[Written after New Calendarist critics claimed they were leading the faithful into the Old Calendar Church. Translated for informational purposes and to encourage dialogue.]
October 12, 2017
The Holy Mountain remains silent,
and it remains silent prudently and with discernment, speaking when and insofar
as it is necessary. Athonite monasticism does not wander about whenever and
however certain people wish, as a spectacle and idle display of knowledge, on
the internet or anywhere else…
Already from the very first
moment of our blessed and by no means easy walling off, in the midst of extreme
voices, accusations, and slanders from the ecumenists and their naive or not so
naive fellow travelers, we steadfastly and consistently upheld those things
which we set forth, from the very beginning, in the Confession of Faith,
that is, in the very text of this our walling off. At first, we were
universally praised—though this was not the aim of our actions—by all those who
were associated with the walling off; but this was at the beginning…
The continuation was as expected:
slanders, insults (things were heard unfitting for the monastic habit from
many...), while we faced, and continuously face, a campaign of mudslinging and
false information from both known and unknown persons. All this, it should be
noted, took place in the midst of persecution by the monastic
administrations, which led many elders as well as younger monks "to take
their little cassock and depart from the monasteries of their repentance."
Yet nothing seems to dismay
certain "keyboard warriors," who, without cost and in complete safety
in their homes, hurl thunderbolts, attacking anyone who has the misfortune to
disagree with them on something. Their — to say the least — mediocre
theological formation is betrayed by the level and tone of their writings,
while they boast, considering themselves as "theologians." The
Fathers teach what the prerequisites of theologizing are; let these so-called "warriors,"
as well as their followers, make the effort to learn them…
A recent example is the curiously
coordinated — in terms of timing — attack of Messrs. Ioannis Rizos and
Panagiotis Televantos against us, in which even this counsel of the Gospel
(Matt. 18:15-17) was brutally left unused... The positions of our accusers
coincide on some issues, while on others they are literally at opposite poles,
rendering them... the two extremes. Both have demonstrated that a
discussion conducted in the appropriate manner does NOT interest them; they
simply want to "tell it to the Church," confusing the public space of
the internet with the Church itself... Any dispute with them clearly does not
have a personal character (we know them very little or not at all), and
constitutes an opportunity to highlight broader theological problems
within the anti-ecumenist sphere.
On the substance of the matter,
we must first observe that all those good brethren who today accuse us had
praised our Confession of Faith when it was published (August 2016),
without even having made, as it is proven, the effort to read it. Today we are
being slandered with the gravest accusations, those of schism and heresy
(!), because we made the "mistake" of laboriously requesting, both
publicly and privately, the concentration of the efforts of the anti-ecumenist
forces exclusively and solely on the theological confrontation of
the accursed Ecumenism, and not on the stirring up of secondary issues,
and indeed exceedingly prematurely and in an erroneous manner (that is, public
positioning without careful deliberation). There are things which it is good
for everyone to know, but there are also matters which, without the appropriate
and careful deliberation, it is even dangerous to make public. We refer, of
course, to theological matters.
The figures who were seeking, as
is now clearly evident from the events, the promotion and prevalence of their
personal opinions, appear afterwards as champions of the patristic traditions,
in complete contradiction to the holy Fathers, whose writings abound in personal
letters concerning the essential (or not) matters which occupied the
ecclesiastical body. What a contrast with today's online "storm" of
the keyboard theologians and their public statements...
Even through the adverse
conditions that have arisen, we shall attempt to present our original theological
position concerning the issues that have been stirred up, in the form of a
statement.
A. The "Within–Outside"
the Church Struggle
From the beginning, there were
differences on the thorny issue of the struggle "within" or "outside"
the Church.
Essentially setting aside
the principal task of this critical post-Kolymbarian period—that is, the
theological exposure of the pseudo-council and the new heretical
theology that was produced there—certain circles (Televantos and others)
immediately began the polemic concerning the obligatory or optional
character of the 15th canon of the First-Second Council under Photios the Great
(861), and this in the public space of the internet, as if theology were a
light life-style topic...
This sensitive point, directly
connected with the blessed and canonically defined ecclesiastical (and
certainly not "personal") act of walling off (that is, the
cessation of commemoration of the bishop preaching heresy), without substantial
study, much less discussion, took in an exceptionally short time a
central place in public internet "discussions" and commentary,
usually of a coffeehouse type. Some do not understand that discussion on
theological matters requires not only "knowledge" but also
purification with the fear of God, for it is easy for someone to derail unto
the loss of his salvation, as well as that of those who may possibly follow
him. The result was the ever-increasing scandalization and confusion of many of
the faithful who, unfortunately, allow themselves to be "informed"
exclusively by what this or that internet commentator writes… In any case, it
seems that the purpose of these (interconnected) circles is the
dissemination of confusion among the Orthodox. We stress that it is one
thing to be informed about the actions of the ecumenists and their theological
errors, which we commend, and quite another to leap upon critical, strategic
matters, which are not for everyone to "play" with, unto the
destruction of the souls of the flock. We must draw attention to these
matters of a pastoral nature, since the Holy Mountain—let them refute us if
they can—PASTORS (in a consultative manner) not merely on a parish level, but
GLOBALLY.
After these necessary
clarifications, we respond that already from our Confession of Faith we
made clear that:
"The ecclesiastical struggle
which we undertake is carried out primarily for reasons of a soteriological
nature, remaining faithful to the ecclesiology of the Orthodox patristic
tradition, and, because of this, within the Body of the Orthodox Church. We
do not proceed to the establishment of another 'church'—perish the
blasphemy—nor do we join any Old Calendarist episcopal faction. Remaining
faithful to the Symbol of the Orthodox Faith, we remain simply ORTHODOX
CHRISTIANS and confess the timeless, patristic, salvific truth which we
have received, that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church. We condemn and anathematize the Pan-heresy of
Inter-Christian, Inter-Religious, Syncretistic Ecumenism, as well as the
decisions of the so-called Holy and Great Council of Kolymbari. Whatever else
may circulate against us will constitute vile slander."
Therefore, the Televantian
ill-will that we supposedly have gone outside the boundaries of the Church like
other Novatians (!), thus becoming schismatics, receives an answer from the
above passage. The holy Canons, whether it pleases some or not, are obligatory—something
that was known from the very first moment to those who are knowledgeable,
at that time when they were praising us; we repeated it also at the successful
conference in Oraiokastro. It is not we, Mr. Televantos, who changed our views
on the matter; it is others—search and you will find them…
Now, regarding the Televantian diagnosis about whether there are three or eight
heresy-professing bishops in the Church of Greece (indeed, how many are there
in the Church of Cyprus, we ask the Cypriot Mr. Televantos…), we leave it to
the judgment of the faithful who have knowledge of the events after Kolymbari.
Let us remind, incidentally, in the recent vote to fill two episcopal thrones,
the 34 votes (of the "Orthodox," according to Televantos) received by
the archbishop's chosen candidate, the chancellor of the Holy Metropolis of
Demetrias, known for its "confessional" struggles… How shall we
understand these votes (not that the other 42 are any better…), as Orthodox or
ecumenist?
If we except one monk and one
cleric (both of whom have reposed), who, without recourse to the canonical
ecclesiastical tradition, making use of seemingly logical arguments
(identifying, contrary to proper methodology, concepts according to the pattern
of homonymy), and drawing conclusions invalid from a logical standpoint, the
Church has always understood the holy Canons, established in the Holy Spirit,
as obligatory. As for the argument concerning the difference of canons
based on the existence or absence of a penance, it is refuted by none other
than St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite himself, already in his introductory comments
in the Pedalion (Pedalion, Astir Publications, 1957, p. 19).
Lastly, let us note the reference of St. Nikodemos to the relevant agreement of
the other holy Canons with the 15th canon of the First-Second Council, where he
mentions the second canon of the Council of Antioch (to which the Athonite holy
martyrs and confessors during the time of the Latin-minded patriarch John Bekkos
also refer), which, in brief, defines that whoever communes with those who are
excommunicated likewise becomes excommunicated. It is, therefore, clearer than
the sun who follows the Fathers and the timeless teaching of the Church, and
who introduces new, unverified teachings.
Finally, we must observe the
introduction of relativism in the understanding of Holy Tradition,
following the patterns of ecumenist theology, something which testifies to the captivity
of academic theology to principles foreign to Orthodoxy (as well as of those
who theologize having "borrowed" axiomatic principles from it), with
the consequent result that heresy is fought by means of (also) heretical
weapons. Naturally, we are not saying that all who follow (any) Televantos,
unknowingly with regard to the theological consequences, are of heretical
mindset; however, it would be good for them to carefully study the entirety of
Holy Tradition and then decide
B. Concerning the "Old"
Calendar
As a multitude of ecumenist
sources testify, the calendar change was a strategic decision of
the early ecumenists, in service of their vision for a pan-religion. On this
point, no one who wishes to be called Orthodox disagrees. The testimonies from
the sources have been exhaustively presented by many; it is not necessary to
repeat them here. It is sufficient for one to refer, among other things, to the
presentation of Fr. Theodoros Zisis at the conference of the Holy Metropolis of
Piraeus before Kolymbari.
The calendar issue de facto
divided the Church (here meaning the division of the Orthodox among
themselves), for this reason, after the events of the Masonically inspired "conference"
of Metaxakis, as well as those of 1924, it was decided that the issue would be
definitively resolved at the then-planned Ecumenical Council (as, for example,
was agreed upon and recorded in the — recently published — minutes of the
Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1930 on the Holy Mountain).
The schism has not yet been
addressed synodally at a pan-Orthodox level (since it now exists in all the
local Churches that adopted the "New"), and after the developments of
Kolymbari, we are rather heading also towards a change of the Paschalion...
It was never asserted, at least by the serious ones, that the innovation is the
13 days, but the liturgical unity of the Church. We will not enter into the
labyrinth of recriminations on the matter, not only because it is not the
proper time, but because our deep conviction is that the issue of the
calendar is connected with the overall problem of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism,
therefore it must be addressed at a future Orthodox Ecumenical
Council.
Were the faithful who walled
themselves off in 1924 from the innovating hierarchy (and not, of course, from
the Church, as various episcopocentric Zizioulianists claim) right or not? To
the extent that they walled themselves off on account of innovation concerning
Tradition (that is, the liturgical character of ecclesiastical unity, which
naturally is also connected with the calendar), they acted rightly,
insofar as they remained within the "limits" defined by the 15th
canon of the First-Second Council.
The problems begin from the
gradual predominance of the "strict" faction within the Old
Calendarists (as they were mockingly called), due of course also to the fierce
and truly Diocletian-like persecution that was unleashed against them by
the then Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, who was also the architect of
the, in a deceitful manner, change, as certain pious synodal hierarchs at the
time denounced.
The very trampling (!) of the
holy gifts by the persecuting authorities, the shaving of the
priests, the exiles (e.g., of Athonites), the murder (Catherine
Routis), etc., led — along with other things — to the adoption (by the
minority) of the — erroneous — view concerning the invalidity of the
mysteries of the "New." Passion and polarization drowned the
sober voices on both sides, new and old, with destructive consequences for the
peace and unity of the Church. The decision to create a hierarchy by the G.O.C.
and the ordinations of bishops constituted the final blow of the entire affair.
Since then, the schisms and fragmentation of the G.O.C. constitute the
sorrowful legacy of an initially honorable struggle...
Our position is that until
1935 (the year of the creation of the first synod of the G.O.C.), the walling
off of the Orthodox faithful was canonically correct and proper, and
within the framework defined by the 15th of the First-Second Council. The
same, however, does not apply after 1935. The claims of the G.O.C.
regarding the necessity of the existence of a "hierarchy" are not
convincing, unless indeed the mysteries of the New are invalid (oh, what
blasphemy). The well-intentioned G.O.C. do not understand that the existence of
"synods" signifies precisely this: invalid mysteries of him with whom
you do not commune. Walling off henceforth — may the brethren of the Old
forgive us — no longer exists for them, since they have not walled
themselves off from their innovating bishop, but now have one of their own.
What is the ecclesiological
status of the G.O.C.? Some fanatic New Calendarist "G.O.C." (for
there are now such as well!) consider the mysteries of the Old Calendarist
G.O.C. invalid (and some among them even those of the New Calendarists),
since they were cut off from the "Church." Whether the "Church"
(identifying — in a Zizioulianist manner — the entirety of the Church
with its hierarchy) is innovating does not concern them (just as it does not
concern the ecumenists, for example, with the "most holy pope,"
etc.). Yet the innovators cannot judge those who have not innovated! This
is the reason that makes an Orthodox Ecumenical Council necessary, that
is, the resolution of all problems related to Ecumenism. It is, in any case, a
fact that all the G.O.C. "bishops" are also now accountable
before an Orthodox Ecumenical Council. The bishops who will convene it
will be those who will "return," due to the escalation of the
anti-ecumenist struggle, from the official hierarchies of the local Orthodox
Churches, just as happened in the case of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Only
then will the heresy be definitively condemned and the matters concerning the
mysteries be discussed. Until then, it is not permitted to us (if we
have the elementary fear of God and do not wish to blaspheme) to proclaim, prior
to a synodal ruling, invalid mysteries either in the New or in the Old.
Here we must clarify that the
view concerning invalid mysteries (whether from Old Calendarists, or from New
Calendarists, or from "walled-off" persons) is connected with the
notion of the automatic loss of grace, which does not belong to the
Orthodox canonical Tradition but to the papal one, where already from
the 13th century it is recorded within the framework of the new papal
ecclesiology, having as its foundation the Frankish conception (in contrast to
that of the Byzantine papacy) concerning papal primacy. This notion (in Latin Latae
sententiae), which remains also in the new revised code of (papal) canons
of 1983, is developed in canons 1321–1330. According to it, there is NO need
for an episcopal synod for a certain category of sins, to which heresy also
belongs, but grace is automatically removed, which in the case of a cleric
means his automatic deposition. St. Nikodemos, opposing such a notion,
commented that only an episcopal synod can depose, since the canons do not
operate "by themselves" (cf. Pedalion, footnote 2 on the 3rd
Apostolic Canon, pp. 4–5).
The one who ministered to the
persecuted Old Calendarists, secretly and in remote little chapels, Saint
Nicholas Planas, or the two who returned, though ordained in the "Old,"
bishops in the "New" (without any re-ordination or even laying on of
hands, contrary to the practice of the blasphemous heresiarch Bartholomew), Polycarpos
Liosis and Christophoros Chatzis, who reposed while serving
as active metropolitans of the Church of Greece, let them bring to their senses
and restrain certain ones who are "more royalist than the King"...
Epilogue
Taking occasion from the
commotion caused by Televantos–Rizos, we have clearly set forth our positions
to the anxious faithful. The escalation of the struggle is always the essential
aim, as well as the theological confrontation of heresy, and not the issues of
valid–invalid, etc. Let us leave it to the bishops of an Orthodox
Ecumenical Council to decide — that is, to those who alone are
competent. The commotion being attempted naturally serves Ecumenism and
distances the joyous day of the convocation of the Council. Let us not grant
the enemies of the faith the favor of rejoicing over untheological positions or
divisive actions of the sacred struggle.
Editorial
Committee of Athonite Fathers
Elder Savvas
Lavriotis
Hieromonk Chariton the Athonite
Monk Epiphanios Kapsaliotis
P.S. The views of Monk Makarios
of Koutloumousiou exclusively express him; therefore, let them not
associate us at all with what he says (invalid mysteries, etc.) or does.
Greek
source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/10/blog-post_12.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.