Monk
Savvas Lavriotis
Pan-Orthodox
Synaxis at the Monastery of Venerable Justin of Ćelije in Barajevo, Serbia
April
22, 2018
Most Reverend and
holy Bishop of Raška and Prizren in exile, Artemije, holy Hierarchs, honorable
fathers and venerable mothers, beloved brothers and sisters in Christ – Christ
is Risen!
Great is our joy
that we find ourselves in this noble period when we celebrate the Resurrection
of our Lord, and it becomes even greater because of our fellow fighters for the
faith, the Romanians and the Greeks, who are here today—namely, because we are
all together fighting against the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and the
anti-Christian New World Order.
In today's speech,
we will briefly show how the so-called Holy and Great Council, convened at the
Orthodox Academy of Crete [1] (near the Cretan town of Kolymbari, not far from
Chania), is in fact a false, anti-Orthodox, and ecumenistic council (modeled after
the Second Vatican Council), and not an Orthodox council as many bishops,
clergy, and laypeople believe.
The conclusions
that arise from the study of the published final texts of the so-called Holy
and Great Council, as well as from the responses and analyses of distinguished
theologians and metropolitans, are the following:
1.
The goal of recognizing heresies with the status of being churches was finally
realized—that is, it was accepted that Papism and other heretics are Churches,
not heresies;
2.
The pan-heresy of Ecumenism was officially and synodally established, and the
Protestant (so-called World) Council of Churches (more precisely, the Council
of Heresies) was recognized as legitimate;
3.
Post-patristic theology was institutionalized;
4.
The decisions of the Ecumenical Councils were trampled upon;
5.
The concept of Orthodox spirituality was distorted;
6.
Orthodox conciliarity was undermined;
7.
Non-Orthodox methods were used in the manner of conducting the council;
8.
The decisions of the “Council” are binding for all laity and clergy (under the
pretext of respecting and supposedly preserving true Orthodoxy), thereby
nullifying the role of the people who bear responsibility for preserving the
uncorrupted Orthodox Faith;
9.
The patristic and Spirit-bearing Tradition of the Church is not respected, for
there was no recognition of all previous Councils;
10.
For the first time, the participation of Papist observers was permitted, and
joint prayers with them occurred during the Divine Liturgies within the
framework of the so-called Council.
As is well known,
the main task of an Orthodox Council is the struggle against heresies that have
arisen within the bosom of the Church. But at this so-called Council, the exact
opposite occurred. Because—as can be seen from the adopted texts, and especially
from the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian
World” [2]—the pan-heresy of syncretistic, inter-Christian Ecumenism was
adopted, institutionalized, and established through a “Pan-Orthodox decision”
as the official and legitimate line and teaching of the Orthodox Church. They
recognized as churches the heretics—Papists, Protestants, and Monophysites—
acknowledging for them ecclesiality, apostolic succession, priesthood, grace,
and Mysteries. They adopted godless, misleading, heretical, and ecumenistic
theories within the framework of the “theology of baptism,” “Eucharistic
theology,” and the “divided Church” theory, while at the same time confirming
the continued participation of the Orthodox Church in anti-patristic and fruitless
modern theological dialogues without end and in the all-Protestant World
Council of “Churches” (more precisely, the Council of heresies and delusions).
The most
problematic dogmatic decision is found in the following demonic sentence: “The Orthodox Church accepts the historical
name of other, non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions which are not in
communion with her.”
Heretical groups
are referred to as other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions, and
one must bear in mind the fact that in this specific dogmatic decision the word
“heresy” is not mentioned at all, which is contrary to the holy canons that extensively
use that word. This means that the
Orthodox Church is considered as merely one among the Christian Churches or
Confessions. More precisely, the Orthodox Church, just as the other
non-Orthodox Churches and Confessions, is seen as having the same faith,
differing only in regard to its theological formulations. This, in fact, is the
position promoted for years by the World Council of Churches and the Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew. And for that reason, in order for there to be
syncretistic unity between the Orthodox Church and heretical groups, there
must be progress in terms of convergence of theological formulations regarding
their supposed common faith. This dogmatic decision is then formulated as
follows: “a faster and more objective
clarification of the entire ecclesial subject matter, and particularly of their
[the Orthodox Church and other ‘churches’ – trans. note] more general teaching concerning the Mysteries, grace, priesthood, and
apostolic succession.”
This dogmatic
decision is heretical because, according to the ontological nature of the
Church, unity already exists and therefore cannot be lost. Yet here, the
Orthodox Church objectively seeks to pave the way toward some other (syncretistic) unity, foreign to its ontological
nature, which is not based on the true faith.
Specifically, in
Article 16, the following is mentioned: “One of the main bodies in the history
of the Ecumenical movement is the ‘World Council of Churches’ (WCC)...
Alongside it, there are other inter-Christian organizations and regional bodies
such as the ‘Conference of European Churches’ (CEC), the ‘Middle East Council
of Churches’ (MECC), and the ‘All Africa Conference of Churches.’ These organizations, together with the
World Council of Churches, have an important mission in achieving the unity of
the Christian world.” And we ask ourselves: Has
the Church of Christ been divided? Or rather, have those separated and cut off
who do not follow the tradition of the Church of Christ—the tradition expressed
through the Apostles, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Holy Fathers?
This constitutes
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a dreadful deviation from the conciliarly
dogmatized faith of the Church and from the Symbol of Faith, in which we
confess and believe in “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” At the Cretan “Council,” ten autocephalous
Churches—including the Church of Greece, and even the official Holy Mountain,
which sent an official representative—accepted the “theology of baptism” and
indirectly the “branch theory,” recognizing as Churches the Papists, Maronites,
Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites (heretics who were condemned at a number
of Ecumenical Councils—from the Third to the Sixth), as well as a multitude of
Protestants represented in the World Council of so-called Churches. The
“conciliar” decision in Kolymbari to recognize heretics condemned by the
Ecumenical Councils as Churches introduces syncretism and ecumenism as the main
theological lines within the Orthodox Church, and this is what will henceforth
be followed by all those who remain in communion with Patriarch Bartholomew and
with those who follow him. Moreover, immediately after the “Council,”
Bartholomew himself officially stated: “We have entered the post-patristic
period of the Church.”
At this “Council”:
1) All
heresies that had been condemned by the Ecumenical Councils are confirmed;
2)
An ecclesiological heresy is supported, for the first time in the history of
the Church, which states that the Church of Christ is not identified solely
with the Orthodox Church, but extends also to heretical groups that do not hold
the Orthodox Faith;
3)
The position is supported, also for the first time in Church history, that
heresies which do not have the Orthodox Faith, as well as other religions which
do not believe in the Triune God, are capable of saving—that is, they provide
the saving grace of the Holy Spirit.
And all of this
happened with the ultimate goal that the Orthodox Church:
•
Be syncretistically united—that is, without unity in the Orthodox Faith of the
undivided Church of the first millennium—with Papism, which has already
embraced religious syncretism at the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965); and
•
Through Papism, be united—also syncretistically (that is, self-evidently
without any unity in the Orthodox Faith)—with the other religions into a single
world religion that will worship the Antichrist, for, as is well known,
according to the Apostle Paul, the Antichrist will exalt himself and place
himself above every god or object of worship to such an extent that he will sit
as “God” in the Holy of Holies (more precisely, in the Temple of Solomon which
will be rebuilt, but also in Christian churches that will submit to the
Antichrist), and he will attempt by cunning tricks to present himself as the
supposedly true God (2 Thess. 2:4).
Marriage
With regard to the
topic of mixed marriages, while in part I,5 [of the text dedicated to marriage
– trans. note] strictness in accordance with the canons is emphasized (based on
Canon 72 of the Council in Trullo), in part II,5 “economy” is emphasized, through
which the possibility is foreseen for each of the Local Churches to regulate
this issue as it wishes. To begin with, it is useful to know what Canon 72 of
the Council in Trullo says. It states that marriage between an Orthodox and a
heretical person is forbidden under
threat of excommunication, [3] and that if any should end up in such a
marriage, that marriage is to be considered invalid, and as an unlawful act, must be dissolved. In the
interpretation of this canon, Venerable Nicodemus the Hagiorite (Pedalion, p. 283) emphasizes that “the
wolf and the sheep and the inheritance of sinners and heretics must never be
united with the portion of Christ, the Orthodox.” On the same page, in the
corresponding footnote by Venerable Nicodemus, it is stated that bishops on
islands where there are Latins “must in no way permit a Latin man to take an
Orthodox woman as wife, nor a Latin woman to an Orthodox man. What communion
indeed can an Orthodox have with a heretic?”
This is mentioned by the Venerable Father in reference to the aforementioned
canon, but in essence this very canon is violated in the “conciliar” Cretan
text without any justification, [4] under the pretext of some vague economy,
without any canonical foundation or interpretation, as is the case with all the
texts of the so-called Council.
Worst of all is
that the “Council” itself allows for the creation of chaos—that each Local
Church may choose, without any pan-Orthodox agreement, what it will do in a
given context. The aim of the provisions on marriage is clear and has been
described in many ecumenistic proclamations concerning the acceptance of mixed
marriages as a means to overcome “historical divisions” and the “lost unity of
the ancient united Church,” and this aim establishes a common ecumenist
approach to the issue of marriage. It is indicative that in the text of the
Catechism of the Papist “church” [5], at the end of the chapter on marriage, in
article 1636, it is mentioned that “through ecumenical dialogue, Christian
communities have been able in various parts of the world to adopt a common pastoral practice for mixed
marriages” (emphasis in the original text). At the end of this article
there is also a reference to article 821, which speaks of the ways by which
Papists can act toward unity of the “divided Church.” It is clear that the topic of mixed marriages is connected to new
ecumenistic methods of seeking the restoration of the supposedly lost unity. In
article 818, the theological foundation is mentioned upon which the acceptance
of mixed marriages as a Mystery of
the “church” is based—it is the baptism
that each of the spouses received in their respective “Church.” In other words,
the foundation of all of this is the theology
of baptism, which was adopted as official doctrine by the Second Vatican
Council, and this theology, in turn, is the foundation of the Eucharistic
theology that constitutes the new ecclesiology of Papism. Naturally, article
818 cites as a reference the ecumenist edict of the Second Vatican Council (Unitatis Redintegratio 3/a).
The examples used,
as well as the terms regarding mixed marriages in the aforementioned text,
clearly show us the reason why it was predetermined (in the final document of
Crete) to leave the Local Churches the freedom to pastorally regulate the issue
of marriage, instead of, as ought to have been the case, adopting a
comprehensive and binding solution for all, in the spirit of the holy canons.
As it stands, those Local Churches in which the ecumenist spirit has not
destroyed everything are forced to accept the decisions of other “more
progressive” Local Churches that have relativized everything, and now impose
their discretionary practice as legitimate and Orthodox. This practice comes
entirely (and from where else?) from the USA and the Greek Archdiocese there,
as well as from the Metropolitan Synod of Russians (of the Moscow Patriarchate)
in that region. On the one hand, already existing mixed marriages are being
sanctioned, and on the other, through some kind of “church ceremony,” new mixed
marriages are being recognized as “Orthodox,” even those that are contracted in
heretical temples! This is a full consolidation of ecumenism at the local
church level, all “in accordance with the rules.”
With this decision
concerning marriages, we witness the triumph of impiety, because:
a)
the violation, as mentioned above, of
Canon 72 of the Council in Trullo, but not only that canon, rather also Canon
14 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canons 10 and 31 of the Council of
Laodicea, and then Canons 21 and 29 of the Council of Carthage—all of this
essentially amounts to the abolition of all the Ecumenical Councils, in
accordance with the words: “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
stumble in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). How then can we annul
that which has been dogmatized by the Holy Spirit? This is blasphemy against
the Holy Fathers, against the Holy Spirit, and clearly proves that we have
entered (according to Patriarch Bartholomew) the post-patristic era of the
Church;
b)
ecumenism is abruptly introduced into the family, and the salvific mission of
marriage is destroyed—for how can there be cohabitation and a common path
toward Christ (which is the goal of married life) when the spouses do not
believe in the same God?;
c)
the fruit of marriage (children)—what path will they follow? The path of the
pure Orthodox Faith, or the ecumenistic family ideal within which they are
raised and live?;
d)
in practice, the “theology of baptism” is accepted—for how can we admit an
unbaptized, non-Orthodox person into the Holy Mysteries of our Church?;
e)
chaos is introduced into the Church, because, as we have already said, each
Local Church will autonomously choose solutions under the pretext of economy
toward individuals, in accordance with the judgment of the respective bishop
regarding whether he will permit a mixed marriage.
Fasting
Everything that we
have already said regarding the text on marriages also applies to the one
concerning fasting. Up until article 8 of the text, the institution of fasting
is praised, and the good fruits of fasting are spoken of, with references to
patristic sources—St. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory Palamas,
and others. And while what was necessary to say on the topic of fasting was
stated in the first 7 articles of the text, albeit superficially, a reasonable
reader would expect, as a conclusion of the “Council,” a confirmation of the
importance of fasting in accordance with Tradition. However, despite those 7
articles, already in article 8 everything previously said is completely
overturned! And here we may make a small digression. It is the tactic of the
ecumenists to speak truth and immediately thereafter introduce a falsehood
which negates Orthodox Dogmas.
Specifically, from
the simple observation of the fact that modern, weakened “Christians” do not
keep the fasts, the text proceeds—under the guise of “pastoral concern”—to
contempt for the holy commandment of fasting (for such fasting is now being
addressed, not fasting in general as in the rest of the text), and to the
consolidation of “economy” of this kind.
While at the
beginning of article 8 it speaks of the “relaxation” of fasting (though in
reality it concerns the abolition of fasting), carried out by the “faithful,”
just a few lines later all of that is forgotten, as the following reasons are
listed to justify such practice: illness, military service, work conditions,
climate (!), and even the difficulty of finding fasting foods (!!). In other
words, the text lacks even elementary internal coherence. Instead of the
“pastorally concerned” Church working to resolve the above-mentioned problems
(e.g., military food rations, cooperation with food suppliers and commercial
chains, etc.), a path is opened for the
abolition of fasting and, essentially, of the ascetic life of the Church.
There is no other reason for all of this except the approach toward the
secularized “Christian” ecumenistic brethren of the West, who have abolished
all ancient commandments concerning fasting. This text on fasting exists for no
other reason than the application of “basic ecumenism.”
With regard to the
church ceremonial and the regularity of the “Council,” we can say the
following. The false council in Crete, through the mouths of hierarchs and
other participants after the conclusion of its work (they did not dare to say
so beforehand), was called “the Second Vatican Council of Orthodoxy,” as an
analogous “Council” to the most recent Papist council (the 21st), which caused
tremendous upheavals within Vatican circles, bringing such changes [6] that it
was characterized by its very own protagonists as a watershed between the
epochs before and after the council. What is interesting, and what compels us
to mention the Vatican Council, are the methodological similarities of the
Cretan “Council” with that council. Thus, “with regard to the convocation and
working procedures of the Cretan assembly, it is widely known that the method of operation of the Second Vatican
Council was used in a certain sense as a model.” [7] Of course, the
Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission, the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council
Conferences, the Permanent Secretariat for the preparation of the Council, and
finally the method of preparing and revising the texts of the “Holy and Great
Council”—all of this reflects the working method of the Second Vatican Council.
[8]
Let us see what St.
Nikodemos the Hagiorite says regarding the criteria by which a Council is
characterized as Ecumenical:
a)
The Council must be convened not by some patriarch, but on the basis of
“imperial decrees”—which today is impossible and unfeasible regardless of
obstacles of an ecclesiastical nature;
b)
it must be marked by discussion concerning the Faith and, consequently, the
adoption of decisions in the form of dogmatic definitions (horoi);
c)
it is necessary “that the dogmas and canons enacted at such Councils always be
in agreement with Holy Scripture and the preceding Ecumenical Councils,” and
Venerable Nikodemos adds the “most glorious maxim” of St. Maximus the
Confessor, that “Councils are judged by the right Faith,” i.e., “correct
dogmas”;
d)
finally, “all conciliar dogmas and canons must be agreed upon and accepted by
all Orthodox patriarchs and hierarchs, whether by their personal conciliar
presence, or through their representatives at the councils, or by way of
letters.” [9]
What has been
enumerated above must serve as a guide in the final assessment of the
ecumenical–pan-Orthodox character of the Cretan assembly, as well as regarding
how much Crete represents continuity with the earlier Ecumenical Councils in
matters of the faith.
At the very outset,
the question arises—was the canonical minimum fulfilled in terms of the
pan-Orthodox authority of the “Council”? The only possible answer is NO,
because, as is well known, four Local Churches were absent from the “Council,”
and for this reason alone, the pan-Orthodox–ecumenical
character of the Cretan gathering can be denied. [10]
Furthermore, in
various articles written prior to the “Council,” there were frequent remarks
about the novel and highly problematic character of the Rules of Procedure of
the “Council.”
In article 8,
paragraph 2, it is essentially stated that bishops and the primates of their
Local Churches are prohibited from freely positioning themselves in regard to
any potentially new topics that were not unanimously agreed upon at the
Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences. This, in light of the ancient manner of
operation of the Church’s conciliar system, creates serious problems and
essentially leads to a restriction of the right to speak—and even to its abolition. At all earlier Councils,
there existed full freedom for any bishop to raise a topic for discussion and
resolution. Article 9, paragraph 2, which is in fact a continuation of article
8(2), explicitly forbids any outburst by a bishop, under penalty of being
deprived of the right to speak (!), if such is outside the established agenda.
Quite the opposite, at all Councils of the Church there was freedom of speech
for all, even for non-bishops—as we see, for example, in the debate between
monks and St. Tarasius (Acts I of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). Restrictions
on the right to free speech are repeated in article 10(3), where the
deprivation of speech is mentioned in the case of “irrelevant dialogical
disputes” among bishops, as if bishops are unaware of their mission and the
dignity of their rank, and thus, supposedly, fall “into strange debates,
contrary to the mission of the Council,” as the “conciliar” text states.
In article 11(2),
the obligatory “principle of consensus” is prescribed for amendments to the
previously pre-conciliarly agreed texts, for the purpose of shaping the final
“conciliar” documents—meaning that any amendments lacking unanimous support are
to be rejected. And we ask ourselves: at which Orthodox Council has there ever
been a case where a dogmatic formulation (the possibility of an “amendment,” if
we use the phraseology of the Cretan assembly) was denied, after which the
Council continued “canonically” with its work? Let us recall what Venerable
Nikodemos the Hagiorite said about the third criterion characterizing a true
Ecumenical Council—the Orthodox character of its dogmas. Is it possible, then,
for there to be disagreement regarding dogmatic matters, and for those who
disagree to continue participating in the Council as if nothing had happened?
It is evident that the so-called Holy and Great Council functioned as if it
were some kind of parliament, in which members of political parties vote on an
amendment to a state law, and not an assembly of pastors inspired by the Holy
Spirit who are of one mind in Faith and in Truth.
Article 12(1) of
the Rules of Procedure speaks about the voting on the final texts and at first
glance appears to shape a conciliar spirit, but in reality establishes an anti-conciliar spirit, entirely unknown
to the conciliar, Spirit-bearing, and synodal conscience of the Church.
Specifically, the ancient practice of all Councils, both Local and Ecumenical,
presupposed the full and equal participation of all bishop-pastors. All
bishops, precisely because of the equality of their hierarchical rank, had the right
to vote and were not “represented” by some “first” among them through his vote.
Therefore, this new practice abolished
the ancient ecclesiological principle of bishop-to-bishop equality, setting
apart the primates (heads of the autocephalous Local Churches) from the other,
subordinate bishops, resulting in the creation of two types of bishops—on the
one hand, the primates, and on the other, all the rest of the bishops—where the
essential difference distinguishing the first from the others is his right to
vote and to represent the others. In this way, conciliarity has become a new
model, according to which all future “councils” after Crete will operate—such
“councils” already having been announced. In other words, those who praised
the conciliarity of the Church have themselves abolished it in the most brutal
manner possible, in order to outvote and impose their views on the others
“through the conciliar process.”
Connected with
article 12(1) are also articles 12(2) and 12(3) of the Rules of Procedure. In
them, the undermining of the episcopal dignity (Orthodox, of course) continues,
with the consequence of establishing a new type of bishop (a courtier-bishop). Specifically, in order to decide how the final
texts of the “Council” will be voted upon, an internal vote of the entire
delegation of each Local Church is conducted by its primate, during which
disagreement is permitted—even in
matters of dogma. In plain terms, it is permitted that one or more bishops
may disagree, but as a minority, they must accept a decision which ultimately
becomes the decision of the majority! The issue of disagreement, according to
article 12(3), is an “internal matter” of each Local Church! The result of all
this is the possibility that a bishop
who finds himself in the minority
during internal voting (e.g., on matters of dogma) [11] within his respective
episcopal delegation, returns to his diocese and is then forced to preach contrary to what he had proclaimed before going to
Crete. This was, in fact, the ultimate outcome of the innovative
“unanimity” in adopting the final texts—at least as far as church life (under a
bishop) in each of the Local Churches is concerned.
Further
ratification of the decisions of the Cretan “council” is not foreseen—that is,
the decisions are final, and as is explicitly stated in article 13(2), all
decisions carry pan-Orthodox authority and
are simply communicated within the
autocephalous Local Churches for the purpose of informing the faithful in each
of the holy metropolises/dioceses.
Concluding the
examination of the Rules of Procedure of the “Holy and Great Council,” we may
summarize what is already perfectly clear—the gathering in Crete fulfills not a
single criterion of an Orthodox Council. The principles of its operation, by
which the “conciliar” decisions were reached, resulted in an anti-council and,
without doubt, what in ecclesiastical literature is referred to as a false council (pseudo-council). The
presence of unholy, non-Orthodox bishops, both at the beginning and at the end
of the “Council” (something otherwise provided for by article 14 of the Rules
of Procedure), reveals to us the general tone, character, and aim of that
assembly.
In article 22 of
the text titled “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the
Christian World,” it states: “The Orthodox Church considers any disruption of
the unity of the Church by individuals or groups under the pretext of
preserving or supposedly protecting true Orthodoxy to be unacceptable.” This
article is heretical, given that it violates the principle of the
ecclesiological authority of the Body of the Church (all clergy, monastics, and
laity together with the hierarchs, whether or not they were present at the
Council), which has the right to accept or reject, subsequently, decisions of a
dogmatic nature. This article, in this way, imposes decisions that are not even
in agreement with the decisions of previous Orthodox Councils.
There is a clear
attempt at persecution, deposition, and excommunication of those who oppose the
“Holy and Great Council” on the part of the primates of the Local Churches. In
view of these undeniable persecutions of those who cease the commemoration of heretical
bishops within the framework of the “official governing Church,” it must become
known and clear that the Orthodox Church will be preserved as a continuing
reality only thanks to those who break communion with ecumenist hierarchs, and
not thanks to the “official governing Church,” which, through its acceptance of
ecumenism at the “Holy and Great Council,” will become ecumenist and
innovative.
For this so-called Cretan council to have been Orthodox,
it would have needed to:
1.
Condemn the pan-heresy of ecumenism and religious syncretism;
2.
Condemn the World Council of Churches as a World Council of heresies, with the
proclamation that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is in fact the
Orthodox Church, and that only within the bosom of the Orthodox Church is
purification, illumination, and deification of man—i.e., salvation—attained;
3.
Have been convened validly, and not as it was—with a violation of the old
principle of full unanimity in the cooperation of all autocephalous Orthodox
Churches;
4.
Grant voting rights to all hierarchs participating, in accordance with Orthodox
ecclesiology and canonical tradition, and not just to the ten autocephalous
Churches following the rules of inter-Christian syncretistic organizations
(better known as the World Council of “Churches”);
5.
Refrain from proclaiming itself the highest authority in matters of faith,
since the highest authority in regard to infallible theology is only the Body
of the Church—more precisely, the Council of the present hierarchs, under the
condition that dogmatic decisions are later approved by the remaining hierarchs
and by the rest of the clergy, monastics, and laity, and that in accordance
with Orthodox theology and canonical tradition;
6.
Address the calendar question, aiming at a return to the state that existed
before the introduction of the new calendar in 1924;
7.
Condemn Freemasonry, chiliasm,
neo-paganism, Scientology, and other new heresies and quasi-religious
groups which proselytize and lead Christians away from the Orthodox Faith and
the Orthodox way of life;
8.
Condemn the so-called post-patristic
theology—unfortunately, numerous hierarchs and theologians lacking a
patristic, ascetic, and Orthodox spirit think that we no longer have need of
the Fathers and that patristic theology has been surpassed in the context of
our age, as though such a thing were possible (!), for we all know that the
Holy Fathers are enlightening guides for every era;
9.
Condemn neo-atheism, since we see
that even in our own country a “Union of Atheists” has been formed, which
unfortunately causes great harm to our Faith, primarily influencing the youth;
10.
Condemn electronic data and civil ID
cards of every kind that lead us toward the global dictatorship of the
Antichrist.
After this
“Council,” a new situation has arisen. As the people would say—the emperor has
been driven to the wall. We cannot accept this unbearable situation until the
convocation of a future Orthodox Council. Now, mere words and negative
statements about the so-called Holy and Great Council are not enough. To
publish in the press and on the internet from a safe distance without telling
the faithful people what we must do is no longer sufficient. The most pitiful
of all at this “Council” proved to be the bishops themselves, mute of tongue,
for they failed to put an end to the unrestrained betrayal of our Orthodoxy by
the Patriarch [Bartholomew – trans. note] and his like-minded followers. That
should have been their most sacred duty, even if it required personal
sacrifice. But that duty belonged not only to the bishops, but to all Orthodox
Christians.
The Church of the
saved consists only of “the communion of the Saints of pure Faith and virtuous
life,” [12] according to St. Isidore of Pelusium. The Church of Christ is found
only where the Truth is. “They do not
belong to the Church of Christ who are not found in the Truth,” as St.
Gregory Palamas says. [13]
As a conclusion to
today’s speech and as the response of all of us who do not recognize the
heretical and robber-like false council in Crete (since it introduces to us a
faith different from the one handed down to us by the Holy Apostles and
Fathers), I will present the reply of the four Patriarchs and the Council of
the ancient Patriarchates from 1848 to Pope Pius IX of Rome. In this way, on
the one hand, we will demonstrate the great gulf in Orthodox consciousness
between today’s ecumenists and the then fully Orthodox Patriarchs; and on the
other hand, to show that what we are asserting is not our own reasoning, that
we are not asserting anything of ourselves nor inventing our own dogmas, but
that we follow in everything and through everything the ancient and true Church
of Christ, through our Saints, without causing schisms—for, unfortunately, it
is those who conducted the Cretan “Council” and all who follow them who are the
ones causing schisms:
“Our faith,
brethren, did not originate from men, nor through men, but from Jesus Christ
through revelation—preached by the divine Apostles, established by the Holy
Ecumenical Councils, handed down from one to another by the great and wise
Teachers of the universe, sealed with their blood by the holy Martyrs.
Therefore, we shall hold fast to the confession which we have purely received
from so many men, and we shall reject every innovation as an influence of the
Evil One. Whoever accepts a new teaching acts as though he considers the
Orthodox Faith that has been handed down to us to be imperfect.
But the Orthodox
Faith has already been fully revealed and established; therefore, it is not
possible to make any additions or subtractions or any other alterations. Thus,
anyone who dares to do this—whether to carry it out, or to advise it, or even
to think it—has already renounced the faith of Christ and has willingly
submitted himself to eternal condemnation (anathema), blaspheming the Holy
Spirit, as though the Holy Spirit had spoken imperfectly in the Holy Scriptures
and at the Councils. This dreadful anathema, brethren and beloved children in
Christ, we now pronounce—but it was first pronounced by our Savior Himself
(Matt. 12:32): ‘Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be
forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.’ And the divine
Paul pronounced this in his Epistle to the Galatians (1:6–8): ‘I marvel that
you are so soon removed from Him who called you in the grace of Christ to
another gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and
would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let
him be anathema!’ This has been declared by the Seven Ecumenical Councils and
the entire assembly of the God-bearing Fathers. Thus, all those who take up the
cause of innovations, heresies, or schisms have voluntarily clothed themselves,
in the words of the Psalmist (Ps. 109:18), ‘with a curse as with a
garment’—whether they be popes or patriarchs or clerics or laymen, even if it
were an angel from heaven, let him be accursed ‘if he preaches to you anything
other than what you have received.’ Such was the judgment of our Fathers, who
listened to the soul-saving words of Paul, and who remained from generation to
generation unshaken and steadfast in the faith. They preserved it amid so many
heresies pure and unchanged, and handed it down to us whole and uncorrupted,
just as it came forth from the mouths of the first servants of the Word.
Thinking thus, we too shall hand it down in the same perfect form to future
generations without any alteration, just as we received it, so that they also,
like us, may speak without shame and reproach of the faith of their
forefathers.”
Thinking in this
same way, we also declare that, with the grace and help of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Most Holy Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, and all the Saints,
we will not remain silent, we will not cease from the struggle against the
forces of the Antichrist, and, repeating the words of Joseph Bryennios, we will
strive, following the Holy Fathers, to humbly cry out as well:
“Never shall we
renounce you, beloved Orthodoxy! Never shall we betray you, piety of the
Fathers! In you we were born, in you we live, and in you we shall die. And if
the times demand it, we shall die for you a thousand times over.”
(translated from the Greek [into
Serbian] by Marko Pejković)
NOTES
[1] The Orthodox Academy of Crete is, in fact, a
complex of academic buildings in Crete owned by the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, whose primary purpose is “the development of ecumenist
dialogue” between the Orthodox and “other churches.” [Trans. note]
[2] At the Sixth Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference
(Chambésy near Geneva, October 10–17, 2015), the draft text of the Holy and
Great Council titled “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the
Christian World” was approved, and it was published, in accordance with the
decision of the Gathering of Primates of the Orthodox Churches also held in
Chambésy near Geneva, January 21–28, 2016, at the following web address
(28.1.2016): http://www.romfea.gr/diafora/6177-apofasis-sxeseis-tis-orthodojou-ekklisias-pros-ton-xristianiko-kosmo
[3] In the texts of the Cretan assembly, the term
“heretic” is not mentioned at all and is instead replaced by the term
“non-Orthodox.”
[4] It should be noted that the issue of marriages is
by no means something new; this problem has existed literally since the very
beginnings of the Church.
[5] Catechism of
the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011.
[6] The changes in the form of the adoption of
ecumenism (through the conciliar decree titled Unitatis Redintegratio) as a means for the unification of
Christians, as well as changes related to liturgical life (liturgical reform).
[7] Maria Brun, The
Impact of the Second Vatican Council on the Orthodox Church, p. 231.
[8] Ibid., pp. 232–234.
[9] Venerable Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Pedalion, Athens 1957, p. 118.
[10] Regarding this, Venerable Nikodemos the Hagiorite
notes that in the case of “disagreement among Patriarchs, Ecumenical Councils
are brought down to the level of Local ones,” op. cit., p. 119.
[11] The clearest example of this is the acceptance or
rejection of the sixth text, whose aim was the recognition of ecclesiality in
the non-Orthodox.
[12] St. Isidore of Pelusium, P.G. 78, 685A.
[13] St. Gregory Palamas, Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 627.
Serbian source:
https://www.eparhija-prizren.org/otac-sava-lavriot-sabor-na-kritu-u-mestu-kolimbari-sveti-i-veliki-ili-jereticki-i-razbojnicki/
