The Planned Orthodox – Papist Union of 1970

“A Revealing Passage in a Recent Book by a Roman Catholic Author Concerning the Planned Union Between Orthodox and Roman Catholics in 1970”

By Bishop Klemes of Gardikion

(Now Metropolitan of Larissa and Platamon)

June 25/July 8, 2012

 

 

No matter how much the ecumenist Patriarch Bartholomew of Con­stantinople and the votaries of the ecumenical policy of the Patriar­chate extol Patriarch Athenagoras (†1972)—and especially on the fortieth anniversary of his repose—as a supposed great luminary, and no matter how much they proclaim that their ecumenist policy poses no dangers for the Orthodox Faith and Church, history itself proves them deplora­bly wrong and exposes their treachery and deceitfulness.

The following perennial words of the Lord are clear and unerring, and can be applied also in this case: “For nothing is hid, that shall not be made manifest; nor anything secret, that shall not be known and come to light” (St. Luke 8:17).

***

After the “Lifting of the Anathemas” between Rome and Constan­tinople in December of 1965—which, as is well known, signalled for the Roman Catholics the “lifting of excommunication”—the Phanariotes (i.e., the clergy of the See of the Oecumenical Patriarchate) under the “great” Athenagoras became convulsed, not with love of the Truth, since it was the Truth that they were trampling on, but of falsehood and dark­ness. For the Vatican did not disavow any of its heresies, but on the con­trary had, at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), confirmed and consolidated its age-old errors and distortions; rather, it set forth a Uni­ate-style union for the Orthodox through its familiar “offensive of love.”

The response of Athenagoras and those with him surpassed Rome’s expectations and was considered extremely gratifying. For this reason, the then Pope, Paul VI, in an entirely secretive manner, but in complete agreement with Constantinople, proposed an immediate “concelebration” by both sides in 1970, and thereby their de facto (false) union!

To be sure, such a prospect was apparent at that time from all of the gestures, attitudes, documents, and actions of both sides; but at the same time, by reason of the intense reactions, particularly in Greece, the Holy Mountain, and other parts of the world, it was obvious that union could not be achieved—even theoretically—immediately, at least.

And yet, as revealed in a book recently published in France by a Ro­man Catholic author, a Benedictine monk, the two sides had appointed a “small commission” to study the Pope’s proposal concerning immediate union and to issue an opinion. And the opinion was positive!

The ringleaders on the Orthodox side were Metropolitan Dam­askenos (Papandreou) (†2011), best known for his ecumenist line and his contribution to the issue of Church union, and Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon, for decades, both behind the scenes and openly, a leading representative of the Orthodox in the ecumenical movement in general and in relations with Roman Catholicism in particular.

It is worth emphasizing that if back then, forty-two years ago, John Zizioulas [at that time a layman—trans.] did not see any essential im­pediment to concelebration between the Pope and the Patriarch or to immediate union between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, all that he has proclaimed and done with regard to this issue since then, and up un­til now, is entirely comprehensible and “falls into place.” Thus, we can understood very well his subsequent Herculean efforts, especially since 1980 by way of the “Dialogue of Truth” with the Vatican, to promote and accomplish, under a smokescreen of theology, that which was decid­ed upon in 1970.

Just recently (June 28, 2012), Patriarch Bartholomew made the fol­lowing comments about Metropolitan John of Pergamon:

The Metropolitan of Pergamon is the stalwart theological arm of the Holy Great Church of Christ, which has entrusted to its illustrious Bishop and theologian the handling and resolution of ecclesiastical matters of the ut­most importance in the entire network of its responsibilities and activities, and has assigned difficult missions, chairmanships, and negotiations to him.

***

In presenting to the Orthodox public the following exposé, trans­lated from the French original by His Eminence, Archbishop Chrysos­tomos of Etna, we wish to emphasize that, if the decision made in 1970 was not implemented immediately, this was not due simply to the inter­vention of Athens or Moscow.

Athens, at least in the person of its then Archbishop, the pro-ecu­menist Hieronymos Kotsones, and Moscow, through its then pro-Soviet leadership, which by a Synodal decision made the Divine Eucharist avail­ able to Roman Catholics, did not express themselves in a suitably Ortho­dox manner. They did not want immediate union with the Roman Cath­olics—Athens, on account of the strong reaction from both clergy and laity, and Moscow, because of its well-known “political” and imperialist aspirations.

It is evident from the testimony of the Roman Catholic author whom we cite below that the Pope himself, an ardent advocate of a Uni­ate-style subjugation not only of Constantinople, but also of Orthodoxy as a whole, reckoned that he could not obtain the “whole,” but only a part thereof. And yet, the Pope wanted, wants, and will always want the “whole,” as the global religious leader, for it is precisely in this that the es­sence of his “catholic” sickness and Luciferian perversity consists!

The heart of the matter, which is of pivotal significance, lies in the fact that the two sides, the Orthodox ecumenists and the Roman Cath­olics, really did decide in secret on an immediate unionist concelebration in 1970. This was, and is, the faith and the deepest conviction of the ecu­menists of Constantinople, the children, epigones, eulogists, and contin­uators of the “great” (in their estimation) Athenagoras.

Let the sundry defenders of Orthodoxy who do not agree with the Latinizers and Latin-minded pro-unionists and pro-Papists of Constan­tinople, but who nonetheless commune with them, see and understand this, and especially those who at the same time reproach and vehement­ly, indiscriminately, and unfraternally lash out against those Orthodox who, by Divine mercy, have resolutely withdrawn from this horrendous apostasy in order to preserve the unity of the Church in Truth and Love.

The facades are tumbling down and the masks are being torn off; but the accusations stand, and the voices of those not “seared” in their con­sciences (cf. I St. Timothy 4:2) are being aroused and are rising up in resistance. May the yoke of the “false bishops” and “false teachers” be shaken off, and may the spiritual freedom of our Orthodox Church be restored!

The following disputatious text is taken from the book Paul VI et les Orthodoxes [Paul VI and the Orthodox], by Brother Patrice Mahieu, O.S.B., with a preface by Metropolitan Emmanuel Adamakes of France (Collec­tion “Orthodoxie”; Paris: Cerf, 2012), pp. 197-200.

***

The small commission that studied the possibility of Eucharistic concelebration [be­tween Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I] met at the Orthodox Center in Chambésy (Geneva) on April 27-29, 1970, and from May 14-15, then in Zurich from June 5 to 7. The last meeting took place in Zurich, for its work, at the request of the Pope and the Patriarch, was to be done in the greatest secrecy, and there had [already] been some “leaks.”

The Committee consisted of: on the Or­thodox side, [the then] Archimandrite Dam­askenos Papandreou and J. [John] Zizioulas [now a Metropolitan of the OEcumenical Patriarchate] and, on the [Roman] Catholic side, Father Pierre Duprey and the Reverend Father [Emmanuel] Lanne. It issued a favorable opinion regarding concelebration and provided for its imple­mentation. Let us look at the last lines of their report:

It seems premature at this juncture to specify the manner of implementa­tion of the proposed action. It seems sufficient to say at the moment that it appears desirable that there be a dual concelebration. If the Holy Father agrees, the first concelebration, for psychological reasons and to highlight the fact that the initiative was his, as the Patriarch has repeatedly acknowl­edged, could take place in an Orthodox Church, according to Orthodox liturgical practice (in Istanbul or in Crete, for example). The second con­celebration could take place, preferably a few days after the first, in Rome, according to Roman liturgical practice. (Joint Report by the Committee, private archives.)

One part of this joint report, with modifications and lacking any ref­erence to practical action, was in fact published in the [ecumenical jour­nal] Proche-Orient Chrétien [The Christian Near-East] (1972, pp. 3-17) [published in Jerusalem], by Father Duprey, and in Oriente Cristiano [The Christian East] (1974, pp. 7-25), by [the now] Metropolitan Dam­askenos. This was a way to test reactions from both sides. (...)

Now, the commission issued a favorable opinion. Why was it then not acted upon? Such an event, or even the disclosure of such an even­tuality, would have had catastrophic consequences not only for Patri­arch Athenagoras, but for the Orthodox Church. It was feared that the Patriarch would be immediately disavowed, if not deposed. To Cardi­nal Willebrands, on an official visit to the Church of Greece in May 1971, the Archbishop of Athens said, during his official reception address:

As Your Eminence knows, in the Church the actions of leaders, in and of themselves, are not blessed and do not bear fruit except when they resonate with the sentiments and the faith of the whole body of the Church and when they correspond to the aspirations, in conformity with their faith, of the believing people of the Church. On the contrary, efforts hastily under­taken [...] can but cause damage and problems later on. (Hieronymos of Athens, “Address at the Reception of Cardinal Willebrands, May 18, 1971,” [Washington] D.C., 1971, pp. 709-710.)

The message was, indeed, clear. In the case of Paul VI, there was a firm desire not to divide Orthodoxy. Moreover, the Moscow Patriarchate had been discreetly warned about the project and its intervention had helped to impede its implementation. A witness at the time, quite aware of the matter, concluded that this was so. Especially since the initiative came from Paul VI, it was felt that this generous gesture would have cre­ated immense disorder in the entirety of the Orthodox Church. And it would have had consequences, too, for the Catholic Church and its relationships with the whole of the Orthodox Church. The foregoing message of the Archbishop of Athens was clear enough. The lifting of anathemas on December 7, 1965, had already occasioned problems. The concelebration of the Pope and the Patriarch would have jeopardized la­boriously cultivated relationships with the other Orthodox Churches.

Paul VI wanted to maintain a policy of systematic rapprochement with the whole of Orthodoxy. Completing the project ran the risk of los­ing the trust of the Russians and of blocking every attempt at rapproche­ment with Athens and with Bucharest. Ecumenism cannot accept a uni­ty that comes about at the cost of new divisions as “collateral damage.”

 

Source:

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2012/07/10/E20120710aEnosi1970%20Folder/E20120710aEnosi1970.pdf