(Metropolitan Paisios of Kalymnos and priests are praying together with Cardinal Koch, who makes the sign of the cross upside down. Would St. Paisios or Porphyrios or Iakovos Tsalikis have done this out of pastoral tact?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPWp7Tk-9G0&t=10s)
I was sent, from the account of a
priest, Fr. Panteleimon Krouskos, on Facebook, the following comment of this
priest:
“I am obliged to
remind you that since some of you refer to sources outside the Church, supposedly
of fighters [against Ecumenism - trans. note], the following: The Fathers of the Church, who waged such an
anti-heretical struggle, did not speak in such a disparaging and legalistic
manner. This is a world that lives with scandals and arrogance, that only they
are good Christians and confessors with a mission from above and no one else.
And they do not even care about the enlightenment or the salvation of
others. Even if a hierarch falls into delusion, this is not the manner of
criticizing him. This is Protestantism and egotism. Irreverence toward the
priesthood. Usually the walling-off ones or objectors do not have faith,
works, ascetic struggle, and love for God, and they invoke adherence to the
canons and the laws in order to appear righteous before men. They
chaotically fill gaps and spiritual deficiencies with such confessions, which
resemble actors in an excessively theatrical performance. That is, showmanship.
Many confessions hide a lot of sauce. In this downward path they drag along
many sincere and pure Christians with genuine sensitivities of Faith, who
misunderstand situations, not because of foolishness, but because they are
well-intentioned and love Christ and His confession. Now you, who are within
the walls, consider what you want to be and to whom you want to look. We
follow pastoral tact (discernment), which adorned Paisios, Porphyrios, and
Holy Fathers, who honored patriarchs and bishops, without also
retreating from the original faith.”
(Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BxtVnNfWa/)
If Fr. Panteleimon were limiting
himself to personal insults and high-handed ironies (both splendid for a
priest), as he is accustomed to do, I would not respond, because this is what
the Lord commands us. However, since this priest condemns faithful who are
struggling for their Faith and even places them (as if a synod) outside the
Church!!!, moreover asserting that in this way he obeys the holy Fathers
without, however, presenting even a single patristic proof of what he says, and
since he also influences other kind-hearted faithful, I will respond by doing
the opposite of him:
I will respond by naming persons
and not anonymously as Fr. Panteleimon does.
I will respond with sources and
not arbitrarily, as Fr. Panteleimon does:
a) In general: Yes, father, you
are right: Unfortunately, many laypeople who exercise criticism regarding what
is happening in the Church, first and worst of all myself, have neither the
spiritual virtues nor the stature that we should have, and we certainly fall
into errors. We too are responsible for all that is wrongly set forth and we
have to a great extent become secularized. May we, with the help of God,
someday become better. However, I do not see you doing the opposite, but rather
doing that which you accuse us of (see Protestantism and egotism)
in an even worse manner, because you both keep silent and cover up the error. I
do not see you assuming your own responsibility, that of your bishop and of all
the clergy who left the flock as prey to the pan-heresy of Ecumenism,
secularization, materialism, and so many other evils. There are so many
spiritual laws that are being transgressed by patriarchs, bishops (including
your own), archimandrites, priests, and monks, that if there were an Orthodox
spirit in the Hierarchy and if the holy Canons were being observed, the
majority would at least have had to be punished.
If only the priests would speak
(but speak truly and not chatter on Facebook) and the laypeople would be
silent. The shepherd is responsible for the sheep and not the sheep. Ezekiel
says it clearly (ch. 34: 2, Trembelas translation):
“…Thus says
the sole Lord and Ruler of all: You, shepherds of Israel, do shepherds usually
feed and care for themselves? Is it not the task of the shepherds to feed and
care for their sheep?”
The shepherd will give account
(how dreadful this is, and how few turn pale at this thought) for every lost
soul, for every lost sheep. The 58th Canon of the Holy Apostles imposes
excommunication not on a layman, but on Bishops and Presbyters who neglect
their flock! The 55th of Laodicea forbids Clergy to hold banquets. Do you want
us to see how many bishops hold banquets and concerts? The 24th and 51st of the
Quinisext forbid clergy to go to theaters, cinemas, and stadiums. Do you want
us to see how many abolish these Canons? And the worst: Countless Holy Canons
impose deposition of clerics who pray together with heretics, and indeed inside
a holy church. Here the Pope came for the umpteenth time, common prayers took
place, “many-years,” embraces, the Symbol of the Faith was recited, so many
things were done again and again, and you act as though you do not know. The
Church, father, does not forbid the laypeople either to speak, when priests
occupy themselves more with their profile on the internet (they take
photographs even at the sacred moment of the consecration of the Holy Gifts and
publish them) than with the Church, nor to wall off, that is, to interrupt
ecclesiastical communion with the bishop who is “publicly and bareheaded
preaching heresy in the Church” and with those who follow him. The
Apostolic Constitutions say it clearly (truly, why do you not teach these to
your flock?):
“For these sheep
and rams are rational, and not irrational, lest the layman should ever say: I
am a sheep and not a shepherd. For just as for the good shepherd the sheep
that does not follow him is exposed to destruction by wolves, so for the evil
shepherd the sheep that follows him has manifest death, because he will devour
it. Therefore, one must flee from corrupt shepherds.” (Apostolic
Constitutions 2:19)
Unless you do not know ancient
Greek, which I do not think.
b) You say, father, that we are
outside the Church, while you follow the Fathers. You say that we are
irreverent toward the Priesthood, because we exercise biting rebuke against the
hireling shepherds (this designation is from the second letter of Kontoglou
against the Patriarch [Athenagoras], another, according to you, “actor in an
excessively theatrical performance”), while you, of course, are full of
respect and obedience.
I therefore present to you,
father, the response of St. Gregory Palamas (is this Saint a great Father for
you? for the Church he is) to the Patriarch of Constantinople J. Kalekas (prior
to his synodal condemnation), who after the Synod of 1341 imprisoned, deposed,
and anathematized St. Gregory Palamas (!!!), because he discontinued commemoration
and communion with him (this is how the Fathers always acted, and St. Paisios
under Athenagoras as well, and not as you falsely teach), on account of
Latin-mindedness and heresy (see today Bartholomew and those who follow him):
Kalekas even issued an encyclical
letter anathematizing St. Gregory and those of the same mind as him, that is,
the Orthodox. Reading it, one could say that it was written today, perhaps even
by your own hands. This said, among other things, the following:
“Palamas and
those of the same mind as him, … having dared uncanonically and without
discernment to cut off my commemoration, we subject to the bond of the
life-originating and holy Trinity, and we refer to anathema. The signature:
John, by the mercy of God Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and
Ecumenical Patriarch” (P.G. 150, 863D).
The anathema of the Saint was
also signed by other Bishops, yet the Saint did not obey, but privately
continued to celebrate the Divine Liturgy (P.G. 150, 880D). Why did the
Saint not obey, father, the patriarch who had not been condemned by a Synod?
Why did he propose to the Orthodox to do the same:
“Since therefore
he has thus and so many times been cut off from the entirety of the Orthodox
fullness, it remains among the impossibilities for one not separated from him
to be counted among the pious [i.e., it is impossible for one not cut off
from Kalekas to be numbered among the ranks of the pious], but he is to be
reckoned among those who are truly Christians and united to God according to
pious faith, whoever for these reasons has been separated from him [i.e., the
one who has been cut off from Kalekas, that is, the Patriarch, is united with
God].” (EPE 3, 692, Refutation of the Explanation of the Tome of
Kalekas).
It is indeed noteworthy, and you
must tell us “actors,” where you see here the Saint honoring “patriarchs and
bishops, without also retreating from the original faith.”
“Which clergy,
what portion, what genuineness toward the Church of Christ belongs to the advocate
of falsehood, to a church which, according to Paul, is ‘the pillar and
ground of the truth’…? For those of the Church of Christ are those of the
truth; and those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ
either, and all the more so insofar as they even lie against themselves,
calling themselves and being called by one another shepherds and
arch-shepherds; for we have been initiated to have Christianity characterized
not by persons, but by truth and exactness of faith” (Refutation of the Letter
of Ignatius of Antioch, EPE 3, 606).
Do you see what the Saint says,
father? Even if you are shepherds, and even arch-shepherds, if you are not with
the Truth, you do not belong to the Church! It is indeed noteworthy, and you
must tell us “actors,” where you see here the Saint honoring “patriarchs and
bishops, without also retreating from the original faith.”
The disciple of St. Joseph
Kalothetos, in his homily entitled “Against John Kalekas,” writes:
“Thus this ‘good
shepherd’ says that the Church has made us outcasts of herself, since we did
not wish to give a written confession. Which Church does he say has made us
outcasts? That of the Apostles? But in every way, we are in agreement with
that one and are zealous for it and have chosen to suffer everything for its
sake… Therefore, it is not that one which he says has cast us out—for how could
it?—but the one which he himself set up as a newly appearing church and
newly appearing dogmas… From where are you a church of the pious? From
doctrine? From manner of life? From deeds? From sound dogmas? Having
therefore become a workshop of every falsehood, every slander, every sort of
evil whatsoever, every factious mindset, every injustice, greed, sacrilege,
robbery, profiteering, and then you even ordain yourself a church—oh the
audacity!—not knowing that Nestorius and Macedonius too might perhaps have
claimed this very thing which you yourself claim. For they too had the same
see as you.
‘From where
are you a church? From taking bribes? From selling justice? From not
distinguishing between profane and holy? From opening the sanctuary to all
impure and profane persons? From persuading people to be filled with blood of
the same race? From selling the grace of the Spirit? From filling the Church
with every heresy—and I come here to the very summit of evils—or from having
sold off your piety and that of your bishops and of those who follow you, whom
you also boast of as a church? Such is the church according to you, which
recently, having recently apostatized from ours, you set up.’”
Should you also accuse the holy
Kalothetos of audacity, irreverence toward the priesthood, disobedience? Should
you give him lessons in tact, which you supposedly possess to such a great
degree? The faithful Joseph clearly says to the still not yet condemned
Patriarch of Constantinople: from where and in what sense are you a Church? And
he enumerates to him (if he were alive today you would accuse him of doing this
for reasons of showmanship, without pastoral tact) all his sins, from Simony to
heresy (dear reader, compare with today and draw a conclusion), the summit of
evils, about which you, father, diplomatically and for obvious reasons remain
silent. It is indeed noteworthy, and you must tell us “actors,” where you
see here the Saint honoring “patriarchs and bishops, without also retreating
from the original faith.”
As a final source I cite some
letters from the thousands of St. Isidore of Pelusium (Complete Works,
ed. “To Vyzantion,” Thessaloniki, 2000). In them you will see topics which one
would think are taken from today, and you will ascertain that the Fathers, when
it came to matters of Faith, ecclesiastical order, and morals, not only did
not have tact, but were most strict, because as true shepherds they knew what
you, amid your self-promotion, forget: this concerns the salvation of
souls, the souls of the flock, and not readership and pseudo-culture.
Indeed, when one reads them, one ascertains the timeless agreement of the
Fathers, which you, father, distort:
For all those who
defend in word or deed the heresy, the hypocrisy, and the depravity of
hierarchs, priests, and rulers
Epistle 39 — To the monk
Theodosios:
“Why are you
astonished that for the sin of one single person an entire city is punished,
something which you know happened also in the time of David… Therefore, do
not defend the wicked actions of the so-called bishop Eusebios, because on
account of him the altar has been deprived of its ministers and the city of
its inhabitants. For it is just that those who, without discernment,
promoted the unworthy one should taste the fruits of their labors, since
they dishonored virtue and preferred such manifest evil.”
For those who have
ecclesiastical communion with the heterodox and for those Bishops who cause
confusion in the flock of the Church.
Epistle 332 — To Eustathios:
“…The good
bishop Eusebios by himself would have been enough [note: the Saint’s
irony is evident, with no tact at all] to fill the entire Church with confusion;
but since he also succeeded in securing your own evil disposition, he is now
sufficient to throw the order of the entire Ecumenical Church into turmoil.
Therefore the prayer of all the priests and the laypeople, and of all who serve
God struggling in the monasteries, is either that your wickedness be
separated from his malice, or that both of you be transformed into goodness
and good social conduct, or that long-suffering be turned into strictness and
that He repay you with punishments worthy of what you have done, of what you
think, and of what you conspire together.”
For those priests
who, while forgetting their duty, act against those who do not forget and who
defend the Faith and the teachings of the Church, as at the present moment
Epistle 389 — To Therasios:
With great
pleasure I would ask you, who love irony and are a bitter judge of us, the
following: If the king were to place you upon the battlement and appoint you
guardian of the tower of the city, and someone were opening underground tunnels
and blowing up the tower in order to make the city accessible to the enemies,
would you not use every defensive means at your disposal and everything you
could devise, hindering and striking him, in order to prevent the surrender of
the city, to keep both the city and yourself far from danger, and to preserve
the good opinion of the king concerning you? Yet you are indignant against
us, whom God has placed as teachers of the Church, because we fight Arius,
who not only attacks the flock of piety, but has already killed many [i.e.,
spiritually]. Because of this, therefore, I despise every danger and could
stop doing everything else, except striking him [i.e., the heretic Arius]
with all the strength I have.
Burning questions
concerning every bishop of today
Epistle 21 (Volume II) — To
Bishop Thermogenes (referring to the incurable insensibility of Bishop
Eusebios and the questions he addressed to him)
“…For what
reason do you sell the priesthood? For what reason do you betray the
priesthood? Why do you trade in the divine? For what reason do you defile the
temple of God? Why do you take bribes, unlawfully appropriating what belongs to
the poor? Why, while you stand at the threshold of your old age, do you
behave like a young man in your offenses? Why did you not remain a ruler, but
proved to be one ruled by wickedness? Know therefore that you will receive a
greater punishment, because you yourself did those things from which you were
appointed to restrain others.”
It is indeed noteworthy, and
you must tell us “actors,” where you see here the Saint honoring “patriarchs
and bishops, without also retreating from the original faith”?
Who then belongs to the Church
and who does not, who deceives the people and who does not, who through his
cowardice supports heresy and delusion and who does not, who cares for the
Church from within and not from outside it, who respects the cassock and who
does not, who truly has proper conduct and who merely has “tact”—this is shown
by the Fathers and by ecclesiastical history, and not by just any layman, but
also by clergy. Whoever agrees with the Fathers belongs to the Church. Unless
for you, Fr. Panteleimon, Ecumenism is not heresy, Papism and Protestantism are
Church, the Holy Canons are walls of shame (words of Bartholomew), the WCC a
God-pleasing organization, common prayers proof of love, the persecutions of
the Orthodox in Ukraine just, the recognition of priesthood in non-ordained
clerics a right of the Patriarch, the Qur’an a sacred book, the various
religions paths to God, etc. Take a stand at last and say whether you are for
or against these things. And if you are against them, what consequence does
this have?
One last thing: You must
know—because you have apparently forgotten—that those who write texts against
apostate clerics do not rejoice but suffer, because they love the Church, they
love and honor the cassock and want it spotless; they want it to be a leader
and an example. And when, as human beings, they make whatever mistake, they
grieve deeply, because this is not what they desire. If only everything were
again as it once was and none of the above were necessary. But when the
shepherds do not enter through the door, the sheep do not hear their voice and
seek the true shepherd. This was said by the Lord Himself.
Translated from the original Greek.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.