Bishop Klemes of Gardikion | July 30, 2017 (O.S.)
For decades now, the opinion has
been seriously and, in many respects, substantially set forth, that our era is
a forerunning time of the Antichrist in a particular manner. The grave symptom,
as far as the faith is concerned, is related to the evident “apostasy” (2
Thess. 2:3), through the heresy of Ecumenism.
Ecumenism has completed more than a
century of activity, and despite its manifest modernism, it succeeds in
prevailing through justifications and means which are accepted by almost the
entirety of our secularized society.
In an age of the relativization
of truth, the overthrow of authorities and dogmatisms, the exaltation of
rationalism, and the pursuit of proposals for the absolutization of the here
and now, for the securing of a life in this present world that is as painless
and comfortable as possible, Christianity is approached—when not outright
rejected—in a utilitarian manner, for the improvement of the conditions of this
present life. And secularized Christianity is flattered by this treatment from
the world and does its utmost to play its role as best it can, in order to
please the world, to be recognized and praised as a respectable spiritual
tradition, which has some important things to say to modern man for the
improvement of the quality of his life.
Whether this Christianity has any
relation to the essence of its mission, to eternal salvation based on the true
faith in the only true God, does not seem to particularly concern even the very
representatives of this contemporary Christianity.
***
The Ecumenists from among the
Orthodox boast, for example, concerning their leader Bartholomew of
Constantinople, that he has grasped the ecumenical spirit of the times, so that
the consciousness of his responsibility — just as that of his predecessors
(Joachim III, [Meletios], Athenagoras, and Demetrios) — might “guide and shape
the ecumenical discourse and the ecumenical mission thereof” (cf. Stylianos Ch.
Tsobanidis, “The Ecumenical Discourse of Patriarch Bartholomew,” in the
electronic Journal of the Theological School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki:
Synthesis, Vol. 5/No 1 [2016], pp. 162–182; the subsequent presentation
of Ecumenist positions is based on this recent source).
The Ecumenists, through their
patriarch-leader, emphasize the duty of “universal love” — far from fanaticism
and intolerance — which is supposedly denied by “confessional egocentrism.” The
confessional stance, Evangelical and Patristic, which considers Love
inseparable from Truth, is labeled as a “fundamentalist version of Orthodoxy,”
a “self-complacent and narrow-hearted isolation,” and “ecclesiastical
provincialism.” The problematic “confessional egocentrists,” then, according to
the Ecumenists, are incapable of suspecting that dialogue and openness to the
world are supposedly inherent to the nature and mission of the Church.
While the broad-minded
Ecumenists, those large-hearted cosmopolitans, present themselves on their part
as champions of the so-called “dynamic ecclesiology” — that which supports and
promotes cooperation with all kinds of heterodox for the resolution of issues
concerning the relationship between Church and world, and that which seeks ways
of renewing the life of Christians within the Church (which Church?!), and
naturally favors common prayer and not only that.
These are, for the Ecumenists,
the things aimed at avoiding the so-called “ecclesiological exclusivity,” which
they appear to excessively dislike, so that the desired “inclusiveness” might
be achieved according to them—that is, the arbitrary attribution to the
heterodox of that ecclesial character which would allow them to participate
jointly in the realization, activity, and fulfillment of their Ecumenist
vision.
Yet this is precisely what took
place with the Ecumenist Encyclical of the Patriarchate in 1920, which indeed
constituted the resounding Ecumenist “call to assembly.”
In the postwar years, Ecumenism
experienced great expansion and consolidation. After 1965, there were even
inaugurated — especially in relation to the Papists — the theatrical
Ecumenistic semi-concelebrations, which bear witness to the tragic corruption
of the Ecumenists from among the Orthodox. And these are not merely actions
without theoretical backing. The Joint Declarations at the highest level
between Pope and Patriarch express/declare in the most official and explicit
manner this heretical and apostatic “inclusive/dynamic” ecclesiology of
non-exclusivity.
The Joint Declarations, for
example, of Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew in 2014 in Jerusalem (May)
and at the Phanar (November), speak of the attainment of full unity as mutual
enrichment and exchange of gifts, with an immediate prospect of common witness —
ministry — prayer by both parties, in full mutual recognition and joint
journeying. They even affirm unequivocally that they no longer have “the luxury
of acting separately”!
The same holds true for the Joint
Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, which was co-signed
in Havana, Cuba, in February 2016, so that there may be no illusion — whether
deliberate or unwitting — among certain dreamers, that the Patriarchate of
Moscow supposedly maintains an anti-ecumenist stance and position in contrast
to Constantinople! Their difference does not lie in matters of Faith, but in
matters of jurisdictional claims and geopolitics.
While these utterly subversive
things concerning the Orthodox Faith — and especially Ecclesiology — are taking
place, the Ecumenists affirm, in the most simplistic and provocative manner,
that supposedly no proof is provided by those who react to their apostatic
course that, in their contacts with the non-Orthodox, they have ever abandoned
or denied the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers of the Church!
While it is utterly evident that
Ecumenist involvement for decades now — both Inter-Christian and Interfaith — has
produced a multitude of heresies, in both theory and practice, with a
distortion even of the meaning of Love, with an accommodating and inclusive
attitude toward heterodoxy/heresy, based on a nebulous humanistic vision,
without any missionary dimension or call for the deluded to return in
repentance to the truly Orthodox Church.
Nevertheless, the Ecumenists
organized and finally convened their long-anticipated “Holy and Great Council”
at Kolymbari, Chania, Crete, in June 2016, in order to secure “Pan-Orthodox”
approval and cover, to the extent that this would be possible, for all the
aforementioned heretical Ecumenist accomplishments—a goal which, of course,
they indeed achieved, albeit somewhat covertly.
It is indeed at the very least
paradoxical that, ever since, much has been said concerning the meaning of
certain expressions of the pseudo-council of Kolymbari regarding the
designation of the heterodox, at the very moment when the foundation of Ecumenism
remains unmoved and fully in force — namely, the subversive and unorthodox
Encyclical of 1920 and all that throughout a century has been committed,
signed, and continues to this day to be spoken and done with undiminished
intensity! What, then, was questioned, and what was condemned by their
pseudo-council concerning Ecumenism and its established achievements, that we
might move beyond terminology and enter into the substance of the matter?
The Ecumenists have indeed
achieved great success in provoking confusion among the seemingly Orthodox of
the so-called official churches. They incite strife among them concerning
terminology, so that those individuals might be “vented” in mutual mockery while
defending their Orthodoxy, whereas the Ecumenists themselves, undisturbed,
continue their actual — and by no means theoretical or imaginary — destructive
work of apostasy, dragging along with them their pitiful “protesting”
communicants and fellow travelers...
***
Before this tragic situation,
various tendencies have in the meantime taken shape. The supporters of the
Ecumenists usually hasten, in the face of the uproar of reaction against them,
to invoke as an alibi certain well-known Elders of previous decades, who were
not themselves Ecumenists, nor did they approve of the Ecumenist decline, but
unfortunately remained in communion with them and presented the leaders of the
Ecumenists as the actual shepherds of the true Church. This invocation is
evidently made in order to restrain those who react from engaging in what they
mockingly call the “fad of walling off”!
But what value does the
invocation of that blameworthy and inconsistent stance of those Elders have, in
the face of the so manifest falling away of the Ecumenists from the Rule of
Truth? The criterion in the Church is not comprised of certain Elders — however
venerable they may be in other respects — who, nevertheless, paradoxically
overlook and transgress the pure continuity of Ecclesiastical Tradition.
The Saints exhort us otherwise:
“It is necessary for the hearers who are educated in the Scriptures to test the
things spoken by the teachers; and to accept those that are in agreement with
the Scriptures, but to reject the foreign ones; and to turn away even more
fervently from those who persist in such doctrines” (St. Basil the Great, PG
vol. 31, cols. 845D–848A).
We receive and follow those holy
Elders who kept the above exhortation and turned away from the innovators, the
Ecumenists, in order to preserve the Orthodox Ecclesiology of exclusivity, in
Love and Truth, far from all fanaticism and intolerance — whatever this may
have cost them. These God-inspired Elders did not fall into the snare of the
heretics who preach “love,” who on the one hand promote “universal love” in
order to deceive and achieve their goals, but on the other hand, toward those
who dare to question them, display without restraint their harsh persecutory
zeal!
***
Another tendency concerns those
from the so-called official Orthodox churches, whether they participated or not
in the pseudo-council of Kolymbari, who censure its abuses and its unorthodox
points, and in essence demonstrate its heretical character, yet believe and
propagate that this in no way hinders their communion with the heterodox, in
the hope that another council will be convened in the future, which will
correct the erroneous expressions of certain texts that have been approved!
The naivety — or even the cunning
— of this position hardly needs to be emphasized. We know that the Ecumenists
proceed methodically, and if it be necessary to satisfy some of their fellow
communicants who have Orthodox sensitivities, they are quite capable of
employing suitable maneuvers and manipulations in the formulation of texts, so
as to partially appease them, without in any way altering the course and line
they intend to follow, in word and in deed.
The problem is that those who
support the aforementioned position of communion with the heterodox seem to
regard their choice as the “royal path,” which is now being tested — possibly
referring to the use of the term by the enlightened Hieromonk [St.] Seraphim
Rose (+1982), a cleric of the Russian diaspora (cf. his text “The Royal Path:
True Orthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy,” in the periodical The Orthodox Word,
No. 5 [70], September–October 1976, pp. 143–149), as another apparent version
of the superficial theory of the “two extremes,” namely of Ecumenism and
Zealotry.
Fr. Seraphim, however, used the
term “royal path” in the 1970s, forty years ago, to denote the “golden mean”
not between Ecumenism and Zealotry, but between Ecumenism/Reformism and a zeal
“not according to knowledge,” for he himself followed the path of knowledgeable
Zealotry and attributed the “royal path” to his own Church—the Russian Church
Abroad under Saint Metropolitan Philaret (+1985) and the blessed Archbishop
Averky of Jordanville (+1976). These men and those with them preserved the
Orthodox Faith unaltered, courageously denounced Ecumenism while not
maintaining communion with its adherents, supported and recognized the Genuine
Orthodox Christians of Greece, who were inhumanely persecuted by the Innovators
of the New Calendar and brutally scorned. They strengthened them in the
foundational Orthodoxy of their stance, despite their internal problems, some
of which had been related to negative statements concerning the Mysteries of
the Innovators — an issue on which the Russians avoided openly taking a
position, at least with regard to the Sergianist and Ecumenist Patriarchate of
Moscow. Let us simply recall that Fr. Seraphim Rose reposed one year before the
1983 Anathema against Ecumenism issued by the Synod of the Russian Church
Abroad under Saint Metropolitan Philaret.
The “royal path,” then, is not
the choice of the inconsistent — those who knowingly commune with manifest
heretics in order supposedly to avoid the extreme of “zeal not according to
knowledge”:
“Some have utterly made shipwreck
concerning the faith; others, even if they are not submerged in their thoughts,
are nevertheless destroyed through communion with heresy.” (St. Theodore the
Studite, PG 99, col. 1164AB)
“For Chrysostom declared with a
loud voice that not only the heretics, but also those who commune with such as
these, are enemies of God.” (St. Theodore the Studite, PG 99, col.
1049AB)
“Those who pretend to confess the
sound faith but commune with those of a different mind—if, after admonition,
they do not separate themselves—such persons are not only to be excluded from
communion, but not even to be called brothers.” “All the Teachers of the
Church, all the Synods, and all the divine Scriptures exhort us to flee from
those of a different mind and to separate from their communion.” (St. Mark of
Ephesus, PG vol. 160, 101CD)
***
Another category is formed by
those clergy who, though they have ceased commemorating their local bishop,
nonetheless maintain communion with their church, awaiting — within a set time
limit of a few years — whether the situation will be corrected through the
convocation of a corrective synod, in which case, should this not occur, they
intend to proceed to full separation.
At first glance, this step may be
praised, but it is utterly evident that it constitutes a half-measure, which
does not safeguard its practitioners from indirect communion with the heresy
they denounce, does not represent a traditional response to heretical
lawlessness, and does not inspire hope for a decisive change or reversal of the
lamentable situation.
The infectious carriers of
Ecumenism and those who commune with them are not effectively dealt with by
half-measures, but only decisively — by complete separation, even unto death,
from both direct and indirect communion with them. This we know from the
Canonical and Patristic Tradition of our Orthodox Church.
***
Another category consists
primarily of those clergy, as well as monastics and laypeople, who have
proceeded to a canonical walling-off from the Innovators, invoking the 15th
Holy Canon of the First-Second Council, whether recently or somewhat earlier.
This category is at first to be commended, for it has fully avoided communion
with heresy, denouncing and opposing it.
A problem for us Genuine Orthodox
Christians, who uphold the Festal Order of the Church, is the evident hostility
and unprovoked polemic on the part of these individuals (at least from some
among their ranks) directed against us, even though certain deluded Ecumenists
label them as a “Trojan horse of the G.O.C.” for the supposed destabilization
of their church! It seems that the imagination of some has become utterly
unbridled and has soared to dizzying heights!...
The walled-off brethren, who are
engaged in a strong struggle against Ecumenism, would do well to be
distinguished by a spirit of moderation and understanding toward those who have
fought with blood-sacrificing effort since the very beginnings of the appearance
and imposition of the heresy of Ecumenism. This is required by the most basic
sense of humanity and Christian solidarity. It is not acceptable that
yesterday’s and today’s late-coming confessors, known for their aggressiveness
and lack of flexibility, should suddenly become judges and accuse us Old
Calendarists in an unbrotherly, contentious, and condemnatory manner for
excesses and deviations, when they do not even sufficiently know the very
historical facts of our painful and tormented, yet at the same time glorious
path and witness of confession.
We do not desire to be teachers
of teachers. We do not love disputation, which does not edify, but devolves
into mutual strife and fraternal conflict. We believe as our Fathers handed
down to us: “We are not wiser than the Fathers; we are not more exact than the
teachers” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, PG vol. 46, col. 1112).
For us, based on our God-bearing
Fathers and Teachers, the Calendar Innovation stands in opposition to the
Catholicity of the Church, both because it was implemented unilaterally and
uncanonically in 1924 — disregarding the Pan-Orthodox decisions of the 16th
century, as well as in defiance of the reaction of the majority of the local
Orthodox Churches — and also because its purpose, as can be effortlessly
concluded from the historical data by any serious and unbiased researcher, was
not ecclesiastical, but ecumenistic/syncretistic: to achieve joint festal
celebrations with the heterodox, in order to make visible the supposedly
already existing invisible unity between them and the Ecumenists from among the
Orthodox.
(More details, including on the
relationship between the Paschal Canon and the Festal Calendar, are developed
in Chapter II, “Ecumenism: Syncretistic Pan-Heresy,” of the Unifying
Ecclesiological Text: “The Genuine Orthodox Church in the Face of the Heresy of
Ecumenism – Dogmatic and Canonical Issues,” in the periodical The Voice of
Orthodoxy, issue no. 979 / March–April 2014, pp. 10–12.)
The Calendar issue is inseparably
linked with the practical implementation of the heresy of Ecumenism — it was
conceived by it, for its sake, and it cannot be separated from it or considered
non-essential at present, in order supposedly to be addressed at a later time.
May the walled-off brethren come
to be inwardly illumined (since we consider that this is not a matter of
intellectual comprehension) regarding the importance and significance of this
issue, and may they crown their Struggle with that essential element which is
currently lacking, by drawing near to our Genuine Orthodox Church, which
preserves, according to Saint Maximus the Confessor, “the right and saving
Confession of the Faith,” with ecclesiological fullness and catholicity.
***
As time goes on and the Ecumenist
heresy gains ground and consciences are corroded, we who are truly Orthodox are
in need of intensifying our Struggle. It would be most desirable to have the
best possible unified and coordinated cooperation of the Confessors, for the
activation of the Synodal conscience of the Church, in order to more
effectively and efficiently confront the heresy, in relation to the forms it
assumes and the spread of the signs of eschatological apostasy.
The rejection of the Calendar
Innovation by our forebears was made on the basis of their Orthodox
sensibility, with divine inspiration and with the strengthening of divine
signs, so that they might endure the afflictions that befell them on account of
their unwavering stance. If there were errors, such are inevitable in grievous
and trying circumstances—and in any case, the moral perpetrators were and
remain the Reformists/Ecumenists.
Our greater self-knowledge and
repentance will draw down the Mercy of God, so that we may respond in a manner
pleasing to Him to the challenges of our times, in the face of such great and
unprecedented confusion, laboring for the Church and sacrificing ourselves on
behalf of the Church.
The emphasis on the missionary dimension of the Witness of Genuine Orthodoxy on a global level, and the steadfast commitment — carefully and with discernment — to its inner quality, so that it may encompass, express, and transmit the Will of God in the Spirit, may this be our foremost concern, in full awareness of the Apostolic exhortation: “Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer” (Rom. 12:12), and with the prayer that the God of peace may be with us. Amen!
Greek source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.