Wednesday, January 3, 2024

Prof. John Kornarakis: Why I did not sign the 2009 Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism

 

Sunday, June 14, 2009

To the respected clergy of the Editorial Committee of the text A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism:

Elder Joseph of Mount Athos, Fr. George Metallinos, Fr. Theodoros Zisis, Fr. Markos Manolis, and Fr. Sarantis Sarantos

by John Kornarakis (+2013),

Professor Emeritus at the School of Theology, University of Athens

 

I received and read with particular attention both the text of your entreaty that I participate in your anti-ecumenist endeavor, as well as that of your declaration. In the text of your entreaty, you address me personally and by name, and you state: “We fervently ask, since you agree with the content of the Confession, that you add your signature to the document, so that we might gladden and reassure the faithful, who are in agony over what is underway and who await words of truth.”

The goal of your anti-ecumenist endeavor, I thus take it, is to allay the fears of the faithful concerning the constant intensification of the ecumenist maelstrom in the ranks of the Orthodox Church and to reassure the faithful that you guarantee the protection of the Church from the catastrophic consequences for her of the ecumenical activities of her Orthodox leaders.

Unfortunately, I must tell you that I cannot attach my signature to this document, which you characterize as a “Confession of Faith,” since this confession is not in keeping with the terms and dicta of the treasury of the Church’s Sacred Canons, or of the Patristic Tradition, inspired by the Holy Spirit, of witness by blood and soul, by which alone the Divine Fathers, as most genuine servants of Christ, “bringing together all their pastoral knowledge and moved to righteous anger, expelled from the plenitude of the Church the grievous and pernicious wolves of heresies, hurling them far off with the sling of the Spirit,” as one of the Church’s hymnographers puts it.

The grievous wolves of heresies, then, and especially of the pernicious disease of the pan-heresy of ecumenism, are not to be exorcized by a tedious and unholy paper war of anti-heretical texts. Such verbal warfare, every time, simply informs the flock what the heresy in question is and the catastrophic results that it causes in the life of the Church.

To date, a large number of such texts have been circulated by the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain, by your own group of clergy and monastics, and also by other anti-ecumenist initiatives. Much ink has been spilled and much paper expended on the same issues and for the same motive – putatively a combative one – without a single substantive loss on the part of the ecumenists in the Church.

Ecumenism is advancing in the domain of the Church, and is constantly reinforced, precisely because the Orthodox ecumenists, whose names are not disclosed, go untouched. For this reason, they are not disquieted and are sure that they will achieve their goals, thanks to your timidity in failing to struggle in a God-pleasing manner, with the spirit of the sacrificial martyrdom of the Cross.

In your entreaty to me, you write: “The Holy Martyrs, Hierarchs, Ascetics, and Confessors struggled for Orthodoxy and suffered much in confessing the Faith.”

And you – what have you suffered up to this day?

Your anti-ecumenist endeavor is limited to the confines of your personal safety, so that you remain untouched by any consequences that would be unpleasant for you.

For example, on p. 17 of your text, you write: “This pan-heresy (of ecumenism) has been accepted by many Orthodox Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Clergymen, Monks and laity.”

Who are they? You do not name them, as you ought to have done, in keeping in fact with a decision made by your own assembly of clergy and monastics.

Allow me to remind you of the facts: sometime after the sacrilege of the Papal incursion into the Phanar, and this with the blessing and collaboration of the Patriarch, this group convened – I myself was also present – in Pelion, at the Metochion of the Athonite Monastery of the Great Lavra, in order to consider its new goals. Throughout the gathering, the predominant proposal embraced by all present was that a document be composed in which, at long last, all of the names of the Orthodox ecumenists would be made public. You permitted many laypeople, men and women, to attend this gathering, and all present enthusiastically applauded this proposal.

We went away from that meeting place with the expectation of receiving this document so that we could sign it, so that it could be put into circulation as soon as possible. However, time passed, and no activity was evident from any quarter to sustain the functioning of this group of clergy and monastics; nor was any document sent out. Thus, the activity of the group was reduced to uncertainty and inertia for a long period of time. This protracted inactivity and silence and, now, the thwarting of the publication of the awaited document, containing the names of the ecumenist leaders of the Church, are proof positive that the group has ceased any longer to be active. What could have happened?

For me this puzzle was solved when, in September of the past year (September 8, 2008), a front-page article was published by one of you in Orthodoxos Typos on the subject of “Points of Orthodox Opposition.” In the first paragraph of this article, entitled “1. The strugglers have faltered,” the author writes: “There is a widespread feeling that Orthodox opposition to the continuing maelstrom of syncretistic ecumenism has diminished; very few voices are now to be heard. Dynamic and organized circles, comprised of traditionalist clergy and monastics, who in the past strove with vigor, boldness, and purpose of confession, and who endeavored, by way of petitions, the organization of conferences, lectures, and other events, to maintain a vigilant self-understanding among the Orthodox, are no longer in the forefront. It seems as if they have become internally weakened and have given up the struggle.”

It was obvious what the article was talking about: the “funeral” of your group.

It ascribed responsibility for silence to its members. The group had to be disbanded in order to appease the ecumenist Church leaders. If the activity of this group of clergy and monastics has revived through a new paper war, this is for reasons about which I must remain silent for the present.

At any rate, the spirit that prevails among all of those in charge of this group is revealed in the futility of its anti-ecumenist efforts, in the emptiness of its witness, and in the general ineffectuality of its struggle. A war of words and nothing else – only for show. This fact is confirmed by p. 17 of the declaration. You write, Reverend Fathers, that the ecumenist Patriarchs et hoc genus omne “teach it ‘bareheaded,’ and that they apply it and impose it in practice, associating with heretics in every possible manner, in joint prayers, the exchange of visits, and in joint pastoral ventures.”

In this text, you set forth verbatim the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Synod, which gives you the right to break off the commemoration of Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops.

But you do not do so, and you never will!

Moreover, by this stand of yours, you are acting irrationally. For you state that the ecumenists “place themselves outside the Church,” since they violate the Canons of the Church. But alas, those Priests who denounce Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops without naming them, but simply through a sapping and unsacred paper war: are they within the Church? And especially when they recognize such Prelates, sometimes offer them gifts, and publicly characterize them as Orthodox theologians?

These same clergymen who fail to apply the standard of which they are aware, but go along with those whom they recognize and denounce as ecumenists, must not themselves be members of the Church. They would be in the Church, provided they were to cease commemoration of their ecumenist superiors; indeed then, in accordance with this Canon, they would be “worthy of the honor due to Orthodox Christians,” since “they have not caused any schism in the Church by their separation, but have, rather, delivered the Church from the schism and heresy of their false bishops” (Pedalion, p. 358).

Reverend Fathers:

The basic problem of our existence is the extent to which our life is lived in Christ Jesus. Christ, the preeminently unsurpassable Truth, calls us, if we so wish, “to walk behind Him,” to be true in every way. When we do not do this, “we trifle with things not to be trifled with” at the table of Gospel truths. Shady dealings, covering up the truth with a veil of falsehood, diplomacy, and sundry expedients for self-protection are not made holy by a paper war of anti-heretical documents – [as though] the sole solution in struggling for the Faith! I am unable to subscribe to such a solution at this advanced time of my life, which is bringing me near to the judgment of God.

 

Original Greek print source: Ιερά Παρακαταθήκη, July 2009.

Original Greek online: https://web.archive.org/web/20100112051111/http://www.ekklisiastikos.com/2009/08/blog-post_20.html

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

The Calendar Schism: Potential or Actual? A Response to a Related Letter from Monk Mark Chaniotis

Monk Theodoretos (Mavros) | Mount Athos | 1973   And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfull...