Nineteenth Gathering for Orthodox Awareness [1]
Sunday of
Orthodoxy
Bishop Klemes of
Gardikion | February 20 / March 4, 2012
[Now Metropolitan of
Larissa and Platamon]
Right Reverend Holy Hierarchs;
Reverend Fathers and Mothers;
Beloved brothers and sisters in Christ:
I
“There is no
communion between light and darkness”
With the blessing of our ailing
Metropolitan and Father Cyprian, and at the behest of our Standing Holy Synod,
I enter with devout fear into the light of pristine Orthodoxy on the day of its
splendid triumph over heresies. The Light of Orthodoxy is none other than the
Light of Christ, which—as we exclaim at the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified
Gifts—“shineth upon all”! In the Hymns of Light (Φωταγωγικά) we seek Divine
illumination from the Source of Light: “As Thou art the Light, O Christ,
illumine me in Thee, by the intercessions of the Theotokos, and save me.” [2]
“God is light, and in Him is no
darkness at all.” [3] This is Divine Light, true and uncreated, joyous Light,
Grace and Truth, which came and manifested itself in Christ, in order to clothe
us in the primal raiment of incorruptibility. It is the Light of the
Transfiguration, the Resurrection, and Pentecost, the eschatological Light of
Life that knows no evening. Communion with the Divine Light presupposes that
our eyes are open to faith and virtue. The soul of a man should not be
apportioned or divided between Truth and error, between virtue and sin. At a moral
level, we cannot perform at the same time deeds of light and deeds of darkness,
nor can we serve “two masters.” [4] Conversely, at the level of faith, it is
not possible for us to become “unequally yoked,” [5] that is, to form close
bonds with heretics—at an ecclesiastical level, of course, not at a social
level. Dialogue in good faith is not forbidden, but confusion and admixture are
to be rejected.
“What communion hath light with
darkness?” [6] asks the Holy Apostle Paul. And Theodore the Studite, the Holy
Confessor of the Light of Truth, responds decisively: “There is no communion between
light and darkness”! [7]
It is in Holy Orthodoxy that the
“marvellous” light of God [8] resides and is poured forth and diffused, and
those who are truly baptized and illumined in an Orthodox manner become “the
light of the world” [9] and “sons of light,” [10] and walk in truth and love
“as children of light.” [11] And when these same people fall, or when they
call others into “the inheritance of the saints in light,” [12] they realize
that there is no other path [forward] than repentance. “For repentance,” says
St. Symeon, the New Theologian of the Divine Light, “is a door that leads out
of darkness and into the light. Therefore, he who has not entered into the
light has not properly passed through the door of repentance; for, if he had
passed through it, he would have come into the light.” [13]
Faithful and prudent servants of
Christ keep the flame of the Grace of Christ alight in their souls, in love and
thanksgiving, and await the Bridegroom of the Church with vigilance and
attention. This immaterial and Divine Fire enlightens souls, but it also tests
them. It is truly “the power of resurrection and the effectual working of
immortality,” according to St. Macarios of Egypt, [14] but it is also “the
banishment of demons and the destruction of sin.” Those who are illumined in
Orthodox fashion it attracts, warms, and strengthens, whereas those
impenitently held captive in the “darkening” [15] of sin, error, and heresy it
repudiates, puts to shame, and dismisses.
On the night of Holy Pascha, in
our compunctiously darkened Churches, shortly before the proclamation of the
Resurrectional acclamation, “Christ is Risen; Indeed, He is Risen!” the
serving Priest comes out of the Altar with his lit torch, in order to impart
the Divine Light, chanting majestically and joyously: “Come, receive the
Light, from the unwaning light and glorify Christ, Who is risen from the dead!”
An inexpressible joy and emotion then permeates the entire being of the
worshippers of Christ’s glorious Resurrection. And, as we all know, every year
the Conqueror of death and the Destroyer of Hades, our Lord and God, works the
most radiant miracle of the manifestation of the Holy Fire as early as noon on
Great Saturday, at the All-Holy Sepulchre in the Church of the Resurrection in
the Holy City of Jerusalem. All who have been present at this sacred rite know
from experience the indescribable culmination of their prayerful anticipation,
as well as the fulfillment of this Divine Mystery, which astounds and
wondrously transforms the participant. It has always constituted not only the
triumph of the Resurrection of our Lord, but also the boast of the Orthodox and
the glory of our Faith against unbelievers, those of other religions, and the
heterodox. The Lord gives the Holy Light to the Orthodox, because they alone
uphold and behold, liturgically and spiritually, the True Light, and not to the
misbelievers, who have distorted the Truth of the revealed Faith that has been
handed down to us and who are trapped on gloomy paths that lead nowhere.
It appears, however, that the
heretical Latins have not taken this into serious consideration, though they have
learned from events not to tempt the Lord! We pray sincerely that the
ecumenists of our day might learn and understand this, so as to emerge from
their befuddlement and return in repentance to the Divine Light of the Truth,
in order that we might verily celebrate a new Victory of Orthodoxy!
II
The Holy Light did
not appear when the Latins controlled the Holy Sepulchre
We find ourselves in June of
1099, when some thousands of the Pope’s Crusaders, during their First Crusade
for the liberation, as they alleged, of the Holy Places from the Muslim
infidels, arrived outside the walls of Jerusalem. After a siege of forty days,
on July 15, they entered the Holy City and indulged in savage slaughter of the
Muslims. As for the Jews, they burned them alive in their synagogue. [16]
After three days of appalling bloodshed, in which the blood reached as far as
the bridles of their horses, the Crusaders remembered to go to the Church of
the Resurrection—oh, the tragic irony!—to thank the Lord of love and charity
for their success! So great was the benightedness and such was the blindness of
those men, who, although they bore on their persons the emblem of the Cross,
put everyone to the ruthless terror of the sword. In reality, however, they
were “enemies of the Cross,” [17] crude and idolatrous lackeys of a heretical
man, the haughty Pope of Rome, who had deviated from Orthodoxy and who desired
to set his throne “above the stars.” [18]
These new and cruel conquerors
had not, in essence, come to liberate the Holy Places and to entrust them to
the true and untrammelled worship of God; they had invaded Jerusalem in order
to impose their heresy, hateful to God, upon the Holy Land. Thus, although the
canonical Patriarch of Jerusalem, Symeon II, who was in exile in Cyprus, [19]
was still alive, they proceeded wholly uncanonically and unlawfully to the
election and installation of a Latin pseudo-patriarch of Jerusalem, Arnulf of
Chocques, something which truly caused a shock (!), since this polemarch of the
Crusader army was not even a subdeacon and led such a prodigal life that vulgar
songs were sung about him!
A public outcry forced the
administration of the then newly established Latin Kingdom to replace Arnulf
with the Papal legate, Archbishop Daimbert of Pisa, who had arrived in December
of 1099. He arrived in the Holy Land with a fleet of one hundred and twenty
ships, having previously passed through the Ionian Islands and wrought dreadful
acts of pillage. Daimbert, who had in reality been elected Archbishop by simony
and had even received confirmation from the Pope of Rome, [20] immediately
imposed restrictions on the Orthodox guardians of the Holy Shrines. [21]
Thus it was that, on Great
Saturday of 1100, Daimbert was the first Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem to
preside over the traditional ceremony of the Holy Light. However, for the
first time in history the Holy Light did not appear, despite the fact that the
ceremony went on for many hours. The Latin clergy then urged the Crusaders to
repent and confess their misdeeds. It was finally after nightfall, as one
historian relates, that the Holy Light appeared. The following year, 1101, the
Holy Light did not appear at all as long as the Latins were present. [22]
But before we see what happened
in 1101, we wish to emphasize that the failure of the Holy Light to appear on
Great Saturday in 1100 was not due simply to the moral unworthiness of the
Crusaders, or at least was not due solely and primarily to this. For the appearance
of the Holy Light—as is the case, moreover, with every Mystery and rite—does
not depend on the moral quality and worthiness or unworthiness of the
celebrant. The Mystery is celebrated objectively, whereas the subjectively
unworthy celebrant is chastised. The non-appearance of the Light was due first
and foremost to the falling away of the Papists from the right Faith. The fact
that the Holy Light appeared only at night, and absent any specific account of
a liturgical context for its appearance, demonstrates the Divine condescension
of the Thrice-Radiant Godhead in assurance of the light-bearing Resurrection,
and not in validation and confirmation of the faith of the Latin conquerors.
The problem was not rectified by the confession of the sinful Crusaders but by
the repentance of the heretical Latins, or at least by their departure from
the site where the miracle occurred.
On Great Saturday of 1101,
therefore, as seven non-Orthodox chroniclers (four French, one German, one
English, and one Armenian) unerringly describe it for us, [23] the Latin
Patriarch Daimbert, with an innumerable crowd, again presided over the
ceremony for the appearance and distribution of the Holy Light at the All-Holy
Sepulchre. However, the hour of its manifestation passed by and the blessing of
Heaven did not descend. The Latins redoubled their prayers, night fell, and yet
the Holy Light failed to materialize, and thus their souls were overcome by the
darkness of despair. The All-Holy Sepulchre was locked, and the following day,
the morning of Pascha, after Daimbert had gone to the All-Holy Sepulchre and ascertained
that the Holy Light had not appeared, he addressed the despairing people, in
the presence of the envoy of the Roman Curia, Cardinal Maurice of Porto. In his
speech, he attempted to console his flock with the artless excuse that they
should not be distressed over the non-fulfillment of the miracle, but should, on
the contrary, rejoice: for the miracle occurred when the Holy City was in the
hands of the infidels, whereas, now that it was in the hands of the Christians,
it was no longer needed! [24] Daimbert then headed a procession of Latins to
the shrine of the Dome of the Rock, on the site of the former Temple of
Solomon, which the Crusaders had turned into a Christian Church.
At that time, before the locked
Edicule (Κουβούκλιον) of the All-Holy Sepulchre, the keys of which Daimbert
alone possessed, the Greek and Syrian Orthodox began to process around it with
ardent prayers, accompanied by dirges and lamentations. While this was going
on, one of the Syrians observed through an aperture that a vigil lamp had been
miraculously lit inside the All-Holy Sepulchre, and the lamentation was then
transformed into cries of joy and thanksgiving. They immediately hastened to
notify the Latin Patriarch to come and open the All-Holy Sepulchre for the distribution
of the Holy Light. In the meantime, however, all present with awe and
astonishment saw the vigil lamps that hung outside the Sepulchre lighting
spontaneously and miraculously, one after the other in succession! Sixteen
lamps were lit, or fifty, according to some, or all of them, according to
others. [25]
This Divine event filled the
Orthodox with joy and enthusiasm and put to shame the misbelievers, who came
and endeavored to show their satisfaction, even though the downfall of their
prestige and the ignominy of their corrupt régime were obvious and indisputable
to all.
For this reason, several months
later the Latin authorities dismissed and banished Daimbert, as the supposed
cause of the fiasco, and installed Evremar in his place. But the most
important point was that the Latins seriously took “into consideration the
lesson” [26] of what had happened and, unable to endure any new public
disgrace, handed the keys of the All-Holy Sepulchre over to the Greek Orthodox,
decreeing that the Abbot of the Lavra of St. Sabbas the Sanctified preside
over the rite of the Holy Fire each year. The Abbot at that time was the Locum
Tenens of the exiled canonical Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.
III
The Anti-Papist
Tradition in the Holy Land
About six years later, in 1107,
the Russian Abbot Daniel, who was present at the ceremony of the Holy Light,
confirmed that, when the Holy Light made its majestic appearance, it
miraculously lighted the lamps of the Orthodox Greeks and Russians, which were
on the tombstone of the All-Holy Sepulchre, but not those of the Latins, which
were hanging above or outside it! [27]
The Papists, unable to endure the
shame of God’s turning away from them, instead of coming “to themselves” [28]
and repenting, so as not to walk “in darkness” but to have “the light of life,”
[29] became so hardened and benighted that, through a bull issued by Pope Gregory
IX in 1238, they disavowed the validity of the miracle of the Holy Light and
strictly forbade their flock to participate in or attend the ceremony! [30]
A little earlier, however, that
same Pope did something equally dreadful and blasphemous. Emperor Frederick II
of Germany, who had led the Fifth Crusade, succeeded, through a treaty
concluded in 1229 with Sultan al-Kāmil of Egypt, in gaining suzerainty over Jerusalem,
where he crowned himself and then returned to his own country. However, Pope
Gregory IX, who was a mortal enemy of Frederick, was so enraged by this act
that he unleashed the terrible punishment of interdict against the Holy City of
Jerusalem and against the All-Holy Sepulchre! “Thus, Papal arrogance reached
even as far as excommunicating the Holy Sepulchre,” [31] notes one Church
historian in amazement.
As one might have expected, there
was a resplendent tradition of anti-Latinism in the Holy Land in the ensuing
centuries, and all the more because the aggressiveness and rapacity of the
Papists was always demonstrable and baleful.
Thus, in the period after the
false union of Lyon in 1274, the confessional stand of the illustrious
Patriarch Gregory I is worthy of especial mention. In 1281, the Patriarch of
the Holy City issued a refutation, composed in his name by the distinguished
Orthodox theologian George Moschabar, entitled: “Refutatory Chapters Against
the Doctrines and Writings of Bekkos.” Therein “the spurious and corrupt
doctrines and writings of the present-day heretics [Latins and the
Latin-minded]” are refuted, “lest the souls of those who are more naïve be
deceived through such distorted doctrines and writings and be seduced into
impiety.” [32] Just one year later, in 1282, the Latin-minded Emperor Michael VIII
Palaiologos died, the heretical Patriarch John Bekkos was deposed, and the
false union was condemned.
Also noteworthy is the
dissolution of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which the Crusaders had
established—with Papal approval, of course. When the Saracens recaptured the
Holy Places, in May of 1291 they entered Acre (Ptolemaïs) in Palestine, and the
few Crusaders who remained there with the Latin Patriarch Nicholas set out on
the sea in a skiff in order to save themselves. However, the skiff capsized
owing to the haste of its eminent passengers, and the Latin Patriarch drowned
together with the rest. [33]
The Crusades began, supposedly,
with a good purpose, but one which was accomplished in barbarous manner, and
thus they turned out to be a veritable scourge for the East and proved “most
detrimental” to the Orthodox Church and people. The warfare waged by the
Crusaders, as the great Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem observes, “was called
‘sacred’ in the way that leprosy is called the ‘sacred disease.’” [34] It is
certain that, had the Crusaders prevailed, Orthodoxy would have disappeared in
the cradle of Christianity.
During those terrible years, the
Church of Jerusalem remained in the vanguard of the struggle for Orthodoxy.
Thus, a Synod in Jerusalem in 1443, in the presence of Patriarchs Joachim of
the Holy City, Philotheos of Alexandria, and Dorotheos II of Antioch, condemned
the treacherous unionist Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439), at which, as
we well know, St. Mark Evgenikos of Ephesus, the “Atlas of Orthodoxy,” worthily
represented the three aforementioned Eastern Thrones. The Synod of Jerusalem
denounced the proceedings at Ferrara-Florence as “abominable,” because its
decisions were in favor of Papism: that is, the addition to the Symbol of Faith
(the Filioque clause), the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the
commemoration of the Pope, and all of the other violations of the Canons. Likewise,
the Synod of Jerusalem turned against the “vile metropolises” and “loathsome
episcopacies” promoted and imposed by the Latin-minded Patriarch Metrophanes II
of Constantinople for the error, corruption, and scandals that they spread. The
verdict against those “corruptors” was that they be “suspended and disbarred” (ἀργοὶ
καὶ ἀνίεροι) from every sacerdotal function and ecclesiastical standing “until
the true Faith be examined in common and universally”; in the event that they
were defiant, the Synod judged that they be “excommunicated, sundered, and
estranged from the Holy Trinity.” [35]
Another miracle involving the
repudiation of heretics occurred in 1579, when the Armenians bribed the
Ottomans to ensure that it was they who would bring forth the Holy Light. The
banished Orthodox had assembled outside, in the courtyard of the Church of the
Resurrection before the Holy Portal. Even as the Armenians were processing
inside the Church in order to attain their desire, the Orthodox, with the then
Patriarch Sophronios iv, were weeping and praying for consolation from on high.
At that moment a loud noise was heard, there was a violent gust of wind, and
the middle column of the left doorpost of the Holy Portal was split, and from
it the Holy Light issued forth for the Orthodox—a miracle which is attested to
this day! [36]
In this brief treatment of the
Confession of the Faith, it would be an omission for us not to mention the
illustrious and heroic Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1669-1707), who “on
account of his theological activity was described as the ‘teacher and wise
leader of the whole body of the Orthodox,’ surpassing all of his contemporaries
in the breadth of his learning, his boundless zeal for Orthodoxy, and his
fervent faith in God. He had in his hands, so to speak, the direction of the
life of the entire Orthodox Church,” since, inter alia, he tirelessly
“warred against Latin and Protestant influence and strove to preserve the
integrity of Orthodoxy.” [37]
When, for example, in 1689 the
Ottoman Empire was compelled, for political reasons, under pressure from
Austria and France, to cede a significant number of the Shrines in the All-Holy
Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, and also in Bethlehem, to the Latins,
the latter committed acts of vandalism and sacrilege and persecuted the
Orthodox; in particular, in order to intimidate the Orthodox, they
disseminated the rumor that Patriarch Dositheos, who was at that time in
Constantinople, had been hanged. When he heard of all these tragic events, the
holy Dositheos hastened first of all to deny the malicious rumor concerning his
alleged hanging and severely censured the ridiculous notion of the Latins that
they had acquired the Shrines by reason of the correctness of their faith. The
holy Confessor Dositheos affirmed that the Latins had always been “schismatics
and chief among the heretics” and openly and fearlessly proclaimed: “As for the
Latins, we hold, as did our fathers, that in every time, in every person, and
in every place they are heretics and outcasts from the Holy Orthodox Church.
The Latins are deranged in supposing that they are Orthodox because they have
seized some walls.” [38]
Also worthy of note is the fact
that Patriarch Parthenios of Jerusalem took part, in 1755, in a Synod in
Constantinople comprising the Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople,
Alexandria, and Jerusalem (the Patriarch of Antioch was away in Russia on a
fund-raising mission), which decided that the Latins and the other heretics
should be baptized in a canonical and Orthodox manner when coming to Orthodoxy,
being viewed, according to exactitude (κατ᾿ ἀκρίβειαν), as “unhallowed and
unbaptized.” [39]
The same Patriarch Parthenios
also took part in repulsing the Uniatism that had at that period been
propagated in Syria, “aiding Patriarch Sylvester of Antioch and condemning the
Papist ‘antipatriarchs’ of Antioch.” [40]
Our discussion of the
Resurrectional Holy Light of the All-Holy Sepulchre and of the confutation of
the Papists, who in their heretical madness reached the unbelievably
blasphemous point of denying the miracle itself, brings us directly to the
connection between this issue and deviation of the Latins from the Festal
Calendar. Their alienation from the Illuminating and Life-Creating Holy
Spirit, from the Body of the Church, and also from the Life-Giving and All-Holy
Sepulchre of our Lord, led them to a new method of calculating the Feast of
Pascha, supposedly for the sake of achieving astronomical accuracy, through the
innovation of their notorious calendar reform in 1582, under Pope Gregory XIII.
In this way, of their own accord they became visibly estranged from the Feast
of Pascha with regard to the Festal Calendar, since they could no longer
celebrate together with the Orthodox on the actual day of Pascha. Thus, they
exiled themselves to a “far country,” sitting in the shadow of death, not allowing
the Light of the Resurrection to approach them or the Risen Christ to shine
upon them with the radiance of His Divine Glory, [41] that they might awake
from the sleep of heresy and apostasy. However, repentance and resurrection
from the dead are required for the heroic and salvific act of arising, in order
that there might be “joy” [42] in Heaven and on earth. Persistence in heresy is
a sin: “He who is unrepentant sins, since he does not repent.” [43]
IV
Falling away from
the Truth means falling away from Grace
The Holy Light, which appears
miraculously at the All-Holy Sepulchre and lights the vigil lamps and the
candles, being diffused throughout that sacred place at noon on Great Saturday
every year, undoubtedly has its provenance in the Uncreated Grace and Energy of
God. However, since it is a perceptible and created product of Grace, we cannot
call it Uncreated, even though it is accompanied by miraculous spiritual
phenomena (it does not burn during the initial moments, does not start any
fire, and brings about changes in people’s souls, etc.). For the Uncreated
Light is not something perceptible or circumscribed, but is noetic and beyond
comprehension; it is beginningless, changeless, and endless; it illumines the
mind of man by the power of the Holy Spirit, [44] and consequently transcends
the senses and the intellect. “It is immaterial and is not apprehended by the
senses.” [45]
If, however, the Latins were not,
and are not, vouchsafed the miracle of the created Holy Light of the All-Holy
Sepulchre, all the more are they, and do they remain, of their own will without
a share in the Uncreated Light of Grace. For their philosophical scholasticism
is incompatible with any acknowledgment that the Divine Energies of the
Trihypostatic Godhead are Uncreated, and in essence they reject the possibility
of conscious communion with God. [46] For this reason they have formed
different conceptions of man’s ultimate destiny and of his blessedness,
salvation, and deification. If man does not truly commune with the eternal and
supratemporal Light of God, which shone at the Divine Transfiguration and was
given in the form of fiery tongues at Pentecost, then he remains truly
unredeemed within a created and closed this-worldly reality; or he thinks,
erroneously, that he can see, albeit in the future, the absolutely
inaccessible and imparticipable Essence of God! These errors and false
teachings constitute blasphemies, and heresies have a direct impact on
salvation. Falling away from the right Faith of the Church and the distortion
of revealed Truth lead to a falling away from the Church and from sanctifying
Divine Grace. [47] Papism became a dead body, and the pure in heart among the
Orthodox recognized experientially that in its churches “there was no
descent of the fire of the Holy Spirit; that is to say, that in the Latin
Church the bread was not transformed into the Body of Christ nor the wine into
[the] Blood” of Christ. [48]
In a more practical vein, let us
mention two relevant and almost contemporary examples, which demonstrate the
spiritual deadness of the Latins.
At the beginning of the twentieth
century, it so happened that in a Greek Orthodox monastery on an island in the
Cyclades the Orthodox Metropolitan of the island was present together with the
Roman Catholic bishop of that region. While they were sitting on a balcony in
the monastery, they saw one of the brothers carrying a sack of manure on his
shoulders for the monastery garden. When the Catholic bishop learned that the
one carrying the sack was a Hieromonk of the monastery, he expressed his
disgust and perplexity as to how it was possible, after such filthy work, for
this Hieromonk to celebrate the Divine Mysteries. Although the Orthodox
Hierarch assured him that this work did not cause the Hieromonk any defilement
of soul or body, the Latin prelate persisted in his objections. The Orthodox
Hierarch then asked the Latin prelate if he would be willing to test which man
was well-pleasing in the sight of God: the Orthodox Hieromonk who engaged in
arduous and grimy toil or the well-dressed Papist bishop. The latter agreed to
this, and the Hierarch proposed that he summon the Hieromonk and, after he had
washed himself well, that he celebrate the Small Blessing of the Waters. The
Latin bishop would then also perform a Blessing of the Waters, and the water
blessed by each man would be kept in sealed containers. After the passage of a
year, they would be unsealed, so that it might be evident which quantity of
water was blessed and therefore acceptable before God. And indeed, after the
respective Blessings of the Waters had been performed, the flasks were placed,
well-sealed, in a special box. After a year had elapsed, in the presence of the
Orthodox Metropolitan, the Abbot and the Brothers of the monastery, and also
of the Roman Catholic bishop and his retinue, the flasks were unsealed and
opened, and all beheld quite clearly that the water blessed by the Orthodox
Hieromonk was very limpid and fragrant, whereas that blessed by the Latin
bishop was turbid, murky, and smelled like stagnant water! [49]
In another instance, a Priest
explained, inter alia, to a young man who had gone to venerate the
Relics of St. Gerasimos on Kephallenia and had seen awesome miracles wrought
through demoniacs, which revealed the hidden sins of other pilgrims, that
demoniacs cannot reveal anything to one who has repented of his sins and
confessed them sincerely. In that case, they are “blocked.” However, in one
case—the Priest continued—he had got to know two Italian Roman Catholics who
admitted that a demoniac on Zakynthos revealed to them all that they had
confessed to their own Catholic priest. And this was because they were in
essence unconfessed. The demoniac was a Greek and did not know Italian, and yet
he revealed to the Italians in flawless Italian sins which they had supposedly
confessed. [50]
In our estimation, these true
testimonies corroborate the age-old view of the Orthodox that the Latins have
fallen away from the Grace of God and that they are not, and do not constitute,
the Church of God.
When, for example, in the twelfth
century Patriarch Mark of Alexandria asked the eminent canonist Theodore
Balsamon, the Patriarch of Antioch, whether an Orthodox clergyman could
“without peril impart the Divine Gifts to them,” that is, to heretics, Balsamon
responded in the negative. With specific regard to the Latins who, as prisoners
of the Saracens, presented themselves in Orthodox Churches asking to commune,
Balsamon affirmed that the Western Church had been in schism for many years
from spiritual communion with the assembly of the four remaining Orthodox
Patriarchs. Rome “was separated from the Catholic Church with respect to customs
and dogmas and was estranged from the Orthodox,” and for this reason the Pope
had been struck off the Diptychs, such that “the race of Latins ought not be
sanctified at the hands of Priests through the Divine and Immaculate Mysteries,
unless they agreed beforehand to abjure Latin doctrines and customs, they have
been instructed in accordance with the Canons, and they have been assimilated
to the Orthodox.” [51]
The Holy Archpriest John of
Kronstadt in Russia wrote the following at the beginning of the twentieth
century, expressing the Orthodox spiritual assessment of Papism:
The communion of the Western
Church with the Heavenly Church is meagre and lukewarm, and is devoid of life.
The Orthodox Church is quite different: here, the communion is living, wise,
full, sincere, and reverent. There, the Pope is everything, everyone honors him
and not the Saints. The Saints of the East and the West are devalued; they are
hidden, they have fallen into oblivion; never are their Relics ever displayed
to the faithful, but far more often for tourists.... There, the Pope determines
the fate of the earthly and the heavenly Church and arbitrarily administers the
‘surplus’ of the works and graces of the Saints, sending people to Purgatory
and freeing them therefrom by his own decision, and issuing indulgences.
Laughable as these things are, they really would be laughable if they were not
so harmful and distressing. And how is it that the Popes themselves, the cardinals,
and others do not see this?... The faith of Catholics is superficial. There,
everything is for sale and everything can be bought; there, the Pope possesses
all authority and the salvation of Catholics is in his hands. This is why
Catholics today do not have real, recognizable Saints; they have only
‘contrived’ saints, those whom the arbitrariness of the Pope has made saints,
whereas the Orthodox Church is like the Garden of Eden, filled with Saints. [52]
Another revered clergyman, a
professor of Orthodox dogmatic theology, avers that “Catholicism has not fully
preserved either Apostolicity or life in Christ and holiness.... Catholic
theology regards Grace as created, and thus it is not an Energy that flows from
Christ” and that “in Catholicism only to an insignificant degree is the power
of Divine Grace received.” [53]
In view of these considerations,
one might ask what it was that impelled the Orthodox ecumenists to enter into
contact with heterodoxy, not in order to lead it to repentance and conversion,
but in order to confer on it distinctions and merits which it does not have,
which do not belong it, and which it could not even conceive or desire! We know
that the ecumenists have a ready answer: They are impelled by love, for the
union of Christians. However, if love is separated from Truth—and we will show
in what follows that this happens, and has prevailed from the outset, in
contemporary ecumenism—then we are face to face with an error and a distortion
which have spread to a perilous degree among both the leaders and the largely
indifferent flock of the lukewarm faithful who constitute the overwhelming
majority of so-called Christians today. This is why the false shepherds no
longer have any inhibitions; for they are not afraid, as they were at one time,
[54] that the true Flock, the Guardian of Orthodoxy, will rise up against them!
V
An upsurge in
ecumenism
Unorthodox views concerning the
boundaries of the Church of Christ have been articulated in Orthodox
intellectual circles, especially from the beginning of the past (twentieth)
century. Perhaps it was on account of the diversity concerning the reception of
the heterodox exhibited by the local Orthodox Churches, which applied oikonomia
in particular circumstances, that many of the Orthodox came up with the
erroneous idea that, even though the heterodox had in the past been declared
heretics with regard to the Apostolic Faith and Apostolic Tradition by Holy
Synods, whether OEcumenical or Panorthodox, nonetheless since the heterodox
demonstrably preserve “Apostolic succession,” that is, unbroken continuity
vis-à-vis their episcopal consecrations, they possess true and valid Mysteries.
Among the Orthodox ecumenists, some restrict the existence of Mysteries to
Roman Catholics, others include every heterodox community that has maintained
or formed an episcopate, and finally others extend sacramental validity to
every Christian gathering, even to those who believe in a purely subjective way.
The first group—at least in part—is of the opinion that the time has not yet
come for communion with the Latins, though solely for “disciplinary” reasons;
the second group is ready for communion with any heterodox community that
maintains a hierarchy and simply awaits ecclesiastical approval for this; the
final group is impatient for communion with all Christians! [55]
The ecumenist notion that
ecclesiality and Mysteries exist in heterodox communities of every
description, both older and more recent, is based on the heretical Encyclical
“To the Churches of Christ Everywhere” issued by the Church of Constantinople
in 1920. This Encyclical, as is well known, was the primary catalyst and the
moving force for the institutionalization of ecumenism by way of the World
Council of Churches and, in general, for the participation of the Orthodox in
various expressions and manifestations of ecumenism.
We will mention, here, by way of
example, the meeting between Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople— this year
being the fortieth anniversary of his repose (July 7, 1972 [n.s.])—and Pope
Paul VI in Jerusalem, in 1964. That meeting in the Holy City, where—as we have
ascertained from all that has been set forth—God expressed His aversion towards
the heretical Latins, initiated the unfolding of a depressing series of events,
with the lifting of the Anathemas in 1965 and the first steps down the slippery
slope of ecumenism, especially regarding relations with the Latins.
For its part, Rome, through the
Second Vatican Council, launched its “assault of love,” namely, Rome-centered
ecumenism, for the purpose of achieving a new Uniate-style union with the Orthodox.
The Papists decided on the meeting in Jerusalem in 1964 following the
persistent entreaty and efforts of the Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV. [56]
Prior to the meeting with Patriarch Athenagoras, Pope Paul VI had met with “the
Catholic [i.e., Uniate] patriarchs and hierarchs of the Eastern [Uniate]
Churches, to whom he delivered a momentous address, calling upon them to remain
faithful to their ancient traditions and liturgical typika, by which the
entire Church of Christ was made radiant.” [57] “Under such conditions did the
Vatican inaugurate the Dialogue of Love in Jerusalem”! [58] The meeting with
the Patriarch of Constantinople was conducted in a ecumenist framework, in
which the bases and principles for what followed were established. Speaking in
Bethlehem just two days after the meeting with Athenagoras, Pope Paul vi,
sincere in his attitude, called upon the “separated brethren,” that is, the
Orthodox, to return to the Roman Catholic flock! [59] The Pope presented
himself as the “proprietor and interpreter of the patrimony of Christ,”
emphasizing his primacy and infallibility over and above union. [60]
In spite of this, those of an
ecumenist bent characterize this meeting as an “historic” event, [61] whereas
many of the “official” Orthodox rose up at that time and vigorously expressed
their opposition to it. A “Proclamation” by Athonite Abbots and Fathers of
that time, for example, denounces pro-unionism, declares its adherence to
Tradition, and rejects any union of the ecumenist stripe. Moreover, it calls
all heretics who so desire to repentance and to return to Orthodoxy and
contains a clear threat: “We appeal to our OEcumenical Patriarch to desist
from pursuing his pro-unionist activities, for if he persists, we will disavow
him also.” [62]
Orthodox sensibilities functioned
for some time, and, as we know, there were even Hierarchs, aside from the
Abbots and monks, who broke off commemoration of the Patriarch for a certain
period of time, only to return to “obedience,” since they thought, strangely
enough, that after Athenagoras a new wind of Orthodoxy was ablow in
Constantinople and in the local Churches in general, even though the heresy of
ecumenism had waxed bold!
Patriarch Athenagoras preferred
the “currency of love,” despite the reactions, and not that of Truth and stated
that the purpose of dialogues and relations with the heterodox, and especially
with the Roman Catholics, was “to prepare our peoples psychologically to understand
that there is one Church and one religion.” [63]
It is no surprise that in 1993 we
ended up at Balamand, Lebanon, under Patriarch Bartholomew, the faithful
lackey of Athenagoras, who proclaimed officially in the context of the
Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue that both Churches are recognized as “Sister
Churches” in the full sense of the term; it was, rather, to be expected.
Papists and Orthodox ecumenists recognize that “profession of apostolic faith,
participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood...the
apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of
one of our Churches. In this context, is evident that all rebaptism is
excluded.” [64]
Likewise, a condemnation of “the
proselytism of Christians of other Christian traditions” was issued in the
context of the World Council of Churches, [65] while the Patriarchate of
Constantinople signed at the Phanar in September 2004, together with the
Evangelical Church in Germany, a rejection of “rebaptism,” since the baptisms
of both Churches are equated and recognized. [66]
All of the goings-on in
contemporary ecumenism, a few of which we shall mention, demonstrate that, in
essence, the distinction between Orthodoxy and heresy and the boundaries
between truth and falsehood, between light and darkness, have been effaced. Its
real aim is not the attainment of union, still less the putative conversion of
those in error to Orthodoxy, as Patriarch Bartholomew sometimes hypocritically
maintains before “conservative” audiences, since the ecumenists believe that
union between them already exists, that “the parties engaged in dialogue are
Sister Churches and that they express this unity of theirs through sundry
ecumenical displays.” [67]
Just this past January (2012)
there was an upsurge of ecumenical activities, particularly in the context of
the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.
An ecumenical ceremony to welcome
the New Year was held in a Roman Catholic church in Cologne, Germany, with, of
course, the participation of Orthodox ecumenists. It had for its motto: “TOGETHER.
Witnessing to Christ.” [68]
In Dubrovnik, Croatia, Bishop
Grigorije of Herzegovina (Patriarchate of Serbia), a spiritual son of Bishop
Atanasije (Jevtić), took part, on January 17, in an ecumenical ceremony in a
Roman Catholic church, together with the local Catholic bishop and his clergy,
and, among other things, he asked forgiveness for the horrors of the recent
war.
In Syros (an island in the
Cyclades), the Roman Catholic bishop Frangiskos Papamanoles delivered an
address in the Metropolitan Cathedral to Dorotheos, the local Bishop of the
New Calendar Church of Greece, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of his
Episcopate on January 19, emphasizing, inter alia, the following:
The people of Syros have welcomed
you united, without any dividing lines between them, united in the love of
Christ, united in the joy that the bells of our Churches, Orthodox and
Catholic, rang out to the heavens in a common melody, announcing your
arrival.... Beloved Brother, ...we can work together, or rather, we can
increase our coöperation in harmony, love, and peace, with mutual respect, not
only for our persons, but also for our Churches, as our yardstick. We bear
responsibility for the present and for the future of our Churches. We can
contribute to the speedier arrival of the blessed day when we share the common
Cup.
In Thessalonike, on Saturday,
January 21, an ecumenical evening of common prayer was held in the Roman
Catholic Church of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos. Roman Catholics,
Orthodox, Armenians, Anglicans, and Evangelicals took part in this event. The
keynote speaker was the Assistant Professor of New Testament at the Theological
School of the University of Thessalonike, Charalambos Atmatzides, who made the
following revealing statements about the meeting on a television channel:
It is a custom observed almost
every year by all of the Christians and all of the Christian communities of
Thessalonike. All Christians who have a common credo in Jesus Christ, that is,
we Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Armenians, and Evangelicals, gather together to
pray together and offer entreaties to God.... The purpose of this joint prayer
is for us to remember our roots and our common religious lineage, which used to
unite all of us a very long time ago, although after a period of time it
divided us for reasons which, in our view, are not so justified. This endeavor,
however, is based, is founded on the common will of the leaders of the Orthodox
Church, namely, our OEcumenical Patriarchate, of the Pope of Rome, and also of
the episcopal Evangelical Churches and of the Armenians, as a joint effort to
find common points of contact and communication.
Ecumenical ceremonies, joint
prayers, and activities took place between January 19 and 25 in Rome (under the
leadership of the Pope), in Budapest, in Brussels, in the Holy Land, in Moscow
and Novosibirsk, in Bucharest and other cities in Romania, and in many other
parts of the world, in a climate and a spirit of syncretism and relativism.
In Trier, Germany, an
“International Ecumenical Forum” commenced on January 30 with joint prayer and
speeches about the “seamless Robe of Christ.” Roman Catholics, Evangelicals,
the World Council of Churches, the Metropolis of Germany (OEcumenical Patriarchate),
Methodists, et al. were all represented among those taking part in this
forum, in the context of which, interestingly enough, “the participants were
symbolically weaving the Robe of Christ”!
While we are on the subject of
such ecumenical lunacy, it is worth emphasizing the new “tradition” that the
Patriarchate of Constantinople is establishing. It now enthrones its new
Metropolitans, in foreign countries in which a large Cathedral of its own
jurisdiction may not be available, in Roman Catholic churches. This occurred recently
both at the enthronement in Budapest of the new Exarch of Hungary and Central
Europe, Metropolitan Arsenios, and at the enthronement in Singapore of
Metropolitan Constantine of Singapore, at which Hierarchs of the New Calendar
Church of Greece were present.
We should also advert to the
ecumenist dimension of the charitable ministry of the Apostole society of the
New Calendar Archdiocese of Athens. Apostole recently began to coöperate
officially, for the successful accomplishment of its goals, with both Anglicans
and Roman Catholics, and in particular with their counterpart organization,
Caritas.
VI
The responsibility
of the Orthodox
In the face of this distressing
and discouraging reality, which is unfolding in the context of eschatological
“apostasy,” [69] for the purpose of bringing about a world religion and the
coming of the man of sin, that is, the Antichrist, for the final tribulation of
humanity, we cannot but express our grief and sorrow, not so much over the
terrible economic crisis and social degradation of our homeland—which is also
extremely disquieting—as over the downfall of Orthodox Churches and the
continuing captivity of souls, on account of those who champion the heresy of
ecumenism, as St. Basil the Great wrote in connection with the events of his
era: “For we are lamenting not the demolition of earthly buildings, but the
overthrow of Churches; what we behold is not bodily enslavement, but a
captivity of souls that is effected daily by the champions of heresy.” [70]
In our opinion, our prime concern
today is that we preserve at all costs our Orthodox identity, which is being
grievously assaulted amid the tempest of confusion that surrounds us, and that
we correspondingly heighten the awareness in every way of as many of our
brothers and sisters as possible, so that they might act in a correct and
God-pleasing manner.
For those enmeshed in
reprehensible communion with our ecumenist brethren there is always the
possibility of shaking off this “yoke” through Orthodox confession and
walling-off and through incorporation into the realm of Truth, far removed from
the darkness and falsehood of error. Few of them, however, do we see being
drawn by the Light of Truth; few walk in the Truth, far away from the
wickedness of sin and apostasy. A variety of erroneous assessments or
misguided commitments and dependences, it seems, darken their souls and drive
salutary reproofs away from their consciences. And not only this, but they
also muster artful excuses in sins, so as to appease their consciences and lull
themselves into a Uniate-style communion with ecumenists. The harsh words of
our Lord Jesus Christ befit those in our day who defend innovation and insult
the Truth and correct confession: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men: for ye neither go
in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” [71]
St. Basil the Great, for example,
believed—as did all of the Holy Fathers—that the issue of communion with
heretics is of direct soteriological significance, and for this reason he
prayed that he not fall away from communion with that segment of the Church
which abides on the basis of “sound and undistorted doctrine,” [72] since
communion in Orthodoxy places one with the “lot” of the righteous; conversely,
communion with those who distort the Orthodox confession of faith either as a
whole or in part places such communicants outside the communion of the Church.
[73] For this reason, St. Basil the Great, even as a Deacon, “walled himself
off” in 361 from Bishop Dianios of Cæsarea, who had ordained him, because, out
of weakness of character, he had signed the un-Orthodox confession of faith of
the semi-Arian Synod of Constantinople (360). [74]
The hopeful thing is that a few
sensitive and elect servants of God, disregarding insidious threats,
marginalization, and the bootless “assurances” of this world, are being drawn
to the Light of Truth, walling themselves off, in accordance with the example
of the Fathers and with Synodal and canonical injunctions, from the so-called
official Churches, thereby eschewing communion with the heresy of ecumenism.
Some, like our spiritual
ancestors in the Faith, did this much longer ago, on account of the ecumenist
imposition of the calendar innovation (1924–). Others, like our spiritual
progenitors in the Lord, did this later, by reason of the increasingly
audacious ventures and excesses of the ecumenists. Others are doing so today,
while quite a few are vacillant about this salvific course of action, remaining
in reprehensible communion with the ecumenists. At any rate, the upsurge in
anti-ecumenism, which perturbs the heresiarchs of ecumenism and their sundry
apologists or colleagues, is a comforting fact and one which confirms that the
struggles and even the ordeals of many decades have not been in vain.
May the Lord of the Church
strengthen the plenitude who confess the Faith, to the end that Divine Truth
might prevail!
May we be numbered with the
faithful and wise servants of God in the Kingdom of the Light of Divine Love,
if nothing else for the sake of our patient endurance and our good intention
for the welfare of the Church. May the majestic vision of the Divine Kingdom,
which the Holy Evangelist John the Theologian describes for us in the
Apocalypse, console us in whatever sacrifices we make for Faith and virtue:
“And there shall be no night there; and they [the saved] need no candle,
neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall
reign for ever and ever.” [75] Amen!
NOTES
1. A
presentation on the occasion of the celebration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy,
2012, by the Holy Synod in Resistance at the Holy Convent of St. Paraskeve,
Archarnai, Attica. The text here is published in its entirety, expanded and
with footnotes.
2. Great
Horologion, Service of Orthros, Hymn of Light in the Plagal of the Fourth
Tone.
3. i St.
John 1:5.
4. St.
Matthew 6:24.
5. ii Corinthians
6:14.
6. ii
Corinthians 6:14.
7.
“Epistles,” Bk. ii.197, Patrologia Græca, Vol. xcix, col. 1597b.
8. ii St.
Peter 2:9.
9. St.
Matthew 5:14.
10. St. Luke
16:8; St. John 12:36.
11.
Ephesians 5:8; i Thessalonians 5:5.
12.
Colossians 1:12.
13.
“Catechesis xxviii,” §7, in Symeon le Nouveau Théologien, Catéchèses
23-34 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1965), p. 138.
14.
“Spiritual Homily xxv,” §10, Patrologia Græca, Vol. xxxiv, col. 673d.
15. Niketas
Stethatos, “Concerning the Heavenly and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,” §30, in Μυστικὰ
Συγγράμματα (Mystical Writings), ed. Panagiotes Chrestou (Thessalonike:
1957), p. 75.
16.
Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, Ἱστορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας
Ἱεροσολύμων (History of the Church of Jerusalem) (Thessalonike: Ekdoseis P.
Pournara, 2010), pp. 415-416. See also the lengthy and analytical presentation,
fully documented, in the excellent study by Charis K. Skarlakides, Ἅγιον Φῶς
– Τὸ Θαῦμα τοῦ Μεγάλου Σαββάτου στὸν Τάφο τοῦ Χριστοῦ – Σαράντα Δύο Ἱστορικὲς
Μαρτυρίες (9ος-16ο αἰ.) (The Holy Light: The Miracle of Great Saturday at
the Sepulchre of Christ: Forty-Two Historical Testimonies [9th-16th Centuries])
(n.p.: Ekdoseis “Elaia,” 2010), pp. 107-110.
17. Cf. Philippians
3:18.
18. St.
Nicodemos the Hagiorite, Ἀκολουθία τοῦ Ἁγίου Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Μάρκου Εὐγενικοῦ Ἀρχιεπισκόπου
Ἐφέσου (Service of Our Holy Father Mark Evgenikos, Archbishop of Ephesus),
third Sticheron at the Praises (Thessalonike: Ekdoseis “Orthodoxos Kypsele,”
2010), p. 34.
19. Various
Western historians assert, without any evidence, that Patriarch Symeon ii reposed
in 1099, shortly before the Crusaders captured Jerusalem (see Steven Runciman, The
Eastern Schism [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955], p. 87), in order to justify
the election of a Latin pseudo-Patriarch, but this is completely untrue (see
the well-documented rebuttal in Papadopoulos, Ἱστορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων,
pp. 417-418). In fact, Patriarch Symeon died only in 1106. The
aforementioned work by the renowned Byzantinist Steven Runciman, apart from
some erroneous comments and appraisals regarding the Latin Patriarchate of
Jerusalem, is an insightful and interesting presentation of the relations
between East and West, as these developed during the period of the Crusades.
20.
Papadopoulos, Ἱστορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων, p. 418.
21.
Runciman, The Eastern Schism, pp. 87-88.
22.
Skarlakides, Ἅγιον Φῶς, pp. 111-112.
23. For an
extended discussion of the testimonies and the seven chroniclers, see
Skarlakides, Ἅγιον Φῶς, pp. 112-150.
24. Ibid.,
pp. 129-130.
25. Ibid.,
pp. 131-132; Papadopoulos, Ἱστορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων, pp.
426-427; Ioanna Tsekoura, Τὸ Ἅγιον Φῶς στὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα (The Holy Light
in Jerusalem) (Lamia: 1987), pp. 85-86.
26. Skarlakides,
Ἅγιον Φῶς, p. 152; cf. Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1952), Vol. ii, p. 85.
27.
Skarlakides, Ἅγιον Φῶς, p. 155; Papadopoulos, Ἱστορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων,
pp. 428-429.
28. Cf. St.
Luke 15:17.
29. St. John
8:12.
30.
Skarlakides, Ἅγιον Φῶς, p. 203.
31.
Papadopoulos, Ἱστορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων, p. 456.
32. Ibid.,
pp. 452-453. George Moschabar, a staunch opponent of Church union,
flourished in the second half of the thirteenth century. In addition to the
refutation of Bekkos cited in the body of this lecture, he wrote a “Dialogue
with a Dominican on the Procession of the Holy Spirit.” An extract from the
former was printed by Andronikos Demetrakopoulos in his Ὀρθόδοξος Ἑλλάς (Orthodox
Greece) (Leipzig: Typois Metzger kai Wittig, 1872), pp. 60-62. The latter,
unfortunately, remains unpublished—trans.
33. Ibid.,
p. 458.
34.
Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Δωδεκάβιβλος (Bucharest: 1715), p.
788.
35.
Papadopoulos, Ἱστορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων, pp. 483-485. The Synod
in question, we might add, characterized Patriarch Metrophanes, in a play on
words, as “Μητροφόνος” (“Mother-slayer”), on ground that he had uncanonically
seized the throne of Constantinople! See Meletios, Metropolitan of Athens, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ
Ἱστορία (Church History) (Vienna: Jozef Baumeister, 1784), Vol. iii, p.
300—trans.
36. Andreas
Papamoyses Zakos, Μέγας Ὁδηγὸς τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Γῇ Σεβασμίων Προσκυνημάτων τοῦ
Χριστιανισμοῦ (Great Guide to the Venerable Christian Shrines in the Holy
Land) (Cyprus: Astromerites, 1970), p. 283; Archimandrite Panteleimon D.
Poulos, Εὐλαβικὸ Προσκύνημα στὴν Ἁγία Γῆ καὶ τὸ Θεοβάδιστο Ὄρος Σινᾶ (A
Pious Pilgrimage to the Holy Land and Mount Sinai, Where God Walked) (Athens:
2008), p. 34; Tsekoura, Τὸ Ἅγιον Φῶς στὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα, pp. 86-87.
37.
Papadopoulos, Ἱστορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων, pp. 598-599.
38. Ibid.,
pp. 628-630.
39. For the
text of this decree (Ὅρος), see Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima
Collectio, ed. J.-B. Martin and L. Petit, Vol. xxxviii (Paris: Expensis
Huberti Welter, 1907), cols. 617c-621a. For an English translation, see I
Confess One Baptism..., by Protopresbyter George Metallinos, trans.
Priestmonk Seraphim (Holy Mountain: St. Paul’s Monastery, 1994), pp.
133-136—trans.
40.
Papadopoulos, Ἱστορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων, p. 695.
41. Cf. Ephesians
5:14.
42. St. Luke
15:7, 10.
43. St.
Symeon the New Theologian, “Catechesis xxviii,” §7, p. 138.
44. Metropolitan
Hierotheos of Navpaktos and Hagios Blasios, “Τὸ ἅγιον Φῶς καὶ ἡ μητέρα τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν”
(The Holy Light and the Mother of the Churches), Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Παρέμβαση, No.
63 (April 2001). Regarding the non-perceptible nature of Uncreated Light, see
Iakovos Potamianos, Tὸ Φῶς στὴ Βυζαντινὴ Ἐκκλησία (Light in the
Byzantine Church) (Thessalonike: University Studio Press, 2000), pp. 62, 70.
• According
to the great theologian of the Uncreated Light, St. Gregory Palamas, all such
things that occur in the ontological realm are not products of nature, nor do
they arise from some deficiency, but on account of their superiority; they are
all spiritual, but not uncreated: “Therefore, the Resurrection of the Lord is
spiritual, as the Golden-mouthed Father says, but resurrection is not
uncreated, nor is the very act of resurrecting; for it is the resurrection of
a fallen creature, which is the same as to say a recreation and a refashioning.
Such are the new creation, the new man, and the new and pure heart....
[Everything] that is ineffably accomplished by God is spiritual, but not
everything [that He brings about] is uncreated.” Spiritual things are
expressed “perceptibly” and are subject to the “perceptual faculty,” which is
unable to apprehend not only things that transcend the mind, but even things
that transcend the senses, that is, noetic realities. “Uncreated things are
beyond the mind, and those who are united to these things are united to a
higher power which surpasses the nature of the mind, according to the great
Dionysios” (Fifth Refutatory Discourse Against Akindynos, ch. 23, §§87,
88, 89, in Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ Ἅπαντα τὰ Ἔργα, Vol. vi, Ἕλληνες
Πατέρες τῆς Ἐκκλησίας [Thessalonike: Paterikai Ekdoseis “Gregorios ho
Palamas,” 1987], pp. 252, 254, 256). See also St. Dionysios the Areopagite, On
the Divine Names, ch. vii.1, Patrologia Græca, Vol. iii, col.
865c—trans.
45. Vladimir
Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), p. 221.
46. See, for
example, Archimandrite George Kapsanes, “Ὀρθόδοξος Παράδοσις καὶ Παπισμός”
(Orthodox Tradition and Papism), Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 332 (November 10,
1978).
47. For an
analysis of what it means to fall away from the Body of the Church, see “On the
Status of Uncondemned Heretics,” http://hsir.org/p/th.
48. “The
Orthodox Views of His Grace, Bishop Daniel of Budapest,” Orthodox Tradition,
Vol. xv, Nos. 2-3 (1998), p. 13.
49.
Archimandrite Gabriel Dionysiates, Ἁγιορειτικὴ Μαρτυρία (The Witness of
the Holy Mountain) (Thessalonike: Ekdoseis “Orthodoxos Kypsele,” n.d.), pp.
185-186.
50. See the
article “Ἅγιος Γεράσιμος καὶ Δαιμονισμένοι” (St. Gerasimos of Kephallenia and
Demoniacs”) on the website “Ὀρθόδοξος Κόσμος” (accessed April 5, 2008). This
text is also available elsewhere on the Internet.
51. “Canonical
Questions from Patriarch Mark of Alexandria and Responses Thereto by Patriarch
Theodore Balsamon of Antioch,” Nos. 14-15, Patrologia Græca, Vol.
cxxxviii, cols. 965c-968b.
52. Νουθεσίες
Ἁγιοπνευματικὲς καὶ Παρακλητικὸς Κανών (Spiritual Counsels and Canon of Supplication)
(Thessalonike: Ekdoseis “Orthodoxos Kypsele,” 2008), pp. 157-158.
53. Views
expressed by Protopresbyter Dumitru Staniloae (†1993) in Hieromonk Ioanichie
Balan, Πνευματικοὶ Διάλογοι μὲ Ρουμάνοuς Πατέρες (Spiritual Dialogues
with Romanian Fathers) (Thessalonike: Ekdoseis “Orthodoxos Kypsele,” 1986), pp.
205, 206, 208.
54. The
following historical incident is very telling: When the Synod under Patriarch
Germanos ii of Constantinople (1222-1240) wanted to appear compliant for the
time being and to permit the Hierarchy and clergy in Cyprus, who were under the
harsh yoke of the Latins, to conform “by oikonomia” to the terms put
forward by the Papists, yielding to the demands [of the Latins] for submission
in order to serve the faithful and to avert impending calamities, they
provoked a great uproar: “As soon as they learned that such a decision had been
taken, enraged crowds of clergy, monks, and faithful rushed into the chamber in
which the Synod was in session. After declaring to the members of the Synod
that they regarded this submission as a veritable denial of the ancestral
Faith, they demanded that the Patriarch alter the Synodal resolution, which is
in fact what happened” (Archimandrite Hieronymos I. Kotsones, Ἡ Κανονικὴ Ἄποψις
περὶ τῆς Διακοινωνίας μετὰ τῶν Ἑτεροδόξων (Intercommunio) [Intercommunion
with the Heterodox from the Canonical Standpoint] [Athens: Ekdoseis “He
Damaskos,” 1957], p. 75).
55. See the
discussion in the article from some fifty years ago by the Serbian theologian
Father Danilo Krstić, later Bishop of Budapest (†2002), “The Divine Fire and
Man-made Stream,” in The Faithful Steward, No. 14 (2003), p. 8. In this
interesting text, the author makes mention also of the “strictly
Traditionalist” Orthodox, who equate the “boundaries” of the Church with the
charismatic boundaries of the Divine Eucharist. There is no Divine Eucharist
outside the Orthodox Catholic Church. The Traditionalists maintain two different
practices in receiving the heterodox. The strictest, following St. Cyprian of
Carthage, baptize converts (it is primarily the Greeks, including those on the
Holy Mountain, who do this), whereas others are content to anoint them with
Holy Chrism, reckoning that in this way their baptism outside the Church
becomes valid and efficacious (this is done chiefly by the Slavs).
• For an
historical perspective on the difference in practice in dealing with the reception
of the heterodox on the part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and of the
Church of Russia, see Kotsones, Ἡ Κανονικὴ Ἄποψις περὶ τῆς Διακοινωνίας μετὰ
τῶν Ἑτεροδόξων, pp. 121-122.
• For
statements and activities of the ringleaders among the Orthodox ecumenists, who
laid the foundations for the further development of such heretical ecumenist
“theologies” as “Baptismal theology” and the “theology of the Broad Church,”
see “Ecumenism as an Ecclesiological Heresy,” http://hsir.org/p/rd.
56.
Archimandrite Spyridon Bilales, Ὀρθοδοξία καὶ Παπισμός (Orthodoxy and
Papism) (Athens: Ekdoseis “Orthodoxou Typou,” 1969), Vol. ii, p. 343.
57. Ibid.,
p. 344.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.,
p. 345.
60. Ibid.,
p. 346.
61. See the
article “Ἀθηναγόρας Α´, Οἰκουμενικὸς Πατριάρχης” (Athenagoras I, OEcumenical
Patriarch), in Μεγάλη Ὀρθόδοξη Χριστιανικὴ Ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία (Great
Orthodox Christian
Encyclopedia) (Athens: Strategikes Ekdoseis, [2010]), Vol. i, p. 388.
62.
Archimandrite Gabriel, Ἁγιορειτικὴ Μαρτυρία, p. 161.
63.
“Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople (1886-1972): His Statements, Messages,
and Activities,” Orthodox Tradition, Vol. xviii, No. 1 (2001), p. 10.
64. “The
Balamand Statement,” §13, Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. i, No. 1
(Winter 1993-1994), p. 19. We have corrected the wording of the final sentence
on the basis of the French original of the Balamand Statement
(see http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/o-rc/doc/i_o-rc_07_balamand_fr.html).
65. E.g.,
“Within the ecumenical movement and the World Council of Churches the concern
for common witness and the unity of the churches has always been a priority,
and proselytism has been recognized as a scandal and counterwitness”; “[One]
of the characteristics which clearly distinguish[es] proselytism from authentic
Christian witness [is] [p]resenting one’s church or confession as ‘the true
church’ and its teachings as ‘the right faith’ and the only way to salvation,
rejecting baptism in other churches as invalid and persuading people to be
rebaptized”; “Proselytism is a perversion of authentic Christian witness and
thus a counterwitness. It does not build up but destroys. It brings about
tensions, scandal and division, and is thus a destabilizing factor for the
witness of the church of Christ in the world. It is always a wounding of
koinonia, creating not fellowship but antagonistic parties,” (“Towards Common
Witness: A Call to Adopt Responsible Relationships in Mission and to Renounce
Proselytism,”
66.
“Although ecclesiastical communion does not yet exist between our Churches
[Orthodox and Protestant], we each regard the other’s members as baptized, and
in the case of a change in confession, we refuse to undertake a new baptism.
The participants in the dialogue salute the efforts of the Churches in Germany
(Arbeitsgemeinschaft Christlicher Kirchen) to reach agreement regarding a
mutual recognition of baptism” (Joint Communiqué, Phanar, 2004),” in
“Participation in the ‘World Council of Churches’ as an Ecclesiological Heresy:
‘Invisible Unity’ and ‘Baptismal Theology,’” http://hsir.org/p/ac.
67.
Archimandrite Cyprian and Hieromonk Klemes Hagiokyprianitai, Οἰκουμενικὴ
Κίνησις καὶ Ὀρθόδοξος Ἀντι-οικουμενισμός – ῾Η κρίσιμος ἀντιπαράθεσις ἑνὸς αἰῶνος
(The Ecumenical Movement and Orthodox Anti-Ecumenism: The Crucial
Confrontation of a Century) (Vol. vii in Συμβολὴ στὴν Ἀντι-οικουμενιστικὴ
Θεολογία; Athens: Ekdoseis Hieras Synodou ton Enistamenon, 2001), p. 53.
68. See the
presentations of this and the other ecumenical events mentioned subsequently,
together with audio-visual material, according to the date of their posting, at
the extremely informative website “Aktines” (http://aktines.blogspot.com).
69. ii
Thessalonians 2:3.
70. “Epistle
lxx,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. xxxii, col. 436b.
71. St.
Matthew 23:14.
72. “Epistle
ccli,” §4, Patrologia Græca, Vol. xxxii, col. 940a.
73. See “St.
Basil and Resistance: Communion with Heretical Bishops is Inadmissible,”
http://hsir.org/p/2a.
74. Ibid.
(See St. Basil, “Epistle li,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. xxxii, cols.
388c-392a.)
75.
Revelation 22:5.
