Ioannis of Pergamon: The meeting at the Phanar took place in “anticipation” of full communion

Ioannis of Pergamon: The meeting at the Phanar took place in “anticipation” of full communion – Vatican Insider// <![CDATA[

// ]]>

The Orthodox Metropolitan theologian talks about how theology has divided the Church. Now it must help overcome the obstacles that are standing in the way of full communion between catholic and Orthodox faithful

Gianni Valente
romePope Francis has publicly referred to him as the greatest Christian theologian around. But Joseph Ratzinger also held him in high regard when he was Pope. The Metropolitan of Pergamon, Ioannis Zizioulas, previously a member of the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, attended the Divine Liturgy for the Feast of St. Andrews alongside Pope Francis and the Cardinal Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, on Sunday 30 November. Under the vaults of the Patriarchal Church of St. George in the Phanar on the Golden Horn, Metropolitan Ioannis – who co-chairs the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church – was also struck by the words the Bishop of Rome pronounced at the time. Particularly when the Pope said that in the context of the efforts being made to achieve full unity between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, the Catholic Church “does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession of faith”.

Those were powerful words the Pope pronounced at the Phanar Your Eminence.

Coming from a Pope, those words are very powerful indeed and represent a big step forward, which the Orthodox will appreciate. Because for many centuries, the Orthodox believed that the Pope wanted to subjugate them. And now we see this is not in any way true. The emphasis he placed on professing and sharing the same faith is also important. Professing the same faith is the only basis of our unity. The question is recognising what that same faith is; we need to profess this faith together in order for us to be in full communion.

Which criterion should be followed? 

For us members of the orthodox Church, the common faith that makes full communion possible is the one professed in the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium. We need to clarify, from a Catholic point of view, whether a common faith that allows for sacramental communion should also include certain doctrines and dogmatic definitions which were established unilaterally by the Catholic Church. This point needs to be clarified in order to determine what concrete consequences may derive from the Pope’s words at the Phanar.

Is this clarification also to do with the Pope’s role and his ministry?

Of course. If the reference criterion being looked at were the shared understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome which prevailed in the first millennium, then there would be no problem. We know that in the second millennium, different conceptions of the papacy emerged. And this issue has been at the centre of the Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches’ work for years. In the first millennium, the question surrounding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was not about him not being recognised as an individual, but as the head of his Church. When we speak about primacy, we refer to the primacy of Roman Catholic Church, which is exercised by the Pope, who is Bishop of that see.

Is Christian unity only of interest to Christians? 

In the speech he gave at the end of the liturgy for the Feast of St. Andrews, Patriarch Bartholomew reiterated that the Church does not exist for itself but for the whole world. For the salvation of men and women who live in the world. Unity also helps give a stronger common testimony in the face of the problems that afflict the world and society today. Environmental problems, for example, or problems linked to the protection of creation. This is another important message that came through from the Pope’s visit to the Phanar.

Some say Christians should work together on concrete issues, leaving aside their attempts to mend theological and sacramental divisions. What do you think? 

We tend to distinguish between co-operation and aspirations of unity. I believe “collaboration” is not enough. Our greatest wish is to achieve full communion in the Eucharist and across the Church’s structures. This is not yet possible. But it is still something we cannot forget or put aside.

The Ecumenical Patriarch said that Pope Francis has reignited hope among Orthodox faithful by assuring that the Churches will return to full communion during his.

The current Pope has given some very important signs that give us the hope that quick progress will be made in achieving full communion. The way in which he is carrying out his ministry removes the many apprehensions and fears of the past. With the current Bishop of Rome we are seeing a ministry os charity and service. And this really is a big step forward. Furthermore, in some parts of the world like the Middle East, Christians are suffering and their persecutors do not stop to ask them whether they are Catholic or Orthodox. All that matters is that they are Christian. This means that from the outside, we are seen as one family, the divisions we sometimes seem to have grown used to, are of no consequence. This also suggests that whether we like it or not, with this Pope and under the current circumstances, so many opportunities are presenting themselves from an ecumenical point of view.

Patriarch Filaret: Moscow church does not serve needs of people

Patriarch Filaret, the head of the Kyiv Patriarchate, in his residence on Sept.26 in Kyiv. (Anastasia Vlasova)
© Anastasia Vlasova

The residence of Filaret, the patriarch of Kyiv and all Ukraine is no luxurious episcopal palace.

The ascetic quarters on Kyiv’s Pushkinska Street, where Filaret has lived since the 1960s, reflect both the relative poverty of his Kyiv Patriarchate and its negative attitude to ostentatious displays of wealth.

“If the church uses wealth to serve the people, it’s good,” he said. “But if it is used for luxury, it’s bad.”
By contrast, the Kyiv Patriarchate’s main rival, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, is accused of wallowing in luxury. Neither the Moscow Patriarchate nor its Ukrainian branch was available for comment by email or phone.

The Kyiv Patriarchate, which describes itself as patriotic and pro-European, has strengthened its position after supporting the EuroMaidan Revolution that drove President Viktor Yanukovych out of power. It has also taken a strong stand in support of Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s war. Now it is hoping that the wave of patriotic sentiment will help unify the two major Ukrainian Orthodox groups into a single independent church.

Clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate take part in a march during religious processions marking the 1026th anniversary of the Day of Baptism of Kyivan Rus, on July 28. (Kostyantyn Chernichkin)

Filaret has been at the epicenter of Ukrainian church politics since 1966, when he became the metropolitan of Kyiv as part of the Russian Orthodox Church. He fell out with the Moscow Patriarchate in 1992 and became the patriarch of Kyiv and all Ukraine in 1995.

The Kyiv Patriarchate, which has 2,781 parishes, split from the Moscow Patriarchate’s Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has 11,358 parishes, in 1992, after Moscow refused to recognize the Ukrainian church’s independence. The Kyiv Patriarchate has not yet been recognized by any of the 15 autocephalous, or independent, Orthodox churches.

However, the two Ukrainian churches have been negotiating about possible re-unification.

“The unification of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Kyiv Patriarchate will inevitably happen because Ukraine has become an independent state,” Filaret said in an interview with the Kyiv Post. “Ukraine as an independent state must have its own independent church.”

He cited the historic examples of Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia, saying that their independence from the Ottoman Empire gave them a right to have autocephalous churches.

However, the Moscow Patriarchate’s Ukrainian branch is against unification into a single independent church and wants the Kyiv Patriarchate to merge with the Moscow Patriarchate instead, Filaret said.

“Moscow doesn’t want this unification and is doing everything possible to make sure it doesn’t happen,” he added.

Filaret said nothing had changed in the position of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Ukrainian branch regarding unification since Metropolitan Onufry, seen by many as pro-Russian, became its head in August.

“We don’t see any patriotic feelings in him,” Filaret said, adding that Onufry had been against an association deal with the European Union and refused to aid the Ukrainian army.

Ironically, it was Filaret who ordained as bishops both Onufry – in 1990 – and the current Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, Kirill, in 1976.

Filaret also said there were some pro-Ukrainian bishops at the Moscow Patriarchate’s Ukrainian branch but attributed the reluctance of most bishops to unite with the Kyiv Patriarchate to their fear of “punishment from Moscow.”

But Filaret said he still supported dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate.

Another major participant of these talks is the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Filaret said that in 1992 he met with Bartholomew, the patriarch of Constantinople, who said the Ukrainian church had a right to autocephaly. But Bartholomew said the two major Ukrainian Orthodox churches should first unite before their independence is recognized, Filaret added.

He said that the Kyiv Patriarchate was still having informal talks with the Constantinople Patriarchate and discussing potential recognition.

Filaret also said that unification was more likely to happen as a result of more Moscow Patriarchate parishes switching to the Kyiv Patriarchate. About 20 parishes have switched to the Kyiv Patriarchate over the past two months, he said.

“The Kyiv Patriarchate supports the people and the Ukrainian army, and the Moscow Patriarchate can’t do this because it is dependent on Moscow,” he said. “That is why the people are angry about this and are transferring their allegiance to the Kyiv Patriarchate.”

The Kyiv Patriarchate gained prominence during the Euromaidan Revolution, when it threw its support behind the popular uprising. Its priests regularly delivered speeches on Maidan Nezalezhnosti and its churches were turned into hospitals for Euromaidan activists.

“President Yanukovych deceived the Ukrainian people,” Filaret said. “He was preparing for an association agreement with the EU but backtracked at the last moment.”

He said that the church backed the revolution because it should always be with its people. The Moscow Patriarchate, on the other hand, did not take any official position and was accused of informally supporting Yanukovych.

The positions of the two churches on the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict are also very different.
The Kyiv Patriarchate has unequivocally condemned Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine. “We believe this to be Russian aggression, Filaret said. “And this aggressor did not stop in Crimea and went further – to Donbas.”

Filaret compared Russian President Vladimir Putin to Cain, a biblical character. “Cain lied to God. God asked Cain ‘Where is thy brother Abel?’, and Cain answered ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’” Filaret said. “That’s what Putin is doing. He’s waging a war, killing Ukrainian brothers and saying that he has nothing to do with that, and that Ukrainians are fighting a civil war among themselves.”

Unlike the Kyiv Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox Church’s Ukrainian branch has usually abstained from commenting on Russia’s aggression and has been accused of supporting Russia and separatists. The only notable exceptions were the statements in July and August by Georgy Kovalenko, a spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate’s Ukrainian branch, that Crimea was an integral part of Ukraine and Onufry’s statement in August that there were no priests in his church who supported separatism.

“This undeclared war also helps the cause of unifying Orthodox believers into one independent church because it shows whom the Kyiv Patriarchate serves and whom the Moscow Patriarchate serves,” Filaret said. “The Kyiv Patriarchate serves the Ukrainian people, and the Moscow Patriarchate doesn’t… It serves Russia.”

Another difference between the patriarchates is the way they treat dissent.

Filaret said that the Russian Orthodox Church’s campaign to demonize the Pussy Riot punk band and its approval of two-year jail terms for two of the group’s members in 2012 only damaged the church. The Pussy Riot members were charged with hooliganism for singing an anti-Putin song at Moscow’s Christ the Savior Cathedral in February 2012.

“What these women did is evil,” Filaret said. “But turning it into a scandal did not serve the church but damaged it. They should not have given such publicity to it.”

When FEMEN, a Ukrainian feminist protest group, sawed off a cross in Kyiv in support of Pussy Riot in August 2012, the Kyiv Patriarchate behaved differently.

“They wanted to make a scandal out of it,” Filaret said. “I said no, it will pass and be forgotten. But if we had given publicity to it, it would only have helped those immoral people who sawed off the cross.”

The Moscow Patriarchate’s luxury has also been a permanent source of scandals as Patriarch Kirill and other clerics have been criticized for owning high-end cars and Swiss watches and living in ostentatious residences.

Filaret described Kirill as “not a spiritual man” who likes the “external grandeur of the Catholic Church” and looks to its wealth as an example. At the Kyiv Patriarchate, there is little leeway for corruption because it is quite poor, Filaret said.

Just as the issue of wealth, accusations of close links to the state have also plagued the Moscow Patriarchate. The Kyiv Patriarchate’s views on relations with the state are different.

“In Ukraine, the church is not only separated from the state but enjoys full freedom and is independent from the state,” Filaret said. “In Russia the church is also (formally) separated from the state but it is dependent on the state”. This symbiosis is one reason why Patriarch Kirill can’t condemn Putin’s aggression against Ukraine, Filaret said.

As citizens, clergy have a right to support certain parties, Filaret said, adding that the Kyiv Patriarchate backed all parties that support Ukraine’s independence as a nation.

The Moscow Patriarchate had close ties to the Soviet-era KGB and is believed by critics to have the same with its Russian successor, the Federal Security Agency, or FSB. Filaret said that all bishops had to cooperate with the KGB and that a bishop did not have the right to ordain a priest without the KGB’s approval.

“Either the church existed and had contacts with the KGB or the church was liquidated,” he said. While some bishops served the church despite their links with the security agency, others were KGB informers who served the state, Filaret said.

“The most active informer was the late Patriarch Alexiy (II),” Kirill’s predecessor, he said.

In 1990, Filaret competed with Alexiy, who was accused by critics of being the “KGB’s candidate,” for the top job in the Russian Orthodox Church, but lost out. Filaret also said that most Ukrainian bishops initially supported the Ukrainian church’s independence in the early 1990s but then backtracked because of pressure by security agencies.

Kyiv Post staff writer Oleg Sukhov can be reached at reaganx84@gmail.com. Kyiv Post+ offers special coverage of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the aftermath of the Euromaidan Revolution

The Decline of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

by St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco

Translators’ Introduction: The anti-Orthodox career and statements of the late Patriarch Athenagoras of sorry memory have been so striking that they have perhaps tended to obscure the fact that the apostasy of this one man was merely the culmination of a long and thorough process of the departure from the Orthodox Faith of an entire Local Orthodox Church. The promise of the new Patriarch Demetrios to “follow upon the footsteps of our great Predecessor… in pursuing Christian unity” and to institute-“dialogues” with Islam and other non-Christian religions, while recognizing “the holy blessed Pope of Rome Paul VI, the first among equals within the universal Church of 0rist” (Enthronement Address)—only confirms this observation and reveals the depths to which the Church of Constantinople has fallen in our own day.

It should be noted that the title “Ecumenical” was bestowed on the Patriarch of Constantinople as a result of the transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire to this city in the 4th century; the Patriarch then became the bishop of the city which was the center of the ecumene or civilized world. Lamentably, in the 20th century the once-glorious See of Constantinople, having long since lost its earthly glory, has cheaply tried to regain prestige by entering on two new “ecumenical” paths: it has joined the “ecumenical movement,” which is based on an anti-Christian universalism; and, in imitation of apostate Rome, it has striven to subject the other Orthodox Churches to itself and make of its Patriarch a kind of Pope of Orthodoxy.

The following article, which is part of a report on all the Autocephalous Churches made by Archbishop John to the Second All-Diaspora Sobor of the Russian Church Abroad held in Yugoslavia in 1938, gives the historical background of the present state of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It could well have been written today, nearly 35 years later, apart from a few small points which have changed since then, not to mention the more spectacular “ecumenical” acts and statements of the Patriarchate in recent years, which have served to change it from the “pitiful spectacle” here described into one of the leading world centers of anti-Orthodoxy.

THE PRIMACY among Orthodox Churches is possessed by the Church of the New Rome, Constantinople, which is headed by a Patriarch who has the title of Ecumenical, and therefore is itself called the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which territorially reached the culmination of its development at the end of the 18th century. At that time there was included in it the whole of Asia Minor, the whole Balkan Peninsula (except for Montenegro), together with the adjoining islands, since the other independent Churches in the Balkan Peninsula had been abolished and had become part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Ecumenical Patriarch had received from the Turkish Sultan, even before the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, the title of Millet Bash, that is, the head of the people, and he was considered the head of the whole Orthodox population of the Turkish Empire. This, however, did not prevent the Turkish government from removing patriarchs for any reason whatever and calling for new elections, at the same time collecting a large tax from the newly elected patriarch. Apparently the latter circumstance had a great significance in the changing of patriarchs by the Turks, and therefore it often happened that they again allowed on the Patriarchal Throne a patriarch whom they had removed, after the death of one or several of his successors. Thus, many patriarchs occupied their see several times, and each accession was accompanied by the collection of a special tax from them by the Turks.

In order to make up the sum which he paid on his accession to the Patriarchal Throne, a patriarch made a collection from the metropolitans subordinate to him, and they, in their turn, collected from the clergy subordinate to them. This manner of making up its finances left an imprint on the whole order of the Patriarchate’s life. In the Patriarchate there was likewise evident the Greek “Great Idea,” that is, the attempt to restore Byzantium, at first in a cultural, but later also in a political sense. For this reason in all important; posts there were assigned people loyal to this idea, and for the most part Greeks from the part of Constantinople called the Phanar, where also the Patriarchate was located. Almost always the episcopal sees were filled by Greeks, even though in the Balkan Peninsula the population was primarily Slavic.

At the beginning of the 19th century there began a movement of liberation among the Balkan peoples, who were striving to liberate themselves from the authority of the Turks. There arose the states of Serbia, Greece, Rumania, and Bulgaria, at first semi-independent, and then completely independent from Turkey. Parallel with this there proceeded also the formation of new Local Churches which were separate from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Even though it was unwillingly, under the influence of circumstances, the Ecumenical Patriarchs permitted the autonomy of the Churches in the vassal princedoms, and later they recognized the full independence of the Churches in Serbia, Greece, and Rumania. Only the Bulgarian question was complicated in view on the one hand of the impatience of the Bulgarians, who had not yet attained political independence, and, on the other hand, thanks to the unyieldingness of the Greeks. The self-willed declaration of Bulgarian autocephaly on the foundation of a firman of the Sultan was not recognized by the Patriarchate, and in a number of dioceses there was established a parallel hierarchy.

The boundaries of the newly-formed Churches coincided with the boundaries of the new states, which were growing all the time at the expense of Turkey, at the same time acquiring new dioceses from the Patriarchate. Nonetheless, in 1912, when the Balkan War began, the Ecumenical Patriarchate had about 70 metropolias and several bishoprics. The war of 1912-13 tore away from Turkey a significant part of the Balkan Peninsula with such great spiritual centers as Salonica and Athos. The Great War of 1914-18 for a time deprived Turkey of the whole of Thrace and the Asia Minor coast with the city of Smyrna, which were subsequently lost by Greece in 1922 after the unsuccessful march of the Greeks on Constantinople.

Here the Ecumenical Patriarch could not so easily allow out of his authority the dioceses which had been torn away from Turkey, as had been done previously. There was already talk concerning certain places which from of old had been under the spiritual authority of Constantinople. Nonetheless, the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1922 recognized the annexation to the Serbian Church of all areas within the boundaries of Yugoslavia; he agreed to the inclusion within the Church of Greece of a number of dioceses in the Greek State, preserving, however, his jurisdiction over Athos; and in 1937 he recognized even the autocephaly of the small Albanian Church, which originally he had not recognized.

The boundaries of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the number of its dioceses had significantly decreased. At the same time the Ecumenical Patriarchate in fact lost Asia Minor also, although it remained within its jurisdiction. In accordance with the peace treaty between Greece and Turkey in 1923, there occurred an exchange of population between these powers, so that the whole Greek population of Asia Minor had to resettle in Greece. Ancient cities, having at one time a great significance in ecclesiastical matters and glorious in their church history, remained without a single inhabitant of the Orthodox faith. At the same time, the Ecumenical Patriarch lost his political significance in Turkey, since Kemal Pasha deprived him of his title of head of the people. Factually, at the present time under the Ecumenical Patriarch there are five dioceses within the boundaries of Turkey in addition to Athos with the surrounding places in Greece. The Patriarch is extremely hindered in the manifestation even of his indisputable rights in church government within the boundaries of Turkey, where he is viewed as an ordinary Turkish subject-official, being furthermore under the supervision of the government. The Turkish government, which interferes in all aspects of the life of its citizens, only as a special privilege has permitted him, as also the Armenian Patriarch, to wear long hair and clerical garb, forbidding this to the rest of the clergy. The Patriarch has no right of free exit from Turkey, and lately the government is ever more insistently pursuing his removal to the new capital of Ankara (the ancient Ancyra), where there are now no Orthodox Christians, but where the administration with all the branches of governmental life is concentrated.

Such an outward abasement of the hierarch of the city of St. Constantine, which was once the capital of the ecumene, has not caused reverence toward him to be shaken among Orthodox Christians, who revere the See of Sts. Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian. From the height of this See the successor of Sts. John and Gregory could spiritually guide the whole Orthodox world, if only he possessed their firmness in the defense of righteousness and truth and the breadth of views of the recent Patriarch Joachim III. However, to the general decline of the Ecumenical Patriarchate there has been joined the direction of its activity after the Great War. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has desired to make up for the loss of dioceses which have left its jurisdiction, and likewise the loss of its political significance within the boundaries of Turkey, by submitting to itself areas where up to now there has been no Orthodox hierarchy, and likewise the Churches of those states where the government is not Orthodox. Thus, on April 5, 1922, Patriarch Meletius designated an Exarch of Western and Central Europe with the title of Metropolitan of Thyateira with residency in London; on March 4, 1923, the same Patriarch consecrated the Czech Archimandrite Sabbatius Archbishop of Prague and All Czechoslovakia; on April 15, 1924, a Metropolia of Hungary and All Central Europe was founded with a See in Budapest, even though there was already a Serbian bishop there. In America an Archbishopric was established under the Ecumenical Throne, then in 1924 a Diocese was established in Australia with a See in Sydney. In 1938 India was made subordinate to the Archbishop of Australia.

At the same time there has proceeded the subjection of separate parts of the Russian Orthodox Church which have been torn away from Russia. Thus, on June 9, 1923, the Ecumenical Patriarch accepted into his jurisdiction the Diocese of Finland as an autonomous Finnish Church; on August 23, 1923, the Estonian Church was made subject in the same way, on November 13, 1924, Patriarch Gregory VII recognized the autocephaly of the Polish Church under the supervision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate—that is, rather autonomy. In March, 1936, the Ecumenical Patriarch accepted Latvia into his jurisdiction. Not limiting himself to the acceptance into his jurisdiction of Churches in regions which had fallen away from the borders of Russia, Patriarch Photius accepted into his jurisdiction Metropolitan Eulogius in Western Europe together with the parishes subordinate to him, and on February 28, 1937, an Archbishop of the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch in America consecrated Bishop Theodore-Bogdan Shpilko for a Ukrainian Church in North America.

Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarch has become actually “ecumenical” [universal] in the breadth of the territory which is theoretically subject to him. Almost the whole earthly globe, apart from the small territories of the three Patriarchates and the territory of Soviet Russia, according to the idea of the Patriarchate’s leaders, enters into the composition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Increasing without limit their desires to submit to themselves parts of Russia, the Patriarchs of Constantinople have even begun to declare the uncanonicity of the annexation of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate, and to declare that the previously existing southern Russian Metropolia of Kiev should be subject to the Throne of Constantinople. Such a point of view is not only clearly expressed in the Tomos of November 13, 1924, in connection with the separation of the Polish Church, but is also quite thoroughly promoted by the Patriarchs. Thus, the Vicar of Metropolitan Eulogius in Paris, who was consecrated with the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarch, has assumed the title of Chersonese; that is to say, Chersonese, which is now in the territory of Russia, is subject to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The next logical step for the Ecumenical Patriarchate would be to declare the whole of Russia as being under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

However, the actual spiritual might and even the actual boundaries of authority by far do not correspond to such a self-aggrandizement of Constantinople. Not to mention the fact that almost everywhere the authority of the Patriarch is quite illusory and consists for the most part in the confirmation of bishops who have been elected to various places or the sending of such from Constantinople, many lands which Constantinople considers subject to itself do not have any flock at all under its jurisdiction.

The moral authority of the Patriarchs of Constantinople has likewise fallen very low in view of their extreme instability in ecclesiastical matters. Thus, Patriarch Meletius IV arranged a “Pan-Orthodox Congress,” with representatives of various churches, which decreed the introduction of the New Calendar. This decree, recognized only by a part of the Church, introduced a frightful schism among Orthodox Christians. Patriarch Gregory VII recognized the decree of the council of the Living Church concerning the deposing of Patriarch Tikhon, whom not long before this the Synod of Constantinople had declared a “confessor,” and then he entered into communion with the “Renovationists” in Russia, which continues up to now.

In sum, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in theory embracing almost the whole universe and in fact extending its authority only over several dioceses, and in other places having only a higher superficial supervision and receiving certain revenues for this, persecuted by the government at home and not supported by any governmental authority abroad: having lost its significance as a pillar of truth and having itself become a source of division, and at the same time being possessed by an exorbitant love of power—represents a pitiful spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the history of the See of Constantinople.

THE KALLINIKITE UNIA

Written by Vladimir Moss

THE KALLINIKITE UNIA

He who joins hands with the unrighteous will not go unpunished…

He who judges the unrighteous as righteous, and the righteous as unrighteous,

He is unclean and abominable before God.

Proverbs 11.20, 17.6.

The devil, they say, is in the details. This must surely be true even more of ecclesiastical unions than of business agreements; for the devil is much more interested in the Church, which he does not control, than in business, which is largely his domain. But could God be in the overall conception, or could He be bringing a large good out of, or in spite of, many smaller evils? After all, “all things work together for those who love God” (Romans 8.28)… Let us explore these possibilities in relation to the ecclesiastical union sealed through liturgical concelebration on the Sunday of the Holy Cross this year between the True Orthodox Church of Greece led by Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens (GTOC) and the Ecclesiastical Community of the Synod in Resistance (otherwise known as “the Cyprianites”) together with the Romanian, Bulgarian and Russian Churches that are in communion with the latter.

All those who sincerely believe in True Orthodoxy know that one of the greatest obstacles to the salvation of men, to their joining the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, is our disunity. The multitude of jurisdictions calling themselves True Orthodox but not in communion with each other is a scandal – and it is small comfort to know that this is far from being the first period of such chaos and disunity in Orthodox Church history. As a rule, where there is no Orthodox emperor acting as a focus of unity, heresy becomes dominant and the True Orthodox are divided among themselves…

Unias between True Orthodox Synods in our time have usually been short-lived and highly controversial. In 1969-71 the Russian Church Abroad under St. Philaret united with the Greek Old Calendarist Synods of the Florinites under Archbishop Auxentius (first) and the Matthewites under Archbishop Andreas (a little later). But this unia broke up in mutual recrimination between all three groups less than a decade later. In 1994 another attempt was made: the Russian Church Abroad under Metropolitan Vitaly, the Greek Old Calendarists under Metropolitan Vitaly, the Romanian Old Calendarists under Metropolitan Vlasie and the Bulgarian Old Calendarists under Bishop Photius united on the basis of a “Cyprianite” confession of faith, which contradicted the confession of faith both of the Florinites and of the Matthewites (which is why they were not part of it) and of the Russian Church Abroad (as expressed in the anathema against ecumenism of 1983).

In 2001 the Russian Church Abroad divided. One part under Metropolitan Vitaly (outside Russia; there were other leaders inside Russia) rejected the Cyprianite confession and unia, but then split up into three or four warring synods. The other part under Metropolitan Laurus eventually united with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007.

The Greek Cyprianites, and Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists remained together, but reunited with one of the Russian bishops, Agathangel, who had refused to join the unia with the MP. Although Agathangel had been the last bishop to leave the sinking ship of the Russian Church Abroad, he refused to join the other Russian bishops who had jumped ship earlier. In fact, he considered himself to be the only completely canonical Russian bishop. All the Russian True Orthodox bishops, in his opinion, were and are graceless. As for the Moscow Patriarchate, while condemning it, he refused to say that it was graceless. Since he did not want to remain on his own, however, and wanted to create his own hierarchy, he was looking for a partner. The Cyprianites obliged, and so the Agathangelite hierarchy came into being.

In 2009 the Cyprianites entered into negotiations for union with the Florinites under Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis). The union talks failed, but the Cyprianites made some significant concessions. In particular, they agreed that their break with the Florinites in 1984 had been “hasty” – in other words, wrong, that the new calendarist church of Greece was not their “mother church”, and that they would no longer talk about heretics being “ailing members” of the True Church.[1]

In 2010 Archbishop Chrysostomos died, being replaced by Archbishop Kallinikos, and then Metropolitan Cyprian also died. Then the Cyprianites decided to make a second attempt at union with the Florinites. (Or did the Florinites take the initiative? We don’t know). Last week agreement was reached between the Greek TOC and the Cyprianites with their allies from Romania (Metropolitan Vlasie), Bulgaria (Bishop Photius) and Russia (Metropolitan Agathangel); and on the Sunday of the Holy Cross the uniates concelebrated the Divine Liturgy in Athens.

In almost all political unions, there is a signed treaty for everyone to see, and then there are secret clauses, which may or not be written down… Again, in almost all political unions, there is the supposed “great joy and victory for everyone”, and then there are the real winners and losers. It shouldn’t be like that with ecclesiastical unions, in which even those who submit and repent have truly triumphed – by saving their souls. But in false unias there are real winners and losers. Or rather: in the long term everybody in the unia is in fact a loser…

Let us see who the real winners and losers are in this false unia. Already in February, when it looked as if the unia would go ahead, the Cyprianite Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna declared, on the one hand, that there would be no winners or losers in this unia (“foolish and evil prattle” was his name for this “inappropriate triumphalism”), and on the other hand that they (the Cyprianites) were not required to abandon any of their principles as a result of the unia. “Be assured,” he writes, “that none of our principles, none of our moderation, and none of the spirit bequeathed to us by our late and venerable Metropolitan Cyprian have been set aside, as some naysayers have suggested.” But since the principles of the Cyprianite ecclesiology are false, this means that no repentance for their errors was required from the Cyprianites!

Chrysostomos himself gains much from this unia. Not having been required to renounce his errors, he can repeat them. Nor is it likely that he will be brought to order: according to the administrative arrangement agreed upon, he is a metropolitan not subject to the senior hierarch in America, Metropolitan Demetrius of America!

On March 7/20, just after the unia had been signed, the senior Cyprianite hierarch, Metropolitan Cyprian of Orope (the younger), confirmed the victory of the Cyprianites. “The Official Dialogue (December 2012-February 2014) led us to the realization that our Act of walling ourselves off in 1984 from our True Orthodox brethren should be abrogated, since the reasons of faith and righteousness that then provoked it no longer exist.” In other words: “In 1984, we broke communion with the TOC for perfectly valid ‘reasons of faith and righteousness’. But now those reasons no longer exist, the TOC have corrected themselves, so we can go back into communion with them.”

This is, in effect, a retraction by the Cyprianites of their admission in 2009 that they had been “hasty” in breaking with the GTOC in 1984: in fact, it implicitly accuses the GTOC of causing the schism. Moreover, none of the other concessions they made in 2009 are confirmed now, in 2014. In reality, as we shall see later, it is the True Orthodox Church of Greece that has made the concessions.

How is it that the two Cyprianite metropolitans can be so bold, basically reaffirming their loyalty to the ecclesiological heresy of Cyprianism, even after the union with the GTOC has been signed? The answer is that they were not asked to renounce their heresy – in public, at any rate. Of course, we do not know what went on behind closed doors, or what was contained in the secret clauses of the agreement, if such existed. But even if they were asked to renounce certain positions in private (of which, however, we have no evidence), it is obvious that they have no inhibitions about renouncing any such renunciation in public. Nor – most significantly and fatefully – have the TOC hierarchs rebuked them in any way…

But what about the official joint confession of faith, the Common Ecclesiological Statement, which all parties signed? Does that not contain the renunciation of any Cyprianite position? As we shall see, it does not… Nor is this surprising since it was in fact written by a Cyprianite, Bishop Photius of Triaditsa (Bulgaria)!… What it does contain is a highly rhetorical condemnation of Ecumenism; a more sober and useful condemnation of Sergianism; and a significant weakening of the True Orthodox position with regard to the validity of the sacraments of the “World Orthodox”.

Before examining this Statement, let us remind ourselves what Cyprianism is in essence. Cyprianism is a hidden form of Ecumenism, an attempt, unheard of in the writings of the Holy Fathers, to separate grace (blagodatnost’) from Orthodoxy (pravoslavnost’), as if the one could exist without the other. It supposes that it is possible to be a “heretic of heretics”, and a “pan-heretic of pan-heretics”, and yet remain an “uncondemned” member of the True Church having the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Cyprianism has already been condemned by several Greek and Russian Synods. This Statement could and should have given it the final death-blow…

The Statement’s section on Ecumenism begins thus: “Ecumenism, as a theological concept, as an organized social movement, and as a religious enterprise, is and constitutes the greatest heresy of all time and a most wide-ranging panheresy; the heresy of heresies and the pan-heresy of pan-heresies; an amnesty for all heresies, truly and veritably a pan-heresy”. Point taken! With such sturm und drang, we cannot accuse the signatories of this confession of being ambiguous or tepid about ecumenism!

Nor about sergianism – the section on that subject is good and especially welcome in view of the fact that Greek Synods very rarely mention the subject. In fact it corrects one of the lesser-known errors of the Cyprianite ecclesiology, its affirmation that Sergianism “no longer exists”. For on May 10/23, 2007 the Cyprianite Synod declared that “the historical basis and occasion for the rift among the Russians (1917-) has been removed and no longer exists. It is quite different from the dispute which divided, and continues to divide – since it still exists and is, indeed, reinforced daily, – the Orthodox into ecumenists and resisters (1920, 1924-).”(point 9) Perhaps the correction of the Cyprianite position here is owing to the fact that the confession was written by a Bulgarian bishop who knows from experience what communism and its evil effects on church life are. In any case, this section of the confession is to be welcomed as constituting probably its most useful part.

But then we come to the section on the “Return to True Orthodoxy”. The first four points are fine:

“1. Nevertheless, œconomy assuredly can never and in no circumstance whatever permit the pardoning of any sin or any compromise concerning the “correct and saving confession of the Faith,” since œconomy aims clearly and solely, in a spirit of loving kindness, at facilitating the salvation of souls, for whom Christ died.

“2. The application of œconomy in the reception of heretics and schismatics into communion with the Church in no way betokens that the Church acknowledges the validity and the reality of their mysteries, which are celebrated outside Her canonical and charismatic boundaries.

“3. The Holy Orthodox Church has never recognized, either by exactitude or by œconomy, mysteries performed completely outside Her and in apostasy, since those who celebrate or who partake of these mysteries remain within the bosom of their heretical or schismatic community.

“4. Through the application of œconomy in the reception of persons or groups outside Her in repentance, the Orthodox Church accepts merely the form of the mystery of heretics or schismatics—provided, of course, that this has been preserved unadulterated—but endows this form with life through the Grace of the Holy Spirit that exists in Her by means of the bearers of this fullness, namely, Orthodox Bishops.”

This is good. But now we come to point 6: “More specifically, with regard to the Mysteries celebrated in the so-called official Orthodox Churches, the True Orthodox Church, within the boundaries of Her pastoral solicitude, does not provide assurance concerning their validity or concerning their salvific efficacy, in particular for those who commune “knowingly” [wittingly] with syncretistic ecumenism and Sergianism, even though She does not in any instance repeat their form for those entering into communion with Her in repentance, having in mind the convocation of a Major Synod of True Orthodoxy, in order to place a seal on what has already occurred at a local level.”[2]

This is pure Cyprianism! The signatories are saying in effect: “Although the World Orthodox are heretics, we don’t know whether their sacraments are valid or not.” But this “agnosticism” contradicts Apostolic Canon 46, which insists that the sacraments of all heretics and schismatics are definitely invalid. It also contradicts the confession of faith of the True Orthodox Church of Greece in 1935, 1950, 1974 and 1991! Moreover, the anathema of the Russian Church Abroad specifically anathematizes those who affirm that the sacraments of heretics and schismatics may be valid. In 1994, at the time of the Russian Church Abroad’s acceptance of the Cyprianite ecclesiology, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) affirmed that she had fallen under her own anathema. This present point, although more veiled, and camouflaged, as it were, by the much stronger points that precede it, comes perilously close to the same position.

So the devil is definitely in this detail. Moreover, there are other dubious details. Point six appears to be asserting (although not very clearly) that whether or not the sacraments of a World Orthodox church are valid depends on whether the person who approaches them knows about the heresy that church confesses. However, this is to confuse the objective validity of the sacrament in a heretical church with the subjective degree of guilt of the communicant in that church. Apostolic canon 46 quite categorically declares that the sacraments of heretics are invalid, and makes no qualifications with regard to the worthiness or knowledge of the communicant. Of course, the guilt of the communicant in a heretical church will be greater or lesser depending on many things, including his knowledge of the hereticalness of that church. But this in no way affects our judgement as to whether the sacrament itself is valid or not. If, as the Cyprianites admit, the World Orthodox are heretics, then ipso facto their sacraments are invalid, and he who denies this comes under the penalty prescribed by the canon.

Another dubious detail is the phrase: “bearing in mind the convocation of a Major Synod of True Orthodoxy, in order to place a seal on what has already occurred at a local level.” What the Cyprianites – with the acquiescence of the TOC – are here trying to assert is their old error, the idea that the Councils that have so far condemned Ecumenism and Sergianism were only Local Councils that did not have the authority to expel heretics from the Church. Only a Pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical Council, according to the Cyprianites, can do that. And until the convening of such a “Major” Council in order to “seal” the decision of a Local Council, the heretics remain “uncondemned”…[3]

This idea was first developed by Metropolitan Cyprian (the elder) in 1984, in his notorious Ecclesiological Theses. The unspoken aim of these Theses was clearly to undermine the authority of the Russian Church Abroad’s anathema against ecumenism the previous year. By hook or by crook, Cyprian was determined to demonstrate that the anathema did not say what it clearly did say: that all the ecumenists of World Orthodox were outside the True Church and deprived of the grace of sacraments.

To this end he and others mobilized a whole variety of arguments. Some said that the anathema did not expel anyone from the Church, but was only a “warning” to the World Orthodox. In other words, it was just “a rap on the knuckles”, no more. Again, it was said that the anathema expelled only ecumenists inside ROCOR. In other words, a Russian old woman inside ROCOR might be under anathema, but the patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow were not! Again, others said that since the wording of the anathema was not composed by the Russian bishops themselves, but by some American monks inside ROCOR, it could not be valid. Again, others said that since no heretic was specifically named in the anathema, it fell on nobody…

But the least implausible of the arguments was this one, that ROCOR was a Local Church, so its decisions could not have universal power or significance. In fact, in their later writings the Cyprianites went further and declared that no present-day Synod has the authority to launch an anathema expelling heretics from the Church. Thus they wrote in 2009 that “so great a right and ‘dignity’ [of anathematizing] is ‘granted’ only to the choir of the Apostles ‘and those who have truly become their successors in the strictest sense, full of Grace and power’ (St. John Chrysostomos)”. And they go on: “We are unable to understand this hasty tendency in our day to anathematize and condemn, since until such successors come into existence, ‘everyone who is Orthodox in every respect anathematizes every heretic potentially, even if not verbally’ (St. Theodore the Studite).”

The present writer has criticized this position in detail elsewhere.[4] If there is no Synod in the world today which has the Grace and power to anathematize heretics, then the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – God forbid! – has lost her power to bind and to loose! Then even if the Antichrist were to appear and pronounce himself to be God today, the Church on earth would have no power to anathematize him – he would be an “ailing” and “uncondemned” member of the True Church! Away with such blasphemy, such manifest lack of faith in the power and dignity of the Church, which, by virtue of its Catholicity, exists in every right-believing Synod, whatever its size! If “everyone who is Orthodox anathematizes every heretic potentially, even if not verbally”, then a fortiori the hierarchs of the Church have the power to anathematize every heretic, not only potentially, but actually, and not only under their breath, but verbally and from the housetops! For, as St. John Chrysostom said, “in worldly matters we are meek as lambs, but in matters of the faith we roar like lions!”

Returning to the Ecclesiological Statement, we see a continuing alternation of strong and weak points.

“10. As a general rule, monastics and laity from these Churches, who have definitely been baptized according to the Orthodox rite, are received into communion through anointing (Xρ?σμα) by means of a special order, in conjunction, to be sure, with the Mystery of sacred Confession, while clergy submit a written petition and, as long as this is approved, are received into communion through a special brief Order of the Imposition of Hands (Xειροθεσiα), specifically compiled for such cases.”

This is strong. To chrismate a layman is to recognize that the church he is coming from is false and graceless. However:

“11. It is understood that, on the basis of idiosyncrasies in different places and in different cases concerning the application of a more lenient or a stricter order, a decision is to be made by the local Bishop or by a competent Synod, according to St. Cyprian of Carthage: “In this matter we do not coerce or impose a law on anyone, since every Prelate has freedom of will in the administration of the Church and will have to account for his actions before the Lord” (“Letter to Pope Stephen,” in Concilia ad regiam exacta, Vol. I [Lutetiæ Parisiorum: Impensis Societatis Typographicæ Librorum Ecclesiasticorum iussu Regis constitutæ, 1671], col. 741).”

This is much weaker. It is not wrong for being weaker, because it is true that a hierarch can relax the rule of reception if he wants. As St. Cyprian says, it is his right as having “freedom of will in the administration of the Church”. However, the irony is that, in the failed negotiations for union between GTOC and the Russian True Orthodox Church under Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia (RTOC) that took place in 2009-11, the major stumbling-block was precisely the Russians’ insistence on this right, which the Greeks denied them (at least, perhaps, until the final agreement statement on oekonomia, which the writer has not seen published anywhere). So why are the True Orthodox Greeks being so much more flexible on this point now?

There are probably two main reasons. The first is that to “reform” the practice of all the hierarchs of the newly-formed bloc so that all, or at any rate the majority of the heretics who come to the Church are chrismated, is an unattainable goal. Probably only the Romanians consistently chrismate the new calendarists who come to them. Both the Cyprianites and the Greek True Orthodox are far from consistent in this practice. As for the Russians under Metropolitan Agathangel, as we shall see later, their practice goes beyond the bounds of the laxest permissible oekonomia…

The second reason lies in the personality and empire-building ambitions of Archbishop Kallinikos, who clearly thought that union with the Cyprianites and their allies was a far larger and more “juicy morsel” than the comparatively small and poverty-stricken RTOC. This hierarch has the reputation of being extremely strict on matters of the faith. But the truth is that he is “strict” to the point of manifest injustice when some person or community is not useful to his plans, but the strictness disappears when he wants to draw the person or community into his net. No doubt some would justify this on the grounds that a hierarch has to manoeuvre between strictness and laxity in order to serve the good of the Church as a whole. But “the good of the Church” is a slogan that can justify any lawlessness in the mouth of an unscrupulous man: in matters of faith, as St. Mark of Ephesus said, the true good of the Church can only reside in consistent strictness and exactness…

And so we may agree with Fr. Roman Yuzhakov, who has written on Facebook concerning the Ecclesiological Statement: “It is already clear that the basic principles of Cyprianism are not being placed in doubt. The sharp anti-ecumenist rhetoric of the document should not mislead us: the grace-filled nature of the sacraments of ‘World Orthodoxy’ is, as before, not being denied; it is just that it ‘is not recognized with certainty… especially in relation to those people who are consciously in communion with syncretistic ecumenism and sergianism’. It is evident that this formulation is that invisible difference – invisible, that is, to the naked eye – between ‘Cyprianism’ and ‘the Bulgarian Old Calendarist confession’ which must now become the official doctrine of this union…”[5]

Let us now turn to an aspect of the agreement of March, 2014 that has especially scandalized Russian Orthodox Christians: the inclusion of “Metropolitan” Agathangel in the new bloc. It is in relation to Agathangel that the opportunism of Kallinikos manifests itself most clearly. Having rejected communion in 2009-11 with the most canonical of the Russian chief-hierarchs, Archbishop Tikhon, he now enters into communion with the worst of them, whose canonical violations and false ecclesiology are notorious!

This is not the place for a detailed biography of Agathangel, but some account of his more glaring and dangerous errors is necessary.

1.In 1996, shortly after becoming a ROCOR bishop, he wrote in the official journal of his Odessan diocese that the Catholics, the Monophysites and the Old Ritualists all have grace of sacraments (Vestnik IPTs, 1996, N 2). So at that time at any rate he was not simply a Cyprianite in his confession, but definitely an ecumenist heretic. And to the present writer’s knowledge, he has not repented of that statement.

2.In 2001 he went as the representative of the Russian True Orthodox Church under Archbishop Lazarus (the predecessor of Archbishop Tikhon) to New York in order to present the point of view of the True Orthodox inside Russia to the Synod of Metropolitan Laurus. However, instead of representing the True Orthodox Church, Agathangel promptly changed sides and joined the Laurite Synod. During the next six years, Agathangel loyally signed all the decisions of the Laurite Synod, including those relating to joining the Moscow Patriarchate.

3.On May 17, 2007, when Metropolitan Laurus signed the unia between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate, Agathangel changed sides again – he refused to join the unia. Only this time, he did not rejoin the True Orthodox inside Russia, who were prepared to receive him back without conditions, in spite of his previous betrayal of them. Instead, he formed his own jurisdiction, claiming that he was the only remaining truly Orthodox Russian bishop! His reasoning was original: although Laurus and his Synod had been wrong in joining the MP, all his decisions up to the very point of joining the MP (including bans on many right-believing Russian clergy and, presumably, the very decision to join the MP!), had been correct, and so he, Agathangel, as the only Russian bishop who had been loyal to Laurus to the last possible moment, was the only true Russian bishop. It is as if one said: all those who leave a sinking ship before the water is up to their eyebrows have left it illegitimately, and should be considered to have drowned!

4.While condemning all the True Orthodox bishops as graceless, Agathangel refused to condemn the Moscow Patriarchate as graceless. In this he followed, as always, the Cyprianite ecclesiology. Only in his choice of whom to receive into his Church, he showed himself to be more extreme and more indiscriminate than the Cyprianites – to whom he was now indebted because they had helped him in founding an uncanonical hierarchy.

5.For example, in 2007 he received under his omophorion in Kiev the “well-known Ukrainian politician” D. Korchinsky and his ultra-nationalist neo-Nazi occult-totalitarian sect or brotherhood. Korchinsky had fought in the Chechen wars on the side of the Chechens, and taught his adherents martial arts, which he then encouraged them to practice on people who disagreed with him. The Ukrainian media called this brotherhood “the Ukrainian Klu-Klux-Klan”, and many of its members were imprisoned for acts of violence. Korchinsky also has close links with the so-called “Great Prior of the Order of the Templars of the Ukraine”, Alexander Yablonsky. Korchinsky’s sect has come close to being banned by the authorities; but Agathangel’s recognition of him, giving his sect the status of a church organization, with a church building and a priest, has protected him from prosecution…

6.Another example. In 2011 Agathangel received three parishes in Izhevsk, Eastern Russia together with their priests. However, they received a very original dispensation: they were allowed to remain in the Moscow Patriarchate while being under Agathangel’s omophorion. And now they call themselves “MP in ROCOR”!

7.A third example. Agathangel and the former Patriarch Irenaeus of Jerusalem (who was removed from his see for wrongdoing) have agreed to commemorate each other at the Divine Liturgy. What does this mean if not that Agathangel is in official communion with World Orthodoxy?

And now this Agathangel, this scourge and bane of the Russian True Orthodox Church, has been accepted into communion by the True Orthodox Church of Greece without, as far as we know, being required to correct any of the above glaring dogmatic and canonical violations.[6] This is truly a betrayal of the Russian Church! One consequence of this unia, therefore, will undoubtedly be a widening of the gap between the majority of the Russian and Serbian True Orthodox, on the hand, and Agathangel and the majority of the Balkan and Western True Orthodox, on the other.

However, in view of the fact that we began this article by wondering whether God could produce some good out of this evil, let us in conclusion consider some possible benefits.

Undoubtedly a short-term benefit will be that many will be relieved and rejoice that the continuing disintegration of True Orthodoxy into ever more jurisdictions has been halted and partially reversed. Also to be welcomed is the possible encouragement it will give to some World Orthodox to look again at True Orthodoxy and consider joining it. But such a gain will be real only if this unia does not eventually go the same way as the false unia of 1994 – and generate still more divisions as a result…

Another possible benefit is that those jurisdictions which, because of their continuing rejection of Cyprianism, are not part of this unia, – we are thinking here particularly of the Russian jurisdictions of RTOC and ROAC and some parts of ROCA (V), – will feel their spiritual kinship more strongly and initiate talks for union amongst themselves – a union that is founded on the rock of Christ and not, like the Kallinikite unia, on the shifting sands of political ambition and calculation.

But as the unsound foundations of the Kallinikite unia become clearer to more and more people, we can hope for another, longer-term benefit: the removal and replacement of its driver and leader. Archbishop Kallinikos has always been a controversial hierarch, with many fierce critics both inside and outside Greece. He came to the episcopate (ironically, together with Cyprian of Orope) in a flagrantly dishonest and uncanonical ecclesiastical praxikopima, or coup, in 1979. Controversy also surrounds the way in which he acquired the monastery of the Archangels in Corinth, which resulted in the exile of its founder and his elder, Metropolitan Kallistos. Often quarrelling with his first-hierarch, Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis), he was an exceptionally lazy and divisive exarch of Western Europe and Serbia, a Greek nationalist who famously once wrote that “the Slavs have never been good Orthodox”. In contempt of all canon law, he was called by one of his senior hierarchs “locum tenens of the Serbian patriarchal throne”, and trampled on the pastoral needs and canonical rights of his Serbian flock to such a degree that most of them have sought refuge elsewhere. When negotiations were begun for the union with RTOC, – a union which Archbishop Chrysostomos believed in but he did not, – he did his best to scupper it – and eventually succeeded…[7]

All this will no doubt be forgiven and forgotten by many in the euphoria of the present uniate celebrations, as Kallinikos’ dream of recovering “the lost lands of the Byzantine empire”, as he once put it in a sermon, by restoring Greek ecclesiastical suzerainty over the Balkans, looks to be approaching fulfilment. However, “pride precedes a fall”, and empires acquired by illegitimate means can unravel very quickly… One day – who knows? – he may look back on the day of his greatest triumph, the Sunday of the Holy Cross, 2014, and remember with compunction the words of the Lord in the Gospel of that day: “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?…” (Mark 8.36)

March 12/25, 2014.

Tuesday of the Week of the Holy Cross.

St. Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome.

[1] See “The Cessation of Informal Dialogue”, http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2009/06/02/20090602aCessationofDialogue%20Folder/20090602aCessationofDialogue.pdf.

[2]For those who read Greek we provide the original Greek text for greater clarification: “Ε?δικ?τερον περ? τ?ν Μυστηρ?ων τ?ν τελουμ?νων ε?ς τ?ς λεγομ?νας ?πισ?μους ?ρθοδ?ξους ?κκλησ?ας, ? Γνησ?α ?ρθ?δοξος ?κκλησ?α δ?ν διαβεβαιο? περ? το? κ?ρους α?τ?ν, ο?τε κα? περ? τ?ς σωτηριολογικ?ς ?ποτελεσματικ?τητος το?των, ?δ?ως ε?ς ?σους κοινωνο?ν «?ν γν?σει» μετ? το? συγκρητιστικο? Ο?κουμενισμο?, ?ς κα? το? Σεργιανισμο?, ?στω κα? ?ν Α?τη δ?ν ?παναλαμβ?ν? ?πωσδ?ποτε τ?ν τ?πον α?τ?ν ε?ς το?ς ?ν μετανο?? ε?σερχομ?νους ε?ς κοινων?αν μετ’ Α?τ?ς, ?ν ?ψει μ?λιστα τ?ς συγκλ?σεως μι?ς Μεγ?λης Συν?δου τ?ς Γνησ?ας ?ρθοδοξ?ας, ε?ς ?πισφρ?γισιν τ?ν ?δη γενομ?νων ε?ς τοπικ?ν ?π?πεδον.”

[3] The present writer has analysed and refuted this position in detail here: http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/263/-condemnation-heretics/

[4] http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/240/-cyprianites-power-anathema/.

[5]https://www.facebook.com/groups/288380224648257/

[6] As Fr. Roman Yuzhakov writes on Facebook: “It seems to us that Metropolitan Agathangel will most likely not disavow the decisions of the ROCOR Council of 1994 on the identity of the ideology of ROCOR and the theology of Cyprianism, that he will not break communion with Patriarch Irenaeus, and that everything will remain just as it was.”

[7]Now, however, in view of the false unia Kallinikos have created, the Russians will probably thank God that their own union with him did not take place…

COMMITTEES FOR DIALOGUE OF THE CHURCH OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS OF GREECE

A DRAFT COMPOSED BY THE  COMMITTEES FOR DIALOGUE OF THE CHURCH OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS OF GREECE AND THE ORTHODOX ECCLESIASTICAL COMMUNITY IN RESISTANCE (FEBRUARY 2014)

The True Orthodox Church in Opposition to the Heresy of Ecumenism

Dogmatic and Canonical Issues

I. Basic Principles

The True Orthodox Church has, since the preceding twentieth century, been struggling steadfastly in confession against the ecclesiological heresy of ecumenism and, as well, not only against the calendar innovation that derived from it, but also more generally against dogmatic syncretism, which at an inter-Christian and inter-religious level inexorably cultivates, in sundry ways and in contradiction to the Gospel, the concurrency, commingling, and joint action of Truth and error, Light and darkness, and the Church and heresy.

• In Her struggle to confess the Faith, the True Orthodox Church has applied, and continues to embrace and apply, the following basic principles of Orthodox ecclesiology:

1. The primary criterion for the status of membership in the Church of Christ is the “correct and saving confession of the Faith” (St. Maximos the Confessor, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XC, col. 93D), that is, the true, exact and anti-innovationist Orthodox Faith, and it is “on this rock” (of correct confession) that the Lord has built His Holy Church.

2. This criterion is valid both for individual persons and for local Churches.

3. The Catholicity of the Church of Christ, always with respect to Her Uniqueness, Holiness, and Apostolicity, is Her qualitative and internal, and not quantitative and external, hallmark; it is Her fundamental attribute, which expresses, on the one hand, the integrity and the fullness of the Truth that She preaches, independently of Her demographic and geographical dimensions, and, on the other hand, the authenticity and completeness of the means provided for the healing and deification of fallen human nature.

4. It is on the basis of this correct confession that the Mysteriological (“Sacramental”) communion of the faithful with Christ, and between one another, is realized, as an expression of existing unity, not, indeed, as a means to the attainment of this unity; that is to say, unity in correct confession is prior and communion in the Mysteries subsequent.

5. All pious Christians who hold to an Orthodox confession, if they are to be living members of the Church, ought without fail to be in Mysteriological communion with each other, since

1

communion in Faith and communion in the Mysteries (“Sacraments”) mutually interpenetrated among the faithful, reify the one and unique Body of Christ.

6. Unshakable abidance in correct confession, as well as the defense thereof at all costs, is a matter of the utmost soteriological importance, and it is for this reason that our Holy Fathers valiantly confessed and defended our Holy Orthodox Faith in word and deed and with their blood, doing so on behalf of the Orthodox Catholic Church and in the name of Her very existence.

7. All those who preach or act contrary to correct confession are separated from the Truth of the Faith and are excluded from communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church, be they individual persons or communities, even if they continue to function formally and institutionally as putative Churches and are addressed as such.

• “Those who do not belong to the Truth do not belong to the Church of Christ either; and all the more so if they speak falsely of themselves by calling themselves, or are called by each other, holy pastors and hierarchs; [for it has been instilled in us that] Christianity is characterized not by persons, but by the truth and exactitude of Faith” (St. Gregory Palamas, “Refutation of the Letter of Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch,” Codex Coislianianus 99, f. 144A, cited by George Mantzarides, “Περὶ θεώσεως τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: Mυστηριακὸς καὶ ἐκκλησιολογικὸς χαρακτὴρ τῆς θεώσεως,” in Παλαμικά [Thessalonike: Ekdoseis P. Pournara, 1998], pp. 197-198).

8. The unity of the Church in the Truth of the Faith and in communion of the Mysteries, bestowed from on high from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, is assuredly Christocentric and Eucharistic, and is experienced as a perennial assemblage and concelebration in space and time “with all the Saints,” since it has as its guarantor the Orthodox (right- believing) Bishop, the bearer—by Divine Grace—of the “tradition of the Truth” (St. Irenæus of Lugdunum [Lyon], Against Heresies, III.4.1, Patrologia Græca, Vol. VII, col. 855B).

9. Each Orthodox Bishop, as a “sharer in the ways and successor to the thrones” of the Holy Apostles, as Father of the Eucharistic Synaxis, as a Teacher of the Gospel of Truth, as a Servant (Minister) of love in truth, in the image and place of Christ, thus expresses, embodies, and safeguards the perennial Catholicity of the Church, that is, Her unity with Christ and, at the same time, Her unity in Christ with all of the local Churches which have existed, exist, and will exist as the One Body of Christ.

• “What is the ‘one body’? The faithful who are, were, and will be everywhere in the world” (St. John Chrysostomos, “Homily X on Ephesians,” §1, Patrologia Græca, Vol. LXII, col. 75).

10. Every Bishop who proclaims “heresy publicly” and “barefacedly in Church” (Canon XV of the First-Second Synod) and who teaches “another Gospel than that which we have received” (cf. Galatians 1:8) or is in syncretistic communion with those of other beliefs or religions, doing so persistently and continually, becomes a “false bishop and a false teacher” (Canon XV of the First-Second Synod), while those Bishops who commune with him, indifferent towards, tolerating, or accepting his mentality and these actual declarations of his, “are destroyed together with him” (St. Theodore the Studite), thereby ceasing to be canonical or in communion with the Church, since the Catholicity of the Church, Her unity, and Her genuine Apostolic Succession, which unfailingly guarantee the Bishop’s status as canonical and in communion with the Church, are founded on, flow from, and are safeguarded by the “correct and salvific confession of the Faith.”

II. Ecumenism: A Syncretistic Panheresy

2

1. Ecumenism, as a theological concept, as an organized social movement, and as a religious enterprise, is and constitutes the greatest heresy of all time and a most wide-ranging panheresy; the heresy of heresies and the pan-heresy of pan-heresies; an amnesty for all heresies, truly and veritably a pan-heresy; the most insidious adversary of the local Orthodox Churches, as well as the most dangerous enemy of man’s salvation in Christ, since it is impossible for Truth and Life in Christ to exist in unbreakable soteriological unity within its syncretistic boundaries.

2. Ecumenism came forth from the Protestant world (in the nineteenth century and onwards) and fosters the relativization of truth, life, and salvation in Christ, in essence denying the Catholicity and uniqueness of the Church, since at its base there lie both the erroneous theory of an “invisible Church” with vague boundaries, members of which can supposedly belong to different “Confessions,” and a variant of this, that is, the so-called “branch theory,” according to which the different Christian “Confessions” are allegedly branches of the same tree of the Church, each branch possessing part of the Truth and thus putatively together constituting the whole of the Church.

3. In spite of the variety of theories that ecumenism has produced, its basic aim is the cultivation of syncretistic coexistence (concurrency) and coöperation (joint action)—but also, beyond that, of a fusion—initially of all Christian creeds and “Confessions” (inter-Christian ecumenism), and subsequently of all religions (interfaith ecumenism), that is, (the cultivation) of an approach contrary to the Gospel, leading inevitably to the establishment of a kind of pan- religion, which would pave the way for the advent of the tribulation of the last times, namely, the era of the “lawless one” (II Thessalonians 2:8), the Antichrist.

4. By reason of its syncretistic character, ecumenism is closely akin to Freemasonry, which promotes itself as religiously tolerant, convivial, and open-minded towards heresies and religions, having proved to be, in practice, a religion—indeed, a super-religion—contributing directly and indirectly to the advancement of the ecumenist vision; that is, to the creation of an all-inclusive base for every creed and religion, wherein revealed Truth will have been completely relativized and put on the same level as every human and demonic delusion and belief.

5. Ecumenism began to assail the Orthodox Catholic Church with the sunset of the nineteenth century, through a Synodal Proclamation, in 1920, from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, “To the Churches of Christ Everywhere.” It constitutes the “founding charter of ecumenism,” which it preaches “barefacedly,” since it characterizes the heresies of the West and everywhere else as, supposedly, “venerable Christian Churches,” no longer as “strangers and foreigners,” but as “kith and kin in Christ and ‘as fellow-heirs and fellow-members of the body, [and partakers of] the promise of God in Christ’” (cf. Ephesians 3:6), proposing, indeed, as the first step towards its implementation the use of a common calendar for the simultaneous concelebration of feasts by the Orthodox and the heterodox.

6. By way of implementing this ecumenist proclamation, following the uncanonical decisions of the anti-Orthodox Congress of Constantinople in 1923, what was essentially the so-called Gregorian Calendar was adopted, as a soi-disant “Corrected (Revised) Julian Calendar,” even though, as soon as it originally appeared in the West (in 1582), the former was censured and condemned as a calamitous Papal innovation by three Pan-Orthodox Synods in the East (in 1583, 1587, and 1593).

3

7. The calendar innovation, introduced in 1924 into the Church of Greece, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Church of Romania, and later, gradually, into the other local Churches, conflicts with the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church, both in the manner of its implementation (unilaterally and uncanonically) and in terms of its purpose (ecumenistic and syncretistic), thereby rending with a mortal blow the external manifestation and expression of the One Body of the Church throughout the world, which is also reified by way of a uniform Festal Calendar.

8. The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, by means of Her supreme Synodal authority, expressed Her abiding and unchangeable will that Her unity be likewise manifested through the common celebration by all Christians of the greatest of the Feasts, namely, the Holy Pascha [improperly called “Easter” in the West—trans.], decisively setting forth at the First Œcumenical Synod in 325 the eternal rule for determining Pascha, the Paschal Canon (the Paschalion).

9. This Synodal act, in essence profoundly ecclesiological and dogmatic, presupposed as the basis of what is called the determination of Holy Pascha the vernal equinox, which, as a date firmly fixed by the Church, would thenceforth be set by convention as the 21st of March by the Julian Calendar then in use, which was thereby consecrated as the Church Calendar and as the axis of the annual cycle of the Orthodox Festal Calendar. On this foundation, the harmonization of the calendars of the local Orthodox Churches, which were on different calendar systems, was gradually accomplished by the sixth century.

10. The Holy Fathers of the First Œcumenical Synod in Nicæa gave expression by Divine inspiration, but also prophetically, to the anti-syncretistic spirit of the Church: by “not keeping feast with the Jews” and, by extension, not aspiring to concelebrate with heretics, the external and visible unity of the one Body of the Church was preserved and the boundaries between Truth and heresy established, wholly in contrast, let it be said, to the reprehensible calendar reform of 1924, which aimed at concelebration with the heterodox of pan-heretical Papism and Protestantism, for the purpose of making visible the putative invisible unity that existed between them and Orthodoxy.

11. The Orthodox ecumenists, and especially the more extreme among them, having suffered the pernicious effects of corrosive syncretism, think that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ has, supposedly, lost Her Catholicity, by reason of theological and cultural conflicts and divisions; they propose and aim at its reconstitution by way of a union by compromise of the divided parties, Orthodox and heretics, which would supposedly restore Eucharistic communion, without, of course, a common confession of Faith, evidently in line with the model of the Unia. Other, more moderate ecumenists are content to number the heterodox among the Orthodox, speaking “on behalf of the whole Body of the Church,” the heterodox supposedly being within the boundaries of the Church, since these ecumenists, as advocates of the “broad Church” or the “Church in a broad (wider) sense,” do not deem the charismatic and canonical boundaries of the Church equivalent, inasmuch as they find and acknowledge the existence of Divine Grace and salvation even outside the confines of the Truth.

12. The participation of the Orthodox ecumenists in the so-called World Council of Churches (1948 and on), and also in other ecumenist organizations, constitutes a denial in practice of the Orthodox Church as the fullness of Truth and salvation in Christ, insofar as a basic precondition for organizational participation in such inter-Confessional bodies is, in

4

essence, the denial, albeit tacit, of the existence of authentic ecclesiastical Catholicity today, as well as a recognition of the necessity of reconstituting a putatively genuine Catholicity, that is, of the necessity, supposedly, of re-founding the Church.

13. At the core of these un-Orthodox and totally newfangled conceptions are so-called “Baptismal theology,” dogmatic syncretism, the abolition of the “boundaries” of the Church, the recognition of “ecumenical brotherhood,” the theory of “Sister Churches,” the so-called “theology of the two-lungs of the Church,” the theory of the “one broad Church,” in addition to sundry other misbeliefs that have gradually led the Orthodox ecumenists even to a synodal recognition of heterodox communities and their mysteries; to joint prayer with them and, indeed, at the very highest levels, to offering them the Mysteries; to the signing of joint statements and declarations towards a common witness with them; and, as well, to an acknowledgement of the need for common service to the world, as allegedly jointly­­ responsible (Orthodoxy and heresy) for its salvation.

14. By means of all of these things, there has been a complete distortion of the meaning of evangelical love, exercised in the Truth and through the Truth; a profound and ever-deepening syncretistic hobnobbing has taken root; there has come forth a mixture of things unmixable; there has emerged a truly substantial union between ecumenists of every stripe, not, of course, in the unique Truth of the Orthodox Catholic Church, but on the basis of a nebulous humanistic vision, without any missionary dimension or any calling of those in error to a return in repentance to the House of the Father, that is, to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

III. Sergianism: An Adulteration of Canonicity

1. Another phenomenon and movement akin to ecumenism, likewise possessing an ecclesiological dimension, is so-called Sergianism, which, in the unprecedented circumstances of the persecution of the Church in the former Soviet Union, through the agency of the fallen and compromised Sergius Stragorodsky (†1944), originally Metropolitan, and later Patriarch, of Moscow, surrendered to the atheistic Bolsheviks and their struggle against God an outwardly proper Church organization, so that, in the hands of the revolutionaries, it could become an unwitting tool in their unrelenting warfare against the very Church Herself, as the Bearer of the fullness of Truth in Christ.

2. Sergianism is not simply a Soviet phenomenon, for it caused severe damage to the local Orthodox Churches in the countries of Eastern Europe, where, after the Second World War, atheistic and anti-Christian Communist régimes were established.

3. The quintessence of Sergianism is the adoption of the delusion that deception could be used as a means to preserve the Тruth and, likewise, that collaboration with the enemies and persecutors of the Church was the way to ensure Her survival; in practice, however, the exact opposite occurred: the Sergianist Bishops became tools of the atheistic Communists for the purpose of exercising control over the Church, to the end of Her moral and spiritual enfeeblement and with a view to Her ultimate dismantlement and annihilation.

4. At the level of ecclesiology, Sergianism completely distorted the concept of Orthodox ecclesiological canonicity, since in the Sergianist context, canonicity was essentially torn away from the spirit and the Truth of the canonical tradition of the Church, assuming thereby a formal

5

adherence to legitimacy, which could be used to justify any act of lawlessness committed by the ruling Hierarchy; in fact, ultimately, such a veneer of canonicity degenerated into an administrative technique for the subordination of the people of the Church to the Sergianist Hierarchy, regardless of the direction in which it led the faithful.

5. After the collapse of the anti-Christian régimes around the end of the preceding twentieth century, the very grave ecclesiological deviation of Sergianism, under the new conditions of political freedom, was preserved as a legacy of the past and, at the same time, changed its form.

6. Anti-Ecclesiastical Sergianism, having long ago incorporated within itself a worldly spirit, unscrupulousness, deception, and a pathological servility before the powerful of this world, continues to betray the Church, now no longer for fear of reprisals from atheistic rulers, but for the sake of self-serving and secularist motives and under the cloak of supposed canonicity, still peddling the freedom of the Church in exchange for gaining the friendship of the powerful of this world, with all of the concomitant material benefits, to be sure, and prestigious social status.

7. Today, the virus of Sergianism, in this modified form, as neo-Sergianism or post-Sergianism, and also in other forms of state control over the Churches, affects a large part of the Episcopate of the official local Orthodox Churches around the world, thereby contributing to the promotion of an equally secularist and syncretistic ecumenism, under the cover of a false canonicity.

** *

8. The faithful, both clergy and laity, who possess a healthy dogmatic and canonical conscience ought to maintain an authentic Patristic stand in the face of phenomena and movements that have ecclesiological significance, such as ecumenism and Sergianism, and especially when these phenomena become systematically entrenched and widely disseminated, even if they do not achieve a clear doctrinal expression, yet penetrate and spread into the Body of the Church in an insidious and corrosive manner; that is, when they are actively adopted or passively allowed by all of the Bishops of one or more local Churches.

9. In such cases, the essence of the struggle against these anti-Evangelical, anti-Orthodox, and degenerative phenomena is not an optional stand, but there is, rather, an obligation to terminate forthwith ecclesiastical communion with a Bishop or a Hierarchy that introduces heresy into the Church in a conciliar manner, either by preaching it or by contributing to its dissemination through silence, passivity, or indifference (Canon XV of the First-Second Synod).

10. Walling off from fallen Shepherds, who are henceforth characterized as “false bishops” and “false teachers,” is a binding obligation for true Orthodox in a time of heresy, for the safeguarding of the uniqueness, unity, and Catholicity of the Church, for a confessional witness to the Faith, and also for a saving call to repentance, missionary in nature, directed towards those who have deviated and those who commune with them.

IV. So-Called Official Orthodoxy

1. The meaning of the term “official Orthodoxy” is closely connected with the meaning of the concepts of “official Church” and “official local Churches.”

2. “Official Orthodoxy” is that peculiar ideology of the so-called official local Churches, 6

representative of an ever more lukewarm Orthodoxy, which, through the implementation of the ecclesiological and canonical innovations envisaged by the aforementioned Patriarchal Proclamation of 1920, has been led into a gradual estrangement from authentic Orthodoxy

3. In 1924, the first major step towards the implementation of this premeditated alienation from authentic Orthodoxy was accomplished through the introduction of the Papal calendar into some of the local Churches, which in time was expanded to the point of acceptance, in certain cases, even of the Papal Paschalion, in open violation of the Decree of the First Œcumenical Synod.

4. “Official Church” is the name given by the faithful of the Russian Catacomb Church to the State Church, that is, the Church recognized by, and totally dependent on, the atheistic Soviet régime, which evolved into the notoriously Sergianist and ecumenist Moscow Patriarchate.

5. Today, the terms “official Church” and “official local Churches” denote the well-known historically formed local Churches, whose Hierarchical leadership officially accepts and parti- cipates synodally in ecumenism, promotes, permits, or tolerates it as a theological concept and as a religious enterprise, hides under the cloak of supposed canonicity, as understood by Sergianism, and adopts—directly or indirectly—many other forms of apostasy from Orthodoxy (see such corrosive phenomena as the adulteration of the Mysteries, and especially of the rite of Baptism, liturgical reforms under the guise of “liturgical renewal,” the newly minted “post- Patristic theology,” which at an official level is effecting a profound infiltration of syncretistic ecumenism into university theological schools in particular, the loss of ecclesiastical criteria for the Glorification of Saints, various forms of secularization and alteration of the authentic ethos of the Church, etc.).

6. All of these so-called official Churches have now joined decisively, unwaveringly, and unrepentantly in the process of syncretistic apostasy of a Sergianist and ecumenist kind, an anti-ecclesiastical and uncanonical process synodally promoted or permitted by their Hierarchies, with which true Orthodoxy, consistent with its ecclesiological principles regarding “false bishops” and “false teachers,” cannot have any prayerful, Mysteriological, or administrative communion whatsoever.

V. The True Orthodox Church

1. The True Orthodox Church includes within Her bosom that major faction of the pious clergy and laity of the local official Churches who have reacted resolutely to the proclamation of the “ecclesiocidal” heresy of ecumenism and to its immediate practical applications, as well as to anti-ecclesiastical Sergianism, severing all communion with the innovating ecumenists and the Sergianists.

2. The faithful upholders in Russia of the legacy of the most holy Patriarch Tikhon (†1925) did not accept the established Church or Sergianism (1927 and on), preferring to undergo persecutions and to take refuge in the catacombs, thereby showing forth Martyrs and Confessors of the Faith, while another faction, which departed from Russia and formed an ecclesiastical administration in the diaspora, produced equally resplendent Confessors and Saintly figures, of worldwide reputation and distinction.

3. In Greece, Romania, Cyprus, Bulgaria, and elsewhere, close-knit groups of people rejected 7

the calendar innovation of 1924 and the heresy of ecumenism, likewise preferring persecutions and producing Martyrs and Confessors of the Faith, thereby showing themselves faithful to the sacred Traditions of the Holy Fathers of the Church. In addition, through impressive and wondrous miracles, such as the appearance of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross in Athens (September 14, 1925 [Old Style]), our Lord encouraged and rewarded the Godly zeal of these, His genuine children.

4. After the introduction of the calendar innovation in Greece in 1924, those who abided by the Traditions of the Fathers began using the title “True Orthodox Christians,” and the Catacomb Orthodox Christians in Russia, the so-called Tikhonites, did the same.

5. However, from place to place and from time to time various other appellations were used for those who rejected the calendar innovation of 1924 and the heresy of ecumenism, but who have also always situated themselves within the boundaries of the authentic mind and Evangelical ethos of the Church and, in addition, of lawful and canonical order, possessing genuine and uninterrupted Apostolic Succession, and who assuredly in their totality make up the True Orthodox Church, which constitutes, in the wake of the constantly increasing departure of the ecumenists from the path of Truth, the authentic continuator of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in our contemporary era.

6. The Episcopal structure that is dogmatically necessary for the constitution and continuation of the local True Orthodox Churches was ensured, by the Grace of God, either by Hierarchs from among the innovators (New Calendarists) joining them, or by the Consecration of Bishops by a True Orthodox ecclesiastical authority in the diaspora, having indisputable Apostolic Succession, and thus the Apostolic Succession and canonicity of the True Orthodox Church is proven and assured, unquestionable and incontrovertible, and confirmed by signs from God.

VI. The Return to True Orthodoxy

1. In the acceptance of repentant heretics and schismatics, the Œcumenical and local Synods of the Church have, from time to time, in addition to the principle of exactitude, applied the so- called principle of œconomy, to wit, a canonical and pastoral practice, according to which it is possible for there to be a temporary divergence from the letter of the Sacred Canons, without violating their spirit.

2. Nevertheless, œconomy assuredly can never and in no circumstance whatever permit the pardoning of any sin or any compromise concerning the “correct and saving confession of the Faith,” since œconomy aims clearly and solely, in a spirit of loving kindness, at facilitating the salvation of souls, for whom Christ died.

3. The application of œconomy in the reception of heretics and schismatics into communion with the Church in no way betokens that the Church acknowledges the validity and the reality of their mysteries, which are celebrated outside Her canonical and charismatic boundaries.

4. The Holy Orthodox Church has never recognized, either by exactitude or by œconomy, mysteries performed completely outside Her and in apostasy, since those who celebrate or who partake of these mysteries remain within the bosom of their heretical or schismatic community.

5. Through the application of œconomy in the reception of persons or groups outside Her in repentance, the Orthodox Church accepts merely the form of the mystery of heretics or

8

schismatics—provided, of course, that this has been preserved unadulterated—but endows this form with life through the Grace of the Holy Spirit that exists in Her by means of the bearers of this fullness, namely, Orthodox Bishops.

6. More specifically, with regard to the Mysteries celebrated in the so-called official Orthodox Churches, the True Orthodox Church, within the boundaries of Her pastoral solicitude, does not provide assurance concerning their validity or concerning their salvific efficacy, having in view the convocation of a Major Synod of True Orthodoxy, in particular for those who commune “knowingly” with syncretistic ecumenism and Sergianism, even though She does not in any instance repeat them for those entering into communion with Her in repentance.

7. It is in any event certain that when the purity of the dogma of the Church is assailed and the irrefragable bond between confession, Catholicity, and communion is thereby weakened or even completely broken, the Mysteriological and soteriological consequences, clearly foreseen by the Apostolic, Patristic, and Synodal Tradition, are very serious and very grave.

8. Taking into account that St. Basil the Great, although he declares himself in favor of exactitude, nonetheless accepts and introduces the use of œconomy with regard to certain heretics and schismatics (First Canon), it is important to note that the Holy Orthodox Church has synodally sanctioned the use of œconomy for “those who are joining Orthodoxy and the portion of the saved,” as is evident in Canon XCV of the Holy and Œcumenical Quinisext Synod (the Synod in Trullo), whereby different heretics and schismatics are accepted in a variety of ways, whether solely through repentance, a certificate of faith (λίβελλος), and Confession, as are the Nestorians and Monophysites who were condemned centuries ago, through Chrismation, or through Baptism.

9. In awareness of all the foregoing, and of the particular conditions in each local Church, the True Orthodox Church deals with especial care with any clergy or laity from the so-called official Orthodox Churches who desire to enter into communion with Her, being concerned—in the exercise of pastoral solicitude for them—about what is absolutely essential, namely, that they proceed in their choice freely, conscientiously, and responsibly.

10. As a general rule, monastics and laity from these Churches, who have definitely been baptized according to the Orthodox rite, are received into communion through anointing (Xρῖσμα) by means of a special order, in conjunction, to be sure, with the Mystery of sacred Confession, while clergy submit a written petition and, as long as this is approved, are received into communion through a special brief Order of the Imposition of Hands (Xειροθεσία), specifically compiled for such cases.

11. It is understood that, on the basis of idiosyncrasies in different places and in different cases concerning the application of a more lenient or a stricter order, a decision is to be made by the local Bishop or by a competent Synod, according to St. Cyprian of Carthage:

• “In this matter we do not coerce or impose a law on anyone, since every Prelate has freedom of will in the administration of the Church and will have to account for his actions before the Lord” (“Letter to Pope Stephen,” in Concilia ad regiam exacta, Vol. I [Lutetiæ Parisiorum: Impensis Societatis Typographicæ Librorum Ecclesiasticorum iussu Regis constitutæ, 1671], col. 741).

12. A Major General Synod, of Pan-Orthodox authority, would be able to decree the general criteria and the preconditions for the exercise of the practice of receiving those who return to True Orthodoxy from various newfangled schismatic and heretical communities.

9

VII. Towards the Convocation of a Major Synod of the True Orthodox Church

1. In the preceding twentieth century, True Orthodox Hierarchs, whenever this could be brought to fruition, issued Synodal condemnations, at a local level, both of ecumenism and of Sergianism, and also of Freemasonry.

2. By way of example, we cite the condemnations of ecumenism by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in 1983, and also by the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece in 1998; as well, the condemnation of Sergianism by the Catacomb Church in Russia, and also by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad at different times; and finally, the condemnation of Freemasonry by the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece in 1988.

3. These Synodal censures, especially of the heresy of ecumenism, are assuredly important steps in the right direction towards the convocation of a General Synod of True Orthodox, which, with expanded authority, will arrive at decisions concerning the calendar innovation and syncretistic ecumenism, which contradicts the Gospel.

4. What is necessary today, on the basis of a common and correct confession of the Faith, is the union in a common Body of all the local Churches of the True Orthodox, for the purpose of creating the antecedent conditions for assembling and convoking a Major General Synod of these Churches, Pan-Orthodox in scope and authority, in order to deal effectively with the heresy of ecumenism, as well as syncretism in its divers forms, and also for the resolution of various problems and issues of a practical and pastoral nature, which flow therefrom and which concern the life of the Church in general, and of the faithful in particular.

5. The True Church, as the actual Body of Christ, is by Her very nature Catholic and through Her Bishops puts forth Synodal declarations in the face of heterodox teachings and the global scandal that derives therefrom; thus, She ought to pursue, on the one hand, the articulation of the Truths of the Faith, for the delineation of the Truth in contrast to falsehood, and on the other hand, the condemnation of the error and corruption that stem from heresy and heretics.

6. Thus, in a Major General Synod there will be proclaimed, on the one hand, the Sole Hope among us in all creation, as the only way out of all impasses, for the eternal salvation of the children of God, and, on the other hand, the complete and definitive antithesis between Orthodoxy and syncretism of an ecumenist and a Sergianist bent, unto the glory of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, by the intercessions of the Mother of God, the Apostles, and the Fathers.

7. May we counted worthy, in the near future, following the Holy Fathers and the Holy Synods, preserving free from innovation the Faith once for all delivered to us (cf. St. Jude 1:3), to proclaim, with the Fathers of the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1848:

“‘Let us hold fast the Confession’ which we have received unadulterated…, abhorring every novelty as a suggestion of the Devil. He who accepts a novelty reproaches with deficiency the Orthodox Faith that has been preached. But this Faith has long since been sealed in completeness, not admitting either diminution or increase, or any alteration whatsoever; and he who dares to do, advise, or think of such a thing has already denied the faith of Christ.”

10

ВСЕПРАВОСЛАВНЫЙ СОБОР: ПОДПИСАН ВАЖНЕЙШИЙ ДОКУМЕНТ

Crete 23/06/2016

http://newsonline24.com.ua/

Предстоятели десяти православных церквей на Всеправославном Соборе подписали документ, который регулирует провозглашение церковной автономии.

Об этом пресс-конференции по итогам Собора сообщил представитель Константинопольского патриархата при Всемирном совете церквей Иов Геча.

“Мы имеем хорошие новости. Сегодня утром мы начали процесс сбора подписей под двумя документами. Первый документ касается автономии и способов ее провозглашения. Этот документ был принят с небольшими поправками. И второй документ о диаспоре, который касается Правил епископских собраний в диаспоре. Оба документа были приняты с небольшими поправками. Процесс подписания обоих документов продолжается. Вы должны понимать, что участие в соборе принимают 290 делегатов и документы собора на четырех языках должны подписать все делегаты Собора. Поэтому вы можете представить, сколько времени займет подписание документов. Документы на четырех официальных языках уже подписали предстоятели Церквей и теперь идет процесс подписания собравшимися здесь епископами”, – сказал епископ.

Автономия в данном случае отличается от автокефалии тем, что предстоятель должен быть утвержден главой одной автокефальной (материнской) церкви.

BEFORE THE GREAT COUNCIL

BEFORE THE GREAT COUNCIL – Met. Hierotheos Clachos

JUST BEFORE THE HOLY AND GREAT COUNCIL

Μητροπολίτη-Ναυπάκτου-Λίγο-πρίν-τήν-Ἁγία-καί-Μεγάλη-Σύνοδο

Met. Hierotheos Vlachos

We are approaching the time when the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Churches is to be held in Crete to discuss the six texts which have been prepared in Preconciliar conferences, and to give a message of unity among the Orthodox Churches.

Many texts have been written recently by experts and non-experts, by those who are competent and those who are not, on this great event. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out in another text, in some of them we see that theology is mixed with politics, or rather, various ecclesiastical elements get involved knowingly or unknowingly in the aspirations of politicians, and politicians, too, use various ecclesiastical elements in order to implement their plans through the Church.

Of course, the Council of 1872 in Constantinople condemned racialism and nationalism as a heresy, but unfortunately racialism and nationalism use the Orthodox Church as a vehicle with varying results.

At present most of the discussion is about whether all fourteen Orthodox Churches will participate in the Council and what the impact of the absence of some Churches will be, and not so much about the content of the texts and corrections that ought to be made.

By a decision of the Standing Holy Synod and the Hierarchy the Church of Greece, I will be a member of this Holy and Great Council and I am possessed by a high sense of responsibility to the Orthodox tradition and to history itself. I am seriously concerned about the decisions that this Council will take and first and foremost about what will happen next.

This is said from the point of view that Councils were eventually approved by the theological consciousness of the Church. Just as the organism of the human body keeps the elements it needs from food and discards unnecessary elements, the same thing happens in the divine and human organism of the Church, since the Church over time confirms the truth of something or rejects it.

As a member of the Holy and Great Council, I would like to say something before the start of the proceedings. I will not mention here the reasons that led me to accept this proposal by the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece to take part in the Holy and Great Council, which I shall do later, but I will articulate some of my thoughts.

1. The self-awareness of the Council

With regret I hear and read some of the views expressed that, namely, the Holy and Great Council is the first Council to take place in the second millennium of Christianity. Others claim that it is the first Great Council since the ‘Schism’ which occurred in 1054, whereas the excommunication of the Church of Old Rome took place in 1009 with the introduction of the filioque. Still others say that the Holy and Great Council will convene after an interval of 1200 or 1300 years, that is to say, after 787, when the Seventh Ecumenical Council convened, and others dare to say officially too that it will be the Eighth Ecumenical Council!

The basis of this mindset is that the Orthodox Church has supposedly remained in a state of spiritual hypnosis and spiritual dementia since 787, and that all this time it has been a ‘dead’, ‘sleeping’, ‘museum’ Church.

Such a conception is not only an insult to the holy Fathers of the Church who appeared and taught during the second millennium, but it also undermines the Orthodox Church itself, which is a continuous Synod and is the true and living body of Christ.

Ecumenical Councils mainly dealt with dogmatic definitions and administrative and pastoral rules (Canons), as we see from their Proceedings. On the other hand, when reading the texts that are being elaborated for final approval by the Great and Holy Council, we cannot distinguish the dogmatic definitions from the Canons. Assuming that individual paragraphs of the text are considered to be Canons, thorough discussion is required on whether these ‘Canons’ are in agreement with the canonical tradition of the Church or whether they overturn the basis and heart of Church Canon Law.

The problem, though, is that if this Holy and Great Council is considered, wrongly in my opinion, to be a continuation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, then serious violence is being done to Orthodox truth. Because during this time Great and Ecumenical Councils and other glorious Councils of the Patriarchs of the East – that is to say, of the whole Orthodox Church at that time – were held, which discussed serious issues, and addressed important theological and ecclesiastical issues.

I have read that some people have used the views of the late dogmatic theologian Ioannis Karmiris to support views which are presented in the texts put forward for final approval by the Primates of the Orthodox Church. It would be advisable to study the two volumes of the book The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church to see the pulse and vitality of the Orthodox Catholic Church until the nineteenth century. One finds there that until the nineteenth century there is basically one single language in ecclesiastical texts, and that the differentiation began in the early twentieth century.

I would like to mention some important Councils after the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which are unfortunately ignored.

The Council of 879-80 under Photios the Great is a great Ecumenical Council, which was convened by the Emperor. The representatives of the then Orthodox Pope were present and everyone accepted its decisions. The Council discussed the two types of ecclesiology, Eastern and Western, and the Eastern ecclesiology prevailed. It also pronounced on the primacy of the Pope and the heresy of the filioque.

There were Councils between 1341 and 1368, particularly the Council of 1351, which was convened by the Emperor in the presence of St Gregory Palamas and ruled that the energy of God is uncreated and that the Light of Christ which shone on Mount Thabor was uncreated. It condemned the heresy of Barlaam and Akindynos that the uncreated essence is identified with uncreated energy, which is known as the actus purus, and that God supposedly communicates with creation and man through created energies. So in reality the Council of 1351 condemned scholastic theology, which to a large extent is valid to this day in ‘Roman-Catholicism’.

The Council of 1484, with the participation of Patriarchs Simeon of Constantinople, Gregory of Alexandria, Dorotheos of Antioch and Joachim of Jerusalem called itself Ecumenical. It annulled the unifying Council of Ferrara-Florence and issued a Service, composed by Patriarch Simeon of Constantinople, for those returning to the Orthodox Church from the ‘the Latin heresies’. Although this Synod established that the Latins should return to the Orthodox Church by means of a written declaration and Chrismation, because at that time the standard ‘form of Baptism’ still prevailed, the Service composed for the return of Latins to the Orthodox Church clearly refers to the heresy of the Latins, the ‘disgraceful and alien doctrines of the Latins’, and states that those returning to the Orthodox Church should “avoid completely the assemblies of the Latins in their churches,” and anathematized the Filioque which they dared to add.

In this Service there is reference to Latins and to alien dogmas, among which are the familiar filioque, i.e the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and the heresy of the actus purus, namely, that uncreated energy is identified with the uncreated essence in God and therefore God communicates with the world through created energies.

The Council of 1590, which called itself an ‘Ecumenical Council’, and its continuation, the Council of 1593 which was characterized as a ‘Holy and Great Council’ are important. Both are Councils of the Patriarchs of the East, and they decided to assent to the elevation of the Church of Moscow to the honor and dignity of a Patriarchate, which had been previously granted by the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1589 by the relevant Patriarchal Chrysobull or Tome.

The Conciliar decision in 1756 by the three Patriarchs, namely, Cyril of Constantinople, Matthew of Alexandria and Parthenios of Jerusalem, refers to the rebaptism of Westerners who enter into the Orthodox Church.

Although this decision did not last for long, because in practice the Church reverted to the decision of the Council of 1484, it has never been repealed by another Conciliar decision.

It is well-known that the topic of ‘Economy in the Orthodox Church’, referring to the reception of heretics and schismatics, was on the agenda of the Holy and Great Council, as is clear from the Preparatory Committee meeting in 1971 in Geneva. But ultimately it was removed from the agenda of the Council and the Holy and Great Council has not been given the possibility of ruling officially on this issue. So the question is: why was this issue not included in the agenda of the Holy and Great Council, in order that there might be a discussion with theological arguments on the validity and existence, or the invalidity and non-existence of the Baptism of heretics, which will now be dealt with in an indirect manner?

The Conciliar decision of the Patriarchs of the East in 1848, signed by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem with their Synods, calls ‘Papism’ a heresy, compares it with Arianism and counts the basic Latin non-Orthodox teachings, such as the filioque, the primacy and the infallibility of the Pope, as other false beliefs related to baptism and the sacraments.

The Council of 1872 in Constantinople condemned racialism and nationalism in ecclesiastical life “that is, racial discriminations and nationalistic conflicts, jealousies and dissensions in Christ’s Church.” Racialism and nationalism are “foreign” to the tradition of the Orthodox Church, a “modernist virus”. It is significant that in the epilogue of the Conciliar declaration there is a prayer to our Lord Jesus Christ to keep the Church “immaculate and untouched by any modernist virus, firmly established on the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets.”

I have mentioned a few of the ‘Ecumenical’, ‘Holy and Great’ Councils – there are others too -that were convened after the Seventh Ecumenical Council and until the nineteenth century, and have been accepted by the consciousness of the Church. Indeed, the decisions of the Great Council of 1351 in the time of St Gregory Palamas have been included in the ‘Synodikon of Orthodoxy’, which is read on the First Sunday of Lent, and have been introduced into hymns used in worship. This represents the strongest proof that the Council of 1351 has been accepted by the consciousness and judgment of the Church itself as Ecumenical.

One should also mention here the very important three answers by the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II (1576, 1578, 1581) to the Lutheran theologians of the University of Tubingen. These are remarkable answers sent by Patriarch Jeremiah in cooperation with Orthodox clergy and laity, among them Damascene the Studite, Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Arta, who is counted among the saints.

In these important letters of reply, on the one hand, the Orthodox faith is presented, and, on the other hand, the beliefs of the Protestants are called into question. In these replies the Orthodox faith is expressed on the basis of the Fathers and teachers of the Church, not resorting in them to the teachings of scholastic theology. Answering many questions and moreover specifying differences from Lutheran theology, in relation to Holy Tradition, Christology, the filioque, the man’s free will, predestination, justification, the number of sacraments and how they are performed, the infallibility of the Church and the Ecumenical Councils, worship, invocation of the saints, holy icons and relics, fasting, and various ecclesiastical traditions.

These letters of reply are considered important texts. They are mentioned in the Proceedings of the local Council that took place in 1672 in Jerusalem under Dositheos, and they are ranked among the symbolic books of the Orthodox Catholic Church.

After all these I wonder how it is possible for all these important Councils to be put aside for the sake of the Holy and Great Council which is to be held in Crete? How can some claim that the upcoming Council is the first Council of the second millennium? How is it possible and permissible to “trample underfoot” the entire Orthodox Ecclesiastical Tradition of 1200 years? Who directed journalists to speak of the Council of the millennium? How do some journalists who are not even particularly involved in Church reporting know this?

This question is very important. That is why I consider it necessary, at least in the Message that will be decided upon and published by the Holy and Great Council, that these and other Councils should be mentioned, to show the continuous action of the Holy Spirit in the Church. We cannot play with ecclesiastical and doctrinal issues and the whole ecclesiastical tradition.

Therefore, to say that the upcoming Holy and Great Council will be a Council convening after 1200 years is misleading. In fact it bypasses all these Great Councils, and ultimately ends in a “betrayal” of the Orthodox faith. Perhaps the aim is to create a new ecclesiology.

If there is no such aim, the Message of the Holy and Great Council ought definitely to contain a reference to these Holy and Great Councils of the second millennium. Otherwise this suspicion will be confirmed.

2. Western Christianity

It is known to those who follow Church matters and read Church history that in 1009 Pope Sergius IV officially used the Creed with the addition that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (filioque). For that reason Patriarch Sergius II deleted the Pope from the diptychs of the Eastern Orthodox Church, so there has been excommunication since then. Thus a large part of Christianity was cut off from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Then, in the early sixteenth century, from this Western Christianity that was cut off from the Orthodox Church, other Christian groups broke away and cut themselves off. They were termed Reformers or Protestants, and many other names. Thus, the arbitrary actions of the Pope resulted in the secession of Western Christianity from the Church, but also to a further division among Western Christians themselves.

What is called Western Christianity is a sick, heretical system, having seceded from the Orthodox tradition of the first millennium. Of course, when we speak of Western Christianity, we do not mean the ordinary Christians who believe in Christ, pray and study the Bible. We mean the doctrinal teaching of Christian communities and Confessions. Similarly, when we speak of the Orthodox Church, we do not mean all Orthodox Christians, who, although baptized, may be atheists or indifferent, but the teaching as recorded in the decisions of Local and Ecumenical Councils.

Thus the doctrinal and confessional system of Western Christianity is largely sick and has even distorted Western society. The Latins (‘Roman Catholics’) have been changed for the worse by scholasticism, and the Protestants have been changed for the worse by some scholastic views that they inherited and the puritanism that was introduced, as well as by the study of Holy Scripture without the necessary interpretations of the Fathers, so they fall into various errors.

Scholasticism, which was developed in the West by the theologians of the Franks, mainly between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, blended the Christian faith with philosophy – what is known as the analogia entis. Some scholastic theologians used the theories of Plato and the Neoplatonists, others the theories of Aristotle, and others mixed both together. The main point is that they developed the view that scholastic theology is superior to Patristic theology and has surpassed it.

Protestant puritanism refuted the arbitrary views of scholasticism and reached the other extreme, while retaining some scholastic views, such as absolute predestination, the theory of propitiation of divine justice by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and the study of the Bible using the analogia fidei.

In any case, both these Western traditions were influenced by the feudal system brought by the Franks into Europe. They regarded God as a “feudal lord” who is insulted by man’s sin, so He punishes man, who needs to propitiate God in order to return!

I do not want to analyze this further, but I would like to highlight the fact that all subsequent ideological currents that developed in the West, such as humanism, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, romanticism, German idealism, existentialism, psychologism, etc., were a reaction for different reasons to Western scholasticism, which was basaed on the omnipotence of reason and on moralism.

In Western theology we observe many theological distortions, which are related to the currents mentioned above. Let me recall some of them. God is characterized by selfish eudemonism; He directs the world through created means; He is the cause of death; He is insulted by man’s sin; Sin is considered as a reversal of the order that exists in creation; God predestined who will be saved and who will be condemned; Christ, through the sacrifice on the Cross, satisfied divine justice; The Pope is the representative of God on earth. The Pope has priesthood, which transmits to the other bishops, and he is infallible; Penitents are required to satisfy God’s justice; The teaching on paradise and hell is materialistic, and so on.

In theology these views are called distortions and heresies, which, however, have also affected the social sphere. All theological deviations have social consequences as well. This explains the Vatican State, as well as the identification of Christian and secular authority in some Protestants. The regime imposed by Calvin in Geneva is a typical case of this mentality.

What has been mentioned here is not fundamentalism, conservatism or fanaticism. One should read how sociologists interpret Western man following the influence exerted by scholasticism and puritanism.

I can recommend the study of the views of the famous sociologist Max Weber as recorded in his book: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. There one will find how Max Weber describes precisely and vividly the anxiety of the Western Christian to learn whether he is predestined by God to be saved. This is the inexorable dilemma of whether someone is “elect or condemned”. For, if he is not predestined, then he doesn’t need to struggle in his life to be a good Christian. And eventually he will learn how Western Christianity developed the spirit of capitalism, with absolute predestination, pious individualism, Protestant asceticism, utilitarianism of professions, and so on.

Orthodox teaching never succumbed to such distortions. It preserved the teaching of the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Fathers, not only of the first millennium, but of the second millennium as well, such as St Simeon the New Theologian, St Gregory Palamas, St Mark of Ephesus and all the philokalic neptic Fathers of the Church. Our more recent saints, like St Paisios Velichkovsky, who brought a renaissance in Romania and Russia, St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, St Kosmas Aitolos, St Porphyrios of Kavsokalyvia, St Paisios the Athonite and many others matured within this theology.

Therefore, to try to bring these Fathers into the framework of Church life, who are teachers of the Church, for those of us who find ourselves in such “confessional” richness, and the variety of western Christianity with such theological and social issues is a major problem. Disregarding the theology of the Church expressed through these saints, in order to find some points in common with Western Christianity is a betrayal of the faith. I cannot find another milder characterization.

Moreover, with this sort of ossified Christianity, cut off from the Holy Fathers of the second millennium, we don’t help the Western Christians themselves, who are disappointed with the Western Christian tradition in which they grew up and are looking for the hesychastic tradition. Those Western Christians who become Orthodox are inspired by the Philokaliaof the Neptic Fathers, the writings of St Silouan the Athonite and the teaching of the Fathers of Mount Athos. We cannot disappoint them all with insipid, tasteless and anemic texts.

3. Church – Orthodoxy – Eucharist

The Orthodox faith is not abstract and does not remain in the libraries of churches and monasteries. It is the life of the Church, which is experienced in the sacraments, chanted in the holy services, partaken of in the Divine Eucharist, revealed in prayer and ascetic struggle. This ‘theology of events’ is recorded in the confessional documents and decisions of Local and Ecumenical Councils.

There is no divergence between the sacraments and confession, prayer and daily life, the Divine Liturgy and Synodical conferences. The lex credendi is very closely linked with the lex orandi. If there is a split between the two, between doctrine and worship, this constitutes a deviation from the truth. This means that every Conciliar decision which contrasts with the theology of the prayers of the Sacraments and of the hymns is an anti-Orthodox decision.

In an important study entitled Church, Orthodoxy and Eucharist in Saint Irenaeus (see Atanasije Jevtic, Christ: The Alpha and the Omega, Editions Goulandris-Horn Foundation, Athens 1983, p. 109), the former Bishop of Herzegovina and Zahumlje, Atanasije Jevtic, records the link that exists between the Church, Orthodoxy, and the Eucharist as analyzed by St Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons.

Let me recall that St Irenaeus is an Apostolic Father who lived in Lyons during a critical period (140-202) when the Apostles had gone and the heretic Gnostics had appeared, arguing that they had received an “occult knowledge and “hidden mysteries”. Thus, St Irenaeus taught the close relationship that exists between Church, Orthodoxy, and the Divine Eucharist.

According to St Irenaeus, the Church preserves the faith of the Apostles. “The apostolic tradition is guarded in the Churches by their successors, the presbyters.” St Irenaeus does not use the term “Church” or “Churches” for Gnostics, but only the word “synagogue” and “place of teaching”. He also urges the presbyters to obey the successors of the Apostles, who have “the secure gift of truth” and he characterizes those who deviate from them “as heretics and people with corrupt judgment, or as those who rip (the Church) apart and are proud and insolent.”

Then, the Church is closely associated with Orthodoxy, the true faith. St Irenaeus writes: “The truth is preached in the Church” and “the apostolic tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth.”

Also, the Church and Orthodoxy are linked to the Divine Eucharist. St Irenaeus writes: “Our opinion agrees with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn validates our opinion.” The Eucharistic prayers confess the mystery of the divine Economy, that is to say, of the incarnation of the Son and Word of God, and the mystery of the salvation of man.

Interpreting all these points, Bishop Atanasije Jevtic observes:

“According to the testimony of Irenaeus, in the awareness of the Church of his time there could not be any separation or independence between the Church, the Eucharist and Orthodoxy, because neither does the Church exist without Orthodoxy and the Eucharist, nor Orthodoxy without the Church and the Eucharist, nor again the Eucharist outside the Church and her true faith,” that is, existing outside of the truth faith they automatically and simultaneously find themselves “outside the Church” so, vice versa, those outside the Church are situated outside Orthodoxy (outside the truth) and outside the true Eucharist pleasing to God (communion in Christ’s Body) as long as the faith is the expression of true tradition and life of the Church and of its true eucharistic practice and assembly.”

This truth has some remarkable consequences. Some of them will be noted here.

a)   “The persistence of the Orthodox Catholic Church in the true faith and true practice and the true assembly of the Apostles and their true disciples, and as a consequence of this, the non-recognition of communion with any other “church” outside the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church is the best proof of the survival until the present of that same awareness of the Church as Irenaeus, and generally the whole ancient church, possessed.”

b)   “All the Ecumenical and local Councils of the Orthodox Catholic Church had as their ultimate aim the keeping of the apostolic tradition in the faith, life and worship of the Church, and the exclusion from ecclesiastical communion in the Eucharist of those who distort the redeeming “rule of truth”, which the Church received from the Apostles and their genuine disciples, the Fathers. This way the salvation of God’s creatures, human beings, is safeguarded.

For this reason, from the first centuries to this day, the Orthodox constantly underline that there is no salvation outside the Church, that is, outside unity with Christ and the communion of people and local Churches in the true and correct faith, in charismatic practice, in the eucharistic assembly and communion, and in the grace of the Spirit and His gifts. Salvation is union and communion with Christ, and this communion is realized only in the Body of Christ which is the Church, particularly in the eucharistic communion of those in every local Church who have right belief in Christ and are sincerely united around the Bishops as bearers of ‘apostolic succession’ in the Churches.”

c)   This “apostolic succession” of bishops is a succession of this very fullness of ecclesiastical communion of local Churches in the world with Christ, and between those who share in the true faith, in the true and sacred teaching, and in the grace of God’s Spirit and in the Body and Blood of Christ. Apostolic succession, according to Irenaeus, is not a succession of “ordination” alone, but a succession and continuity of the whole Economy of God for mankind, that is to say, of the whole substance and life of the Church, the whole of its fullness and catholicity.

d)   “In our ‘ecumenistic’ but not rightly-believing era, the theological and ecclesiastical testimony of Hieromartyr Irenaeus, Bishop of the ancient Church, in which the awareness of the indivisible unity of the Apostolic, Catholic and Orthodox and Eucharistic character of God’s Churches dispersed throughout the world prevailing always means for us Orthodox the living tradition of the mystery of the Church and its unity, from which we may not depart and which we may not change. We Orthodox do not change our traditional consciousness concerning the Church, because this would mean changing the Church—in other words, breaking up the historical catholicity of the Church of the Godman Christ, and interrupting our unity and communion with the Apostolic and Patristic Church of all the ages”.

Therefore, according to St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, there is no Church without Orthodoxy and the Divine Eucharist, and there is no Orthodoxy without the Church and the Eucharist; and there is no Eucharist without the Church and Orthodoxy. This is the tradition that runs through the Church from the time of the Apostles until today in the Church’s consciousness.

4. The decisions of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece

The Church of Greece is one of the fourteen Orthodox Churches. It received its autocephalous status with the Synodical and Patriarchal Tome of 1850, and several provinces were added to it over time, some by assimilation (1866, 1882) and others put under the ‘guardianship’ of Greece (1928).

As it was my duty, I studied the texts prepared by the delegates of all the Churches and signed by the Primates. While the Permanent Holy Synod and the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece were studying the texts, it was decided to make some changes, namely, corrections and additions with the intention of improving the texts. This was done in a spirit of unity, with unanimity in most cases, and very small minority votes in some cases, and one proposal with an open vote.

A result was reached that satisfied all the Hierarchs, and also those who learned about the decision. In what follows I will present the main elements of the decision.

The key point is that while in various sections of the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world” it was mentioned that the Orthodox Church “recognizes the historical existence of other Christian Churches and Confessions”, this was replaced with the phrase: “is aware of the historical existence of other Christian Confessions and Communities”.

Another important point refers to the unity of the Church. While the text said that the unity of the Church “is unshakable,” subsequent sections mentioned the effort to restore unity among Christians, as if the branch theory applied. Some corrections were made in the text, to the effect that the Orthodox Church believes that “the unity of the Church is unshakable” and participates “in the movement towards the restoration of unity of the other Christians” or “the lost unity of other Christians”, and that it is working for that day to come when “the Lord will fulfil the hope of the Orthodox Church by gathering into it all those who are scattered, that it may become one flock with one shepherd.”

Another important point is the one referring to the prospect “of theological dialogues of the Orthodox Church with other Christian Confessions and Communities”. These dialogues “are always determined on the basis of the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology and the canonical criteria of the already formed ecclesiastical tradition, according to the sacred Canons of Ecumenical and local Councils recognized by the Ecumenical Councils, as are the Canons 46, 47 and 50 of the Holy Apostles; 8 and 19 of the First Ecumenical Council; 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council; 95 of the Quinisext Council; and 7 and 8 of Laodicea.”

A necessary clarification was also added: “It is clarified that, when practicing the reception of non-Orthodox by declaration and holy Chrism by economy, this does not mean that the Orthodox Church recognizes the validity of their Baptism and other sacraments.”

In the paragraph mentioning the condemnation of any disruption of the unity of the Church by individuals or groups, and the maintenance of the genuine Orthodox faith, which is guaranteed by the Conciliar system, the Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canons 14 and 15 of First-Second Ecumenical Council were added.

In another section mentioning the need for inter-Christian theological dialogue, without provocative acts of confessional competition, the Unia was added in parenthesis, which means that the Orthodox Church does not accept this hypocritical way of uniting the Churches, as the Unia professes in practice.

A significant correction was made in the section saying that local Orthodox Churches “are called upon to contribute to inter-faith understanding and collaboration” by adding the words “for peaceful coexistence and social coexistence of people, without this implying any religious syncretism”.

There was a long discussion on the participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches (WCC). The proposal of the Standing Holy Synod was to delete the relevant paragraphs referring to this. Following intense debate, the issue was decided by an open ballot (by a show of hands), with thirteen Hierarchs proposing to delete the paragraphs, sixty-two to retain it, and two expressing different views.
  
Thus, the majority of the Hierarchs was in favor of retaining these paragraphs in the text, and that the Church of Greece should in the work of the WCC in accordance with the necessary pre-conditions. In the debate and vote I argued that we should remain in the WCC as observers, but this was the only proposal.

Nevertheless, in this text the phrase that the Orthodox Churches in the WCC contribute “by all means at their disposal to the testimony of truth and promotion of the unity of Christians” was corrected by the phrase, contribute “by all means at their disposal for the promotion of peaceful coexistence and cooperation on major socio-political challenges and problems.” This means that the reason for our Church’s participation in the WCC is only for social purposes, and not for the testimony of truth and the promotion of Christian unity.

In the text entitled “The mission of the Orthodox Church in today’s world” there was reference to the “human person” and the “communion of persons”. At the same time there were repeated references to “man”. So, for theological reasons and to consolidate the text, the phrase “the value of the human person” was replaced with the phrase “the value of man.”

In the text entitled “Autonomy and the means by which it is proclaimed”, a paragraph was added: “Church Provinces for which a Patriarchal Tome or Act has been issued cannot ask for autonomy, and their ecclesiastical status remains unshakeable”.

In another paragraph of the same text, mentioning the granting of autonomy from the Mother Church to a province, the word “unanimously” was added.

These were the key suggestions by the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece for improving the texts.

I would like to express two points.

First, these additions and changes reflect a traditional ecclesiology, within the possibilities that the Hierarchy of our Church had to make such amendments. These decisions were basically unanimous and no one can argue that the “conservative” Hierarchs defeated the “progressive” Hierarchs!!!

Of course there were also proposals to withdraw completely the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world” for further elaboration, but they were not accepted by the Hierarchy.

Secondly, these decisions are binding for our Church, because they were accepted basically unanimously. This means that our delegation tithe Holy and Great Council has to support their inclusion in the text and has no possibility to retract.

Conclusion

Following the above, I conclude that the Holy and Great Council, with those Churches that will participate, should definitely mention explicitly the Ecumenical and Great Councils in its Message. The unhistorical, non-theological, anti-ecclesiastical “myth” that this Council was convened after 1200 years, or that it is the first Council after the Schism, must stop being spread.

With much respect, I beg and entreat the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, who will attend eventually, in particular His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who labored to bring things this far, to mention explicitly that this Council is a continuation of the Councils of Photios the Great, of St Gregory Palamas, of St Mark of Ephesus, of the Great Patriarchs of the East, their predecessors, some of whom were martyred for the glory of God and the Church. Otherwise there will be an additional reason for this Council to be discredited in the eyes of the Church faithful as an anti-Photian, anti-Palamite, anti-Mark (Mark Evgenikos), anti-Philokalic Council!

I feel that during the sessions of the Holy and Great Council there will be Council members who will be aware of the voice of the Prophets, the Apostles and the Fathers, the blood of the Martyrs of faith, the tears and struggles of the ascetics, the sweat of the missionaries, the prayers of “the poor in Christ”, the expectations of the pious people. Those who are neither aware of this nor understand it will be wretched.

 

Met. Hierotheos Vlachos

Holy Metropolis of Nafpaktos and Saint Vlassios

Orthodox Archdiocese of St. Julius Island and Ravenna

Athens, June, 02, 2016

Η Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία της Ραβέννας υπέγραψε τη κοινωνία με την Ελληνική Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία (Γ.Ο.Χ.) και της Αυτοκέφαλης Εκκλησίας της Κύπρος (Γ.Ο.Χ.).

ΟΙ «ΕΝΙΣΤΑΜΕΝΟΙ» ΕΝΤΑΧΘΗΚΑΝ ΣΤΗΝ ΣΥΝΟΔΟ ΚΑΛΛΙΝΙΚΟΥ

ΟΙ «ΕΝΙΣΤΑΜΕΝΟΙ» ΕΝΤΑΧΘΗΚΑΝ ΣΤΗΝ ΣΥΝΟΔΟ ΚΑΛΛΙΝΙΚΟΥ Ενώθηκαν οι Παλαιοημερολογίτες Ελλάδα Τετάρτη, 19 Μαρτίου, 2014 | 10:03

ΚείμενοΛουδάρος ΑνδρέαςΦωτογραφίεςimpc.gr

Ενενήντα χρόνια μετά τον διαχωρισμό των Ελλήνων Ορθοδόξων σε Νεοημερολογίτες και Παλαιοημερολογίτες και τον κατακερματισμό που ακολούθησε στις τάξεις των Παλαιοημερολογιτών, δυο από τις κύριες τάσεις στον συγκεκριμένο χώρο, ενώθηκαν.

Από χθες, τα μέλη της εκκλησιαστικής κοινότητας των «Ενισταμένων» η οποία είχε ιδρυθεί από τον μακαριστό μητροπολίτη Φυλής και Ωρωπού Κυπριανό επέστρεψαν στις τάξεις της «Εκκλησίας Γ.Ο.Χ. Ελλάδος» υπό τον Αρχιεπίσκοπο κ. Καλλίνικο, απ’ όπου προέρχονταν, κλείνοντας έτσι μια από τις σοβαρότερες «πληγές» στον χώρο των Παλαιοημερολογιτών.

Σύμφωνα με εκτιμήσεις των ίδιων των Παλαιοημερολογιτών, παρά το γεγονός πως υπάρχουν αρκετές παρατάξεις οι οποίες αυτοπροσδιορίζονται ως «Σύνοδοι», το 90% και πλέον των πιστών, ο Κλήρος καθώς και οι ναοί και τα μοναστήρια, ανήκουν στην Ιερά Σύνοδο της Εκκλησίας Γ.Ο.Χ. Ελλάδος επικεφαλής της οποίας είναι ο Αρχιεπίσκοπος κ. Καλλίνικος που το 2010 διαδέχθηκε τον μακαριστό Αρχιεπίσκοπο Χρυσόστομο Κιούση.

Η ένωση των δυο πλευρών θα επισφραγιστεί την ερχόμενη Κυριακή της Σταυροπροσκυνήσεως με συνοδικό συλλείτουργο στην Ιερά Μονή Αγίου Νικολάου Παιανίας. Πρόκειται για μια κίνηση ιστορικού συμβολισμού για τους Παλαιοημερολογίτες αφού εκεί είχαν τελεσθεί οι χειροτονίες του 1962 (Γεροντίου Α΄, Αυξεντίου, Ακακίου κ.α.).

ΤΟ ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΘΕΝ

Σήμερα 5/18 Μαρτίου 2014 στον Ιερό Ναό της Υπεραγίας Θεοτόκου «Ρόδον το Αμάραντον» Πειραιώς, συνήλθε η Αγία και Ιερά Σύνοδος της Εκκλησίας των Γνησίων Ορθοδόξων Χριστιανών της Ελλάδος υπό την Προεδρία του Μακαριωτάτου Αρχιεπισκόπου Αθηνών και πάσης Ελλάδος κ.κ. Καλλινίκου με θέμα την ένωση και ενσωμάτωση της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησιαστικής Κοινότητος των Ενισταμένων στην Εκκλησία των Γνησίων Ορθοδόξων Χριστιανών της Ελλάδος.

Έπειτα από την διαπίστωση της εκκλησιολογικής συμφωνίας και την άρση των ιεροκανονικών εμποδίων, οι Επίσκοποι της Ορθοδόξου Κοινότητος των Ενισταμένων αποτελούν πλέον πλήρη και κανονικά Μέλη της Ιεράς Συνόδου της Εκκλησίας Γ.Ο.Χ. Ελλάδος.

Εν συνεχεία, η Ιερά Σύνοδος με την νέα διευρυμένη σύνθεση Αυτής αντιμετώπισε επιτυχώς τα ποικίλα οργανωτικά και διαδικαστικά θέματα, αφορώντα το πρακτικό μέρος της Ενώσεως.

Τέλος, η Ιερά Σύνοδος όρισε την ερχομένη Κυριακή της Σταυροπροσκυνήσεως, 10/23 Μαρτίου, Αρχιερατικό Συλλείτουργο εις την Ιερά Μονή Αγίου Νικολάου Παιανίας προεξάρχοντος του Μακαριωτάτου Αρχιεπισκόπου Αθηνών και πάσης Ελλάδος κ.κ. Καλλινίκου.

http://www.dogma.gr/

Κοίμηση της Θεοτόκου και Αειπαρθένου Μαρίας

Wednesday, 15 August (os) / August 28 (ns) His Grace
Abbondio, Bishop of Como, presided at the celebration of Holy Dormition of the Mother of God, at the Cathedral Church of St. Nicholas and St. Ambrose. The celebrations continued also in the afternoon, with the celebration of Vespers, presided by His Beatitude Metropolitan Evloghios.