Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia | December 1, 2025
In the aftermath of the visit of
the representative of the Latins to our East, I would like, with sincere love,
to express certain concerns.
Certainly, what every conscious
Christian desires is the unity of all—that we all be one Orthodox family in the
name of truth. For this we pray in every sacred Service, and our very Lord
Christ Himself prayed for this with tears before His voluntary Passion.
However, the unity of all in the Name of the All-Holy Trinity cannot be without
conditions. It requires common faith in the dogmas, as these were crystallized
by the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils. It requires, on the part of the
heretics, the recognition of the errors of their teachings and their departure
from them. Furthermore, it requires their Baptism for their incorporation into
the Body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Undoubtedly, in recent decades,
some have labored considerably for the restoration of Christian unity through
dialogues and the other proceedings of the so-called “Ecumenical Movement.”
Without being in a position to judge anyone, I ask in good faith: might there
be an ulterior motive behind this whole endeavor? Might it be that, in the end,
the opposite result is being achieved? Instead of the heterodox being
benefitted, might they be freely allowed to regard heresy as a “different
tradition,” which is so respectable that there is no need for them to renounce
it? Might it be, in the end, that the one coming out harmed from this entire
process is Orthodoxy, since it is being equated with every false dogma?
We fully understand that the
majority of the heterodox were born and raised within heresy, which others
preached before them. However, should not someone inform them with boldness and
sincere concern that they are not walking rightly? Were not entire decades of
dialogues sufficient time to point out to the heterodox their canonical and
dogmatic transgressions based on the teaching of the Holy Fathers? If not, then
the dialogues, as they are conducted, clearly constitute an unsuitable means
for transmitting the truth of Orthodoxy and for the healing of the heretics.
If, on the other hand, the time has indeed been sufficient but the heterodox
have not wished to understand, then the apostolic exhortation must finally be
observed: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition,
reject” (Titus 3:10).
Unfortunately, however, such a
thing does not appear to be among the intentions of the Orthodox who support
the Ecumenical Movement. This is evidenced by the fact that they are not
limited only to dialogues of questionable quality, but also proceed to joint
prayers and other common liturgical acts—practices condemned by the God-bearing
Fathers. Two indicative examples of these are, on the one hand, the
commemoration of the head of the Vatican during a Doxology, and on the other
hand, his recitation of the Lord’s Prayer from an honorary throne during the
Divine Liturgy.
Is the one customarily addressed
as “most holy” baptized? The verb “baptize” means “to immerse.” The total—and
indeed triple—immersion of a person in sanctified water constitutes the Baptism
which our Lord delivered as a commandment. The Latins, however, openly
violating the divine command, do not baptize their new members but sprinkle
them with a little water upon the head. Do they, perhaps, ignore that the Lord
of our Faith timelessly warns: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these
least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:19)? When the catechumens depart from the Church
before the Creed, how can one who is unbaptized according to the teaching of
our Church—and moreover, the leader of another confession—be called, even as a
courtesy, “most holy,” and solemnly recite the “Our Father”?
The poor and weakened
Phanar—after all the concessions of the Tomes of Autocephaly—has
suffered great afflictions from the West. The most characteristic? The
once-powerful Roman Empire, after the invasion of the Latins, began to “breathe
its last.” And now? It is, in a manner of speaking, handing out its own
indulgences to the Vatican? It is a pity. Does it truly expect anything from
it?
Perhaps some will invoke love to
justify such practices. But whoever invokes such a thing indirectly accuses the
Apostles and the Fathers of supposedly “not having loved,” since in such cases
the Canons which they established with eternal and ecumenical authority are
clear: “If anyone, even in a house, should pray with one who is excommunicated,
let him be excommunicated” (Canon 10 of the Holy Apostles), and “A Bishop, or
Presbyter, or Deacon who has prayed with heretics, let him be only
excommunicated; but if he has permitted them to perform anything as Clergy, let
him be deposed” (Canon 45 of the Holy Apostles).
I respect that the motives of
those in charge may be well-intentioned. However, under no circumstance is it
beneficial to violate the Holy Canons in order to express any good will for
rapprochement. And this is because the Holy Canons, as has been wisely said,
“take vengeance.” That is, when they are violated, punishment follows—sooner or
later—and then matters become very serious.
Perhaps such a form of
“punishment” is the division of unity within Orthodoxy itself. Might it be
wiser, instead of making unionist efforts with foreign confessions, for those
in charge to be concerned primarily with the healing of the wounds that afflict
the Body of the Orthodox Church? Common sense requires that one first care for
the matters of his own house, and then turn toward the houses of others. Is it
not time to awaken? There is the Ukrainian issue, there is the calendar issue.
We will not attract the heterodox with words and courtesies, but with our
radiant example. Are we Light? When those outside the Church see that Orthodoxy
is a weakened and divided whole, how will they take us seriously? If, indeed,
there is a desire for rapprochement, it will not be achieved through public
relations, nor by watering down our wine, but through our own repentance and
transformation. There is a career path among the heterodox too. If we Orthodox
truly wish to persuade, we have our own “weapon”: the potential for holiness,
the potential for participation in the uncreated energies of God. We possess
our Orthodoxy—this perfect jewel that was given to us by God. There is no need
to alter it in order to fit other preferences. Such a thing constitutes an
offense against Him who entrusted it to us.
In conclusion, when the
consciously religious Orthodox people themselves are divided through such types
of public events, from a pastoral and paternal standpoint, explanations are
required. Are the Holy Canons wrong? Do those of the Vatican have Baptism? Is
rapprochement with the heterodox preferable to the very unity of the Orthodox?
Will there be someone—or some—who will work consistently for that unity?
These things I write with sorrow,
selfless love, and anguish for the future of our Orthodoxy.
Greek source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.