Sermon of Disobedience in Times of Profanation of the Orthodox Faith

Nektarios Dapergolas, Doctor of Byzantine History

July 26, 2020

 

 

We are living in dreadful times of apostasy from God — an apostasy that, unfortunately, has extended even to a great part of the clergy — and also in times when striking signs from above are being manifested (indicatively, I recall the fire at Panagia Varnakova, but of course also the ongoing escalation of Turkish provocations), which we see moving neither our people nor our ecclesiastical leaders.

At the very least, not in a way that would direct them toward the right path: that of repentance and conversion. On the contrary, we see on the part of the latter (i.e., the ecclesiastical leaders) a continued tactic of self-justification on the one hand, and on the other, an attack against those who refuse to yield to the wretched post-patristic fable of blind and unconditional obedience–submission of the Christ-named flock to guides who may now very well be “fools and blind,” and thus spiritually ruinous. And we are not speaking merely of mockery, intimidation, and other verbal assaults, but also of threats and even actual persecutions against monks, priests, and laypeople (e.g., chanters) who “dared” to criticize bishops for their stance on major issues of the faith, such as Ecumenism, communion with heretics and schismatics (cf. the Ukrainian pseudo-church), and the neo-Barlaamite blasphemy we have been experiencing over the past three months with the churches being locked (and then sterilized), along with the abominable things we are seeing concerning Holy Communion in Orthodox churches abroad (which, as I have explained in a recent article, we are very likely to see soon in our own country). However much the clerics in delusion (and their murky-minded lay fellow travelers) may say, the bishops possess not the slightest infallibility, nor can obedience to them be unconditional; moreover, the defense of the faith against unsound bishops is not only permitted, but is the duty of all.

Groundless, then, is the accusation from the outset concerning an uncanonical reaction against bishops, to whom we are supposedly obliged to show complete obedience. We even heard from the mouths of some Greek metropolitans the astonishing claim that it constitutes a pan-heresy not to obey one’s bishop (!!!). I simply remind that our ecclesiastical administrative system is indeed episcopal, but not… a junta-like monarchy, no matter how many metropolitans perceive and implement it as such (especially in recent times, during which—with the grave personal and theological co-responsibility of the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos—a distorted ecclesiology has unfortunately developed, to the detriment of conciliarity and in favor of views increasingly reminiscent of papal infallibility). However, it is abundantly clear that a patriarch or a bishop is not entitled to do whatever he wishes, and that his being reproved by any clergyman—ranging from simple protest to cessation of commemoration—especially for very specific actions in which heterodoxy and heresy are demonstrably present, is not only not uncanonical, but is also a moral obligation and a practice grounded in the Holy Canons.

Completely unfounded, therefore, are the claims regarding obedience supposedly owed in any case. We must even say that the reproof of bishops is not only a right but also an obligation—not only of the clergy but also of us, the laity. This is a duty solidly established in multiple ways: from the Apostle Paul himself (who explicitly instructs in the Epistle to the Galatians, addressing the simple flock, that if anyone should come in the future—even an angel from heaven—and preach anything new to them, “let him be anathema”) to St. Athanasius the Great and other great Fathers. Indicatively, I will remind that St. John Chrysostom and St. Nicephorus the Confessor both state explicitly that even if only a few individuals preserve the Orthodox Faith intact, they alone constitute the Church of Christ—without specifying whether they be clergy or laity. I will also recall the famous phrase of St. Justin Popović, who said that when the Church forbids a simple grandmother from reproving her bishop, that will mark the end of the Church. And let me also remind of the foresight of St. John Maximovitch, who said that in the difficult years to come, heresy will have spread so extensively that the faithful will no longer be able to find a priest to protect them from delusion, and so their guide will be the writings of the Holy Fathers, and each believer will henceforth be responsible for the entirety of the Church’s faithful. After all this, how is it possible that some people demand we obey without protest hierarchs who are manifestly in error—who, instead of rightly dividing the word of truth, scandalize the people by speaking words of heterodoxy and falsehood?

Therefore, in this way, the accusation is naturally overturned—that we should not publicly criticize our hierarchs because this supposedly shows a lack of respect and allegedly scandalizes many people. First of all, let us clarify that we are not speaking here of judgment and irreverent condemnation, but of reproof concerning delusion and heresy. On this point, we have every right—indeed, an obligation—as is once again made clear by St. John Chrysostom, as well as other great Fathers of our Church (in a forthcoming article we shall have the opportunity to say more, based on their very words). Beyond that, the notion that it is the reprover of the scandal-causer who causes scandal, and not the scandal-causer himself, cannot withstand even the slightest scrutiny. On the contrary, the public exposure of the heretical monstrosities that are increasingly issuing from the mouths of high-ranking clergy, as well as their public refutation, constitute a duty and responsibility for those who possess some theological knowledge, in regard to those more ignorant—so that the latter may be edified in the truth and not led astray.

As for the matter of supposed lack of respect, the truth is that we certainly do respect their clerical rank—and indeed, quite evidently far more than they themselves do. Beyond that, however, how long can one remain silent in the face of clergymen who for decades oscillate between impious modernism (discarding clerical attire, liturgical translations, etc.) and the most profane blasphemy (common prayers and all sorts of contacts and intermingling with condemned heretics, as well as with those of other religions), provoking with continuous New Age-style statements and actions? And how long can one stay silent regarding the unspeakable things we have been witnessing especially in recent months, with the Ukrainian pseudo-autocephaly, with the concelebrations of many of our hierarchs with schismatics, defrocked and unordained pseudo-clergy, and also with the ongoing blasphemy and offense against God on account of the so-called pandemic? We are certainly obliged to pray that God may enlighten them and grant them repentance and return—but as long as this does not happen, and the scandal they cause continues to escalate, it is obvious that we are also obliged to react. After all, “those who are not angered by what they ought to be, are thought to be fools.”

And of course, we have absolutely no intention of becoming judges and moralists of all things (for we sometimes hear that accusation too, when we censure the words and actions of ecumenist hierarchs—even the acta of horrific pseudo-synods like that of Crete). But naturally, this accusation also proceeds from malice and is entirely hypocritical. First of all, the role of the moralist inherently contains conceit and arrogance. Yet arrogance characterizes those babbling theologians of “love” (the ones of “post-patristicism” and modernist revisionism), that is, those who dogmatize new signs (and… monsters), essentially considering themselves superior to the Holy Fathers, to the Sacred Canons, and to Holy Tradition. We, on the contrary, remain faithful to those things (refusing to change even a single iota), a stance which is by definition humble. We may have (and indeed we do have) a thousand and one faults as human beings, but this particular stance is humble. Furthermore, we are by no means “judging everyone.” We are simply presenting our position on glaring facts of profane distortion of our faith by specific individuals who are distorting it. If for some people these facts are not glaring, the problem lies exclusively in their own eyes. Not in ours.

As for certain other favorite “arguments” of some adherents of blind obedience (as well as of some supposedly conciliatory and neutral types)—namely, that we must not react because by raising our voices we “advertise” the issue, or that we should only pray and God will provide a solution and reveal the truth—these are also clearly unfounded. Because, of course, with regard to the matter of prayer, it is indeed paramount, and no one disputes its importance. But God has also given us a mind to understand, eyes to see, and a mouth to speak. And here the Gospel saying applies: “These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” If we do not speak and do not react at the time when our faith is being persecuted, we will be without excuse before Him. Such passive and disengaged stances, therefore, cannot belong to any true Orthodox Christian, especially in today’s critical times. The Fathers themselves are clear and categorical on this point (as was already mentioned, we will examine this in more detail in a forthcoming article). As for the claim that if you don’t talk about something, you don’t advertise it and it thus becomes... insignificant, this is simply a cloak for cowardice. With that kind of “logic,” we would never speak out about anything—whether about the political degradation of the country, or the dechristianization of our homeland, or the dehellenization of education, or the scourge of illegal immigration, or anything else. On the contrary, we are obliged to respond to all these things—and all the more so, of course, when it comes to the paramount issue of our faith and the rabid attempt to corrupt it from the forges of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism. Or perhaps all these “moderates” no longer even consider it a pan-heresy (or not even a heresy at all)?

Let us therefore reverse the situation, let us cease maintaining a defensive stance in the face of their audacity, and let us pose to them the above question directly. The time has come when we will all be called to take a stand—enough already with half-words spoken in the shadows. Here there is a vast abscess, spreading and devouring our very flesh. In the face of this, no one has the right any longer to remain silent…

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2020/07/blog-post_553.html