Today’s lack of self-awareness in the Church

Adamantios Tsakiroglou, philologist and historian

 

 

It has been emphasized in writing and orally countless times that we are living in apocalyptic times, times in which madness reigns, along with the overturning/distortion of terms and institutions. In this oppressive madness and distortion, two principal elements/causes are dominant: ignorance and the renunciation of personal responsibility, together with the simultaneous attribution of responsibility only to others.

The source of all these things is the lack of self-awareness and its derivatives: arrogance, selfishness, the worldly spirit, the lack of a spirit of sacrifice for the prospering of the common good, indifference toward the other, the lack of love as it is taught by Christ and not by materialists, neoliberal activists, and Ecumenists, betrayal, not only toward one’s fellow man, but also toward the Truth. Thus Paul is confirmed when he prophesied that we people of today are “lovers of self, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, savage, despisers of what is good, traitors, headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying its power” (II Tim. 3:2–5). And what does the Apostle advise us, as he advised Timothy? “And from such, turn away.” We, however, unlike Timothy, do not obey, even though we speak constantly about obedience.

Consequently, this diseased condition is perpetuated in a vicious circle, since no one assumes his responsibilities, but, while willfully shutting his eyes, attributes them to others, and so on. For example, we attribute responsibility to politicians, as though they had elected themselves, as though we were not the ones who believed them and voted for them, chiefly out of personal rather than national interest. And when we are asked why we do not react, then we present our ignorance as to the manner of reaction, but chiefly as to the role, and therefore the responsibility, that we have in political affairs. Thus politics as a term also loses its meaning, and its diseased condition is perpetuated ever more toward the worse.

Unfortunately, this diseased lack of self-knowledge and self-awareness, and indeed to a higher degree, now also exists in the Church.

Her character as a Theanthropic body, with Christ as the head and all the faithful as the body, has been forgotten, and She is regarded as a human organization in which the leaders, bishops and priests, make the decisions, and the laity follow, criticizing the decisions of the leaders, yet not assuming their own responsibilities as members of the same Theanthropic body.

Naturally, on the one hand, this is due to the lack of proper catechesis of the flock on the part of the clergy, and to the severing of theology from the people, since whatever theologians there are function and address themselves, with their often-incomprehensible language, only to a “high-level” group of “chosen/enlightened” people, and not to the people. On the other hand, however, it is due to our personal spiritual sloth, to our cowardice, and, most importantly, to the degradation of the Church from the highest prerequisite and priority for our salvation into an institution, like the many others, in which we function as we do in the others. That is, we expect others to do what is necessary for us, and when they do not do it, then only the others are responsible, since we gave them the responsibility and renounced our own.

Thus, while we see the betrayal against the Faith, while we see heresy, secularization, and unbelief plundering the Sacred and the Holy, we say: As a layman, what can I do? Am I to blame if they betray? I can only protest. There are many texts and talks that reveal the evils that exist. Yet consistency between words and deeds, meaning and application, threat and realization, is absent. Naturally, this does not appear for the first time in the Church. St. John Chrysostom writes: “The priests have become an evil example to the people, insulting, bearing grudges, showing enmity, plotting, looking at persons, not reproving and correcting those who stumble, but by their silence sharing in injustices, like that ancient Eli; the laypeople, abandoning their own affairs, each busies himself with scrutinizing the affairs of the priests, and becomes an unavoidable judge. Am I not speaking the truth? Is our city not full of these evils?” (PG 61, 723). Unfortunately, however, we have not learned from the conditions of the past and from the word of the Saints. And thus, the situation continues from bad to worse.

Consequently, it seems right that we should remember again what our role is as laypeople within the most pure body of the Church, and what our responsibilities are.

In the Church, all must act and participate, fight and defend, regardless of position or rank. It is the highest duty of every believer, whether rasso-wearing or not, and regardless of spiritual level and social position, not only to participate in Her liturgical and spiritual life, but also to defend the Faith as one body. “For just as baptism is one, and the table one, and the fountain and the calling one, and the Father one” (St. John Chrysostom, PG 61, 528). Despite the different hierarchical grades and positions among the people of God, all acts and actions are regarded and understood as actions of the one body: “All of you come together at the same place in prayer; let there be one common supplication, one mind, one hope, in love, in the blameless faith, which is in Christ Jesus, in Whom there is nothing better. All of you, as one, hasten together to the temple of God, as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the unbegotten God” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Magnesians, 7:1–2).

The chief concern and highest responsibility of the layman, however, alongside his personal repentance, his struggle for salvation, and his service in the Church, must be the defense of the Orthodox Faith: “...it is made very clear that the laity are called not only to care for the affairs of the Church, but also to contribute to the administration of the Church in accordance with the canons. And it is characteristic that, at critical moments in the life of the Church, when unworthy clerics were overturning the laws of the Church, which they had been called precisely to protect and apply, the laity were the ones who saved the endangered ship of the Church... (note: for today’s shepherds this no longer applies, since the layman exists only to serve and follow). Nor, therefore, is it strange that the great Chrysostom, addressing his wonderful flock, declared: ‘Without you I will do nothing’” (K. Mouratidis, The Essence and Polity of the Church According to the Teaching of John Chrysostom, Athens 1958, p. 219).

Common, then, are the responsibilities of laity and clergy; common are the duties; common is the struggle against the enemies of the Church: “All Christians have one common obligation: not to oppose the will of Christ, but to order their life according to it and to keep His commandments with exactness. The commandments of the Savior are common to all the faithful, and without keeping them. it is not possible to be united with Christ” (see the entire passage: St. Nicholas Cabasilas, On the Life in Christ: Seven Discourses, Souroti, Thessaloniki, 2005, 302–307). And St. Chrysostom says: “For the teaching is common, and the wounds are common” (PG 50, 654).

Because not only the faith, but also the wounds are common, when the clergy betray instead of healing the wounds, then the responsibility belongs to the flock. Then obedience does not apply, as it would apply if it were a matter only of the personal passions of each cleric, as the sacred Chrysostom teaches us: “For if he has a distorted doctrine, even if he be an angel, do not obey him; but if he teaches rightly, pay attention not to his life, but to his words” (Commentary on the Second Epistle to Timothy, PG 62, 611).

Unfortunately, however, today it is not only the clergy who betray, but also we laypeople, even putting forward excuses analogous in hypocrisy to those of the betraying clergy. Let us look at a few:

A) Who am I to do anything?

This excuse is not in accordance with the Church’s Sacred Tradition. This Tradition is splendidly expressed in the well-known passages of St. Theodore the Studite:

“For it is a commandment of the Lord not to remain silent at a time when the faith is in danger... Therefore, when the matter concerns the faith, it is not possible to say, Who am I? A priest, a ruler, a soldier, a farmer, a poor man?... Woe! The stones will cry out, and will you remain silent and unconcerned?” (PG 99, 1321B).

“Not only if someone is preeminent in rank and knowledge is he obliged to contend by speaking and teaching the word of Orthodoxy. But even if one is merely a student, he is bound to speak the truth boldly and to speak freely” (PG 99, 1120).

Here we see that the Saint does not take into account, nor does he consider an obstacle, the conventional division into social classes when it comes to active participation in the struggles of the Faith. In the struggles of the Church, all must participate, regardless of position or rank. The defense of the Faith constitutes the highest duty of every believer, whether rasso-wearing or not, and regardless of spiritual level. Even if, through ignorance or excessive zeal, mistakes are made in this struggle, the fault does not belong to the lay strugglers, but to the clergy who refuse the leadership that has been given to them by the Lord Himself, namely, to stand at the head in the struggles of the Faith and to sacrifice themselves, giving the example as “good Shepherds” and not as “hirelings.” In the case where they lead the way in a God-loving manner, any “zealot” laypeople are easily admonished or isolated. But in the case where the Shepherds are absent from the struggles of the Faith, even the leadership of the laity is blessed, provided that they follow our ecclesiastical Tradition, some with their abilities, others with their deficiencies, but always for the defense of the Faith and selflessly.

B) If I react, I will be accused of being an enemy of the Church.

This excuse comes from the modernizing, clericalist teaching concerning the role of the laity. Naturally, many of us remain silent and do not react, as though these matters did not concern us, fearing that we might scandalize others, or judge, or fail to show obedience. No one disagrees. These things, however, apply in a healthy, Orthodox environment, where dogmatic truth, correct ecclesiology, true service, and love in Christ prevail. “The obligation of obedience toward the shepherds is self-evident, on the condition… that they also show obedience to the Gospel and the Tradition of the Church” (Fr. Arsenios Vliagkoftis, “The Disease of Secularization,” p. 22). Let us not forget that “Undoubtedly, just as then the Apostles ‘did not act according to their own opinion, but first gave an account to the multitude, so also now it ought to be done’ (John Chrysostom)” (Io. Karmiris, “The Position and Ministry of the Laity,” pp. 35–36).

Fr. V. Voloudakis wrote: “We presbyters do not act rightly when, referring to our ecclesiastical issues, we maintain in an un-Orthodox manner: ‘These are the bishops’ problems; let them solve them by themselves.’ The Church belongs to all of us, as do Her problems. Consequently, none of us is innocent through his indifference” (Fr. V. Voloudakis, The Manifestation of the Priesthood, p. 81). And: “It is not only despotocracy that is at fault; we too are all at fault, who nourish and foster it through our absence from ecclesiastical life” (ibid., p. 84).

Even the ecumenist-minded Fr. John Chryssavgis had admitted, without of course applying what he writes (Synaxi magazine, issue 38, p. 26): “The sense of contemporary man is that in the Church we have an establishment, consisting of those above and those below, those who govern and those who are governed. Certain individuals arrange things, while others are dependent on the imposed hierarchy. The former demand obedience, while the latter foster this situation in a space where the balance has already been overturned. The times, however, require that ecclesiastical authority be understood in terms of function, in relation to ‘ministry’ and dialogue, and not in terms of domination. For this to happen, the faithful must be regarded as subjects, not as subjects in the sense of subordinates or as ‘sheep’…”

Professor Ioannis Petrou emphasizes, regarding this excuse and the semiology hidden behind it: “the contemporary state of the Church shows that She avoids truly seeking what it means that the Church is the whole people of God, and how this is expressed in Her life. What is interesting is that even in the case where some raise such questions, they are accused of Protestant-type deviations or anti-ecclesiastical views. Behind these reactions is hidden the fear that the established situation might be disturbed, or that the achievement of power-seeking aims might be made more difficult. What is certain, however, is that Church and power are realities that are not theologically compatible” (“The Church and Her Work of Reconciliation in the Contemporary World,” journal Kath’ Odon, issue 10, Jan.–Apr. 1995, p. 18).

Such authority, as it is applied today, was also applied in other eras. And yet Christians reacted—the history of the Church is full of such brilliant examples—they did not remain silent. Some were persecuted, others were tortured, others were martyred, but they did not compromise with distortion, heresy, and unbelief.

C) I am a sinner; I am not worthy like those who wear cassocks. How can I resist?

This excuse too is rejected by our Saints. Once again St. John Chrysostom will admonish us (Homily Spoken to the Newly Illumined, SC 50, Catechesis III, 5): “Those who before yesterday were captives are now free and citizens of the Church; those formerly in the shame of sins are now in boldness and righteousness. For they are not only free, but also holy; not only holy, but also righteous; not only righteous, but also sons; not only sons, but also heirs; not only heirs, but also brothers of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also fellow heirs; not only fellow heirs, but also members; not only members, but also a temple; not only a temple, but also instruments of the Spirit.”

Therefore, as members of the body of the Church, having Christ as our head, and despite our sins, for no one is perfect, provided, of course, that we struggle to war against them, we are free, citizens of the Church, righteous, sons and heirs, brothers and fellow heirs of Christ, as well as a temple and instruments of the Holy Spirit. If we are conscious of what we truly are as baptized persons, can we put forward such excuses? Can we cooperate with or tolerate lawlessness? Can we, being free, submit to each successive antichristian plan?

Connected with the above excuse, and further with those who wish to avoid the Holy Patristic response to every heresy, namely the cessation of commemoration and of ecclesiastical communion with heretical bishops and priests and with those who commemorate them, is also the following beloved excuse:

D) I only want to attend the Liturgy. At the end of the day, the cleric ceases commemoration and communion as the one serving liturgically; I, the layman, have neither participation nor the right to do anything analogous. I only participate in order to receive Communion. The blame falls on the priest.

This excuse has been expressed many times and has influenced many faithful. Yet it is nothing other than yet another distortion of ecclesiastical teaching.

The cause of this distortion, according to Fr. Alexander Schmemann, is the aforementioned deep deformation of ecclesiastical consciousness, the broad perception that has become fixed among the faithful, not only concerning the nature of the Divine Liturgy, but once again concerning the Church Herself. Whereas in the Church of the first centuries, “in the consciousness, experience, and practice of the ancient Church, the Eucharistic sacrifice was offered not only on behalf of all and for all, but by all,” today the Church is experienced by each believer, but also by clerics, as “the service of the laity by the clergy, as the satisfaction by the clergy of the ‘spiritual needs’ of the faithful. In precisely this perception,” he says, “we must seek the cause of these two chronic illnesses, which run like a muddy river through the whole history of Christianity: ‘clericalism’ and ‘laicism,’ which usually takes the form of ‘anticlericalism’” (see The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to Liturgical Theology, Akritas Publications, Athens 2003, pp. 147 and 156).

Consequently, many of us unfortunately believe that prayer in the Divine Liturgy is exclusively the work of the priest, while the faithful person has a passive role and posture. This perception too, however, is innovative. According to Archimandrite Nikodemos Skrettas (Noetic Prayer: Expression of True Worship of God, Mygdonia Publications, Thessaloniki 2006, p. 123): “The common prayer of the Church is rational worship of God, and those who participate constitute a living assembly, which in no case can be transformed into a passive recipient of distant and unfamiliar sounds and movements. The faithful perform a spiritual and creative work; they do not simply stand, insensibly, in the space of the church. They pray and participate actively, in the parish or the monastery. They do not watch as mere observers the things taking place in supplications, processions, festal celebrations, and divine mystagogies.”

Our Saints have assured us countless times that in the Divine Liturgy we all participate, and through common participation we express, as faithful, clergy and people, the common mind, the common faith. St. Chrysostom writes: “For when an entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly fullness, and the fearful sacrifice lies before us, how shall we not prevail upon God as we entreat Him on behalf of these?” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, PG 62, 204).

And more analytically, in the Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (PG 61, 527–528):

“There are occasions when the priest is not at all distinguished from the one under his authority; for example, when it is necessary to partake of the fearful Mysteries. For we are all alike deemed worthy of the same things; not as under the Old Covenant, where the priest ate some things, and the one under authority ate others, and it was not lawful for the people to partake of the things of which the priest partook. But not so now; rather, one Body is set before all, and one Cup. And in the prayers also one may see the people contributing greatly. For both on behalf of those possessed by evil spirits and on behalf of those in repentance, the prayers are common, both from the priest and from them; and all say one prayer, the prayer that is full of mercy. Again, after we have excluded from the sacred precincts those who cannot partake of the holy Table, another prayer must be made, and we all alike lie upon the ground, and we all alike rise up. When, again, it is necessary to receive and give peace, we all alike greet one another. Again, at the most awesome Mysteries themselves, the priest prays for the people, and the people also pray for the priest; for the phrase, ‘And with thy spirit,’ is nothing other than this. The things of thanksgiving are again common; for neither does he give thanks alone, but all the people also. For after first receiving their voice, and then their agreement that this is fitting and right, then he begins the thanksgiving. And why do you marvel that the people utter words together with the priest, when indeed they also send up those sacred hymns together with the Cherubim themselves and the powers above? All these things have been said by me so that each of those under authority also may be sober, so that we may learn that we are all one body, having such difference toward one another as member has toward member, and so that we may not cast everything upon the priests, but that we ourselves also, as concerning a common body, should care for the whole Church. For this brings about both greater security and, for us, greater progress toward virtue. Listen, then, in the case of the Apostles, how elsewhere they took those under authority as sharers in their judgment. For when they ordained the seven, they first communicated the matter to the people; and when Peter appointed Matthias, he did so with all who were present at that time, both men and women. For the things here are not the arrogance of rulers, nor the servility of those under authority, but a spiritual rule, which has this special advantage: that it takes upon itself the greater part of the labors and of care on your behalf, and does not seek the greater honors. For the Church must be inhabited as one house, and all must be disposed as one body.”

And the ever-memorable I. Foundoulis reminds us of the above, presenting the contemporary tragedy with his own fearless word:

“Divine worship is the action of the whole mystical body of Christ, that is, of His Church, which, hierarchically ordered, is directed in the Holy Spirit toward God the Father and offers to Him its doxology, thanksgiving, and petitions. According to the will of the Lord and according to the special gift of the priesthood, the clergy preside over Her liturgical assemblies, serving the Mysteries and taking the lead in the sacred rites. Clergy and laity together constitute the holy people of God and, in the Holy Spirit, form the sacred community of those being saved through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and through the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are granted to the faithful, clergy and people, through the Mysteries and the whole sanctifying function of the institutions of the Church, naturally also through Her worship. In this sense, the priesthood performs a ministry for the salvation of the whole body of the Church; it cooperates and journeys together with the whole people of God on the way toward the noetic land of promise. It does not ‘lord it over the portions allotted’ (I Pet. 5:3), but becomes the bearer of the graces of God and the one who presides over the festal assembly of the choir of the saints, who have found the fountain of life and the way to the gate of Paradise. With these presuppositions, the demand for the participation of the laity in the worship of the Church constitutes, in a certain sense, the expression and painful outcome of a spurious problem, though unfortunately one that exists. The worship of the Church, from its birth, was, and is, the expression and creation of the whole body of the Church. In it a divine drama is ‘played out’ with two or three protagonists: the priest, the deacon, and the people. Each has his distinct and crucial role in the performance of the sacred work of divine worship. The priest has his priestly parts, the deacon his diaconal parts, and the people their choral parts. The Triodion, the Pentecostarion, the Parakletike, the Menaia, and the Psalter are liturgical books that belong to them, to the people; an entire library belongs to the people. If, now, adverse circumstances have given the role of the people to the one who leads the choir alone, the chanter, and the choral parts have become a solo; if the people have remained voiceless listeners, enclosed within themselves in a sacred assembly; if they do not understand the things said and chanted; if they do not offer their bread and wine, the precious gifts of their labor, and do not sit at the soul-nourishing table, and do not enjoy the Master’s hospitality; if they do not know what God they worship, and how and why they worship Him, and many other such things, these are matters that require study, discussion, self-criticism, repentance, and above all serious decisions and actions, with consistency and fear of God, within the holy and ever-living body of the Church”

(Excerpt from “The Participation of the Laity in Worship,” a lecture at the Academy for Theological Studies on 2-26-2005; see also p. 359 at

http://ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/128193/files/GRI-2011-7722.pdf)

The words of the ever-memorable professor are a rebuke to our conscience. The prevalence of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, of secularization, of clerical/despotocratic rule, of submission to an atheist state mechanism in reality, is due to the fact that the greater part of the flock does not know what God it worships, and how and why it worships Him. If we knew this, we would not find every kind of excuse pleasing to the ear, which lulls consciences to sleep and prevents self-knowledge. We would not obey spiritual fathers who tell us to look only to our own soul and to leave the other matters of the Faith to the supposedly knowledgeable guardians. We would know that since in the Divine Liturgy everything is common and held in common, then the commemoration of heretical/heresy-professing unrepentant clerics is also common and held in common. We would know that participation in the insult against the Holy Mysteries and the sanctity of the Holy Temple, which is taking place today with the permission, exhortation, and dictation of betraying clerics, is common and held in common. We would know that our walking together with any cleric who confesses would also mean a confession common and held in common. And likewise, our participation in the denial of God means a denial common and held in common.

 

Greek source: https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2026/04/blog-post_55.html