Kolymbari—which
consolidated the dogmas of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—once again bring to the
forefront the issue of the participation of lay Christians in the defense of
sound ecclesiastical dogmas. The subject is, of course, vast, and a full
treatment requires deep knowledge of Ecclesiology, the History of Dogmas,
Church History in general, as well as Patristic Theology. Here, we attempt a
first simple approach.
Many of the sinning Bishops, as
well as those who “not only do the same, but also take pleasure in those who do
them,” [1] are inevitably compelled to resort to the (undoubtedly uniquely
significant) authority of the episcopal office in order to justify the
unjustifiable. Some even hint at a kind of “infallibility” for themselves and
the Synods they convene. Here one could remind that in Papism too, the
originating cause of many particular heresies and other calamities was the
dogma of the Pope’s infallibility: who can adequately resist the heretical
views of a religious planetary leader who, for centuries, has been clothed in
worldly power and a... “divine” aura of “infallible” inspirations (he who once,
before his fall, was the Orthodox Patriarch of Italian Rome)?
In the very Council of Kolymbari,
this unhealthy “episcopocentrism”—which aims to deprive ordinary believers, lay
Christians, of the right to judge matters related to Orthodoxy—found its
expression in paragraph §22 of the 6th Text, entitled “The Relations of the
Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”. There it is written
that:
“...the
preservation of the genuine Orthodox faith is ensured only through the synodal
system, which has always constituted in the Church the supreme authority in
matters of faith and canonical order (canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical
Council).” [2]
As is evident from the testimony
of His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, the Church of Greece
attempted to mitigate this “episcopal monism” (the attribution of
ecclesiological weight exclusively to the Bishops), by removing the word “only”
from the above phrase, and by adding Canons 14 and 15 of the First-Second
Council (861), which define the conditions under which the faithful may react
against their Bishops. However, this proposal was unfortunately rejected. [3]
To show how even in this matter
the Council of Kolymbari fell not only away from the timeless consensus of the
Holy Fathers, but also from the more recent Orthodox ecclesiological position
within the Ecumenical Movement, let us recall that thirty-six years ago (1981),
in the dialogue with the Old Catholics (who had broken away from Rome in the
1870s–1880s because they rejected the infallibility and the other aspects of
papal monarchy), different ecclesiological principles had been affirmed. In the
joint text of the Orthodox and Old Catholics of 1981, it was declared that the
supreme authority in the Church is the Ecumenical Council (and not vaguely the
“Synodal System”), and with the safeguard that the decision of a General
Council must agree with the phronema of the whole Church in order for it
to be characterized as Ecumenical. [4] Now, at Kolymbari, these prerequisites
were deliberately removed, to the glory of our own Eastern “monarchs” and
leaders of Ecumenism, so that the reaction of the ecclesiastical body might be
silenced, and the decisions of the “high-standing [and supposedly infallible]”
might suffice.
The writer does not expect that
this article will persuade any of the specific heretical-leaning Bishops to
heed the voice of their rightfully reacting Flock; for, unfortunately, “if they
hear not Moses and the Prophets” (nor the divinely inspired Canons and Holy
Fathers...), “neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.”
[5]
We therefore present, for the
sake of the faithful, the observations of earlier academic scholars concerning
the right and the obligation of ordinary believers to struggle for the
preservation of the Orthodox Faith—even against Patriarchs and Synods. We do
not address the subject comprehensively, as it has been sufficiently treated in
other studies, [6] but restrict ourselves to university theology and
historiography, in order to expose—on the basis of modern academic texts
alone—the indifference, ignorance, or cunning of the heretical-leaning in their
attempted distortion of our ecclesiastical phronema and cohesive
Orthodox Ecclesiology.
We pray that those Bishops who
consented—through their vote or even through their words—in various ways to the
heresies of Kolymbari may sincerely repent. Even Saint Juvenal, Archbishop of
Jerusalem, sided with the Eutychian Monophysites against Orthodoxy and Saint
Flavian of Constantinople—who was later martyred—at the Robber Council of
Ephesus (the so-called “Second in Ephesus”) in 449. Yet at the Ecumenical
Council of Chalcedon in 451, two years later, he stood with the Orthodox—and
ultimately became a saint.
Protopresbyter Professor Georges
Florovsky (1893–1979)
The Russian-born Protopresbyter
and Professor (at the theological schools of St. Sergius in Paris, St.
Vladimir’s, Holy Cross, and at the universities of Harvard and Princeton in the
USA), [7] Fr. Georges Florovsky, was one of the theologians whose teaching
marked the 20th century and the future of Orthodox Theology—especially its
return to the phronema of the Holy Fathers. [8] A teacher of
Protopresbyter (and later also Professor) Fr. John Romanides, Fr. Georges
Florovsky was, nevertheless, at one point in his early theological journey,
swayed and became a serious proponent of a “broad” (“inclusive”) ecclesiology.
[9] Some ecclesiological passages from his book “Bible, Church, Tradition”
are particularly significant for our subject and are quoted here at length:
“The entire body
of the Church has the right to verify, and indeed the right—or rather the
duty—to affirm. In precisely this sense, the Patriarchs of the East wrote in
their well-known Encyclical Letter of 1848 that ‘the people themselves were the
defenders of the Faith.’ Even earlier, Metropolitan Philaret said the same
thing in his Catechism [...].” [10]
“The conviction
of the Orthodox Church that the ‘guardian’ of Tradition and of piety is ‘the
whole people,’ that is, the Body of Christ, in no way diminishes or restricts
the right of teaching that was granted to the Hierarchy [...] The hierarchs
received the right to teach not from the faithful people, but from the Great
High Priest, Jesus Christ, through the mystery of ordination. But this teaching
finds its boundaries in the expression of the whole Church. The Church is
called to bear witness to this experience, which constitutes an inexhaustible
experience and spiritual vision. The bishop of the Church (episcopus in
ecclesia) must be a teacher. Only the bishop has received full authority
and commission to speak in the name of his flock. The flock receives the right
to speak through the bishop. But for the bishop to do this, he must encompass
within himself the Church; he must manifest its experience and faith. He must
speak not from himself, but in the name of the Church, ex consensu ecclesiae.
This is in full opposition to the formula of the Vatican: ex sese, non autem
ex consensu ecclesiae.” [11]
“The bishop does
not derive his full right to teach from his flock, but from Christ, through
apostolic succession. Yet he has been given full authority to bear witness to
the catholic experience of the body of the Church. The bishop is limited by
this experience, and therefore in matters of faith the people must judge
concerning his teaching. The duty of obedience ceases when the bishop deviates
from the catholic rule, and the people have the right to accuse him—and even to
depose him.” [12]
From the important position of
the ever-memorable Professor Fr. Georges Florovsky—although we have cited it
only in part—we note the following points:
1) The Bishop alone has the
full right of teaching in the Church;
2) This right is not received
from the people, but from Christ through sacred Ordination and apostolic
succession (avoiding populism or the “socialization” of the Church);
3) The Bishop does not speak
from himself, but on behalf of his Church; he teaches as the mouth of the
timeless experience and Faith of his flock;
4) Consequently, the Bishop’s
teaching is limited by the boundaries of the Church’s experience, by the “catholic
rule”, because the people also have the right to express their unaltered Faith
and experience through the voice of the Bishop;
5) The people, having the
right to express themselves through the Bishop, also bear the synodally
affirmed duty to confirm or reject what the Bishop teaches, as guardians of the
Faith;
Finally,
6) when the Bishop deviates
from ecclesiastical truth, the people have the right to disobey their Bishop,
as well as to censure and depose him (“let even the king hear these things,” we
might add!). [13]
The Byzantinist Sir Steven
Runciman (1903–2000)
The eminent historian and
Professor (and knighted as “Sir” in 1958) Steven Runciman is one of the most
distinguished historians of “Byzantine” History—of our Romiosyne. In
Greece, he became particularly beloved thanks to his well-known prediction that
the 21st century would be the century of Orthodoxy. [14] Moreover, his love for
our homeland was expressed on many occasions and in various ways. Sir Steven
Runciman was essentially “the man who largely succeeded in freeing the image of
Byzantium from the stigma that saw it as a period of decline, corruption, and
intrigue [...] and Greece, in turn, acknowledges his contribution in promoting
a positive image of a period in Greek history that many had overlooked.” [15]
In his work The Byzantine
Theocracy, Runciman notes the following interesting points:
“The Emperor, by
the very nature of his position, was obliged to be in some way a remote figure.
The Representative of God had to know his place—a most honored one. [...] The
same applied to the Patriarch: although he did not enjoy precisely the same
mystical prestige, he was to conduct himself as a person worthy of reverence. Respect
for the divine authority of the Emperor or the Patriarch did not prevent the
Byzantines from rising in revolt against a man whom they deemed unworthy of
such a position. But their revolution was directed against a human being—not
against the sacredness of the role. In reality, they were revolting in order to
preserve the authenticity of the role itself.” [16]
This testimony of Sir Steven
Runciman confirms that “the Byzantines” (or rather, more properly, “the Romioi”):
1) rendered respect to the
episcopal (as well as the imperial) institution because it possessed sacred
authority and constituted divine power;
2) this sacred authority of
the two institutions—of the Kingdom and the Priesthood—obliged the persons who
held those offices to conduct themselves accordingly;
3) it was precisely this
respect of the people for the two sacred institutions that also led the people
to rise up and overthrow individuals (Emperor and Patriarch) who were unworthy
of the holiness of the offices they served.
Professor Panagiotis Trembelas
(1886–1977)
Professor Panagiotis Trembelas,
one of the founding and leading figures of the theological brotherhoods “Zoe”
(1907) and “The Savior” (1960), was undoubtedly an extraordinary figure in
modern Greek theology—a distinguished and tireless exegete, dogmatic theologian,
liturgist, apologist, and preacher. Widely known also among the faithful of the
Church for the breadth and high quality of his writings, which address a wide
range of practical needs of the flock and the demands of catechists and
theologians, he likewise contributed to academic theology in the fields he
served. [17]
The teaching of Professor
Trembelas today is undervalued by the post-patristic theological
establishment—not essentially because of Trembelas’ indirect questioning of
certain elements of hesychastic and Palamite patristic theology (a significant,
[18] though not decisive, error of his), [19] but because his systematic
exposition of the dogmas of the Faith, as well as his apologetic writings
against various heretical movements and subversive trends of modernism, serve
as a silent obstacle to the effort of innovative heretical ecumenists and neo-leftist
theologians to promote their own “synthesis”—a “soup” of dogmatic relativism
and generalized theological fluidity. Thus, Trembelas is accused of being a
“scholastic,” simply because he did not “philosophize” with a libertine
intellect, unbound by dogmas and sacred traditions, in the manner of a few of
his contemporaries and many of his successors (such as, we might say, the
formidable but also “heretical” mind, the late Professor Nikos Matsoukas).
Even Fr. John Romanides
himself—whose theology became a contested point of reference, yet also a
pivotal turning point (or return) to the only truly ecclesiastical theology,
the neptic and hesychastic tradition—writes about Panagiotis Trembelas, and
despite his theological disputes with the elder Professor, he states: “Equally
necessary is the study of the Dogmatics of the eminent Dogmatic Theologian and
Professor of the University of Athens, the ever-memorable Panagiotis Trembelas,
who also followed the path of returning modern Orthodox theology to the
Patristic Tradition.” For this reason, Trembelas’s exegetical writings, too,
can be used: “as a bridge to the interpretive monuments of the Fathers.” [20] It
is clear that the ever-memorable Professor and leader of the “Soter”
Brotherhood belongs among those who struggled on behalf of the Patristic
Tradition [21].
We now cite (in modern Greek
rendering) an ecclesiological passage from his Dogmatics, directly
relevant to our topic:
“The authority
of such popular recognition is fully explained when one considers that the
pronouncements and formulations of the Holy Synods concerning Christian truth,
as we have said, are made in accordance with the written and unwritten
Apostolic Tradition, which does not constitute some dead and theoretical
knowledge, but a living phronema of the entire Body of the Church—one
which is testified to and constituted by the living faith of all Her members. The
treasure of the faith, that is, which is contained in the Holy Scripture and in
Apostolic Tradition in general, must be the possession of every Christian and
lived out in his life. Therefore, the pronouncements of the Holy Synods, which
pertain to this treasure and are made due to the contesting of life-giving
truth by heretics—and which contestations are followed with unflagging interest
by the living members of the Church—cannot possibly be met with indifference by
the faithful, as long as they are not [spiritually] dead. Thus, the judgment of
the ecclesiastical pleroma concerning synodal pronouncements appears
spontaneous—at times even unrestrained—but simultaneously expresses the
catholic phronema of the Church, which indeed has never ceased to be
testified to and proclaimed by Her.” [22]
The conclusions of the professor
are condensed in the following points:
1) The treasure of the
Church’s Faith is not a dead letter of intellectual theory and knowledge, but a
lived experience and phronema of all the members of the Church;
2) As a result, the contesting
of the truth by heretics gives rise to holy Synods and is rightly followed with
interest by the spiritually living (and not the dead) members of the Church;
3) The spontaneous (and
potentially forceful) resistance of the ecclesiastical pleroma to synodal
decisions also constitutes a manifestation of the Church’s enduring phronema—which
is being wounded by heresy.
Professor Konstantinos
Mouratidis (1918–2001)
Professor of Canon Law and
Pastoral Theology at the Theological Faculty of Athens (from 1962),
Konstantinos Mouratidis also served as President of the Panhellenic Union of
Theologians (PETh) for 25 years and was the founder of its journal Koinonia.
According to contemporary testimonies, he was: “a theologian with Patristic and
ecclesiastical phronema and ethos […] Peaceful and a peacemaker, but
also a confessor, struggler, and militant whenever the Faith was in danger.”
[23] A wise and broadly learned scholar, “a defender of what is just, lawful,
and fitting, he was not afraid to break with friends and collaborators, even
with those holding high offices. For him, truth and justice stood above all
human friendships and relationships.” [24] The ever-memorable Professor reposed
on the ill-fated day of the Pope’s arrival and official institutional reception
(as a bishop) in Athens—May 4, 2001. The following excerpts (in modern Greek
rendering) from his important work on the essence and polity of the Church
according to St. John Chrysostom are highly indicative:
“St. John
Chrysostom considers the laity to be precious and indispensable collaborators
of the clergy for the dissemination of the evangelical truth […] The neglect of
this duty constitutes a most grievous sin, which is why Chrysostom regards as
an enemy of the Church the one who neglects the duty of enlightening his fellow
brethren, especially those who have been led astray by heretics.” [25]
“St. John
Chrysostom not only taught that the active participation of all the faithful in
the shaping of ecclesiastical life is necessary and imperative, but he was also
the magnificent leader who inspired multitudes of believers and transformed
them into valuable supporters and warriors of the good fight. In the laity,
Chrysostom did not see adversaries who ought to be kept away from the
organizational mechanism of the Church, but sought, with superhuman efforts, to
achieve their active participation in it.” [26]
And after referring to the
support shown by the pious citizens of Constantinople toward St. Chrysostom
during the persecutions he endured from the powerful, Professor Mouratidis adds
the inductive conclusion:
“From the
importance of the above passage, it is made abundantly clear that the laity
have been called not only to be concerned with the affairs of the Church, but
also to contribute to the governance of the Church in accordance with the
Canons. It is especially noteworthy that in critical moments for the life of
the Church, when unworthy clergy were overturning the Laws of the Church—which
they had been precisely called to protect and enforce—the laity were always
those who saved the ship of the Church when it was in danger. The shining
example of the Church of Constantinople during the time of Chrysostom is
undoubtedly one of the most characteristic cases in ecclesiastical history. It
is therefore not surprising that the great Chrysostom, addressing his marvelous
flock, proclaimed: ‘I will put nothing into practice without you.’” [27]
The analysis of the Professor is
perfectly clear; I do not think there is any need to schematize his positions.
Professor Vlasios Phidas
(1936–)
Professor of the Faculty of
Theology at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Mr. Vlasios
Phidas, Emeritus since 2003, is undoubtedly one of the most distinguished
scholars of Greek Theology—especially of Ecclesiastical History—and one of the
earlier defenders of the canonical rights and institutions of Greek-speaking
Orthodoxy. [28] Unfortunately, those of us who came to know and esteem him
through his—mostly—remarkably valuable and richly written works (or even
personally, as did the writer), cannot avoid the sorrowful comparison with his
more recent ecclesiological positions, such as, for example, his positive
evaluation of the Synod of Kolymbari, [29] as well as his general contribution
to pan-heresy Ecumenism. Because of these things, the “ecclesiastical
technocrat” has come into direct conflict with what he himself wrote as a
church scholar. From his concise work Byzantium, we shall draw what
pertains to our subject.
Writing about the relationship
between the two sovereign “God-given authorities” of Romiosyne, namely
the Priesthood and the Empire, as well as the relationship of the people with
them, Professor Phidas observes that, while the people were not involved in the
appointment (the election) of the bearers of the Empire and the Priesthood—that
is, of the Emperors and the Patriarchs—nevertheless they retained the right of
subsequent judgment of these persons:
“Certainly,
however, immediately after the enthronement of the ‘chosen of God’ to either of
the two God-given authorities in the empire, the people were automatically
transformed into autonomous judges of the bearers of the two authorities,
because their exercise had been entrusted to them by God for the service of the
people; therefore the people exercised their sovereign rights primarily in
judging the bearers of the two authorities and not in their appointment,
which—both in political theory and in the political theology of the Church—was
connected to the activation of the divine will in the life of the empire.’”
[30]
And elsewhere he writes that the
people:
“...usually
showed greater sensitivity to the spontaneous anguish of the monks than to the
calculated reasonings of the learned hierarchs or officials of the empire.” [31]
From this position of Professor
Phidas, we retain four observations regarding history:
1) The practice of the
non-participation of the people in the appointment of Patriarchs and Emperors
did not entail that the people could not also judge them as possibly unworthy
bearers of God-given authorities;
2) This sovereign right of the
people stemmed from the fact that both the Priesthood and the Empire exist in
order to serve the people;
3) Consequently, the people
automatically and autonomously judged the bearers of the two authorities,
Emperors and High Priests; and
4) The faithful people placed
their trust in the disinterestedness of the Monks and not in the diplomatic
reasoning of the “learned” Hierarchs or the secular officials. [32]
Epilogue
With the foregoing presentation
of the views of distinguished scholars of the past regarding the reaction of
the pious Orthodox people to potential theological lapses of their Shepherds,
we believe that the historically substantiated practice of lay confessional
reaction in the face of an emerging heresy is rendered clear. Its correctness
is moreover testified to in the patristic writings (especially those of a
historical nature), as well as in the holy Canons of the Church. This clear
practice, as summarized in the above opinions of university professors, could
be condensed as follows:
a) Preeminent teachers of the
Church are the Bishops, who received this right of teaching from Christ.
b) The teaching of the Bishops
is limited to expressing the experience of the entire Church, namely the
written and unwritten Apostolic Tradition, which is a living mindset and not a
dead intellectual letter; episcopal teaching constitutes a ministry to the
people.
c) Right-believing Bishops are
not in opposition to, but in cooperation with the laity, whom they strive to
activate in a missionary way.
d) The faithful laity, who are
rightfully expressed through their Bishop, have the right—or rather the duty—to
observe and judge episcopal teaching. Many times, the simple laity discern in
unworthy Clergy erroneous priorities, compromises, opportunistic motives, and
contrived reasoning.
e) The observation by the
laity of the progression of heresies and the autonomous confirmation or
rejection of episcopal teaching is a sign of life within the ecclesiastical
body and an exercise of its sovereign rights; the opposite is a sign of
lifelessness.
f) The people have the right
to disobey a deviating Bishop, even to the point of his deposition.
g) This revolt against the
deviating Bishop stems from reverence and not from disrespect toward the
holiness of the God-given episcopal authority, which the heretical Bishop
unworthily represents; this revolt constitutes a manifestation of the offended
timeless ecclesiastical mindset.
h) The neglect by the laity to
guard their fellow faithful of the Church against sacred-canonical violations
and especially heresies renders such negligent laypeople enemies of the Church.
i) Ecclesiastical history
bears witness that many times the afflicted ecclesiastical Faith and
sacred-canonical order were preserved by laypeople who opposed unworthy Clergy.
The opinions we have cited do not
exhaust the full range of theological and ecclesiastical trends within recent
academic theology; nevertheless, the harmony that distinguishes them is
admirable. They are thus greatly reinforced through comparison and combination,
thereby also proving the following:
The reaction of the Orthodox
people against the ecclesiastical leadership when the Tradition of the
Church—especially the dogmas—is violated, does not constitute an expression of
pietistic populism or marginal zealotism, but rather of pure and God-loving
ecclesiological right-mindedness and ecclesiastical health.
No more fitting place could be
found here for a relevant saying of the blessed Cypriot ecclesiastical
historian Fr. Pavlos Englezakis, referring to the Church of Cyprus at the
threshold of the 19th and 20th centuries:
“That the Church
was not what the refined sophists of that time or of today would have wanted it
to be is not necessarily or always to its detriment. The Church, in its
internal polity, was conservative because it was the Church of the people, and
therefore of the peasants […] To the extent that Jesus identified Himself with
the least of this world, the true history of the Church is not the history of
the great and the powerful, but of the weak and the small. The
theological-historical reflection […] is not concerned with what the great ones
of the world did—even if they are called archbishops—nor with what the
respectable middle class did, but it examines who, like God, were poor
according to the system, that is, outside of it, without value, useless, and
therefore available, and what the disciples of Jesus did for them. For he is
saved who, in the faces of these poor ones, sees Jesus and serves Him. This is,
according to the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, the essential
criterion of the true history of the Church.” [33]
May our ecclesiastical leaders
reflect upon the weight of the scandalization of the Faithful caused by the
alteration of the ecclesiological dogma at Kolymbari and act in repentance
accordingly!
Endnotes
1. Romans 1:3
2. https://www.holycouncil.org/-/rest-of-christian-world
3. Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios Hierotheos,
“The decisions of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece regarding the Holy and
Great Council and their outcome,” Theodromia 18 (2016) 426–428, 433. See
the same text also here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/325254627/ΝΑΥΠΑΚΤΟΥ-ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ-Ι-Σ-Ι-ΓΙΑ-ΑΜΣΟΕ-ΚΑΙ-ΚΑΤΑΛΗΞΗ-ΙΣΤΟΛΟΓΙΟ-ΑΚΤΙΝΕΣ#from_embed,
as well as here:
http://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/el/mitropolitis-3/ni-various-articles/4618-2016-09-25
4. This refers to the second text of the 4th Session of the
Joint Theological Commission at Zagorsk, Moscow (15–22 September 1981), under
the title The Infallibility of the Church. See Episkepis 259
(1981) 12: “The supreme organ of the Church for the infallible proclamation of
its faith is only the Ecumenical Council [...] This, pronouncing under the
oversight of the Holy Spirit, possesses its infallibility by virtue of its
agreement with the entire Catholic Church. Without such agreement, no assembly
is an Ecumenical Council.” (Quoted from Gr. Liantas, Pan-Orthodox Ministry
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and of the Church of Greece and the contribution
of the two Churches in the bilateral theological dialogues with the Roman
Catholic Church and the Old Catholic Church, ed. Kornilia Sfakianaki,
Thessaloniki 2005, p. 106f.).
5. Luke 16:31
6. Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros, Melissochori, “Are the
laity allowed to involve themselves in matters of faith?”, Theodromia
12:3 (July–September 2010) 368–380. See also: http://www.impantokratoros.gr/769A2154.el.aspx
7. M. Baker – N. Asproulis, “Fr. Georges Florovsky
(1893–1979): A brief biographical and bibliographical note,” Theologia
81, vol. 4 (2010) 7–19.
8. G. Bempis, “Florovsky, Georges,” Religious and Ethical
Encyclopedia 11 (1967) col. 1184:
“Here he became the outspoken herald of the return to the Fathers and to the
‘sacred Hellenism’ and, clinging firmly to the Greek patristic Tradition, he
inevitably clashed with the also famous Russian thinker and sophiologist
Sergius Bulgakov.”
9. A critique of some early ecclesiological ecumenist views
of Fr. Florovsky was also made by His Grace Bishop Athanasios (Jevtić), former
Bishop of Zahumlje and Herzegovina—himself now also among the champions of
Serbian ecumenism—in an article on Fr. Florovsky’s ecclesiology. See: Bishop
Athanasios Jevtić, “Fr. Georges Florovsky on the boundaries of the Church,” Theologia
81, vol. 4 (2010) 137–158.
10. Protopresbyter Professor G. Florovsky, Holy Scripture,
Church, Tradition, trans. Dem. Tsamis, Works of Georges Florovsky
vol. 1, ed. P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki 1976, p. 73f.
11. Protopresbyter Professor G. Florovsky, ibid., p.
74ff.
12. Protopresbyter Professor G. Florovsky, ibid., p.
75.
13. St. Gregory the Theologian, Funeral Oration (43) for
St. Basil the Great 50, PG 36, 561A: “To these things he hurled insults,
threatened, do whatever you wish, enjoy your authority. Let even the king hear
these things, for as for us, you shall neither win us over nor persuade us to
join in impiety, even if you threaten more harshly.”
14. “The final interview of the great Byzantinist Sir Steven
Runciman,” http://i-m-patron.gr/i-m-patron-old.gr/keimena/runciman.html
(from the journal Pemptousia 4 [Dec. 2000–Mar. 2001]): “Sometimes—what
can I say—I feel very disappointed by the other Churches of the West. However,
I am glad at the thought that in the next 100 years Orthodoxy will be the only
historic Church that will still exist. The Anglican Church is in very bad
shape. The Roman Catholic Church is continually losing ground. But fortunately,
there is the Orthodox Church. I am greatly impressed by the increasing number
of those who are embracing Orthodoxy, especially in Britain. I believe that it
offers the genuine spirituality which the other churches can no longer
transmit. All these things lead me to the conclusion that Orthodoxy will
endure, in contrast to the others.”
15. “Steven Runciman, Historian (1903–2000). The man who
changed the Western world’s perception of Byzantium,” Orthodoxos Typos
1472 (20 Sept. 2002) 2 (republication from To Vima, 8.9.2002).
16. Steven Runciman, The Byzantine Theocracy, trans.
Iosif Roilidis, Domos Publications, Athens 2005, p. 111ff.
17. For a brief memorial biography and profile of this great
theologian, see P. N. Trembelas (1886–1977), Faint Profile (offprint
from the book Selection of Greek Orthodox Hymnography), ed. “Ho Sōtēr,”
Athens 1988.
18. See “The condemnation of the late Panagiotis Trembelas by
Mount Athos,” Orthodox Martyria 42 (Winter 1994) 78–87. The said
Athonite critique was published around the mid-1970s. The problematic positions
of Professor the late P. Trembelas had been included in his book Mysticism –
Apophaticism – Cataphatic Theology. Twenty years later, the unacceptable
anti-patristic views of the considered anti-Western and supposedly
patristically-oriented Professor of Panteion Christos Yannaras were also
condemned by Mount Athos. See: “Refutation of the erroneous views of Mr. Christos
Yannaras concerning our Father among the Saints Nicodemus the Hagiorite,” Orthodox
Martyria 40 (Spring–Summer 1993) 1–10.
19. On this subject see characteristically: Manual:
Correspondence between Fr. J.S. Romanides and Prof. P.N. Trembelas, ed. Fr.
G. Metallinos, Harmos Publications, Athens 2009. See specifically also the view
of His Eminence Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos (Introduction, ibid.,
p. 16): “Panagiotis Trembelas grew up in this scholastic climate and made a
great effort and notable struggle to move toward patristic theology. This was a
difficult task in his time […] He was a dynamic personality who brought about
the major shift in Greece toward the Fathers of the Church.”
20. Protopresbyter Professor John Romanides, Dogmatic and
Symbolic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church, vol. I, ed. P.
Pournaras, Thessaloniki 19994, p. 6ff.
21. Protopresbyter Professor Th. Zisis, “Genesis and
development of patristic-opposing post-patristicism,” Patristic Theology and
Post-Patristic Heresy, publ. Holy Metropolis of Piraeus, Piraeus 2012, p.
266.
22. P.N. Trembelas, Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic
Church, vol. II, publ. “Ho Sōtēr,” Athens 1979, p. 408: “This power of lay
recognition is fully explained when it is considered that the determinations
and formulations of the holy Synods concerning Christian truth are made, as we
have said, according to the written and unwritten apostolic tradition, which does
not constitute some dead theory and knowledge, but a living mindset of the
whole body of the Church, testified and composed by the living faith of all its
living members. That is, the treasure of the faith contained in Holy Scripture
and generally in apostolic tradition ought to be the possession of every
Christian and to be lived in his life. Hence, the determinations of the holy
Synods related to this treasure, made from disputes by heretics concerning the
life-giving truth, being followed with unceasing interest by the living members
of the Church, cannot meet with indifference among the faithful, so long as
these are not dead. Thus, the judgment of the ecclesiastical body concerning
synodal determinations appears spontaneous, and at times unrestrainable, yet it
also reveals the catholic mindset of the Church, which has never ceased to be
testified and proclaimed by it.”
23. Archim. G. Kapsanis, “Memorial for the blessed
Professor,” Koinōnia 44, 2 (Apr.–June 2001) 121.
24. M. Orphanos, “Funeral oration for Professor Konstantinos
Dor. Mouratidis,” Koinōnia, ibid., 118ff.
25. K. Mouratidis, The essence and polity of the Church
according to the teaching of John Chrysostom (dissertation), Athens 1958,
p. 212: “… the participation of the laity in the shaping of ecclesiastical
life, under the implied conditions—on the one hand of respect for the
competency and rights of the hierarchy, which is the primary bearer of
ecclesiastical ministries, on the other hand of the auxiliary character of the
participation of the laity […] The holy Chrysostom regards the laity as
precious and necessary collaborators of the clergy for the dissemination of
evangelical truth […] Neglect of this duty constitutes a most grievous sin, and
thus Chrysostom considers the one neglecting the duty of enlightening other
brethren, especially those led astray by heretics, as an enemy of the Church.”
26. K. Mouratidis, ibid., p. 216: “The holy Chrysostom not
only taught as necessary and imperative the active participation of all the
faithful in the shaping of ecclesiastical life, but he also was the superb
leader who inspired the multitudes of the faithful and transformed them into precious
supporters and combatants of the good campaign. Chrysostom did not view the
laity as opponents who ought to be kept distant from the organizational
mechanism of the Church, but through superhuman efforts sought to achieve their
active participation in it.”
27. K. Mouratidis, ibid., p. 219: “From the importance of the
above passage it becomes abundantly clear that the laity are called not only to
care about Church matters, but also to contribute to the governance of the
Church in accordance with the canons. It is characteristic that in critical
moments for the life of the Church, when unworthy clerics overturned the laws
of the Church—which they were precisely called to protect and apply—it was the
laity who saved the endangered ship of the Church. The shining example of the
Church of Constantinople during Chrysostom’s time constitutes undoubtedly one
of the most characteristic related cases in Church history. It is therefore not
strange that the great Chrysostom, addressing his excellent flock, declared:
‘without you I will do nothing.’”
28. See the article: “Vlasios Phidas”
https://www.wikipedia.gr/wiki/Βλάσιος_Φειδάς
29. See the article by D. Anagnostis, “Mr. Vl. Phidas
confesses and reveals about the Kolymbari (Crete) gathering,” http://aktines.blogspot.gr/2016/12/blog-post_999.html
(from Orthodoxos Typos 2146 [30 Dec 2016] 1.4).
30. See Phidas, Byzantium
(Life–Institutions–Society–Church–Education–Art), Athens 1990, p. 154.
31. Ibid., p. 317.
32. Which Professor Phidas calls “logic of compromises or of
opportunistic expediencies of political leadership or ecclesiastical hierarchy”
(ibid., p. 317).
33. Benedict Englezakis (Archimandrite Paul), “The Church of
Cyprus from 1878 to 1955,” in Twenty Studies on the Church of Cyprus (4th to
20th centuries), publ. A.G. Leventis Foundation – MIET, Athens 1996, pp.
616–617.
Greek source: https://salpismazois.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_84.html
