Saint Gregory the Great the Dialogist on the title “Ecumenical”

Nikolaos Mannis | February 4, 2020

Within the framework of the anti-heretical struggle against the Neo-Papism of the Phanar, [1] and because its supporters claim that the Patriarch of Constantinople “as Ecumenical Patriarch, is first without equal (primus sine paribus),” [2] I publish below a few excerpts from some very important letters of Pope Gregory the Great of Rome (+604), which he composed on the occasion of the additional title “Ecumenical,” which had just been assumed at that time by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint John the Faster (+595).

At that time, it was indeed a misunderstanding, since the title “Ecumenical” was understood by those of the Church of Constantinople merely as an honorary title (since Constantinople was the capital of the “Oikoumene,” as the Empire was called)—that is, a “hollow and insignificant word” [3]—and not a title intended to indicate some supposed primacy of authority and governance over the entire Church, as Saint Gregory feared.

However, because in our time this fear is justified—since the heresy of the Neo-Papism of Constantinople is spreading like a cancer, [4] and because of this heresy new schisms are being created—and old ones reinforced—within the Church, the texts of the Saint are timely and will aid the truly Orthodox in confronting this deviation in a patristic manner.

These letters of Saint Gregory the Great are a thunderbolt against the primacy of authority [5] of any Bishop who believes he has the right to rule over the entire Church. For this reason, they were first used by the Orthodox to combat the Primacy of authority of the Pope of Rome.

For their translation, I took into account the original Latin text of the letters from the monumental edition of Mansi, [6] as well as their English translation from an equally important edition. [7]

Thus, Saint Gregory the Great writes in a letter in 595 to Saint John the Faster of Constantinople, misunderstanding—as we mentioned—the title and fearing that his fellow bishop was taking it literally [8]:

“When you, my Brother, were ordained to the episcopacy, you remember the peace and concord among the Churches that you found. But I do not know with what boldness or swelling of pride you have sought to appropriate a new title, by which the hearts of all your brethren might be led into scandal.

“And I am exceedingly astonished by this, since I remember how you once deliberately avoided accepting the episcopal office, though you desired it. And yet now that you have received it, you wish to exercise it as though you had attained it through ambitious desire... For truly (and I say this weeping, with the deepest sorrow in my heart) I ascribe it to my sins, that this Brother of mine, who received the rank of bishop with the chief aim of bringing the souls of others to humility, has not yet succeeded in returning to it himself; that he who teaches truth to others has not consented to teach it to himself, even when I implore him.

“I pray that you will consider how, through your senseless arrogance, the peace of the Church is disturbed—and this is in opposition to the Grace which is poured out equally upon all, a Grace which undoubtedly has the power to increase according to what you yourself determine. And it will indeed become much greater, the more you restrain yourself from usurping a proud and foolish title: and you will make proportionate progress, if you do not yield to the excessive claim made by your brethren.

“Therefore, beloved Brother, with all your heart, love humility, through which the concord of all the brethren and the unity of the holy ecumenical Church may be preserved. Indeed, the Apostle Paul, when he heard some saying, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ’ (1 Cor. 1:12), was horrified at such a division of the body of the Lord, whose members were being placed under other heads, saying: ‘Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ (1 Cor. 1:13).

“If, then, that man avoided subjecting the members of the Lord partially to other heads—even when those were the very Apostles—what will you say to Christ, Who is the Head of the whole Church, on the day of the final Judgment, having attempted to place all His members beneath yourself through the appellation ‘Ecumenical’?

“Whom else, I ask, does this corrupt title propose as a model for imitation, if not him who, despising the legions of angels with whom he was joined, strove to ascend to the height of uniqueness, so as to be subject to none and to appear as alone above all? He who also said: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit upon a high mountain, upon the lofty mountains toward the north; I will ascend above the clouds; I will be like the Most High’ (Isaiah 14:13–14).

“For what else are your brethren, the bishops of the ecumenical Church, but stars of heaven, whose life and word both shine amidst sins and human failings, amid the shadows of the night? And when you desire to set yourself above them, with this proud title, and to diminish their name in comparison to yours, what else are you saying, if not: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will set my throne above the stars of God’?

“Are not all the bishops together clouds, who, like rain, send forth the word of preaching, and like lightning flash the light of good works? And when Your Holiness scorns them and places them beneath yourself, what else does he say, if not what was said by the ancient enemy—namely: ‘I will ascend above the clouds’?” [9]

Two years later (597), he writes to Emperor Maurice:

“Who is this who, contrary to the Gospel decrees and the ordinances of the Canons, appropriates to himself a new name? Truly, it is he who diminishes the rest—desiring to be ‘Ecumenical.’ And yet we know that many bishops of the Church of Constantinople had fallen into the error of heresy and had become not only heretics, but even heresiarchs.

“Such as Nestorius, who divided Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and men, into two persons, because he did not believe that God could become man, adopting thereby the unbelief of the Jews.

“From that Church also comes Macedonius, who denied that the Holy Spirit is God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. If, then, anyone in that Church assumes such a name by which he makes himself head of all, it follows that the ecumenical Church would fall (which God forbid) [10] every time the so-called ‘Ecumenical’ should fall. But let this blasphemous name (nomen blasphemiae) be removed from the hearts of Christians, which takes away the honor of all the brethren, when it is unjustly adopted by one.” [11]

In another letter to the Emperor, he noted that “whoever is called or desires to be called ‘Ecumenical Hierarch’ is—by that self-exaltation—a forerunner of the Antichrist, for he places himself with arrogance above all others.” [12]

He had also sent a similar letter to the other Eastern Patriarchs, Saint Eulogios of Alexandria (+607) and Saint Anastasios of Antioch (+599), in which he also wrote the following: 

“As Your Holy Reverences know, this title of ecumenicalism was offered by the Holy Council of Chalcedon to the See of the Apostolic Throne, which by God’s providence I serve. But none of my predecessors ever consented to use this profane title (profano vocabulo), considering that if one Patriarch is called ‘Ecumenical,’ then the very meaning of the title ‘Patriarch’ is abolished for the others… And while we do not desire to accept this honor when it is offered to us, consider how shameful it is for someone to seek to usurp it for himself. Therefore, let Your Holinesses never call anyone ‘Ecumenical’ in your letters, so as not to degrade your own rank by granting to another what is not owed to him… For if the use of this title be accepted, the honor of all the Patriarchs is stripped away; and when the one who is called ‘Ecumenical’ happens to fall into error, then no Bishop would remain who has preserved the truth.” [13]

Patriarch Eulogios of Alexandria, in his response, “wrote to him that, in accordance with his instruction, he no longer used the title ‘Ecumenical’ in his letters to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and he addressed Gregory as ‘Ecumenical Pope.’” [14]

However, Saint Gregory, in his reply, vehemently rejected this compliment, writing among other things the following:

“Your Holiness has also stated that you will no longer use proud titles—stemming from the root of vanity—in writing to certain persons, and you mention it to me saying: ‘as you have commanded us.’ This word—command—I beg you to remove from my hearing, for I know who I am and who you are. In office, you are my brethren; in worth, you are my fathers... I have therefore said that nothing of the sort ought to be written either to me or to anyone else; and behold, in the preface of the letter you sent me, you judged it proper to use a proud appellation, calling me ‘Ecumenical Pope.’ But I implore your kind Holiness to do so no more… I do not regard as an honor that by which I know my brethren lose their honor. My honor is the honor of the universal Church; my honor is the firm standing of my brethren. Then am I truly honored when the honor due to each is not denied to him. For if Your Holiness calls me ‘Ecumenical Pope,’ you deny your own title, since it is implied that I am the Bishop of the whole world. But far be from us words that inflate vanity and wound charity.” [15]

The above texts of Saint Gregory the Great constitute a fearful rebuke—not only against the luciferian Papism, but also against every form of Neo-Papism that may attempt to be hatched within our Holy Church, whether by a Pope, or by a Patriarch, or even by an Angel from heaven!

In the face of the real and present Neo-Papism of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, we exclaim together with Saint Gregory the Great: “But in this pride, what else is indicated if not that the times of the Antichrist are already near?” [16]

May we Orthodox, with the Saints as our guides, resist with all our strength the forerunners of the Antichrist and preserve unadulterated the Faith once delivered to our Fathers! So be it.

[1] See indicatively:
a) UKRAINIAN ISSUE: SAINT NIKODEMOS AGAINST THE NEO-PAPISTS OF THE PHANAR (AND A COMMENT): http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2018/11/blog-post_3.html
b) The New Rome following in the footsteps of the Old?: https://spzh.news/gr/zashhita-very/62794-novyj-rim-v-svete-starogo-kuda-privedet-primat-vselenskogo-patriarkha
c) Is Patriarch Bartholomew “Ecumenical”?: http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2014/07/blog-post_5.html
d) The Heresy of the Papism of Constantinople: https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/26628-airesi-tou-papismou-konstantinoupoleos

[2] Primus sine paribus: Response to the Document on Primacy by the Patriarchate of Moscow by His Eminence Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa:
https://www.patriarchate.org/el/-/primus-sine-paribus-hapantesis-eis-to-peri-proteiou-keimenon-tou-patriarcheiou-moschas-tou-sebasmiotatou-metropolitou-prouses-k-elpidophorou

[3] Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Athens, 1964, p. 140.

[4] The elevation of the “Ecumenical” above all his fellow bishops was institutionalized even at the Pseudo-Council of Crete (see https://www.holycouncil.org/-/rest-of-christian-world?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=%2F, §§10 and 14).

[5] The only Primacy recognized by the Church of Christ is the strictly formal Primacy of Honor, which consists, according to Makarios of Ancyra, in “presiding, sitting first, speaking first, opining first, signing first in synodal gatherings and acts, and moreover, having his name proclaimed in the Diptychs” (Dositheos of Jerusalem, History of the Patriarchs in Jerusalem, Bucharest, 1715, p. 954).

[6] Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Amplissima Collectio, Vol. 9, Florence, 1763.

[7] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 12, Buffalo NY, 1895.

[8] All these titles and forms of address customary for ecclesiastical figures (e.g., Ecumenical, Most Holy, Most Divine, Beatitude, Eminence, Very Reverend, etc.) are honorary titles and do not have a literal meaning, nor do they represent an actual status (cf. Chr. Papadopoulos, The Primacy..., op. cit., pp. 153–155).

[9] Gregory the Great, Epistolarium, Book V, Letter 18.

[10] Cf. Matt. 16:18.

[11] Gregory the Great, op. cit., Letter 20.

[12] Gregory the Great, op. cit., Book VII, Letter 33.

[13] Gregory the Great, op. cit., Book V, Letter 43.

[14] Chr. Papadopoulos, The Primacy..., op. cit., p. 140.

[15] Gregory the Great, op. cit., Book VIII, Letter 30.

[16] Gregory the Great, op. cit., Book V, Letter 21 (To Empress Constantina).

Greek source: https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/35051-o-megas-grigorios-o-dialogos-gia-ton-

Patriarch Bartholomew is a Threat for the Orthodox East!

Demetrios Anagnostou, theologian | February 1, 2019 | Orthodoxos Typos

 

The practice of Church Tradition in the fight with heresies and schismatics that threaten the unity of the Church is never just protest and a canonical fight with cunning theories and schismatic (anti-canonical) actions, but at the same time, the condemnation of those Church actors who support them and act accordingly. [Note: Of course, today, after an entire century of ecumenist propaganda beginning with the release of the infamous Patriarchal encyclical of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1920 “To the Churches of Christ Everywhere” (where heretical communities are first called the “Church of Christ”!), which is considered the charter for ecumenism, led by the Ecumenical Patriarch, we have reached the point where for us “conciliarity” and “pan-Orthodox” have imposed the abolition of the terms “heresy” and “heretics” in the Church-Synodal lexicon, whereby any document condemning delusions and confirming the existence of other churches beyond the bounds of the Orthodox Church are considered unnecessary! (see the decisions of the Crete “Council”)].

It is significant that in Church history it often happens that corresponding heresies and schisms are fixed under a name not only from the content of the relevant theories (for example: Monophysites, Theopaschites, iconoclasts, papists, etc.), but also from the names of their inspirers, leaders, and creators (for example: Arianism, Nestorianism, Paulicians, etc.).

In the twentieth century, for the first time in Church history, this traditional practice was successfully artificially neutralized in respect to the emergence and development of the modern heresy of ecumenism, which, according to the great Serbian dogmatician St. Justin (Popović), is a pan-heresy. It happened and continues to happen mainly because this heresy (undeclared, despite the obviousness of it) is still allowed (if not protected) by the majority of the Local Orthodox Churches. Moreover, it’s connected with the fact that in several cases, the bearers and supporters of this particular heresy are themselves the heads of the Local Orthodox Churches.

The most significant of these cases and the most serious and dangerous precedent is the example of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who is not only a bearer of the modern pan-heresy, but also its leader, main patron, and guide. This is not a subjective assessment and not a private opinion, but a common conviction that is proven and unconditionally confirmed on the basis of the official and public actions, statements, and texts of this patriarch—the primate of the once glorious and Orthodox See of Constantinople.

Thanks to his office, Patriarch Bartholomew has managed to remain untouchable for a long time, avoiding canonical confrontation and accusations, although he often provokes the feelings of all the Orthodox faithful (pastors and flocks) by his clearly anti-Orthodox and anti-canonical actions and purely heretical beliefs.

He is himself (according to his own statement) a faithful continuer of the line of his predecessor—the Mason, Patriarch Athenagoras, who was dedicated to syncretism and pan-religion.

(https://orthochristian.com/118900.html)

This line is treasonous to Orthodoxy. Day by day it becomes clearer and more obvious that Patriarch Bartholomew is striving for the proclamation of and his actual appointment as the second (Eastern) Pope, and for the transformation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople into a super-Patriarchate recognized on the international political and Church level—the new Eastern Vatican (of course, in the worst case scenario)!

Recently, this open leader and defender of the Church-fighting pan-heresy of ecumenism, after the traumatic (for him) experience of attempting to subjugate world Orthodoxy by the sadly infamous “Holy and Great Council” organized by him and convened two years ago on Crete, chose a “new way” for the spreading and strengthening of his power, and, accordingly, his theories about an “Eastern Pope.”

(https://orthochristian.com/115685.html)

Bartholomew now follows the tried and tested method of “divide and conquer” (including causing a schism in the body of the Church), such that he himself and his plans are weakened in the short term but in the long term undermine the power and influence of those who dared to hamper the realization of his great dream, the convening of the first Ecumenical (ecumenistic) Council, the purpose of which was to synodically legitimize the pan-heresy of ecumenism in a pan-Orthodox fashion.

In particular, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, known for his vindictive character (as the Greek Church has learned from bitter experience: https://orthochristian.com/118892.html), has carried out his plan for an indirect schism in the flock and the ecclesiastical (jurisdictional) dissection of his Church “opponents”—those who oppose his ambitions to become a super-Patriarch and to make the Patriarchate of Constantinople the Eastern “Vatican.” These opponents, besides the Moscow Patriarchate, are the ancient Antiochian and Serbian Patriarchates.

For the sake of his own interests and in connection with his obligations and service to the well-known political superpower (the U.S.), the ambitious Patriarch could (as we will probably see in the near future) “lead” two more dioceses of other Patriarchates (after Ukraine) to “autocephaly” and turn them into Phanar satellites.

Here we are talking about Montenegro (a metropolia of the Serbian Patriarchate) and the dioceses beyond the borders of Syria (in neighboring states), which belong to the jurisdiction of the Antiochian Patriarchate! After the political events connected with the so-called “Macedonian” issue, the candidate for “victim” in the Phanariot’s plans is also the so-called “Macedonian Church” (canonically referred to as the Ohrid Archdiocese), which is also the canonical territory of the Serbian Patriarchate and has for many years been in a state of schism, isolated and not recognized by the Orthodox world.

Positioning himself as a faithful keeper and scrupulous defender of the historical rights of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (as he fancies himself), he completely ignores the rights of the rest of his brothers, and is prepared, putting on the guise of defender of the autonomy and fighter for the independence of Local Church administration and structures, to miraculously restore schismatics, to unconditionally recognize them, and to sow ecclesiastical controversies and schisms (clearly violating Orthodox ecclesiology and introducing, despite his own assurance to the contrary, ethnic and secular-state criteria in the sphere of Church decisions).

In view of the above, given the “tomos of autocephaly” recently presented to the schismatic formation of the new “church” of Ukraine (circumventing the one and only canonical Orthodox Church that exists there, against the will of the Moscow Patriarchate, which has canonical authority there), the thesis that Patriarch Bartholomew has become a real threat to the Orthodox East is confirmed.

We should not forget that this threat continues to corrode Orthodoxy and undercut the unity of the Orthodox Church, and it ultimately serves to prepare the majority to recognize the pseudo-council of Crete, which is the completion of a fruitless theological dialogue with papists and the restoration of full communion with those who have from of old deliberately fought against our faith and our family!

This threat, aimed directly at the Orthodox faith and the unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church, should be canonically neutralized as quickly as possible by Orthodox hierarchs around the world located in the lands of those who preserve the right faith, esteeming themselves as pastors of the Church, who have vowed to pass on the inviolable covenants and to observe the sacred rules and statutes of the holy Orthodox Church of Christ. May God grant it!

 

English source:

https://orthochristian.com/119398.html

Greek source:

https://aktines.blogspot.com/2019/02/blog-post_87.html

Russian source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190216014625/http://www.agionoros.ru/docs/2841.html

The Demon of Disobedience Brings About Great Afflictions

From the Life of St. Peter of Atroa the Wonderworker

(Ninth Century, Commemorated on 3 January)

One day, the Saint sent a Brother on a commission. He recommended him not to stop at the public baths that lay on his way, expressly forbidding him not only not to enter therein, but not even to approach them.

The Brother entered and leisurely took his bath.

Quite some time passed, when suddenly his entire body became covered with leprosy, without anyone understanding the reason why.

St. Peter anointed him with the Holy Myron and made the sign of the Cross over him. But his prayer was of no effect.

“What have you done, my child, that makes it impossible for me to heal you? Perhaps you have not confessed a sin you committed?”

Having forgotten his previous disobedience, the Brother replied that his conscience did not reproach him for anything. The Saint was greatly troubled and prayed much for the unfortunate monk.

Finally, one day, as he was praying in his cell, he noticed a ghastly child, foul and mangled, who said:

“What have we to do with each other, wicked Elder, that you chase me everywhere, and in particular from the body of that young one whom I covered with leprosy when he disobeyed you by going to the baths that lay on his way?

The Elder immediately called the Brother and said to him:

“Why, my child, have you not yet made your error known to me? He demon of disobedience, who beguiled you, informed me that you became a leper because you transgress my commands.”

The Brother recalled his sin, confessed, and was healed.

 

Greek source: Ἃγιος Κυπριανός, No. 324 (January-February 2004), p. 160.

Taken from: Bernardin Menthon, The Monasteries and Saints of Olympus in Bithynia, translated into Modern Greek by Natalia Vasilopilos (Thessaloniki: Ekdoseis Ὀρθόδοξος Κυψέλη, 1980), p. 154.

English source: https://www.imoph.org/Theology_en/E3e4015EipeGeronAK324.pdf

St. Nicholas of Japan, Equal-to-the-Apostles: "Prepare thy soul for temptations"

Discourse of St. Nicholas of Japan at the Council of the Japanese Church in July 1887

 

 

In Holy Scripture it is said: “Child, if thou drawest near to work for the Lord God, prepare thy soul for temptation: set aright thy heart, and endure. And be not hasty in time of visitation: cleave unto Him, and depart not, that thou mayest increase at thy last” (Sir. 2:1–3). All we who are here present, of course, have set ourselves to work for God and, thus, well know that to serve God? means to compel oneself to labor. But we also know that in this service there is also great joy. For God the All-seeing not only sees those working for Him, but also helps them, and the Merciful loves them. However, the path of working for God is full of dangers and stumbling-blocks, weaknesses and falls, therefore Holy Scripture also teaches us that if thou wishest to serve the Lord God, then prepare thy soul for temptations.

Temptations are of two kinds: the first kind — trials coming from above; the second — temptations from below. Concerning temptations from above, Scripture tells us the following: “As gold and silver are tried by fire, so God tries the heart of man” (Prov. 17:3). Gold may be pure, may be with admixture, and may also be counterfeit. When tested by fire, pure gold suffers no harm, but on the contrary becomes even more beautiful; from gold with foreign admixtures its pure part is separated; and counterfeit gold in the end turns into something having no value at all. In like manner the virtues of a man may be genuine, may also be mixed with self-opinion and pride or other passions, and may also be entirely counterfeit, not genuine, as it was with the hypocritical Pharisees. Thus, temptations coming from above determine the quality of a man’s virtues. God from the very beginning knows the heart of man, therefore temptations are sent not in order that God might learn what our virtues are, but this is done for the man himself, so that he, if he sees in them an admixture of falsehood and counterfeit, might repent and turn to good. May we also not be deprived of such temptations coming from above.

But besides this there exists yet another kind of temptations, namely temptations coming from the devil, who puts darkness into a man’s thoughts, pours various kinds of impurity into his heart, brings him into confusion and, thus, brings a man to evil deeds with the aim of turning away from God the souls of people working for Him.

We who have set ourselves to work for God must always remember that we are in the midst of these temptations and seductions. In Scripture it is said: “Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8–9). All catechists and priests are under the close attention of the devil, who, wishing to defeat them, releases many fiery arrows. The most harmful of these arrows is self-satisfaction and pride. For many catechists go out to preach while still quite young, and people already call them teachers and instructors. It is nothing surprising that the devil, making use of this, easily puts pride into them; and how many ministers of the Church have already been struck by this arrow! Each year I send out many catechists, but not a few of them fall. What then is the cause of this? All this is from self-satisfaction and pride. If someone from the Christians tries to admonish them, they instead become angry from it. The devil has many other fiery arrows with which he strikes those unable to resist him. Such, without exception, are all those who were excluded from the list of catechists. And how many, brethren, are there who, having set themselves to work for God, were not able to pass through temptations and fell. How grievous this is!

Therefore, it is very important that we always prepare ourselves for temptations, for this is the foundation of our strength. But if we do not prepare ourselves, we shall always be overcome by temptations. Such the devil will strike with his arrows and kill. Now, before the beginning of the Council, recalling the past and setting before myself the future, I decided that all this is necessary to say to you as the most chief and most important.

Concerning what means we must employ in order to prepare ourselves for temptations, Holy Scripture clearly tells us.

First, “set aright thy heart” (Sir. 2:2), that is, guard thy heart, correct thy deeds and acquire virtues, and thus thou shalt avoid falling into temptation. Just as for a ship, if it is well watched and well steered, neither storms nor raging waves will be terrible to it, but if it is not well watched there is danger that it will suffer shipwreck; and just as a horse, if it is not properly guided, may bolt and in the end overturn or fall into a pit, so also the heart of a man: if it is not well governed, what will happen to it? Only this, that the devil, approaching us, will begin to put into our thoughts various evil designs and will bring into disorder our heart and our deeds.

Secondly, “endure.” A man is from the beginning easily inclined to evil, therefore, in order to conquer temptations, it is necessary willingly to endure various kinds of labors and sorrows, to restrain oneself and to direct one’s heart to the truth. If we do not endure labors and sorrows, then we shall not be able to overcome anything, for without labors and sorrows who can conquer the enemy?

Thirdly, “cleave unto God and depart not” (Sir. 2:3). Having cleaved unto God, we shall be safe in any temptations, just as a ship that has reached harbor is no longer afraid of storms.

Such a word I desired to say to you, brethren, before the beginning of the Council, and I want you to lay this word in your hearts and keep it.

 

Russian source:

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Nikolaj_Japonskij/ugotovi_dushu_tvoyu_vo_iskushenie/

Against Neo-Papism

Nikolaos Mannis

 Source: Τιμητικός Τόμος Διονυσίου Μ. Μπατιστάτου, Athens, 2024, pp. 247-255.

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

(Isaiah 14:12-14)

 

 

If we wanted to give a short definition of the concept “Papism” it would be: Papism is the conversion of Christianity into “Anti-Christianity” through the beheading of Christ. And indeed, the Luciferian arrogance of the Bishop of Rome who placed himself at the Head of the Church, instead of Christ, through the theories of Papal Supremacy and Papal Primacy, led to this blasphemous conversion.

True Christians, Christians whose behavior and heart reflect Jesus Christ, did not accept this “Anti-Christianity” conversion which the Bishop of Rome promoted. Why? Is it because true Christians had personal issues with the Bishop of Rome? No, not at all. In fact, true Christians would not have accepted any Bishop daring to usurp the place of Christ, Bishop of Rome, or Bishop of Constantinople or Bishop of Jerusalem. True Christians reject anyone who attempts to remove Christ from His place at the Head of Church, because he is a type of the Antichrist.

This has been clarified by the Saints in the past and in the present.

Specifically in the 6th century, St Gregory the Great, found unacceptable the literal meaning of the title “Ecumenical” i.e., “Universal” attributed to Patriarch. St Gregory the Great wrote: “...the apostle Paul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13), regarded with the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord’s body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul (ib.)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all? Who even said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High (Isaiah 14:13)”. [1] And elsewhere: “If then any one in that Church takes to himself that name, whereby he makes himself the head of all the good, it follows that the Universal Church falls from its standing (which God forbid), when he who is called Universal falls”. [2] The reason for this refusal is that it contradicts the Bible, which teaches us that Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church” (Ephesians 1:22), “Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” (Ephesians 5:23) and “he is the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18). And below: “Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others”. [3]

In the 20th century St. Sophrony (Sakharov) pointed out in the same way of thinking: “Fighting against neo-papism that has appeared in the bowels of our Holy Church, we are fighting only for the truth in the ecclesiastical and eternal sense of the word. We reject any “Rome”, both the First, and the Second, and the Third, if we are talking about introducing the principle of subordination into the existence of our Church. We reject Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, London, Paris, New York, and any other papism as an ecclesiological heresy that distorts Christianity”. [4]

Of course, the followers of Papism do not admit that they behead Jesus Christ. They claim that they accept Jesus Christ as head but in heaven, while in the Church on earth the head of the Church is the Pope as “Vicar of Christ”...

But, as St. Macarius of Patmos (+1737) points out, [5] this view is also unacceptable because it breeds the following blasphemies:

1. That when Christ was on earth, he had all authority, but when he was taken up, he lost it.

2. That the incarnation caused great harm to Christ, because before he was born, he was king of heaven and earth, but when he was incarnated, the Pope took the kingdom of the earth from him.

3. If a man (such as a Pope or a Patriarch) and not Christ, is the head of the Church on earth, then a great loss follows in the Body of the Church because it lacks such a head, almighty, all-wise, forecaster of the future, all-merciful, as Christ is and the Church is condemned to have a head which is perishable, weak, mortal and other which come from the wretched state of human nature.

4. If Christ, Who now is in heaven with His flesh, does not rule over the earth, nor when He was on earth did He rule over heaven, because that which hinders Him now, also hindered Him then.

This is why true Christians believe that it is impossible for the Church to have a mortal man as its head because it needs a Head that will always live, always give life and always sanctify.

Those who believe that a man, such as the Pope, can be the head of the Church then have to ask themselves: what happens when this “head” dies? Does the Church die with him and resurrect after the ordination of the next Pope?

And if someone hypothetically answers that for that time the Head of the Church on earth is Christ, then one cannot help but wonder: that is, Christ must will beg, when will the Pope die so that he becomes the Head of the Church on earth for a while, while when the new Pope is ordained, he will be sorry because lost His authority? What nonsense is this!

Unfortunately, this anti-Christian and irrational heresy has been adopted in recent years by the Patriarch of Constantinople, leading many fathers and teachers of the Church to criticize this danger, which they call Neo-Papism.

The Neo-Papism is essentially a copy of the Papism: decapitation of Christ and placing in His place, as head, a mortal human, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who prefers the title “Ecumenical Patriarch”, in which title he gives a wrong meaning.

The followers of Neo-Papism constantly declare that the Patriarch of Constantinople is “first without equal” (Archbishop Elpidophoros of America), is “the head of the Orthodox” (Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria), is “the head of the earthly Church” (Metropolitan Efstathios of Sparta), is “the Primate of Orthodoxy, the visible sign of its Unity and the guarantee of the normally functioning institution that we call the ‘Orthodox Church” (Protopresbyter George Tsetis), is “the head of the Orthodoxy under heaven” (Panagiotis Andriopoulos) etc.

Bishop Ioannis Zizioulas of Pergamum had already tried to justify theologically, from an “orthodox” point of view, this anti-Christian Primacy. Claiming that the Holy Trinity is “the primacy of God the Father” (a position which even the papists did not dare to express), he tried to establish a kind of episcopocentrism that changes the purely Christ-centered character of the Church, since it establishes its unity “in the person of the bishop” and not Christ. This is a heresy that contradicts the teachings of the holy fathers. [6]

It is clear that some Orthodox (?) theologians are trying to secure theologically the Primacy for the Ecumenical Patriarch so that after the planned union with the Papists, the Orthodox will now more easily accept the primacy of the Pope...

Unfortunately, the most important representative of Neo-Papism today is the Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos. With an article on the internet in June 2019, he tries to establish the Neo-Papism of Constantinople by writing:

“The Ecumenical Patriarch, as first-throne patriarch, has certain duties, which in practice all the Orthodox Churches have recognized as his. Among these is that he presided at the Second Ecumenical Council and at later Ecumenical Councils”. [7]

However, this is not correct, because:

1. The first president of the Second Ecumenical Council was Bishop of Antioch St. Meletius. And only after his death, the Bishop of Constantinople, St. Gregory the Theologian, was elected president. [8]

2. In the Third Ecumenical Council, Nestorius of Constantinople not only did not preside, but was the main accused. In this Synod (which finally deposed Nestorius) the Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, was the president. [9]

3. In the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Legates of the Pope of Rome Leo were the presidents. [10].

4. At the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which anathematized, among others, four Patriarchs of Constantinople in a row!) the Legates of the Pope of Rome again held the presidency. [11]

5. Therefore, the only Ecumenical Synods, after the Second, presided over by Constantinople were the Fifth (St. Eutychius) and the Seventh (St. Tarasius).

Continuing, Metropolitan Ierotheos writes that the Patriarch of Constantinople “granted not only the tomoi of autocephaly, but also patriarchal dignity and honour, to all the newer Churches, from the Church of Russia until today”. But that’s not right either!

It is known from ecclesiastical history that in 1589 the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremias II Tranos irregularly granted the patriarchal value to the Church of Russia (giving it the third place) and appointed the Metropolitan Job of Moscow as Patriarch. It is known, however, that many enlightened Hierarchs reacted to this arbitrary act, such as Bishop Ierotheos of Monemvasia and St. Meletios Pegas (Patriarch of Alexandria), who knew that according to orthodox ecclesiology only the Ecumenical Synod grants Patriarchal values and honors. Ierotheos of Monemvasia was the first to react and “says specifically to the patriarch: my lord, this cannot be done, because the great Constantine with an ecumenical council made the patriarchates; and the great Justinian with an ecumenical council (the fifth) made Ohrid an Archbishopric, and made Jerusalem (for the Passions of Christ), Patriarchate”. [12]

Patriarch Jeremiah, in his attempt to legitimize his arbitrary act, convened an endemic Synod in May 1590 in Constantinople (which assigned the Patriarchal Volume to the Church of Russia, ranking it in fifth place), which was also attended by the Patriarchs of Antioch Joachim, Sophronius of Jerusalem and eighty-one more Bishops! [13]

Despite this, the Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Meletios Pegas reacted and demanded the convocation of an ecumenical (Pan-Orthodox) Council. In his letter to Jeremiah of Constantinople in 1591, he writes the following important points, which are a catapult against the positions of every supporter of Neo-Papism: “regarding the elevation of the Moscow Metropolis to a Patriarchate, you must not forget that this is the responsibility of not one A Patriarch (unless the New Rome wants to follow the Old) but a Synod and indeed an Ecumenical Synod; in this way the Patriarchates up until now have also been raised. For this you have to take into account the rest of your brothers, and indeed of all without exception (as the Fathers defined in the Third Ecumenical Council) to decide what will happen. For it is evident that no patriarchal throne is subject to another patriarchal throne, but they are all connected in the Catholic Church”. [14]

The Pan-Orthodox Synod finally took place in 1593 and conferred patriarchal value on the Church of Russia, ranking it fifth.

Therefore, in all subsequent newer Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches (i.e., after of 1593), the Patriarchal values and honors and the autocephalies were given temporarily and, as everyone admits, they are in reference (“ad referendum”) to the Ecumenical Council.

So, there are no “exceptional privileges and duties” of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as claimed by the devotees of Neo-Papism. The only Primacy recognized by the Church of Christ is the completely formal Primacy of honor, based on which the Primate (according to Makarios of Ankara) simply presides at the Divine Liturgy, sits in the first place, speaks and gives his opinion first, puts his signature first and his name pronounced first in Diptychs! in other words, nothing to do with the “privileges” that the neo-papists and the advocates of the “Primacy of power” want to recognize for him!

All the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church reject Monarchy in administration.

As an example, let’s remember St. Theodore the Studite who called the body of the Church “five-headed” (πεντακόρυφον), [15] because it is governed by the five Patriarchates.

The famous canonist Theodore Valsamon, bishop of Antioch, states more graphically that the five Patriarchates are “like the five senses that are led by one head (Jesus Christ) and are equal to each other”. [16]

St. Nicodemus of Mount Athos, responding to those who, by misinterpreting the Canons, consider that the Patriarch of Constantinople is the superior judge in the Church, since he correctly interprets the relevant Canons, he characteristically writes concluding: “The Patriarch of Constantinople is the superior judge exclusively of the High Priests who are under his jurisdiction and not of the High Priests who are subordinate to the other Patriarchs. Because only the Ecumenical Council - no one else! - is the last and common Judge of all the Patriarchs”. [17]

Another proof against Neo-Papism is that at no time in the past did any Patriarchate have unlimited jurisdiction. On the contrary, the territorial boundaries of the Patriarchates were clearly defined by decisions of Ecumenical Synods.

Summarizing, we conclude that the only way to deal with the rising Neo-Papism in the east is to emphasize the value of the Ecumenical Council (a truly Orthodox Ecumenical Council, of course, and not a bad imitation organized by secular forces) and to work all Orthodox in favor of its convening, as soon as possible with the help of God.

 

NOTES

1. Registrum Epistolarum, Book V, Letter 18.

2. Ibid, Letter 20.

3. Ib., Book IV, Letter 33.

4. Vestnik of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate, 1950, No. 2-3, p. 31.

5. In his book “Evangeliki Salpinx”, published in the middle of the 18th century in Leipzig. The book was first published in Venice in 1752, but the papists collected almost all copies of this edition and burned them!

6. “The unity of the Church is not founded and does not consist in one person of one of the apostles, but in the person of Our Savior Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the Church” (St. Nectarios of Aegina, A Historical Study of the Causes of the Schism, Athens, 1911, p. 69).

7. https://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/5809-2019-07-01a

8. St. Nectarios of Pentapolis, The Ecumenical Councils, Athens 1892, p. 83.

9. Ibid, p. 95.

10. Ibid, p. 112.

11. Vasileios Stephanides, Ecclesiastical History, 2nd ed., Athens 1959, p. 224.

12. Constantine Sathas, Biographical Plan of Patriarch Jeremiah II, Athens 1870, p. 21.

13. Kallinikos Delikanis, Patriarchal Documents, vol. 3, Constantinople 1905, p. 24-26.

14. Methodiοs Fouyias, Epistles of Meletios Pegas, “Ekklesiastikos Pharos” 52 [1970], p. 232.

15. PG 99, 1280, 1417. 16 B. Kalliphronos, Ekklesiastika, Constantinople 1867, p. 106-107.

17. Footnote to Canon IX of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

 

 

Report of Archbishop Leonty of Chile to Metropolitan Philaret of New York on the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece

September 22, 1964 (O.S.)

 

 

To His Beatitude Philaret, Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America, First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad.

Your Beatitude, First Hierarch, bless.

I received the telegram you sent and the Russian translation of the letter from the Greek Archbishop Auxentios, to whose statements I have the honor to respond.

Your Beatitude knows what compelled me to intervene in Greek affairs, as well as to endure all kinds of unpleasant consequences for it. I was guided solely by the defense of Holy Orthodoxy and its triumph.

His Eminence Auxentios, who was ordained by me, repeatedly turned to me for advice, asking for my help in various difficult circumstances. There are many written proofs, signed by all the Bishops, in which they refer to me as their spiritual leader and similar expressions.

In recent months, I have begun receiving disturbed letters from them. That is, for some reason unknown to me, they have come into conflict with the lay figures of the Church, who had continuously supported them during difficult times of persecution against their Church and who were the ones who upheld Athens and the branches throughout Greece.

The laity also began to send appeals, with reports from all over Greece, seeking help and protection from neglect, disintegration, and the intention—without the consent of the popular will—of the Bishops, led by the despot Auxentios, to ordain an entire group of illiterate Bishops who, however, had promised to obey them in everything.

Since our Hierarchical Synod entrusted me with the responsibility for the episcopal ordinations in Greece, which I carried out—on the one hand, taking into account the requests of their Bishops, and on the other, supporting the requests of the laity—I advised them to reconcile with one another and to live in peace, as before. Otherwise, they themselves would not be able to fulfill such a tremendous duty as the defense of Holy Orthodoxy.

Moreover, many times, the primary burden of defending Holy Orthodoxy fell upon the laity, whom the Bishops (three individuals) are now persecuting—even to the extent of calling the police, just as had happened in the past when they were persecuted in the same manner. Both the Bishops and the laity asked me to come to Greece and judge them, with the latter even offering to send me travel tickets to Greece immediately. I declined, stating that perhaps at some point, I would come with Bishop Petros. The laity suggested that we come sooner and secretly ordain Archimandrite Chrysostomos [Kiousis] and others, to which I responded with the strongest arguments that this should not be done, that it was neither beneficial nor necessary. I further stated that their own Bishops could ordain Archimandrite Chrysostomos—and the others who were to be ordained as Bishops at that time —but, at the request of the late Bishop Akakios [of Talantion], this was temporarily postponed.

The anxiety and nervousness of the despot Auxentios can be explained by the fact that they are evidently so entangled in intrigues and arbitrary actions that they are mortally afraid of my arrival there. On the contrary, the multitude of laity, clergy, and many Athenians do not approve of their behavior, reprimand them, and many condemn their use of the police, which testifies against them and causes them embarrassment—such as recently in Athens at the Church of Saint Paraskevi.

They also became irritated by the fact that I advised them to be mindful of their personal lives, as well as by my request for an explanation of their use of the police. Subsequently, forgetting all my benefactions, they began to seek other means, and without abandoning their characteristic flattery, they reproach my stance and, forgetting everything, accuse me. Thus, they are incapable of anything else, and God will judge them.

You are right in your telegram—"forget them"—so I shall do, and they will hear nothing more from me, since they themselves, through their behavior and their profound ingratitude, have repaid me for all the good I have done for them. However, I do not believe that all of Orthodox Greece will praise them for this, nor will Mount Athos. And if they do praise them, then so be it. But I will no longer be their advisor—neither to the laity nor to the Bishops. Let them sort things out on their own and bear responsibility before God and men.

As for Bishop Petros, when the late Bishop Akakios [of Talantion] was an archimandrite and arrived in New York with a request for his ordination, Archimandrite Petros appealed to our Hierarchical Synod. These matters are known to Archbishop Seraphim [of Chicago], as well as to Bishop Petros, to whom Your Beatitude may personally refer for further details if desired. Therefore, the letter of His Eminence Auxentios has no basis. I must admit that human ingratitude is profoundly painful and sorrowful.

For my part, I would also advise our Hierarchical Synod to leave them to their own devices, letting them "stew in their own juice." The outcome, after all, will be the same. A pity for the flock—but what can we do?

This was their way of showing gratitude even to the departed leaders of their Church, and Archimandrite Nicholas Pekatoros from Washington can confirm this for you.

I ask for your forgiveness and your holy prayers.

Archbishop Leonty

P.S. Before your telegram, I sent them two letters within a week—one to the Bishops and a copy to the laity—urging them to make peace and not to let the enemy’s triumph. However, I made no mention of travel or ordinations.

 

Source:

https://o-d-o-c.blogspot.com/2025/02/archbishop-leonty-1971-and-greek-old.html