Monk Seraphim Zisis
Honorable Fathers,
Beloved Brothers,
Christ is Risen!
We feel great joy being among you today, to share together the spiritual joy of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the joy of promoting the magazine Orthodox Confession and the portal Orthodox Confession, which will be presented to us by our esteemed brother, Mr. Mihai Silviu Chirilă. Our gathering today in Botoșani marks not only three years since the unfortunate Council of Kolymbari, which made decisions contrary to Orthodox ecclesiology and to the very Symbol of Faith, but also three years since the proclamation of Botoșani in June 2017, a document through which the fight against ecumenism, by means of separation, was officially recognized and defined, initially in Romania.
The fact that we are all here today, those of us who have separated ourselves from bishops with heretical minds and who have deviated from the true faith, along with other courageous fathers and brothers who are carrying out this common struggle together, reveals first and foremost the priority and righteousness of Holy Orthodoxy, according to our holy Orthodox tradition, above any other real or imagined need or priority and above any other spiritual struggle. Saint Gregory Palamas, in a eulogy to Saint John the Baptist, the Forerunner of the Lord, who was martyred for virtue and not for faith, writes the following: "Just as sin is a lesser evil compared to the absence of piety, so much more, therefore, it would be a greater good for someone to endanger their life for virtue. For example, if one gave their life for a lesser good, would they not, if necessary, also give it for the greater good, that is, for piety?" [1] Therefore, our struggle for what is primary and essential is self-evident!
Today, in the year of salvation 2019, the fruits of the Council of Kolymbari are becoming even more evident—for example, the unacceptable, phyletistic, and divisive attitude of the Ecumenical Patriarchate regarding the issue of Ukrainian autocephaly—and thus these fruits more clearly reveal the ecclesiastical landscape on a global level and, therefore, even more clearly define the correct attitude of the faithful towards clergy with heretical minds. I specify the following:
(a) The connection between American foreign policy and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, which has been noted in various publications since the Council of Kolymbari (such as the case of Dr. Elissavet Prodromou, of Greek-American origin, a member of the CIA, DIA, and NATO), is now, with the development of the situation regarding Ukrainian autocephaly, becoming even more visible. Do I mention this simply as an observation of the geopolitical situation? No, I make this remark because this simply means that the Ecumenical Patriarchate and all the Churches surrounding it will gradually be required to follow the imperatives of "political correctness" of Western culture, which include, for example, the ordination of women, theological tolerance toward other religions, ecclesiastical acceptance of homosexuality, the theory of evolution, etc. This will prove to the wider body of the Church that the problem of ecumenism is not even a religious or inter-Christian issue, but rather one of imposing the parameters of the New Age and the new world order within the Church (through the West).
The wave of "political correctness" has already engulfed and influenced, first, the Greek-speaking churches (those with Greek primates), which have mostly operated in recent decades within Western political structures (the European Union, NATO); next, it will target the countries of the former Eastern bloc that have recently joined NATO and the EU. These countries will be asked to abandon their traditional religious and cultural values and principles, in general, in favor of the West's "political correctness" in order to enjoy the so-called "economic prosperity" within the EU and the "military protection" of NATO (as evidenced by the imposition of Gay Pride celebrations in Serbia in 2010 and in the Republic of Moldova in 2017 and 2018. Serbia was told that its European prospects would be affected by its stance on LGBT issues). [2] Similarly, a fierce battle will be waged, until annihilation, against Russia, to destroy its current unity and governance mentality (although I will not expand my analysis here), so that it adopts the Western lifestyle and yields to the global power monopoly of NATO and the USA, as Zbigniew Brzezinski explained in his book The Grand Chessboard 22 years ago, when Russia was on the verge of collapse.
(b) The granting of autocephaly to the schismatics in Ukraine, who were previously generally recognized as schismatics, defrocked, excommunicated, or self-ordained, took place in violation of all prior inter-Orthodox agreements regarding the manner of granting autocephaly to a Church. It also occurred almost entirely unexpectedly, amid a civil division in Ukraine—namely, in a situation not conducive to a smooth transition to a new ecclesiastical regime—and through the complete "deafness" of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to all appeals from Orthodox primates to resolve this issue through a pan-Orthodox agreement or a pan-Orthodox Council.
This development confirms not only the current subordination of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to American priorities (which are well known for Ukraine), but also the fact that this sacred institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is, for the first time, perceiving its role as an Eastern Vatican. Here, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not just a moderator and president among the Orthodox primates, "first among equals" (primus inter pares), but is exercising extraordinary interventions of power in foreign jurisdictions, like a pope, "first without equals" (paribus sine primus), a perspective that has attracted the interest of American intelligence agencies since the time of Patriarch Athenagoras. He became patriarch in 1948 through a coup, by the illegal and forced deposition of his predecessor, Patriarch Maximus V, a renowned and erudite patriarch.
This development confirms not only the current subordination of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to American priorities (which are well known in Ukraine), but also that this sacred institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is, for the first time, perceiving its role as an Eastern Vatican. Here, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not merely a moderator and president of the Orthodox primates, "first among equals" (primus inter pares), but exercises extraordinary interventions of power in foreign jurisdictions, like a pope, "first without equals" (paribus sine primus). This perspective has attracted the interest of American intelligence agencies since the time of Patriarch Athenagoras, who became patriarch in 1948 through a coup, by the illegal and forced deposition of his predecessor, Patriarch Maximus V, a renowned, erudite, and virtuous patriarch, to serve American interests. Let's not forget that a prominent contemporary collaborator of the Ecumenical Patriarch, the chief secretary of the Patriarchate, Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa, who also has a concrete ideological inclination towards "Christian-leaning Freemasonry," expressed the incredible opinion in 2009 that prioritizing the "Ecumenical Councils" in Orthodoxy is a mistaken teaching, and it is a form of heresy to refuse to have a "protos" among all the Orthodox Churches, with a power comparable to that of a bishop among the priests of his diocese. This heretical "papal" ecclesiological concept has now emerged from the very developments in Ukraine and seems to be seriously concerning even former supporters of Patriarch Bartholomew from around the world (from Jerusalem, Serbia, etc.), for whom this tendency to interfere in foreign jurisdictions is causing fear.
(c) As the third and final factor, I would like to mention, on the one hand, the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch arbitrarily modified the article in the preliminary documents of the Council of Kolymbari, which referred to priesthood as an impediment to marriage, to allow the second marriage of clergy. This modification, discreetly noted by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Abbot Tikhon of Stavronikita Monastery, was also extensively discussed and criticized by Father Theodoros Zisis in one of his articles.[3] On the other hand, although the Council of Kolymbari should have condemned the old heresies—Papism, Protestantism, and the very ancient Monophysitism—it persistently avoided doing so. This obligation is only subtly mentioned in the encyclical, where it refers (§3) to past Orthodox decisions of condemnation. However, the encyclical does not carry the same weight as other official documents issued at Kolymbari, and thus, the condemnation of heresies (which are not even called "heresies" but "faiths") does not appear as a primary task of this heretical council. The only "heresy" condemned at Kolymbari (in the encyclical, §3) was "phyletism," which, nevertheless, the 1872 Council of Constantinople referred to merely as a "belief" (δόξα) and not a heresy. [4] The purpose of the Council of Kolymbari was to recall Moscow's old hegemonic tendencies in the Balkans at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century and to revive the fear of the "Russian threat." The tragic irony in this case is that some of the most prominent supporters of the Council of Kolymbari essentially condemned themselves there. That is, today, some primates hesitate to condemn Patriarch Bartholomew's actions in Ukraine due to their shared Greek origins, while others—even worse—declare, like Archbishop Anastasios of Albania, that despite the uncanonical restoration of the schismatics in Ukraine by Patriarch Bartholomew, they will side with him (Patriarch Bartholomew) in the event of a broader breakdown of communion among the Orthodox. [5]
I have mentioned all the above to show that, despite our human weakness, despite the seemingly unclear reactions against ecumenism and the still limited impact of the "separation," the care of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, as He dealt with Pharaoh's wickedness and his unrepentance after the ten plagues sent upon Egypt (Exodus 11:10), is leading ecclesiastical matters toward an unpleasant development, so that "sin might appear exceedingly sinful through the commandment" (Romans 7:13), and so that the whole world may understand, willingly or not, what are ultimately the goals of those who are of the same mind as Patriarch Bartholomew in each local Church: the gradual distortion of Orthodox tradition in its entirety, dogmatic and canonical relativism as the final result, and therefore, the easier assimilation and union of Orthodoxy with other Christian confessions and religions. This is, moreover, the declared goal of Freemasonry, which the Botoșani document from June 2017 (§2) has documented as the source and supporter of the pan-heresy of ecumenism. Let us not forget, as Father Theodore emphasized, that in the case of iconoclasm, which lasted 120 years, the resolution did not come through the (necessary) reactions of the Orthodox, in accordance with the Holy Canons, but through the mercy of God, who, at the right moment, moved the pious hermits of Mount Olympus in Bithynia—Joannicius the Great, Arsakios, and Isaiah—to urge Patriarch Methodius and Empress Theodora [6] to restore Orthodoxy.
Of course, the reaction to heresy is not limited only to separation; however, considering the previously mentioned points, the struggle of those of us who have separated is not limited to (a) simply submitting to our conscience in the sense of practically distancing ourselves from the terrible actions undertaken by the ecumenists, nor (b) solely serving as a marker of the seriousness of the heretical developments within the Church (a fact testified by many brothers who have said that the separation has helped them realize how serious things have become after the Council of Kolymbari), but rather (c) the separation in recent years, whether in the Republic of Moldova since the beginning of 2016, or in Romania, Greece, and other places over the last three years, has borne rich fruit in terms of reflection within the body of the Church against ecumenism. It has promoted historical and ecclesiological research; trends of compromising with heresy (episcopo-centric) or extreme tendencies (schismatic) among the faithful have been identified, and theological and spiritual antibodies have developed against them. Useful canonical precedents have even emerged, such as the recent court ruling in favor of Father Ioan Ungureanu from Orășeni. All this "bridgehead," this entire experience of struggle, all these studies and publications within our movement of interrupting communion, will help broader Orthodox ecclesiastical jurisdictions and groups of faithful (bishops, parishes, monasteries) to make Orthodox decisions in the near future, when soon there will be no more pretext for not assuming what they should have done long ago.
Regarding this struggle, allow me to express a few thoughts, which I believe we all share:
(a) There is a need to maintain and intensify our unity and cooperation on a practical level, internationally. The communication between those who have separated and other anti-ecumenists within and outside the local Churches, with the help of diligent volunteers who translate news and articles or post even brief updates on the developments within the Church worldwide, allows for a better understanding of the state and evolution of heresy, a more well-documented polemic against it, and the sense that the developments in each place are being made "in the sight of the Churches" (II Corinthians 8:24).
(b) It is necessary to present the correct teaching to uninformed faithful regarding the limited authority of the bishop, against an "ecclesial guru-ism or shamanism," which could be referred to as poor-quality "episcopocentrism" (the idea that the bishop is supposedly an infallible "god on earth"). For example, the teaching of Saints Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor is clear regarding the nullity of unjust punishments imposed by a bishop. Saint Maximus, interpreting chapter 7 of Saint Dionysius's On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, writes: "Note that if a hierarch excommunicates someone contrary to the will of God, the divine judgment does not follow him, for he is obliged to impose these things according to divine judgment and not out of his own will." [7] This truth is, of course, also confirmed by canon law, through Apostolic Canon 31 and Canon 15 of the First-Second Council, as well as by other testimonies.
(c) It is necessary to wisely apply the principle of economia in organizing the struggle, following the example of the Holy Fathers, since in times of heresy and persecution, the canonical provisions appropriate for times of peace cannot be strictly observed (of course, provided that no excess is made in this regard; the purpose of this economia must be the fight against heresy, not personal ambitions). Saint Theodore the Studite writes: "In times of heresy, due to urgent necessity, matters are not resolved without exceptions, as was foreseen for times of peace. This seems to have been done by the Blessed Macarius and the Holy Eusebius, as both made ordinations outside their own jurisdiction." [8]
(d) It is useful to remind the broader public that, the longer the more dynamic confrontation with ecumenism is delayed by priests, monks, faithful, and especially bishops, the more the "cistern" of the Church (bishops, abbots, spiritual fathers, theologians) will become increasingly infested with heresy—within theological faculties, seminaries, sermons in parishes, ecumenical actions at the parish level, publications, etc.—with grim prospects, from a human perspective, for the future of Orthodox nations.
(e) Economia must be applied in the case of those who, for various reasons, have not resorted to ceasing commemoration of bishops with heretical minds. Here, I express a personal viewpoint, saying that the application of economia, not at a theological level but on a personal level, is more necessary than ever because, for decades, authentic theological discourse, particularly ecclesiological and anti-heretical teachings, has lost its vigor. Among the faithful, the spirit of blind obedience to bishops and spiritual fathers has been skillfully cultivated, and we are largely ignorant of the lives, confessions, and ecclesiological teachings of the Holy Fathers. This may be the first time in ecclesiastical history that, within the Orthodox Church, those who hold heretical views, whether consciously or unconsciously, outnumber those who are truly Orthodox. As rightly noted in the document "Let us stand well, let us stand in fear" (§2), we must distinguish between those with manifest heretical thinking [...] expressed through the unreserved acceptance of ecumenism and the decisions from Crete [...] and those who are in communion (fellowship) with them for reasons other than an attachment to ecumenist values. [9]
I would like to recall the example of the Russians in the diaspora, a Church that has produced saints, which separated in corpore from the Moscow Patriarchate, with many bishops and the formation of a synod, and even for reasons that were not purely dogmatic in nature. Nevertheless, they maintained a balanced attitude, allowing their priests and parishes to apply either strictness or economia according to conscience, without ever officially breaking communion with the rest of the Church and without ever officially pronouncing on the invalidity of the sacraments of the local Churches. This is evident from the correspondence of the saintly Father Seraphim Rose. Here is an excerpt from a letter of his from 1976 [10]: "The real differences in our Church today are not based on [the opposition of] 'liberal' vs. 'strict' attitudes towards ecumenism—this is an artificial distinction. The real difference is between an anti-ecumenism with humility, love, and discernment (which also means 'flexibility' without compromise) and a narrow, rigid anti-ecumenism, which is in real danger of falling into fanaticism. Having our free Russian Church outside of Russia, we should cherish it, even if we may have disagreements among ourselves on issues like breaking communion. If some in our Church insist that their views on such issues must prevail—there will be discord and eventually schism, which would indeed do more harm than any possible good, as it would prove to 'canonical Orthodoxy' that 'true Orthodoxy' is nothing more than a conglomerate of sects fighting amongst themselves. May God protect us from this—that is the reason we wrote the article." [11]
(f) The promotion of separation (akribeia) in concrete pastoral cases must be done with discernment, as Saint Maximus the Confessor did. In such a case in Constantinople, he encouraged separation not through words but by offering himself as a living example, while also showing great respect towards the heretical adversaries, before whom he even bowed, yet remained steadfast to the last in preserving the correct teaching, without even praying together with them. This is evident from an account of his dialogue with the Monothelites. [12] Our advocacy for separation or encouragement of it to certain fathers and brothers, if they are not inwardly prepared, with awareness and determination, could cause them to regret it and withdraw, which could have much worse consequences. Additionally, when a cleric or layperson transitions from a state of indifference or heresy to the fight for Orthodoxy, they should be treated with love, without being reminded of their previous stance, and without being subjected to humiliating demands for acceptance, as Saint Cyril of Alexandria advises. [13]
(g) Since the opinion is circulating that the end of the world has come, the idea has also spread that we can no longer find—nor can we expect there to be—Orthodox bishops! First of all, this violates the fundamental ecclesiological principle that the Church cannot exist without bishops, according to the words of Saint John Chrysostom: "For it is impossible for the Church to be without a bishop." [14] Separation without bishops is permitted and legitimate, but it is temporary, a situation of necessity! Moreover, nowhere, in any text of any Holy Father, is the total absence of bishops in the end times predicted. The emergence of a sufficient number of Orthodox bishops in various regions is one of the matters we should intensify our prayers and faith in God for. The idea that there are supposedly no more Orthodox bishops in Churches that have maintained Eucharistic communion with those who accepted the Council of Kolymbari will inevitably, over time, lead to seeking bishops outside the Church, in schisms and in areas with unclear canonical situations, a path that is extremely dangerous and without a visible return.
(h) Finally, any movement or discussion regarding the return to the old calendar by those of us who have separated and who follow the new calendar must be discouraged! Not because the old calendar is not good; on the contrary, it is the traditional Orthodox calendar, which was changed in 1924 by ecumenists with ill intent, but it is not a dogma. The return to it is the task of an Ecumenical Council, a task that exceeds all of us, and any tendency in this direction would create confusion regarding the priority of ecclesiological dogmas and provide a pretext for us to be slandered, that we are being influenced by the broader sphere of Old Calendarism, which carries many negative connotations within the body of the Church, including blasphemies against great saints of our Church!
Honorable Fathers and beloved brothers,
Perhaps someone might expect that, in addition to the thoughts I have formulated above, we would also express some more concrete objectives for our struggle. I believe other Fathers and brothers will express noble thoughts. However, the solution to the pan-heresy of ecumenism and the Council of Crete will be provided primarily by God's Providence. The Holy Fathers have taught us that we can expect help from God only if we have also contributed with everything that is within our power, as Saint John Chrysostom writes: "Take heed again here, that all things were done by grace from above. For, when we do everything that must be done, God helps us abundantly. So that we do not become lazy and sit idly, God wants us to also do something, so that He may give us His help." [15]
The situation that now seems irreversible—and appears even clearer as we gain a clearer understanding of the state of the Church—can be reversed and will be changed by the grace of our Savior Christ and through the intercessions of the Most Holy Virgin Mary and the Saints. All of us gathered here at this synaxis are grateful to the Lord Jesus Christ that we have not been swept away by the wave of apostasy and the deception of ecumenism, of general relativism and indifference, and we can experience that the strength for the fight ahead is given by the Risen Lord. It is a strength that brings joy, because, as Saint Maximus the Confessor says, "There is nothing more violent than an accusing conscience, and nothing more encouraging than a conscience that defends you." [16]
Thank you for your attention!
Christ is risen!
1. Homily 40 (On the Most Honored Prophet, Forerunner, and Baptist of Christ, John), §20 PG 151, 509B (ΕΠΕ 10, 540): "For as sin is a lesser evil compared to impiety, so it would be, consequently, a greater good to risk one's life for virtue. For how could one not, if necessary, also give up one's life for the greater good, namely piety, having already done so for the lesser?"
2. "EU Official: Anti-gay riots in Serbia send wrong message” (October 11, 2010) https://www.jpost.com/International/EU-official-Anti-gay-riots-in-Serbia-send-wrongmessage
3. "The Second Marriage of Widowed Clergy and the 'Council' of Crete" (October 2, 2018) https://www.katanixis.gr/2018/10/blog-post_28.html
4. Proceedings of the Holy and Great Council in Constantinople [...] Regarding the Bulgarian Ecclesiastical Question, Constantinople 1872, pp. 89, 91-93.
5. "Regarding the Ukrainian Question, Second Response: Speaking the Truth in Love" (March 29, 2019) http://orthodoxalbania.net/index.php/el/lajme-2/blog/6883-2-2
6. As it is evident from the Synaxarion of the First Sunday of Great Lent, from the Triodion.
7. On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7, 7, PG 4, 181B: "Irrational impulses: Note that if a hierarch excommunicates someone contrary to the purpose of God, the divine judgment does not follow him; for these actions must be imposed according to divine judgment, not by personal will."
8. Epistle 549 (To Monk Methodius), ed. Fatouros, pars II, p. 832 (PG 99, 1645D.1648A): "In times of heresy, things do not always occur exactly as they are prescribed for times of peace, due to the compelling necessity. This seems to have been the case with the most blessed Athanasius and the most holy Eusebius, both of whom made ordinations outside their own jurisdictions."
9. https://www.katanixis.gr/2018/01/blog-post_288.html#more (v. Theodromia XIX, 4 [Oct.-Dec. 2017] 623).
10. Letter 241 (“Dear Father Johanikios”), (Nov. 4/17, 1976) "The real differences in our Church today are not based on 'liberal' vs. 'strict' attitudes to ecumenism—that is an artificial distinction. The real difference is between an anti-ecumenism with humility, love and discretion (which also means 'flexibility' without compromise), and anti-ecumenism which is narrow and rigid and in real danger of falling into fanaticism." https://nftu.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Hieromonk-Seraphim-of-Platina-on-Zealotry.pdf
11. Letter 227 ("Dear Father Panagiotes [Carras]”"), (June 30/July 13, 1976) "While we have our free Russian Church Outside of Russia we should treasure it, even while we may have disagreements among ourselves over questions such as breaking communion. If some in our Church are going to insist that their opinions on such questions must prevail—there will be discord and possibly schism, which indeed would do more harm than any possible good, for it would prove to “canonical Orthodoxy” that “true Orthodoxy” is only a conglomeration of fighting sects. May God preserve us from this—this is what made us write the article." https://nftu.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Hieromonk-Seraphim-of-Platinaon-Zealotry.pdf.
12. Explanation of the Discussion §11.§12; PG 90, 124D.125C.125D (ΕΠΕ-Φ 15Γ, 96 ff. 100): "The servant of God said: 'Is there someone who says that I advised, saying to him: "Do not have communion with the Church of the Byzantines?"' The Lord Sergius answered: 'Precisely this, that you do not have communion with them, is a great signal to everyone not to commune with them [...] After these and various other things were spoken, they departed with all good cheer [...] Then, afterwards, when asked if he had anathematized the Typos, he fearlessly said: 'Not only did I anathematize it, but I also published a work in which I criticized it.'"
13. Letter 57 (To Maximus the Deacon of Antioch) PG 77, 320D-321A: "…Some, having once had their conscience seared, are now gathered, repenting for the things in which they were ensnared, though perhaps ashamed to confess their fault. For such things often happen to those who were deceived. And if you see them now aligning with the true faith, bear no grudge concerning the past. For we would rather see them renouncing [their fault] than shamelessly advocating Nestorius' wickedness [...] For the sake of economia, we are not overly exacting with those who repent. For, as I said, the matter requires much economia."
14. Saint Palladius of Helenopolis, Historical Dialogue §10; PG 47, 35: "...for the Church cannot exist without a Bishop."
15. On Genesis 53, 2; PG 54, 466: "Observe here again how everything was by grace from above. For when we bring forth what is required from our side, we will abundantly enjoy the cooperation from God. So that we do not become lazy or negligent, He wants us to contribute something as well, so that He may also display what comes from Him."
16. Explanation of the Discussion §11; PG 90, 124D (ΕΠΕ-Φ 15Γ, 98): "There is nothing more violent than an accusing conscience, and nothing more bold than one that defends you."
Romanian source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.