The Stance of the Laity Toward Heresy-Professing Bishops According to Academic Theology

Monk Seraphim (Zisis)

 

 

The recent developments in the Church throughout the world, due to the heretical Council of Kolymbari—which consolidated the dogmas of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—once again bring to the forefront the issue of the participation of lay Christians in the defense of sound ecclesiastical dogmas. The subject is, of course, vast, and a full treatment requires deep knowledge of Ecclesiology, the History of Dogmas, Church History in general, as well as Patristic Theology. Here, we attempt a first simple approach.

Many of the sinning Bishops, as well as those who “not only do the same, but also take pleasure in those who do them,” [1] are inevitably compelled to resort to the (undoubtedly uniquely significant) authority of the episcopal office in order to justify the unjustifiable. Some even hint at a kind of “infallibility” for themselves and the Synods they convene. Here one could remind that in Papism too, the originating cause of many particular heresies and other calamities was the dogma of the Pope’s infallibility: who can adequately resist the heretical views of a religious planetary leader who, for centuries, has been clothed in worldly power and a... “divine” aura of “infallible” inspirations (he who once, before his fall, was the Orthodox Patriarch of Italian Rome)?

In the very Council of Kolymbari, this unhealthy “episcopocentrism”—which aims to deprive ordinary believers, lay Christians, of the right to judge matters related to Orthodoxy—found its expression in paragraph §22 of the 6th Text, entitled “The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”. There it is written that:

“...the preservation of the genuine Orthodox faith is ensured only through the synodal system, which has always constituted in the Church the supreme authority in matters of faith and canonical order (canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council).” [2]

As is evident from the testimony of His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, the Church of Greece attempted to mitigate this “episcopal monism” (the attribution of ecclesiological weight exclusively to the Bishops), by removing the word “only” from the above phrase, and by adding Canons 14 and 15 of the First-Second Council (861), which define the conditions under which the faithful may react against their Bishops. However, this proposal was unfortunately rejected. [3]

To show how even in this matter the Council of Kolymbari fell not only away from the timeless consensus of the Holy Fathers, but also from the more recent Orthodox ecclesiological position within the Ecumenical Movement, let us recall that thirty-six years ago (1981), in the dialogue with the Old Catholics (who had broken away from Rome in the 1870s–1880s because they rejected the infallibility and the other aspects of papal monarchy), different ecclesiological principles had been affirmed. In the joint text of the Orthodox and Old Catholics of 1981, it was declared that the supreme authority in the Church is the Ecumenical Council (and not vaguely the “Synodal System”), and with the safeguard that the decision of a General Council must agree with the phronema of the whole Church in order for it to be characterized as Ecumenical. [4] Now, at Kolymbari, these prerequisites were deliberately removed, to the glory of our own Eastern “monarchs” and leaders of Ecumenism, so that the reaction of the ecclesiastical body might be silenced, and the decisions of the “high-standing [and supposedly infallible]” might suffice.

The writer does not expect that this article will persuade any of the specific heretical-leaning Bishops to heed the voice of their rightfully reacting Flock; for, unfortunately, “if they hear not Moses and the Prophets” (nor the divinely inspired Canons and Holy Fathers...), “neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” [5]

We therefore present, for the sake of the faithful, the observations of earlier academic scholars concerning the right and the obligation of ordinary believers to struggle for the preservation of the Orthodox Faith—even against Patriarchs and Synods. We do not address the subject comprehensively, as it has been sufficiently treated in other studies, [6] but restrict ourselves to university theology and historiography, in order to expose—on the basis of modern academic texts alone—the indifference, ignorance, or cunning of the heretical-leaning in their attempted distortion of our ecclesiastical phronema and cohesive Orthodox Ecclesiology.

We pray that those Bishops who consented—through their vote or even through their words—in various ways to the heresies of Kolymbari may sincerely repent. Even Saint Juvenal, Archbishop of Jerusalem, sided with the Eutychian Monophysites against Orthodoxy and Saint Flavian of Constantinople—who was later martyred—at the Robber Council of Ephesus (the so-called “Second in Ephesus”) in 449. Yet at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, two years later, he stood with the Orthodox—and ultimately became a saint.

Protopresbyter Professor Georges Florovsky (1893–1979)

The Russian-born Protopresbyter and Professor (at the theological schools of St. Sergius in Paris, St. Vladimir’s, Holy Cross, and at the universities of Harvard and Princeton in the USA), [7] Fr. Georges Florovsky, was one of the theologians whose teaching marked the 20th century and the future of Orthodox Theology—especially its return to the phronema of the Holy Fathers. [8] A teacher of Protopresbyter (and later also Professor) Fr. John Romanides, Fr. Georges Florovsky was, nevertheless, at one point in his early theological journey, swayed and became a serious proponent of a “broad” (“inclusive”) ecclesiology. [9] Some ecclesiological passages from his book “Bible, Church, Tradition” are particularly significant for our subject and are quoted here at length:

“The entire body of the Church has the right to verify, and indeed the right—or rather the duty—to affirm. In precisely this sense, the Patriarchs of the East wrote in their well-known Encyclical Letter of 1848 that ‘the people themselves were the defenders of the Faith.’ Even earlier, Metropolitan Philaret said the same thing in his Catechism [...].” [10]

“The conviction of the Orthodox Church that the ‘guardian’ of Tradition and of piety is ‘the whole people,’ that is, the Body of Christ, in no way diminishes or restricts the right of teaching that was granted to the Hierarchy [...] The hierarchs received the right to teach not from the faithful people, but from the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, through the mystery of ordination. But this teaching finds its boundaries in the expression of the whole Church. The Church is called to bear witness to this experience, which constitutes an inexhaustible experience and spiritual vision. The bishop of the Church (episcopus in ecclesia) must be a teacher. Only the bishop has received full authority and commission to speak in the name of his flock. The flock receives the right to speak through the bishop. But for the bishop to do this, he must encompass within himself the Church; he must manifest its experience and faith. He must speak not from himself, but in the name of the Church, ex consensu ecclesiae. This is in full opposition to the formula of the Vatican: ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae.” [11]

“The bishop does not derive his full right to teach from his flock, but from Christ, through apostolic succession. Yet he has been given full authority to bear witness to the catholic experience of the body of the Church. The bishop is limited by this experience, and therefore in matters of faith the people must judge concerning his teaching. The duty of obedience ceases when the bishop deviates from the catholic rule, and the people have the right to accuse him—and even to depose him.” [12]

From the important position of the ever-memorable Professor Fr. Georges Florovsky—although we have cited it only in part—we note the following points:

1) The Bishop alone has the full right of teaching in the Church;

2) This right is not received from the people, but from Christ through sacred Ordination and apostolic succession (avoiding populism or the “socialization” of the Church);

3) The Bishop does not speak from himself, but on behalf of his Church; he teaches as the mouth of the timeless experience and Faith of his flock;

4) Consequently, the Bishop’s teaching is limited by the boundaries of the Church’s experience, by the “catholic rule”, because the people also have the right to express their unaltered Faith and experience through the voice of the Bishop;

5) The people, having the right to express themselves through the Bishop, also bear the synodally affirmed duty to confirm or reject what the Bishop teaches, as guardians of the Faith;

Finally,

6) when the Bishop deviates from ecclesiastical truth, the people have the right to disobey their Bishop, as well as to censure and depose him (“let even the king hear these things,” we might add!). [13]

The Byzantinist Sir Steven Runciman (1903–2000)

The eminent historian and Professor (and knighted as “Sir” in 1958) Steven Runciman is one of the most distinguished historians of “Byzantine” History—of our Romiosyne. In Greece, he became particularly beloved thanks to his well-known prediction that the 21st century would be the century of Orthodoxy. [14] Moreover, his love for our homeland was expressed on many occasions and in various ways. Sir Steven Runciman was essentially “the man who largely succeeded in freeing the image of Byzantium from the stigma that saw it as a period of decline, corruption, and intrigue [...] and Greece, in turn, acknowledges his contribution in promoting a positive image of a period in Greek history that many had overlooked.” [15]

In his work The Byzantine Theocracy, Runciman notes the following interesting points:

“The Emperor, by the very nature of his position, was obliged to be in some way a remote figure. The Representative of God had to know his place—a most honored one. [...] The same applied to the Patriarch: although he did not enjoy precisely the same mystical prestige, he was to conduct himself as a person worthy of reverence. Respect for the divine authority of the Emperor or the Patriarch did not prevent the Byzantines from rising in revolt against a man whom they deemed unworthy of such a position. But their revolution was directed against a human being—not against the sacredness of the role. In reality, they were revolting in order to preserve the authenticity of the role itself.” [16]

This testimony of Sir Steven Runciman confirms that “the Byzantines” (or rather, more properly, “the Romioi”):

1) rendered respect to the episcopal (as well as the imperial) institution because it possessed sacred authority and constituted divine power;

2) this sacred authority of the two institutions—of the Kingdom and the Priesthood—obliged the persons who held those offices to conduct themselves accordingly;

3) it was precisely this respect of the people for the two sacred institutions that also led the people to rise up and overthrow individuals (Emperor and Patriarch) who were unworthy of the holiness of the offices they served.

Professor Panagiotis Trembelas (1886–1977)

Professor Panagiotis Trembelas, one of the founding and leading figures of the theological brotherhoods “Zoe” (1907) and “The Savior” (1960), was undoubtedly an extraordinary figure in modern Greek theology—a distinguished and tireless exegete, dogmatic theologian, liturgist, apologist, and preacher. Widely known also among the faithful of the Church for the breadth and high quality of his writings, which address a wide range of practical needs of the flock and the demands of catechists and theologians, he likewise contributed to academic theology in the fields he served. [17]

The teaching of Professor Trembelas today is undervalued by the post-patristic theological establishment—not essentially because of Trembelas’ indirect questioning of certain elements of hesychastic and Palamite patristic theology (a significant, [18] though not decisive, error of his), [19] but because his systematic exposition of the dogmas of the Faith, as well as his apologetic writings against various heretical movements and subversive trends of modernism, serve as a silent obstacle to the effort of innovative heretical ecumenists and neo-leftist theologians to promote their own “synthesis”—a “soup” of dogmatic relativism and generalized theological fluidity. Thus, Trembelas is accused of being a “scholastic,” simply because he did not “philosophize” with a libertine intellect, unbound by dogmas and sacred traditions, in the manner of a few of his contemporaries and many of his successors (such as, we might say, the formidable but also “heretical” mind, the late Professor Nikos Matsoukas).

Even Fr. John Romanides himself—whose theology became a contested point of reference, yet also a pivotal turning point (or return) to the only truly ecclesiastical theology, the neptic and hesychastic tradition—writes about Panagiotis Trembelas, and despite his theological disputes with the elder Professor, he states: “Equally necessary is the study of the Dogmatics of the eminent Dogmatic Theologian and Professor of the University of Athens, the ever-memorable Panagiotis Trembelas, who also followed the path of returning modern Orthodox theology to the Patristic Tradition.” For this reason, Trembelas’s exegetical writings, too, can be used: “as a bridge to the interpretive monuments of the Fathers.” [20] It is clear that the ever-memorable Professor and leader of the “Soter” Brotherhood belongs among those who struggled on behalf of the Patristic Tradition [21].

We now cite (in modern Greek rendering) an ecclesiological passage from his Dogmatics, directly relevant to our topic:

“The authority of such popular recognition is fully explained when one considers that the pronouncements and formulations of the Holy Synods concerning Christian truth, as we have said, are made in accordance with the written and unwritten Apostolic Tradition, which does not constitute some dead and theoretical knowledge, but a living phronema of the entire Body of the Church—one which is testified to and constituted by the living faith of all Her members. The treasure of the faith, that is, which is contained in the Holy Scripture and in Apostolic Tradition in general, must be the possession of every Christian and lived out in his life. Therefore, the pronouncements of the Holy Synods, which pertain to this treasure and are made due to the contesting of life-giving truth by heretics—and which contestations are followed with unflagging interest by the living members of the Church—cannot possibly be met with indifference by the faithful, as long as they are not [spiritually] dead. Thus, the judgment of the ecclesiastical pleroma concerning synodal pronouncements appears spontaneous—at times even unrestrained—but simultaneously expresses the catholic phronema of the Church, which indeed has never ceased to be testified to and proclaimed by Her.” [22]

The conclusions of the professor are condensed in the following points:

1) The treasure of the Church’s Faith is not a dead letter of intellectual theory and knowledge, but a lived experience and phronema of all the members of the Church;

2) As a result, the contesting of the truth by heretics gives rise to holy Synods and is rightly followed with interest by the spiritually living (and not the dead) members of the Church;

3) The spontaneous (and potentially forceful) resistance of the ecclesiastical pleroma to synodal decisions also constitutes a manifestation of the Church’s enduring phronema—which is being wounded by heresy.

Professor Konstantinos Mouratidis (1918–2001)

Professor of Canon Law and Pastoral Theology at the Theological Faculty of Athens (from 1962), Konstantinos Mouratidis also served as President of the Panhellenic Union of Theologians (PETh) for 25 years and was the founder of its journal Koinonia. According to contemporary testimonies, he was: “a theologian with Patristic and ecclesiastical phronema and ethos […] Peaceful and a peacemaker, but also a confessor, struggler, and militant whenever the Faith was in danger.” [23] A wise and broadly learned scholar, “a defender of what is just, lawful, and fitting, he was not afraid to break with friends and collaborators, even with those holding high offices. For him, truth and justice stood above all human friendships and relationships.” [24] The ever-memorable Professor reposed on the ill-fated day of the Pope’s arrival and official institutional reception (as a bishop) in Athens—May 4, 2001. The following excerpts (in modern Greek rendering) from his important work on the essence and polity of the Church according to St. John Chrysostom are highly indicative:

“St. John Chrysostom considers the laity to be precious and indispensable collaborators of the clergy for the dissemination of the evangelical truth […] The neglect of this duty constitutes a most grievous sin, which is why Chrysostom regards as an enemy of the Church the one who neglects the duty of enlightening his fellow brethren, especially those who have been led astray by heretics.” [25]

“St. John Chrysostom not only taught that the active participation of all the faithful in the shaping of ecclesiastical life is necessary and imperative, but he was also the magnificent leader who inspired multitudes of believers and transformed them into valuable supporters and warriors of the good fight. In the laity, Chrysostom did not see adversaries who ought to be kept away from the organizational mechanism of the Church, but sought, with superhuman efforts, to achieve their active participation in it.” [26]

And after referring to the support shown by the pious citizens of Constantinople toward St. Chrysostom during the persecutions he endured from the powerful, Professor Mouratidis adds the inductive conclusion:

“From the importance of the above passage, it is made abundantly clear that the laity have been called not only to be concerned with the affairs of the Church, but also to contribute to the governance of the Church in accordance with the Canons. It is especially noteworthy that in critical moments for the life of the Church, when unworthy clergy were overturning the Laws of the Church—which they had been precisely called to protect and enforce—the laity were always those who saved the ship of the Church when it was in danger. The shining example of the Church of Constantinople during the time of Chrysostom is undoubtedly one of the most characteristic cases in ecclesiastical history. It is therefore not surprising that the great Chrysostom, addressing his marvelous flock, proclaimed: ‘I will put nothing into practice without you.’” [27]

The analysis of the Professor is perfectly clear; I do not think there is any need to schematize his positions.

Professor Vlasios Phidas (1936–)

Professor of the Faculty of Theology at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Mr. Vlasios Phidas, Emeritus since 2003, is undoubtedly one of the most distinguished scholars of Greek Theology—especially of Ecclesiastical History—and one of the earlier defenders of the canonical rights and institutions of Greek-speaking Orthodoxy. [28] Unfortunately, those of us who came to know and esteem him through his—mostly—remarkably valuable and richly written works (or even personally, as did the writer), cannot avoid the sorrowful comparison with his more recent ecclesiological positions, such as, for example, his positive evaluation of the Synod of Kolymbari, [29] as well as his general contribution to pan-heresy Ecumenism. Because of these things, the “ecclesiastical technocrat” has come into direct conflict with what he himself wrote as a church scholar. From his concise work Byzantium, we shall draw what pertains to our subject.

Writing about the relationship between the two sovereign “God-given authorities” of Romiosyne, namely the Priesthood and the Empire, as well as the relationship of the people with them, Professor Phidas observes that, while the people were not involved in the appointment (the election) of the bearers of the Empire and the Priesthood—that is, of the Emperors and the Patriarchs—nevertheless they retained the right of subsequent judgment of these persons:

“Certainly, however, immediately after the enthronement of the ‘chosen of God’ to either of the two God-given authorities in the empire, the people were automatically transformed into autonomous judges of the bearers of the two authorities, because their exercise had been entrusted to them by God for the service of the people; therefore the people exercised their sovereign rights primarily in judging the bearers of the two authorities and not in their appointment, which—both in political theory and in the political theology of the Church—was connected to the activation of the divine will in the life of the empire.’” [30]

And elsewhere he writes that the people:

“...usually showed greater sensitivity to the spontaneous anguish of the monks than to the calculated reasonings of the learned hierarchs or officials of the empire.” [31]

From this position of Professor Phidas, we retain four observations regarding history:

1) The practice of the non-participation of the people in the appointment of Patriarchs and Emperors did not entail that the people could not also judge them as possibly unworthy bearers of God-given authorities;

2) This sovereign right of the people stemmed from the fact that both the Priesthood and the Empire exist in order to serve the people;

3) Consequently, the people automatically and autonomously judged the bearers of the two authorities, Emperors and High Priests; and

4) The faithful people placed their trust in the disinterestedness of the Monks and not in the diplomatic reasoning of the “learned” Hierarchs or the secular officials. [32]

Epilogue

With the foregoing presentation of the views of distinguished scholars of the past regarding the reaction of the pious Orthodox people to potential theological lapses of their Shepherds, we believe that the historically substantiated practice of lay confessional reaction in the face of an emerging heresy is rendered clear. Its correctness is moreover testified to in the patristic writings (especially those of a historical nature), as well as in the holy Canons of the Church. This clear practice, as summarized in the above opinions of university professors, could be condensed as follows:

a) Preeminent teachers of the Church are the Bishops, who received this right of teaching from Christ.

b) The teaching of the Bishops is limited to expressing the experience of the entire Church, namely the written and unwritten Apostolic Tradition, which is a living mindset and not a dead intellectual letter; episcopal teaching constitutes a ministry to the people.

c) Right-believing Bishops are not in opposition to, but in cooperation with the laity, whom they strive to activate in a missionary way.

d) The faithful laity, who are rightfully expressed through their Bishop, have the right—or rather the duty—to observe and judge episcopal teaching. Many times, the simple laity discern in unworthy Clergy erroneous priorities, compromises, opportunistic motives, and contrived reasoning.

e) The observation by the laity of the progression of heresies and the autonomous confirmation or rejection of episcopal teaching is a sign of life within the ecclesiastical body and an exercise of its sovereign rights; the opposite is a sign of lifelessness.

f) The people have the right to disobey a deviating Bishop, even to the point of his deposition.

g) This revolt against the deviating Bishop stems from reverence and not from disrespect toward the holiness of the God-given episcopal authority, which the heretical Bishop unworthily represents; this revolt constitutes a manifestation of the offended timeless ecclesiastical mindset.

h) The neglect by the laity to guard their fellow faithful of the Church against sacred-canonical violations and especially heresies renders such negligent laypeople enemies of the Church.

i) Ecclesiastical history bears witness that many times the afflicted ecclesiastical Faith and sacred-canonical order were preserved by laypeople who opposed unworthy Clergy.

The opinions we have cited do not exhaust the full range of theological and ecclesiastical trends within recent academic theology; nevertheless, the harmony that distinguishes them is admirable. They are thus greatly reinforced through comparison and combination, thereby also proving the following:

The reaction of the Orthodox people against the ecclesiastical leadership when the Tradition of the Church—especially the dogmas—is violated, does not constitute an expression of pietistic populism or marginal zealotism, but rather of pure and God-loving ecclesiological right-mindedness and ecclesiastical health.

No more fitting place could be found here for a relevant saying of the blessed Cypriot ecclesiastical historian Fr. Pavlos Englezakis, referring to the Church of Cyprus at the threshold of the 19th and 20th centuries:

“That the Church was not what the refined sophists of that time or of today would have wanted it to be is not necessarily or always to its detriment. The Church, in its internal polity, was conservative because it was the Church of the people, and therefore of the peasants […] To the extent that Jesus identified Himself with the least of this world, the true history of the Church is not the history of the great and the powerful, but of the weak and the small. The theological-historical reflection […] is not concerned with what the great ones of the world did—even if they are called archbishops—nor with what the respectable middle class did, but it examines who, like God, were poor according to the system, that is, outside of it, without value, useless, and therefore available, and what the disciples of Jesus did for them. For he is saved who, in the faces of these poor ones, sees Jesus and serves Him. This is, according to the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, the essential criterion of the true history of the Church.” [33]

May our ecclesiastical leaders reflect upon the weight of the scandalization of the Faithful caused by the alteration of the ecclesiological dogma at Kolymbari and act in repentance accordingly!

 

Endnotes

1. Romans 1:3

2. https://www.holycouncil.org/-/rest-of-christian-world

3. Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios Hierotheos, “The decisions of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece regarding the Holy and Great Council and their outcome,” Theodromia 18 (2016) 426–428, 433. See the same text also here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/325254627/ΝΑΥΠΑΚΤΟΥ-ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ-Ι-Σ-Ι-ΓΙΑ-ΑΜΣΟΕ-ΚΑΙ-ΚΑΤΑΛΗΞΗ-ΙΣΤΟΛΟΓΙΟ-ΑΚΤΙΝΕΣ#from_embed, as well as here:

http://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/el/mitropolitis-3/ni-various-articles/4618-2016-09-25

4. This refers to the second text of the 4th Session of the Joint Theological Commission at Zagorsk, Moscow (15–22 September 1981), under the title The Infallibility of the Church. See Episkepis 259 (1981) 12: “The supreme organ of the Church for the infallible proclamation of its faith is only the Ecumenical Council [...] This, pronouncing under the oversight of the Holy Spirit, possesses its infallibility by virtue of its agreement with the entire Catholic Church. Without such agreement, no assembly is an Ecumenical Council.” (Quoted from Gr. Liantas, Pan-Orthodox Ministry of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and of the Church of Greece and the contribution of the two Churches in the bilateral theological dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church and the Old Catholic Church, ed. Kornilia Sfakianaki, Thessaloniki 2005, p. 106f.).

5. Luke 16:31

6. Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros, Melissochori, “Are the laity allowed to involve themselves in matters of faith?”, Theodromia 12:3 (July–September 2010) 368–380. See also: http://www.impantokratoros.gr/769A2154.el.aspx

7. M. Baker – N. Asproulis, “Fr. Georges Florovsky (1893–1979): A brief biographical and bibliographical note,” Theologia 81, vol. 4 (2010) 7–19.

8. G. Bempis, “Florovsky, Georges,” Religious and Ethical Encyclopedia 11 (1967) col. 1184:
“Here he became the outspoken herald of the return to the Fathers and to the ‘sacred Hellenism’ and, clinging firmly to the Greek patristic Tradition, he inevitably clashed with the also famous Russian thinker and sophiologist Sergius Bulgakov.”

9. A critique of some early ecclesiological ecumenist views of Fr. Florovsky was also made by His Grace Bishop Athanasios (Jevtić), former Bishop of Zahumlje and Herzegovina—himself now also among the champions of Serbian ecumenism—in an article on Fr. Florovsky’s ecclesiology. See: Bishop Athanasios Jevtić, “Fr. Georges Florovsky on the boundaries of the Church,” Theologia 81, vol. 4 (2010) 137–158.

10. Protopresbyter Professor G. Florovsky, Holy Scripture, Church, Tradition, trans. Dem. Tsamis, Works of Georges Florovsky vol. 1, ed. P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki 1976, p. 73f.

11. Protopresbyter Professor G. Florovsky, ibid., p. 74ff.

12. Protopresbyter Professor G. Florovsky, ibid., p. 75.

13. St. Gregory the Theologian, Funeral Oration (43) for St. Basil the Great 50, PG 36, 561A: “To these things he hurled insults, threatened, do whatever you wish, enjoy your authority. Let even the king hear these things, for as for us, you shall neither win us over nor persuade us to join in impiety, even if you threaten more harshly.”

14. “The final interview of the great Byzantinist Sir Steven Runciman,” http://i-m-patron.gr/i-m-patron-old.gr/keimena/runciman.html (from the journal Pemptousia 4 [Dec. 2000–Mar. 2001]): “Sometimes—what can I say—I feel very disappointed by the other Churches of the West. However, I am glad at the thought that in the next 100 years Orthodoxy will be the only historic Church that will still exist. The Anglican Church is in very bad shape. The Roman Catholic Church is continually losing ground. But fortunately, there is the Orthodox Church. I am greatly impressed by the increasing number of those who are embracing Orthodoxy, especially in Britain. I believe that it offers the genuine spirituality which the other churches can no longer transmit. All these things lead me to the conclusion that Orthodoxy will endure, in contrast to the others.”

15. “Steven Runciman, Historian (1903–2000). The man who changed the Western world’s perception of Byzantium,” Orthodoxos Typos 1472 (20 Sept. 2002) 2 (republication from To Vima, 8.9.2002).

16. Steven Runciman, The Byzantine Theocracy, trans. Iosif Roilidis, Domos Publications, Athens 2005, p. 111ff.

17. For a brief memorial biography and profile of this great theologian, see P. N. Trembelas (1886–1977), Faint Profile (offprint from the book Selection of Greek Orthodox Hymnography), ed. “Ho Sōtēr,” Athens 1988.

18. See “The condemnation of the late Panagiotis Trembelas by Mount Athos,” Orthodox Martyria 42 (Winter 1994) 78–87. The said Athonite critique was published around the mid-1970s. The problematic positions of Professor the late P. Trembelas had been included in his book Mysticism – Apophaticism – Cataphatic Theology. Twenty years later, the unacceptable anti-patristic views of the considered anti-Western and supposedly patristically-oriented Professor of Panteion Christos Yannaras were also condemned by Mount Athos. See: “Refutation of the erroneous views of Mr. Christos Yannaras concerning our Father among the Saints Nicodemus the Hagiorite,” Orthodox Martyria 40 (Spring–Summer 1993) 1–10.

19. On this subject see characteristically: Manual: Correspondence between Fr. J.S. Romanides and Prof. P.N. Trembelas, ed. Fr. G. Metallinos, Harmos Publications, Athens 2009. See specifically also the view of His Eminence Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos (Introduction, ibid., p. 16): “Panagiotis Trembelas grew up in this scholastic climate and made a great effort and notable struggle to move toward patristic theology. This was a difficult task in his time […] He was a dynamic personality who brought about the major shift in Greece toward the Fathers of the Church.”

20. Protopresbyter Professor John Romanides, Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church, vol. I, ed. P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki 19994, p. 6ff.

21. Protopresbyter Professor Th. Zisis, “Genesis and development of patristic-opposing post-patristicism,” Patristic Theology and Post-Patristic Heresy, publ. Holy Metropolis of Piraeus, Piraeus 2012, p. 266.

22. P.N. Trembelas, Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church, vol. II, publ. “Ho Sōtēr,” Athens 1979, p. 408: “This power of lay recognition is fully explained when it is considered that the determinations and formulations of the holy Synods concerning Christian truth are made, as we have said, according to the written and unwritten apostolic tradition, which does not constitute some dead theory and knowledge, but a living mindset of the whole body of the Church, testified and composed by the living faith of all its living members. That is, the treasure of the faith contained in Holy Scripture and generally in apostolic tradition ought to be the possession of every Christian and to be lived in his life. Hence, the determinations of the holy Synods related to this treasure, made from disputes by heretics concerning the life-giving truth, being followed with unceasing interest by the living members of the Church, cannot meet with indifference among the faithful, so long as these are not dead. Thus, the judgment of the ecclesiastical body concerning synodal determinations appears spontaneous, and at times unrestrainable, yet it also reveals the catholic mindset of the Church, which has never ceased to be testified and proclaimed by it.”

23. Archim. G. Kapsanis, “Memorial for the blessed Professor,” Koinōnia 44, 2 (Apr.–June 2001) 121.

24. M. Orphanos, “Funeral oration for Professor Konstantinos Dor. Mouratidis,” Koinōnia, ibid., 118ff.

25. K. Mouratidis, The essence and polity of the Church according to the teaching of John Chrysostom (dissertation), Athens 1958, p. 212: “… the participation of the laity in the shaping of ecclesiastical life, under the implied conditions—on the one hand of respect for the competency and rights of the hierarchy, which is the primary bearer of ecclesiastical ministries, on the other hand of the auxiliary character of the participation of the laity […] The holy Chrysostom regards the laity as precious and necessary collaborators of the clergy for the dissemination of evangelical truth […] Neglect of this duty constitutes a most grievous sin, and thus Chrysostom considers the one neglecting the duty of enlightening other brethren, especially those led astray by heretics, as an enemy of the Church.”

26. K. Mouratidis, ibid., p. 216: “The holy Chrysostom not only taught as necessary and imperative the active participation of all the faithful in the shaping of ecclesiastical life, but he also was the superb leader who inspired the multitudes of the faithful and transformed them into precious supporters and combatants of the good campaign. Chrysostom did not view the laity as opponents who ought to be kept distant from the organizational mechanism of the Church, but through superhuman efforts sought to achieve their active participation in it.”

27. K. Mouratidis, ibid., p. 219: “From the importance of the above passage it becomes abundantly clear that the laity are called not only to care about Church matters, but also to contribute to the governance of the Church in accordance with the canons. It is characteristic that in critical moments for the life of the Church, when unworthy clerics overturned the laws of the Church—which they were precisely called to protect and apply—it was the laity who saved the endangered ship of the Church. The shining example of the Church of Constantinople during Chrysostom’s time constitutes undoubtedly one of the most characteristic related cases in Church history. It is therefore not strange that the great Chrysostom, addressing his excellent flock, declared: ‘without you I will do nothing.’”

28. See the article: “Vlasios Phidas” https://www.wikipedia.gr/wiki/Βλάσιος_Φειδάς

29. See the article by D. Anagnostis, “Mr. Vl. Phidas confesses and reveals about the Kolymbari (Crete) gathering,” http://aktines.blogspot.gr/2016/12/blog-post_999.html (from Orthodoxos Typos 2146 [30 Dec 2016] 1.4).

30. See Phidas, Byzantium (Life–Institutions–Society–Church–Education–Art), Athens 1990, p. 154.

31. Ibid., p. 317.

32. Which Professor Phidas calls “logic of compromises or of opportunistic expediencies of political leadership or ecclesiastical hierarchy” (ibid., p. 317).

33. Benedict Englezakis (Archimandrite Paul), “The Church of Cyprus from 1878 to 1955,” in Twenty Studies on the Church of Cyprus (4th to 20th centuries), publ. A.G. Leventis Foundation – MIET, Athens 1996, pp. 616–617.

 

Greek source: https://salpismazois.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_84.html