Ανοικτή επιστολή υπό Θεοκλήτου Μοναχού Διονυσιάτου, ειδικώς γραφείσα δια τον "Ορθόδοξον Τύπον"

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΗΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΤΗΤΑ ΤΟΝ ΠΑΠΑΝ
 
Αγιώτατε πάτερ,
 
Έφθασεν η ταχύπτερος είδηση και μέχρις αυτού του Αγίου Όρους, του αρχαίου μοναστικού Κέντρου της Ορθοδοξίας, ότι η Υμετέρα Αγιότης εξέφρασε την επιθυμίαν να επισκεφθεί την Ορθόδοξον Ελλάδα για λόγους προσκυνηματικούς. Αισθήματα ανάμικτα χαράς και εκπλήξεως κατέλαβαν τις καρδιές και η φαντασία των ορθοδόξων έπλαθε και ανέπλαθε νοσταλγικά τις πλέον, από ωραίες έως τολμηρές εκδοχές, αφού "όπου βούλεται Θεός, νικάται φύσεως τάξις" και ότι "ουκ αδυνατήση παρά τω Θεώ παν ρήμα".
Παρ' ότι, ένας αγιορείτης γέρων Μοναχός, ουδεμίαν έχει εξουσιοδότηση, αλλά φρονεί ό,τι εκφράζει το κοινόν αίσθημα των ορθοδόξων ρωμιών, δεν έχει παρά να σας απευθύνει το καλώς να έλθετε στην Χριστοφόρα Ορθόδοξη Ανατολή, μετά της οποίας ο δυτικός Χριστιανισμός, συνέζησε, συνέδρασε, συνήθλησε, συνεπορεύθη και εν ενί στόματι και μια καρδία εδόξαζε και υμνούσε τον Θεόν εν ειρήνη και ομονοία επί χίλια ολόκληρα έτη, άχρι τότε πού, ο εωσφόρος, κρίμασι Θεού, με τις αρχαίες γοητείες του, απεπλάνησε της οδού του Χριστού την τοπικήν Εκκλησίαν της Ρώμης και στην θέση του Χριστού εγκατέστησε τον Αντιπρόσωπόν του φευ!… Δηλαδή, εξετόπισε τον Χριστόν από την Ρώμην !
Και ήδη, αγιώτατε πάτερ, επιθυμήσατε να έλθετε προς ημάς, τους κλαίοντες την απατηθείσαν πολυάνθρωπον Εκκλησίαν την οποίαν ο Άγιος Παλαμάς, παρομοιάζει με ελέφαντα, ως μη δυνάμενον να εγερθεί όταν πέσει. Λοιπόν, καλώς να έλθετε και εφ' όσον η νοσταλγία της καρδίας σας αποτελεί νεύση Θεού, ασφαλώς πρέπει να έλθετε, όχι "ως γαμβρός γυναικοπρόσωπος" κατά τον Άγιον Νικόδημον τον Αγιορείτην, αλλά σύμφωνα με την Πέτρειον θεολογίαν, - αφού θεωρείτε την Εκκλησίαν της Ρώμης φυτείαν του Πέτρου - να έλθετε "εγκομβωμένος την ταπείνωση" του Χριστού, "μηδ' ως κατακυριεύων των κλήρων, αλλά τύπος γινόμενος του ποιμνίου", να έλθετε "εν ετέρα μορφή".
Αγιώτατε πάτερ, καλώς να έλθετε στην μη δύουσαν Ανατολήν μας, αλλά ως έχων εξουσίαν, ως Αλάθητος, προσευχηθήτε προηγουμένως εκτενώς, όπως σας φωτίσει τον νουν, "ο φως οικών απρόσιτον" Θεός, για να κατανοήσετε τα δεινά, που ακολούθησαν επί χίλια έτη από την απομάκρυνση της Εκκλησίας της Ρώμης από την Ορθοδοξίαν, δεινά στην ιστορία του κόσμου από την αντιπαράθεση Ανατολικής και Δυτικής Εκκλησίας, φθονούσης την δόξαν της τέως αδελφής της. Αλλά, κυρίως, να σας αποκαλυφθούν οι πολλαπλές αιρέσεις, που επεισήλθαν στην Δυτικήν Εκκλησίαν του Χριστού, στα δόγματα, στην θεολογίαν, στην Λατρείαν, στη Ποιμαντικήν και την Διοίκηση, ώστε να εξαναγκασθεί σε αναχώρηση ο Χριστός, να παραμορφωθεί η Νύμφη του Χριστού και να διακωμωδηθεί υπό των δαιμόνων και των ανθρώπων, ανακηρυχθέντος ανθρώπου ομοιοπαθούς, ως Αλαθήτου!
Εν συνεχεία, αγιώτατε πάτερ, κηρύξατε μετάνοιαν και νηστείαν στον πλανηθέντα και πλανώμενον λαόν σας και με το αναμφισβήτητον κύρος σας, - Αλάθητος δεν είσθε; - εξέλθετε στον εξώστη του ανακτόρου σας και μπροστά στις κάμερες της τηλεοράσεως και σε όλες τις γλώσσες του κόσμου, διακηρύξατε, ως Αλάθητος, ότι ήλθε πλέον το πλήρωμα του χρόνου και εννοήσατε το σφάλμα σας, εν Πνεύματι Αγίω, ότι κακώς απεμακρύνατε τον Χριστόν και τον εξαποστείλατε στον ουρανόν, για να καταλάβετε σεις την θέση Του, κατά την νομικήν διατύπωση καθορισμού δικαιοδοσιών: "Il Cristo nel sielo e il papa nella terra".
Επίσης, με το ίδιον πνεύμα θαρραλέας μετανοίας, ομολογείστε το τριαδικής δογματικής λάθος του Filioque, του δαιμονικού Αλαθήτου και του εωσφορικού Πρωτείου εξουσίας εφ' όλης της Εκκλησίας, οπότε θα επανέλθετε στο αγιοπνευματικόν Συνοδικόν σύστημα, συμμορφούμενοι και στα λοιπά δόγματα της Ορθοδοξίας. Αντικαθιστώντες την σχολαστικήν, διανοητικήν θεολογίαν του Θωμά του Ακινάτου, --που έκαμε φιλοσοφίαν την διδασκαλίαν του Πνεύματος-με την αγιοπνευματικήν εμπειρίαν των Αγίων Πατέρων…
Βέβαια, αγιώτατε πάτερ, πλάνες ανακραθείσες στις ψυχές, με χιλιετή ψευδοπαράδοση, δεν θεραπεύονται εύκολα, έστω και με ένα, παγκοσμίου εμβελείας κήρυγμα εξ Αλαθήτου κύρους. Κι' επομένως στο σαθρόν οικοδόμημα του Καθολικισμού θα προκληθεί αναστάτωση και τεκτονικός σεισμός. Αυτό είναι αναπόφευκτον. Και για ένα διάστημα θα υπάρξουν αντιπαραθέσεις, όχι βέβαια άγνωστες και της εντάσεως του 14ου αιώνος με τους δύο Πάπες, ένα στην Ρώμην και τον άλλον στην Avignion. Αλλά, ο παπικός λαός, διαισθανόμενος τα ψεύδη, τις πλάνες, τις απάτες του Παπισμού και αηδιασμένος από τις υποκρισίες και τα εγκλήματα του Βατικανού, σταδιακά θα αποδεχθεί τα υγιά δόγματα της Ορθοδοξίας και, προ παντός, το αγαθόν της ειρήνης και της Ενώσεως Ανατολής και Δύσεως με ένα Ποιμένα, τον Χριστόν.
Αγιώτατε πάτερ, αφού λοιπόν ο Θεός σας βοηθήσει να επιτύχετε την αγιωτάτην αυτήν υπόθεση της Ενώσεως, θα μεταδοθούν στην τέως άμοιρον, σε κάποιο μέτρον, ακτίστων ενεργειών, τοπικήν Εκκλησίαν της Ρώμης, άφθονα τα χαρίσματα του Πνεύματος, οπότε θα επανέλθει στην παλαιάν δόξαν της, "ιματισμένη και σωφρονούσα". Και τότε, θα σταματήσουν οι άγριες και μεσαιωνικές μέθοδοι προς άγραν οπαδών και προσηλύτων και εξοντώσεως δια πυρός ομαδικώς "αιρετικών" "ad matjorem gloriam Dei"! Θα σταματήσουν τα μεγάλης κλίμακος εγκλήματα της Αγίας Έδρας. Οι πάσης μορφής σταυροφορίες, που κατέστρεψαν ορθοδόξους λαούς και έθνη, θα διαλυθούν τα προπαγανδιστικά τάγματα των μισσιοναρίων, θα εξαφανισθή η θεοστυγής Ουνία, ο Μοναχισμός θα επανέλθει στο πνευματικόν περιβάλλον του αγίου Βενεδίκτου, θα παύσουν να πλανώνται ψυχές από νοσηρούς συναισθηματισμούς και δαιμονικούς μυστικισμούς, θα σταματήσουν τα κονκορδάτα, που διευκόλυναν την ανάμιξη των νουντσίων στα εσωτερικά των Κρατών, επομένως θα παύσουν οι υπονομεύσεις των Εθνών και της ειρήνης, των πρεσβευτών στο Βατικανόν επιστρεφόντων στις Κυβερνήσεις των. Και της Εκκλησίας της Ρώμης, επανερχομένης στην προσευχήν, στην μετάδοση των θείων αληθειών ορθοδόξως και στην διακονίαν των Μυστηρίων του Χριστού, χωρίς Όστιες, αλλά κατά την επί δισχιλιετίαν παραδοσιακήν Λατρείαν και Μυστηριακήν ζωήν. Οπότε και τα δικαίως σκανδαλισθέντα εκατομμύρια των Προτεσταντών, από τις καταχρήσεις εξουσίας, θα επανέλθουν στο Πέμπτον Ορθόδοξον Πατριαρχείον.
Ουτω, λοιπον, διαμορφουμενων των πραγματων στην τεως εκπεσουσαν αδελφην Εκκλησιαν και ανορθουμενου Υμων εκ της τριτης πτωσεως (οι δυο του Αδαμ και του Ιουδα, κατα τον πολυν Ποποβιτς), θα υποδεχθουμε πλεον εν χαρα και αγαλλιασει τον Πατριαρχην των Ορθοδοξων (τον πρωτον μεταξυ ισων) και οχι ενα ειδωλοποιηθεντα ανθρωπον, με αντιθεον πνευμα χωρις "νουν Χριστου", δηλαδη ενα ειδος αντιχριστου, που επι χιλια ετη αιματοκυλιει την ανθρωποτητα και οδηγει στην αιωνια απωλεια ψυχας.
Ω, και αν ησαν αληθινες οι, εξ ευσεβων ποθων, ονειροφαντασιες αυτες, Χριστε μου, αν, επι τελους σταματουσε εδω ο, απο τα ανεξερευνητα κριματα σου, κανονας της τεως "προκαθημενης της αγαπης", απο την "επηρμενην δυτικην οφρυν" της, θα αλλαζε η μορφη του κοσμου. Θα σταματουσε αυτος ο παγκοσμιος παραλογισμος, θα υποχωρουσαν οι διαφορες "θρησκειες", θα ηθικοποιητο καπως ο κοσμος, θα επηρεαζοντο οι ανερματιστες ψυχες των ανθρωπων, βλεποντας την Μιαν, Αγιαν, Καθολικην Εκκλησιαν, ομονοουσαν, ειρηνευουσαν, των ανθρωπων ενωμενων στην αγαπην του Χριστου, χωρις εριδες, χωρις μιση και κενοδοξιες και κυριως θα υποχωρουσαν οι πολλοι τοπικοι πολεμοι, υποκινουμενοι και απο το Βατικανον.
Αν, αγιωτατε πατερ, σας εφωτιζεν ο Θεος και αναλαμβανατε μεθοδικως, να στρεψετε τον μοιραιον Παπισμον προς την Ορθοδοξιαν, δηλαδη να επανευρετε την απολεσθεισαν ορθην πιστη σας -σεις αλλωστε ως Πολωνος ησασθε προ χρονων Ορθοδοξος και "αλλαξοπιστησατε" με την παπικην βιαν-ω, τοτε, θα ανεδεικνυεσθο ο μεγαλειτερος ευεργετης του κοσμου. Εμεις δεν παυομεν να προσευχωμεθα οπως, "ο Θεος, ο ειπων εκ σκοτους λαμψαι φως", να καταλαμψει την καρδια σας, που τωρα-συγχωρηστε με-ειναι βυθισμενη στο σκοτος του εωσφορισμου-ας οψεται εκεινος, που εδογματισε οτι, "ο παπας ειναι ενας γλυκος Χριστος"-ωστε να ευρετε τον θησαυρον της ταπεινωσεως του Χριστου, του Παυλου, που ελεγε οτι ηταν "εκτρωμα" και "αναξιος καλεισθαι Αποστολος" και του Πετρου, που διδαξε να "εγκομβωθουμε την ταπεινωση". Και οταν πλεον, πλευσετε στο ακτιστον και αγιον φως της θεογνωσιας, τοτε και θα τολμησετε μιαν ριζικην αλλαγη, με την οποια ο κοσμος θ' απαλλαγει απο ενα ιδρυμα του Θεου, που, ομως, ευρισκεται υπο τον ελεγχον του εωσφορου.
Εαν, αγιωτατε πατερ, παρα τις προσευχες μας, δεν φαινεται να εχει φθασει το τελος της επικυριαρχιας του εωσφορου επι της αξιοθρηνητου ρωμαικης Εκκλησιας και αποφασισετε να ελθετε, ετσι οπως εισθε, ως Βικαριος του Χριστου, ως Αλαθητος, ως θεσμικη παπικη εξουσια εφ' ολου του κοσμου και ως συνεχεια ιστορικη των προκατοχων σας, μη αμφιβαλλετε οτι επελεξατε τον ασφαλεστερον τροπον αποδοκιμασιας του Παπισμου. Ο λαος μας ειναι ορθοδοξος χριστιανικος και ειρηνικος, συγχωρων ευαγγελικως τους εχθρους του. Αλλ' εχει ιστορικην μνημην των σφαγεων του Γενους και δεν ανεχεται την προκληση να ιδει "ως βδελυγμα της ερημωσεως εστως εν τοπω αγιω", δηλαδη στα εδαφη της Ορθοδοξιας, τον διαδοχον εκεινων που κατειργασθηκαν την εθνικην του καταστροφην και δεν επαυσαν, ανα τους αιωνες, να τον υπονομευουν.
Γι' αυτο, σας ειδοποιουμεν εγκαιρως, αγιωτατε πατερ, μη τολμησετε να ελθετε στην Ελλαδα μας, στην συνεχεια του Βυζαντιου μας, για να ξυπνησετε οδυνηρες ιστορικες μνημες του λαου μας, που "μεσα του κοιμουνται". Αν οι αφρονες συμβουλοι σας δεν σας το λεγουν, πρεπει να το μαθετε: εισθε το πιο μισητον προσωπον του κοσμου για τους ορθοδοξους λαους. Και οχι αδικως. Με ενσφηνωμενη την ιδεα του παγκοσμιου εξουσιαστου, θειω δικαιω, στον νουν και στην παπικην καρδια, δεν υπαρχει εγκλημα, που να μη εχει διαπραξει, δια των αιωνων ο Παπισμος, στο ονομα του Χριστου. Επομένως αφήσατέ μας ησύχους, να προσευχώμεθα υπέρ των αμαρτιών μας και υπέρ της απαλλαγής του κόσμου από ένα θεσμόν κακοποιόν και επινοητήν πολέμων, όμοιον του οποίου, σε σατανικήν οργάνωση, δεν εγνώρισεν ο κόσμος, ώστε να παρουσιάζεται ως χριστιανικός, με το προσωπείον της αγιότητος.
Ταύτα έγραψα, ως υπακοήν, για να μη διαταραχθούν οι ειρηνικές εξωτερικές σχέσεις μας.

Θεόκλητος Μοναχός Διονυσιάτης
Άγιον Όρος 1/14 . 7 .99

The Balamand Abomination

 
Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue
between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
VIIth Plenary Session, Balamand School of Theology (Lebanon)
17th-24th June, 1993

Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion

Introduction

1) At the request of the Orthodox Churches, the normal progression of the theological dialogue with the Catholic Church has been set aside so that immediate attention might be given to the question which is called 'uniatism'.
2) With regard to the method which has been called 'uniatism,' it was stated at Freising (June 1990) that 'we reject it as method for the search for unity because it is opposed to the common tradition of our Churches.'
3) Concerning the Oriental Catholic Churches, it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in answer to the spiritual needs of their faithful.
4) The document prepared at Ariccia by the joint coordinating committee (June 1991) and finished at Balamand (June 1993) states what is our method in the present search for full communion, thus giving the reason for excluding 'uniatism' as a method.
5) This document is composed of two parts:
6) Ecclesiological principles and 2) Practical rules.
ECCLESIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES
6) The division between the Churches of the East and the West has never quelled the desire for unity wished by Christ. Rather this situation, which is contrary to the nature of the Church, has often been for many the occasion to become more deeply conscious of the need to achieve this unity, so as to be faithful to the Lord's commandment.
7) In the course of the centuries various attempts were made to re-establish unity. They sought to achieve this end through different ways, at times conciliar, according to the political, historical, theological and spiritual situation of each period. Unfortunately, none of these efforts succeeded in re-establishing full communion between the Church of the West and the Church of the East, and at times even made oppositions more acute.
8) In the course of the last four centuries, in various parts of the East, initiatives were taken within certain Churches and impelled by outside elements, to restore communion between the Church of the East and the Church of the West. These invitations led to the union of certain communities with the See of Rome and brought with them, as a consequence, the breaking of communion with their Mother Churches of the East. This took place not without the interference of extra-ecclesial interests. In this way Oriental Catholic Churches came into being. And so a situation was created which has become a source of conflicts and of suffering in the first instance for the Orthodox but also for Catholics.
9) Whatever may have been the intention and the authenticity of the desire to be faithful to the commandment of Christ: 'that all may be one' expressed in these partial unions with the See of Rome, it must be recognized that the re-establishment of unity between the Church of the East and the Church of the West was not achieved and that the division remains, embittered by these attempts.
10) The situation thus created resulted in fact in tensions and oppositions. Progressively, in the decades which followed these unions, missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as 'to bring them back' to one's own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church, in turn, came to accept the same vision according to which only in her could salvation be found. To assure the salvation of 'the separated brethren' it even happened that Christians were rebaptized and that certain requirements of the religious freedom of persons and of their act of faith were forgotten. This perspective was one to which that period showed little sensitivity.
11) On the other hand certain civil authorities made attempts to bring back Oriental Catholics to the Church of their Fathers. To achieve this end they did not hesitate, when the occasion was given, to use unacceptable means.
12) Because of the way in which Catholics and Orthodox once again consider each other in their relationship to the mystery of the Church and discover each other once again as Sister Churches, this form of 'missionary apostolate' described above, and which has been called 'uniatism,' can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.
13) In fact, especially since the panorthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the re-discovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church-profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops-cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our churches. In this context, it is clear that any rebaptism is to be avoided.
14) It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).
15) While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirement of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for his own and the design of God for his Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue.
16) The Oriental Catholic Churches who have desired to re-establish full communion with the See of Rome and have remained faithful to it, have the rights and obligations which are connected with this communion. The principles determining their attitude towards Orthodox Churches are those which have been stated by the Second Vatican Council and have been put into practice by the Popes who have clarified the practical consequences flowing from these principles in various documents published since then. These Churches, then, should be inserted, on both local and universal levels, into the dialogue of love, in mutual respect and reciprocal trust found once again, and enter into the theological dialogue, with all its practical implications.
17) In this atmosphere, the considerations already presented and the practical guidelines which follow, insofar as they will be effectively received and faithfully observed, are such as to lead to a just and definitive solution to the difficulties which these Oriental Catholic Churches present to the Orthodox Church.
18) Towards this end, Pope Paul VI affirmed in his address at the Phanar in July 1967: "It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to finding full communion again. They ought to do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them, by taking care for the cohesion and growth of the people of God, and avoiding everything that could scatter it or cause confusion in its ranks" (Tomos Agapis, n. 172). In this spirit Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical |Patriarch Dimitrios I together stated clearly: "We reject every form of proselytism, every attitude which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect" (December 7th, 1987).
PRACTICAL RULES
19) Mutual respect between the Churches which find themselves in difficult situations will increase appreciably in the measure that they will observe the following practical rules.
20) These rules will not resolve the problems which are worrying us unless each of the parties concerned has a will to pardon, based on the Gospel and, within the context of a constant effort for renewal, accompanied by the unceasing desire to seek the full communion which existed for more than a thousand years between our Churches. It is here that the dialogue of love must be present with a continually renewed intensity and perseverance which alone can overcome reciprocal lack of understanding and which is the necessary climate for deepening the theological dialogue that will permit arriving at full communion.
21) The first step to take is to put an end to everything that can foment division, contempt and hatred between the Churches. For this the authorities of the Catholic Church will assist the Oriental Catholic Churches and their communities so that they themselves may prepare full communion between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The authorities of the Orthodox Church will act in a similar manner towards their faithful. In this way it will be possible to take care of the extremely complex situation that has been created in Eastern Europe, at the same time in charity and in justice, both as regards Catholics and Orthodox.
22) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will be no longer place for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches, can be set in motion and develop.
23) The history of the relations between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Catholic Churches has been marked by persecutions and sufferings. Whatever may have been these sufferings and their causes, they do not justify any triumphalism; no one can glorify in them or draw an argument from them to accuse or disparage the other Church. God alone knows his own witnesses. Whatever may have been the past, it must be left to the mercy of God, and all the energies of the Churches should be directed towards obtaining that the present and the future conform better to the will of Christ for his own.
24) It will also be necessary-and this one the part of both Churches-that the bishops and all those with pastoral responsibilities in them scrupulously respect the religious liberty of the faithful. These, in turn, must be able to express freely their opinion by being consulted and by organizing themselves to this end. In fact, religious liberty requires that, particularly in situations of conflict, the faithful are able to express their opinion and to decide without pressure from outside if they wish to be in communion either with the Orthodox Church or with the Catholic Church. Religious freedom would be violated when, under the cover of financial assistance, the faithful of one Church would be attracted to the other, by promises, for example, of education and material benefits that may be lacking in their own Church. In this context, it will be necessary that social assistance, as well as every form of philanthropic activity be organized with common agreement so as to avoid creating new suspicions.
25) Furthermore, the necessary respect for Christian freedom-one of the most precious gifts received from Christ-should not become an occasion for undertaking a pastoral project which may also involve the faithful of other Churches, without previous consultation with the pastors of these Churches. Not only should every form of pressure, of any kind whatsoever, be excluded, but respect for consciences, motivated by an authentic exigency of faith, is one of the principles guiding the pastoral concern of those responsible in the two Churches and should be the object of their common reflection (cf. Gal 5,13).
26) That is why it is necessary to seek and to engage in an open dialogue, which in the first place should be between those who have responsibilities for the Churches at the local level. Those in charge of the communities concerned should create joint local commissions or make effective those which already exist, for finding solutions to concrete problems and seeing that these solutions are applied in truth and love, in justice and peace. If agreement cannot be reached on the local level, the question should be brought to mixed commissions established by higher authorities.
27) Suspicion would disappear more easily if the two parties were to condemn violence wherever communities of one Church use it against communities of a Sister Church. As requested by His Holiness Pope John Paul II in his letter of May 31st, 1991, it is necessary that all violence and every kind of pressure be absolutely avoided in order that freedom of conscience be respected. It is the task of those in charge of communities to assist their faithful to deepen their loyalty to wards their own Church and towards its traditions and teach them to avoid not only violence, be that physical, verbal or moral, but also all that could lead to contempt for other Christians and to a counter-witness, completely ignoring the work of salvation which is reconciliation in Christ.
28) Faith in sacramental reality implies a respect for the liturgical celebrations of the other Church. The use of violence to occupy a place of worship contradicts this conviction. On the contrary, this conviction sometimes requires that the celebration of other Churches should be made easier by putting at their disposal, by common agreement, one's own church for alternate celebration at different times in the same building. Still more, the evangelical ethos requires that statements or manifestations which are likely to perpetuate a state of conflict and hinder the dialogue be avoided. Does not St. Paul exhort us to welcome one another as Christ has welcomed us, for the glory of God (Rom. 15:7)?
29) Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops and priests of the other Church and for that reason to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church. When cooperation becomes necessary for the good of the faithful, it is then required that those responsible to an agreement among themselves, establish for this mutual assistance clear principles which are known to all, and act subsequently with frankness, clarity, and with respect for the sacramental discipline of the other Church.
In this context, to avoid all misunderstanding and to develop confidence between the two Churches, it is necessary that Catholic and Orthodox bishops of the same territory consult with each other before establishing Catholic pastoral projects which imply the creation of new structures in regions which traditionally form part of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, in view to avoid parallel pastoral activities which would risk rapidly degenerating into rivalry or even conflicts.
30) To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the out-dated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church connected with the problem which is the object of this document, special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. Their education should be objectively positive with respect of the other Church. First of all, everyone should be informed of the apostolic succession of the other Church and the authenticity of its sacramental life. One should also offer all a correct and comprehensive knowledge of history aiming at a historiography of the two Churches which is in agreement and even may be common. In this way, the dissipation of prejudices will be helped, and the use of history in a polemical manner will be avoided. This presentation will lead to an awareness that faults leading to separation belong to both sides, leaving deep wounds on each side.
31) The admonition of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthinas (1 Cor 6, 1-7) will be recalled. It recommends that Christians resolve their differences through fraternal dialogue, thus avoiding recourse to the intervention of the civil authorities for a practical solution to the problems which arise between Churches or local communities. This applies particularly to the possession or return of ecclesiastical property. These solutions should not be based only on past situations or rely solely on general juridical principles, but they must also take into account the complexity of present realities and local circumstances.
32) It is in this spirit that it will be possible to meet in common the task of re-evangelization of our secularized world. Effort will also be made to give objective news to the mass-media especially to the religious press in order to avoid tendentious and misleading information.
33) It is necessary that the Churches come together in order to express gratitude and respect towards all, known and unknown-bishops, priests or faithful, Orthodox, Catholic whether Oriental or Latin-who suffered, confessed their faith, witnessed their fidelity to the Church, and, in general, towards all Christians, without discrimination, who underwent persecutions. Their sufferings call us to unity and, on our part, to give common witness in response to the prayer of Christ 'that all may be one, so that the world may believe ' (John 17,21).
34) The International Joint Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, at its plenary meeting in Balamand, strongly recommends that these practical rules be put into practice by our Churches, including the Oriental Catholic Churches who are called to take part in this dialogue which should be carried on in the serene atmosphere necessary for its progress, towards the re-establishment of full communion.
35) By excluding for the future all proselytism and all desire for expansion by Catholics at the expense of the Orthodox Church, the commission hopes that it has overcome the obstacles which impelled certain autocephalous Churches to suspend their participation in the theological dialogue and that the Orthodox Church will be able to find itself altogether again for continuing the theological work already so happily begun.

Balamand (Lebanon), June 23rd, 1993

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PATRIARCH OF GEORGIA


From the Monastery of Saint Shio of Mghvime
 
Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed when He declared '....upon this rock [i.e., of right faith] I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail againt it (Matt. 16:18).'
Saint Maximos the Confessor
(Migne PG, 132A)
'We are orphans and fatherless...'
(Lamentations of Jeremiah 5:3)
'Whoso readeth, let him understand.'
( Matt. 24:15)

The Georgian Orthodox Church has decided to leave two major ecumenical bodies-the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the Conference of European Churches (CEC). The decision was taken at an emergency meeting of the Holy Synod following strong pressure from Georgia's leading monasteries against further participation in the ecumenical movement. The following letter was chiefly written by Archimandrite George of the influential Shio-Mghvima Monastery.
 
In ancient Sodom there lived the righteous Lot and his family. Our long-suffering God, awaiting the conversion, the change of heart of the Sodomites, bestowed upon them all that they needed: air, water, food…life itself. Lot was for them a certain example of righteousness, a model for their correction. But in vain. The measure of lawlessness and sin overflowed; the Lord brought out the family of Lot and destroyed the city of Sodom by fire, thus taking away that life which He himself had granted.
Like unto Sodom becomes that church in which the abomination of heretical doctrines finds itself a lodging place. Long-suffering and merciful is the Lord, and just as the destruction of Sodom was delayed for the sake of righteous Lot, so too, for the sake of His righteous servants, for the time being He shall not withdraw the grace of the Holy Spirit from that church which is deviating into the heretical gloom so offensive to Him. But for how long? Where is that boundary beyond which lawlessness exceeds His long-suffering and mercy? If the time for an exodus like Lot's is come, then such a time is the termination of the period [allowed for repentance], it is the time for the execution of the judgments of God, the time of righteous anger, the time for the taking away of the very Spirit of Life. The going forth from the midst of sin by the true children of the Church serves as an indication of the spiritual death of the hierarchy of a Local Church. And only then, when the Lord shall have led forth all of them, all those faithful to Him-His true Church, will the grace of His Holy Spirit completely abandon the assembly of those who have remained behind.
Lot forewarned his sons-in law of the approaching judgment, but was mocked by them. And his sons-in-law were burned together with all the Sodomites.
We also have the example of Nineveh. The Ninevites repented and the judgment of God was suspended. But what of Sodom? Was Sodom capable of changing? Sodom, in which there was not even a consciousness of the need for amendment?
1. Ecumenism is heresy! That is quite clear. Moreover,it is the heresy of heresies.
2. Of all the errors that so-called 'Ecumenism' comprises, the most fundamental and profound is its error concerning the very nature of the Church itself. This is an ecclesiological heresy. It is contrary to the Nicean-Constantinopolitan confession of faith, for it asserts that there is no 'One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church'.
3. The so-called 'World Council of Churches' already in its very name contains this contradiction of the Orthodox Christian doctrine concerning the Church. And in its 'Branch Theory' it totally rejects this dogma. And the 'Council' endeavors to accomplish this fundamental rejection by its militant practice of 'religious pluralism'.
4. The Orthodox Church, by participating in the activities of the aforementioned 'World Council of Churches', declares her agreement with all its [the WCC's] teachings and activities.By this very means she becomes a party to all the falsehood and errors of the Council. She becomes heretical to the degree that the Council itself is heretical.
5. This heresy is introduced even more deeply into the body of the Church by the participation of her hierarchy in the various forms of liturgical concelebrations conducted by the institutions of the Council in the course of its routine activities.
6. The Georgian Orthodox Church (GOC) has been an active member of the WCC for a considerable time (since 1962). This lively participation, manifested in the activities of her senior hierarchs, is the path of falling away into heresy, or rather, it is essentially already heresy.
7. Both in their numerous public appearances, and also ex cathedra, the senior hierarchs of the GOC have shown themselves to be apologist and preachers of the heresy of Ecumenism. At the Local Council in 1995, participation in this movement was recorded in the official documents and confirmed by the ecclesiastical authority. By this means this heresy was definitively implanted into the body of the Local Georgian Church.
8. When the Church begins in any degree to accept heretical teaching, then saving grace wanes in her. Once the Church as a whole accepts a heresy, then saving grace departs from this community, since salvation for its members has become impossible, even if they were to lay down their lives for their convictions.
9. There are only two routes of escape from the situation that has arisen in the GOC: either the church renounces its error, or else those seeking salvation quit the assembly of the unfaithful.
10. The Church's rejection of the heresy of Ecumenism must be expressed by its departure from the WCC. There is no other way.
11. This can be done only by the senior hierarchs of the GOC-this is their prerogative. But the hierarchs refuse to do this.
12. Some of the hierarchs consider such a step inconsistent with the contemporary processes of global intergration. Subordinating, in their own conceptions, the life of the Church to the mere laws by which society functions, they threaten the Christians with economic difficulties, political, religious, and cultural isolation, and a like multitude of imagined horrors.
13. Such a way of thinking is based on a lack of faith in the providential care for the Church by her Creator and Founder. This is unbelief, this is real atheism that captivates the mind and conscience. They do not realize that the Lord does not abandon His true servants. His eye slumbereth not, and mighty is His right hand.
14. Others of the hierarchs, not possessing a true Christian consciousness and not wishing to comprehend the very essence of the dogmas of the Church of Christ, consider that membership in the WCC is not so very significant a sin. Such as these seek by means of various compromises to deceive both God and themselves.
15. So what then remains for an Orthodox Christian seeking salvation to do, who is certain that this very salvation is not possible without a true faith free of heretical abomination?
16. '…..and they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name' (Acts 5:41).
…..But as for those who ….sever themselves from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons are not only not subject to canonical penalty….,but are worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church's unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church.
( Canon XV of the First-Second Council of Constantinople)
In his commentary on Canon XIV of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Zonar writes: 'Those are also heretics who even partly disagree with the teaching of the Church or who only slightly distort it'.
The Monastery of our Righteous Father Shio of Mghvime (the Cave-dweller) severs eucharistic communion with Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II because of his heresy of Ecumenism.
Archimandrite George, Abbot of the monastery
Archimandrite John
Hieromonk Nicholas
Monk Kyrion
Novice Bssarion
Novice Guran


APRIL 14/27, 1997
 
The Abbot of the Lavra of the Righteous David of Garedzhe, Archimandrite Gregory, severs eucharistic communion with Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II because of his heresy of Ecumenism, and resigns from the office of abbot.
Archimandrite Gregory APRIL 17/27, 1997
Betania Monastery severs liturgical communion with Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II because of his heresy of Ecumenism.
Hieromonk Haggai, Abbot of the Monastery
Monk Gabriel
Monk eutyches APRIL 18/MAY 1, 1997
The Abbot of the Zarzma Monastery, Archimandrite George, severs eucharistic communion with Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II and Bishop Sergius of Akhaltsikhe on accoun of their having fallen into the heresy of Ecumenism.
ArchimandriteGeorge MAY 2/15, 1997
Note: On May 19, a group of parish priests joined the monastics calling on the Holy Synod to withdraw from the WCC:
 

TO THE CATHOLICOS-PATRIARCH OF ALL GEORGIA, ILIA II
And to the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Georgian Orthodox Church

Your Holiness; Most-Reverend Bishops:
We humbly wish to inform you that with the blessing of the ruling bishop of the Shemokmedi diocese, Kyr Joseph, a meeting of the clergy of the Guria region was held on May 6/19 of this year.
At this meeting we considered the situation that has arisen in the bosom of the Mother Church, in particular, the declarations of the brotherhoods of the St.Shio of Mghvime, Betania, and St. David of Garedzhe monasteries.
We most humbly beg you not to rend the robe of the Church of Christ by schism. For love's sake, resolve to leave the World Council of Churches.
Otherwise, we shall subscribe to the decision of the aforementioned brotherhoods and shall sever eucharistic communion with you.
Archimandrite Nicholas Abbot of the Shemokmedi Monastery of St. Nicholas
Archimandrite Andrew, Spiritual Father of the Dzhikheti Convent
Protopriest Basil, Rector of the Church of SS.Julitta and Cyriacus
Priest Constantine, Rector of the Church of St. George in Dvabchu
Father Cyriacus, Deacon of the Shemokmedi Cathedral.

Letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople from the Sacred Community of Mount Athos December 8, 1993

 
To His Most Divine All Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch, our Father and Master, lord lord Bartholomew,

Most Holy Father and Master:
The union of the Churches or, to be precise, the union of the heterodox with our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church is desirable to us also so that the Lord's prayer may be filled, '...that they may be one' (Jn. 17:21). At any rate, we understand and await according to the Orthodox interpretation. As Professor Fr. John Romanides reminds us, 'Christ prays here that His disciples and their disciples may, in this life, become one in the vision of His glory (which He has by nature from the Father) when they become members of His Body, the Church...'
For this reason, whenever heterodox Christians visit us, to whom we extend love and hospitality in Christ, we are painfully aware that we stand apart in faith and, because of this, we are not able to have ecclesiastical communion.
Schism, the division between the Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonians first and between the Orthodox and the Westerners later, truly amounts to a tragedy about which we must not become silent or complacent.
In this context, therefore, we appreciate efforts made with fear of God and in accordance with Orthodox Tradition that look to a union that cannot take place through the silencing or minimizing of Orthodox doctrines of the heterodox, because it would not be accepted by the Church or blessed by God, because, according to the patristic saying, ' A good thing is not good if it is not achieved in a good way.'
On the contrary, it would bring about new schisms and new divisions and miseries to the already (dis)united body of Orthodoxy. At this point, we would like to say that in the face of great changes taking place in lands that have an Orthodox presence, and before so many kinds of unstable conditions on a worldwide scale, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, in other words Orthodox, Church should have strengthened the cohesion of the local Churches and given herself over to the care of her terror-stricken members and to their spiritual stabilization, on the one hand, and in her consciousness (as the One Holy Church), on the other, she should have sounded the trumpet of her unique redemptive power and grace and manifested it before fallen humanity.
In this spirit, to the extent that our monastic office permits us, we closely follow developments in the so-called ecumenical movements and dialogues. We note that at times the word of Truth is rightly divided and, at times, compromises and concessions are made regarding fundamental matters of the Faith.
1. Thus, actions and declarations which representatives of Orthodox Churches have engaged in, that were unheard of until today and are altogether contrary to our holy Faith, have caused us deep sorrow.
We shall cite first the case of His Beatitude (Parthenios), the Patriarch of Alexandrta, who, on at least two occasions, has stated that we Christians ought to recognize Mohammed as a prophet. To this day, however, no one has called fof him to step down, and this dreadfully heedless Patriarch continues to preside in the Church of Alexandria as if there were nothing wrong.
Second, we cite the case of the Patriarchate of Antioch, which without a Pan-Orthodox decision, has proceeded to ecclesiastical communion with the Non-Chalcedonians (Monophysites). This was done despite the fact that a most serious issue had not yet been resolved.It is the latter's non-acceptance of the Ecumenical Councils after the Third and, in particular, the Fourth, the Council of Chalcedon, which in fact constitutes an immovable basis of Orthodoxy. Unfortunately,in this case too, we have not seen a single protest by the Orthodox Churches.
The gravest matter, however, is the unacceptable change in the position of the Orthodox that arises from the join statement at the June, 1993 Balamand Conference of the mixed commission for the dialogue between Roman Catholic and Orthodox. It adopted anti-Orthodox positions, and it is mainly to this that we call the attention of Your All Holiness.
First, we must confess that the statements which Your All Holiness has made from time to time that the Uniate movement is an insurmountable obstacle to the continuation of the dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics used to put us at ease.
But the above document (of Balamand) gives the impression that your statements are being side-stepped. Furthermore, Unia is receiving amnesty and is invited to the table of theological dialogue despite the contrary decision of the Third Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes requiring: ' the complete withdrawal from Orthodox lands by the Uniate agents and propagandist of the Vatican; the incorporation of the so-called Uniate Churches and their subjection under the Church of Rome before the inauguration of the dialogue, because Unia and dialogue at the same time are irreconcilable.'
2. Your All Holiness, the greatest scandal, however,is caused by the ecclesiological positions in the document. We shall refer here to fundamental deviations only.

In Paragraph 10 we read: 'The Catholic Church...( which conducted missionary work against the Orthodox ) and presented herselfas the only one to whom salvation was entrusted. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church, in turn, came to accept the same vision according to which only in her could salvation be found. To assure the salvation of 'the separated brethren' it even happened that Christians were rebaptized and that certain requirements of the religious freedom of persons and of their act of faith were forgotten. This perspective was one to which that period showed little sensitivity.
As Orthodox, we cannot accept this point of view. It was not as a reaction against Unia that our Holy Orthodox Church began to believe that she exclusively possessed salvation, but believed it before Unia existed, from the time of the Schism, which took place for reasons of dogma. The Orthodox Church did not await the coming of Unia in order to acquire the consciousness that she is the undulterated continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ, because she has always had this self-awareness just as she had the awareness that the Papacy was in heresy. If she did not use the term heresy frequently, it was because, according to St. Mark of Ephesus, 'The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics as well. However, the Church was silent on this because their race is large and more powerful than ours...and we wished not to fall into triumphalism over the Latins as heretics but to be accepting of their return and to cultivate brotherliness'.
But when the Uniates and the agents of Rome were let loose on us in the East in order to proselytize the suffering Orthodox by mainly unlawful means,as they do even today, Orthodoxy was obliged to declare that truth, not for purposes of proselytism but in order to protect the flock.
St. Photius repeatedly characterizes the Filioque as a heresy, and its believers as cacodox.
St. Gregory Palamas says of the westerner Barlaam, that when he came to Orthodoxy, 'He did not accept sanctifying water from our church...to wipe away (his) stains from the West.' St. Gregory obviously considers him a heretic in need of sanctifying grace in order to come into the Orthodox Church.
The statement in the paragraph in question unjustly heaps responsibility on the Orthodox Church in order to lessen the responsibilities of the Papists. When did the Orthodox trample upon the religious freedom of the Uniates and Roman Catholics by baptizing them against their will? And if there were some exceptions, the Orthodox who signed the Balamand document forgot that those who were rebaptized against their wishes were descendants of the Orthodox who were forcibly made Uniates, as occured in Poland, Ukraine, and Moldavia. (See paragraph 11 ).

In paragraph 13 we read: ' In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences began and since the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perpectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church-profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops-cannot be the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this contex, it is clear that every form of rebaptism must be avoided'.
The new discovery of the Church as communion by Roman Catholics has, of course, some significance for them who had no way out of the dilemma of their totalitarian ecclesiology and, therefore, had to turn their system of thought to the communal character of the Church. Thus, alongside the one extreme of totalitarianism, thy place the other of collegiality, always motivated on the same man-centered level. The Orthodox Church, however, has always had the consciousness that she is not a simple communion but a theanthropic communion or a 'communio of theosis [deification]', as St.Gregory Palamas says in his homily on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Moreover,the communio of theosis is not only unknown in but also irreconcilable with Roman Catholic theology,which rejects [the doctrine of ] the uncreated energies of God that form and sustain this communion.
Given these truths, it was deepest sadness that we confirmed that this paragraph (13) makes the Orthodox Church equal to the Roman Catholic Church which abides in cacodoxy. Serious theological differences, such as the Filioque, Papal primacy and infallibility, created grace, etc., are receiving amnesty, and a union is being forged without agreement in dogma.

Thus are verified the premonitions that the union designed by the Vatican, in which, as St. Mark of Ephesus said, 'the willing are unwittingly manipulated,' (i.e. the Orthodox, who also live under hostile circumstances ethnically and politically today and are captive to nations of other religions), is pushed to take place without agreement regarding doctrinal differences, through the mutual recognition of the mysteries and apostolic succession of each Church, and the application of intercommunion,limited at first and broader later. After this, doctrinal differences can only be discussed as theological opinions.
But once union takes place, what sense is there in discussing theological differences? Rome knows that the Orthodox will never accept her alien teachings. Experience has proven this in the various attempts at union up the present. Therefore, despite the differences, Rome is crafting a union and hoping, from a humanistic point of view (as her perspective always is), that, as the more powerful factor, in time she will absorb the weaker one, which is, Orthodoxy.
Fr. John Romanides presaged this in his article 'The Uniate Movement and Popular Ecumenism' in The Orthodox Witness, Feb. 1966.
We would like to put these questions to the Orthodox who signed this document:
Do the Filioque, [ Papal ] primacy and infallibility, purgatory, the immaculate conception, and created grace constitute an apostolic confession? Despite all of this, is it possible for us as Orthodox to recognize as apostolic the faith and confession of the Roman Catholics?

Do these serious theological deviations of Rome amount to heresies or not?
If they are, as they have been described by Orthodox Councils and Fathers, do they not result in the invalidity of the mysteries and the apostolic succession of heterodox and cacodox of this kind?
Is it possible for the fullness of grace to exist where there is not the fullness of truth?
Is it possible to distinguish Christ of the truth from Christ of the mysteries and apostolic succession?
Apostolic succession was first set forth by the Church as a historic confirmation of the continuous preservation of her truth. But when the truth itself is distorted, what meaning can a formalistic preservation of apostolic succession have? Did not the great heresiarchs often have this kind of external succession? How can it be possible for them to also be regarded as bearers of grace?
And how is it possible for two Churches to be considered 'Sister Churches ' not because of their pre-Schism common descent but because of their so-called common confession, sanctifying grace, and priesthood despite their great differences in dogmas?
Who among the Orthodox can accept as the true successor to the Apostles the infallible one, the one with the primacy of authority to rule over the entire Church and to be religious and secular leader of the Vatican State?

Would this not be a denial of Apostolic Faith and Tradition?
Or are the signers of this document unaware that many Roman Catholics today groan under the foot of the Pope (and his scholastic, man-centered ecclesiological system) and desire to come into Orthodoxy?
How can these people who are tormented spiritually and desire holy Baptism not be received into Orthodoxy because the same grace is supposedly both here and there? Ought we not, at that point, respect their religious freedom, as the Balamand declaration demands in another circumstance, and grant them Orthodox Baptism? What defense shall we present to the Lord if we withhold the fullness of grace from them who, after years of agony and personal searching, desire the holy Baptism of our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?
Paragraph 14 of the document quoted Pope John-Paul II, 'The ecumenical endeavor of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love'.
But how is a union in the truth possible when differences in dogmas are side-stepped and both Churches are described as sisters despite the differences?
The Truth of the Church is indivisible because it is Christ Himself. But when there are differences in dogmas there cannot be unity in Christ.
From what we know about Church History, Churches were called Sister Churches when they held the same faith. Never was the Orthodox Church called a sister of any heterodox churches, regardless of the degree of heterodoxy or cacodoxy they held.
We ask ourselves a basic question: have religious syncretism and doctrinal minimalism-the byproducts of secularization and humanism-perhaps influenced the Orthodox signers of the document? It is apparent that the document adopts, perhaps for the first time by the Orthodox side, the position that two Churches, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic, together constitute the One Holy Church or are two legitimate expressions of her.
Unfortunately, it is the first time that Orthodox have officially accepted a form of the branch theory.
Permit us to express our deep sorrow over this in as much as this theory comes into screaming conflict with Orthodox Tradition and Consciousness up to now.
We have many witnesses to the Orthodox Consciousness that our Church alone constitutes the One Holy Church, and they are recognized as pan-Orthodox in authority. They are the:
1. Council of Constantinople, 1722;
2. Council of Constantinople, 1727;
3. Council of Constantinople, 1838;
4. 1848 Encyclical of the Four Patriarchs of the East and their synods;
5. Council of Constantinople, 1895.
These decreed that only our Holy Orthodox Church constitutes the One Holy Church.

The 1895 Council of Constantinople summarizes all of the preceding Councils: 'Orthodoxy, that is, the Eastern Church, justly boasts in Christ that she is the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the first nine centuries of Christianity and is therefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ, the 'pillar and bulwark of truth.' And the present Roman Church is the church of innovationism and adulteration of the writings of the Church Fathers and the distortion of the Holy Scriptures and the decrees of the Holy Councils. Justly and for good reason it was denounced and is denounced as long as it persists in its delusion. 'Better a praiseworthy war,' says St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 'than a peace separated from God'.
Representatives of the Orthodox Churches declared the same things at the World Council of Churches conferences. Among them were distinguished Orthodox theologians, such as Fr. George Florovsky.Thus, at the Conference of Lund in 1952, was declared:
'We came here not to judge other Churches but to help them see the truth, to enlighten their thought in a brotherly manner, informing them of the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is to say, the Greek Orthodox Church, which is unaltered from the apostolic period.'
At Evanston in 1954:
' In conclusion, we are obliged to declare our deep conviction that the Holy Orthodox Church alone has preserved 'the faith once delivered unto the saints' in all of its fullness and purity. And this is not because of any human merit of ours but because God is pleased to preserve His treasure in earthen vessels…'

And at New Delhi in 1961:
' Unity has been broken and it is necessary that it be won anew. For the Orthodox Church is not a Confession, not one of the many or one among the many. For the Orthodox, the Orthodox Church is The Church. The Orthodox Church has the perception and consciousness that her inner structure and teaching coincide with the apostolic kerygma and the tradition of the ancient, undivided Church.The Orthodox Church exists in the unbroken and continuous succession of the sacramental ministry, of the sacramental life, and of the faith. The apostolic succession of the episcopal office and the sacramental ministry, for the Orthodox, is truly a component of the essence and, for this reason,a necessary element in the existence of the whole Church. In accordance with her inner conviction and an awareness of the circumstances, the Orthodox Church occupies a special and extraordinary position in the ancient, undivided Church, from which the present Christian denominations originate by way of reduction and separation.'

We could also set forth the testimonies of the most distinguished and widely acknowledged Orthodox theologians. We shall limit ourselves to one, the late Fr. Demetrius Staniloae, a theologian distinguished not only for his wisdom but for the breadth and Orthodox mind set of his ecumenical perspective. In many places of his noteworthy book, Towards an Orthodox Ecumenism, he refers to themes that are relevant to the joint statement (being discussed here) and bears Orthodox witness. Through it, therefore, the disagreement between the positions taken in the document and the Orthodox faith shall be shown:
' Without unity of faith and without communion in the same Body and Blood of the Incarnate Word, such a Church could not exist, nor could a Church exist in the full meaning of the word'.
' In the case of one who is entering into full communion of faith with the members of the Orthodox Church and is becoming a member, economia (dispensation) is understood to give validity to a mystery previously performed outside of the Church'.
' In the Roman Catholic view, the Church is not so much a spiritual organism that is headed by Christ as it is a nomocanonical organization which, even in the best of circumstances, lives not in the divine but in the supernatural level of created grace'.
' In the preservation of this unity, an indispensable role is played by the unity of faith because the latter wholly bonds the members with Christ and with one another'.
' Those who confess not a whole and integral Christ but only certain parts of Him cannot achieve a complete communion either with the Church or with one another'.
' How is it possible for the Catholics to unite with the Orthodox in a common eucharist when they believe that unity is derived more from the Pope than from the Holy Eucharist?'
' There is growing recognition of the fact that Orthodoxy, as the complete body of Christ, reaches out in a concrete way to take in the parts that were separated.'
It is self-evident that two complete bodies of Christ cannot exist.
Your All Holiness, one has to wonder why the Orthodox proceed to make these concessions while the Roman Catholics not only persist in but reinforce their pope-centered ecclesiology.
It is a fact that the Second Vatican Council (1963) not only neglected to minimize the primacy and infallibility (of the Pope), indeed, it magnified these. According to the late Professor John Karmiris, 'Despite the fact that the Second Vatican Council covered over the familiar Latin claims about the Papacy's monarchical absolute rule with the mantle of the collegiality of the bishops, not only were those claims not diminished; on the contrary, they were reinforced by this Council. The present Pope ( John XXIII) does not hesitate to promote them, even at inopportune times, with much emphasis'.
And the Pope's Encyclical, 'To the Bishops of the Catholic Church' (May 28, 1992), recognizes only Rome as the 'catholic' church and the Pope as the only 'catholic' bishop. The church of Rome and her bishop compose the 'essence' of all other churches. Moreover, every local church and her bishop simply constitute expressions of the direct 'presence' and 'authority' of the bishop of Rome and his church, which determines from within every local church's ecclesial identity'.
According to this papal document, since the Orthodox Churches refuse to submit to the Pope, they do not bear the character of the Church at all and are simply viewed as 'partial churches' (Verdienen der titel teilkirchen).
The same ecclesiology is expressed in The Ecumenical Guide (a guide for the application of principles and agenda regarding ecumenism) of the Roman Catholic Church, presented by Cardinal Cassidy to the meeting of Roman Catholic bishops (May 10-15, 1993, one month before Balamand), with non-Catholics and indeed Orthodox in attendance.
The Ecumenical Guide stresses that Roman Catholics 'maintain the firm conviction that the singular Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which is ruled by the successor to Peter and by bishops who are in communion with him,' in as much as the 'College of Bishops has as its head the Bishop of Rome, the successor to Peter.'
In the same document, many nice-sounding things are said about the need to develop an ecumenical dialogue and ecumenical education obviously to muddy the waters and draw away naοve Orthodox by that effective, Vatican-designed method of Unity, i.e. of submission to Rome.
The method, according to The Ecumenical Guide, is the following: 'The criteria that were established for ecumenical collaboration, on the one hand, are mutual recognition of baptism and the placement of the common symbols of faith in empirical liturgical life; and on the other hand, are collaboration in ecumenical education, joint prayer, and pastoral cooperation in order that we may be moved from conflict to coexistence, from coexistence to collaboration, from collaboration to sharing, from sharing to communion.'
Such documents, however, that are full of hypocrisy are generally receive as positive by the Orthodox.
We are saddened to ascertain that the joint declaration is founded upon the Roman Catholic reasoning above. Because of these recent developments under such terms, however, we begin to ask ourselves if those who claim that the various dialogues are detrimental to Orthodoxy might be justified after all.
Most Holy Father and Despota, in human terms, by means of that joint declaration, Roman Catholics have succeeded in gaining from certain Orthodox recognition as the legitimate continuation of the One Holy Church with the fullness of Truth, Grace, Priesthood, Mysteries, and Apostolic Succession.
But that success is to their own detriment because it removes from them the possibility of acknowledging and repenting of their grave ecclesiology and doctrinal illness. For this reason, the concessions by Orthodox are not philanthropic.They are not for the good of either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox. They jump from 'the hope of the Gospel' (Col. 1:23) of Christ, the only God-Man, to the Pope, the man-god and idol of western humanism.
For the sake of the Roman Catholics and the whole world, whose only hope is unadulterated Orthodoxy, we are obliged never to accept union or the description of the Roman Catholic Church as a 'Sister Church,' or the Pope as the canonical bishop of Rome, or the 'Church' of Rome as having canonical Apostolic Succession, Priesthood, and Mysteries without their (the Papists') expressly stated renunciation of the Filioque, the infallibility and primacy of the Pope, created grace, and the rest of their cacodoxies. For we shall never regard these as unimportant differences or mere theological opinions but as differences that irrevocably debase the theanthropic character of the Church and introduce blasphemies.
The following decisions of Vatican II are typical:
' The Roman Pontiff, the successor to Peter, is the permanent and visible source and foundation of the unity of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful'.

'Thisreligious submission of the will and mind must be manifested in a special way before the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.'
' The Roman Pontiff, the head of college of bishops, by virtue of his office, possesses infallibility when, strengthening his brethren (Lk.23:32) as the shepherd and highest teacher of all the faithful, he declares a teaching through an act of definition regarding faith or morals.For this reason it is justly said that the decrees of the Pope are irreversible in nature and not subject to dispensation by the Church in as much as they were pronounce with the collaboration of the Holy Spirit…consequently, the decrees of the Pope are subject to no other approval, to no other appeal, to no other judgement. For the Roman Pontiff does not express his opinion as a private person but as the highest teacher of the universal Church, upon whom personally rest the of the infallibility of the very Church herself and who sets forth and protects the teaching of the Catholic Faith.
' In the course of his responsibility as the vicar of Christ and shepherd of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has the fullest, highest, and universal authority in the Church, which he is always empowered to exercise freely. There cannot exist an Ecumenical Council if it is not validated or at least accepted by the successor to Peter.The convocation, presidency, and approval of the decisions of the Councils are the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff'.
Do all of these teachings, Your All Holiness, not fall upon Orthodox ears as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and against the Divine Builder of the Church, Jesus Christ, the only eternal and infalible Head of the Church from Whom alone springs forth the unity of the Church? Do these not utterly contradict the Gospel-centered and God-Man centered Orthodox Ecclesiology inspired by the Holy Spirit? Do they not subordinate the God-Man to man?
How can we make such concessions or co-exist with such a spirit without losing our faith and salvation?
Remaining faithful to all that we have received from our Holy Fathers, we shall never accept the present 'Roman Church' as co-representative with ours of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ.
We consider it necessary that among the theological differences the distinction between the essence and the energy of God, and the uncreatedness of the divine energies be noted, because if grace is created, as the Roman Catholics claim, salvation and the theosis of man is nullified, and the Church ceases to be a communion of theosis and degenerates into a nomocanonical institution.
Deeply pained in our soul because of all of the above, we have recourse to you our Spiritual Father. And with deepest respect, we call upon you and implore you, in your characteristic pastoral understanding and sensitivity, to take this most grave matter in hand and not accept the (Balamand) document, and generally to take every possible action to stave off the undesirable consequences it will have for pan-Orthodox unity if by chance some Churches adopt it.
Moreover, we ask for your holy and God-obedient prayers so that we too who are lowly inhabitants and monastics of the Holy Mountain, in this time of spiritual confusion, compromise, secularization, and the dulling of our doctrinal acuity, may remain faithful unto death to that which was passed on us by our Holy Fathers as a 'form of doctrine' (Rom. 6:17), whatever that may cost us.
With deepest respect, we venerate your holy right hand.
Signed by: All Representatives and Presidents of the Twenty
Sacred Monasteries of the Holy Mountain of Athos

P.S. Note that this letter was also sent to the Churches that participated and were directly concerned in the theological dialogue and also to the remaining Churches to keep them informed.

STATEMENT FROM THE HOLY MOUNT ATHOS

The Announcement of the Joint Conference of the Abbots of Mount Athos
9/22/1980


The extraordinary Joint Conference of the Sacred Community on Mount Athos, April 9-22, 1980, noting that the issue of the relations of our holy orthodox Church with the heterodox has assumed a serious and resolute character, especially as it relates to the dialogue with Roman Catholics, has resolved publicly to state the opinion of the Athonite fathers on this subject for general consideration:
1. We believe that our holy Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, which possesses the fullness of grace and truth and, in consequence thereof, unbroken apostolic succession.
On the contrary, the 'churches' and 'confessions' of the West, having in many ways perverted the Faith of the Gospel, the apostles and the fathers, are deprived of sanctifying grace, of real mysteries and apostolic succession. That this is correct, His Eminence, Metropolitan Maximos of Stavropolis stresses; 'Orthodoxy is not one of the churches, but The Church herself. She has preserved precisely and authentically the teaching of Christ in its pristine splendor and in all its purity. Over and above a simple, unbroken historical continuity and consistency there exists in her a spiritual and ontological authenticity.The same Faith, the same Spirit, the same life. It is this which constitutes the distinguishing feature of Orthodoxy and which justifies her claim that she is and remains The Church' ( Episkepsis, # 227, March 15, 1980).
2 Dialogue with the heterodox is not reprehensible from the Orthodox point of view if its goal is to inform them of the Orthodox Faith and, thus, make it possible for them thereby to return to Orthodoxy when they receive divine enlightenment and their eyes are opened.
3 Theological dialogue must not in any way be linked with prayer in common, or by joint participation in any liturgical or worship services whatsoever; or in other activities which might create impression that our Orthodox Church accepts, on the one hand, Roman Catholics as part of the fullness of the Church, or, on the other hand, the Pope as the canonical bishop of Rome. Activities such as these mislead both the fullnes of the Orthodox people and the Roman Catholic themselves, fostering among them a mistaken notion as to what Orthodoxy thinks of their teaching.
The Holy Mountain is grievously disturbed by the tendencies of certain Orthodox hierarchs who have been invited to participate in Roman Catholic services, celebration and processions, especially on the occasion of the return of holy relics. Conversely, we congratulate those hierarchs who have publicly expressed their alarm for the fullness of Orthodoxy.
4 We express our complete approval of what His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch said during the visit of the Pope to Constantinople, namely that there exist various impediments between Orthodox and Roman Catholics: ' First of all, we have serioustheological problems which concern fundamental principles of the Christian faith' ( Episkepsis,# 221, Dec. 1, 1979, p. 17 ). These divergences in the principles of Christian faith requires that we do not advance to participation in common liturgies and worship services before oneness of faith is attained.The mystical character of the kiss of peace during the divine Eucharist always presupposes harmony of faith: ' Let us love one another that with one mind we may confess...' We cannot pray together, especially during the Divine Liturgy, when we do not believe in the same faith and are separated by fundamental questions of faith. Only an indifference to the faith could permit us to do so.
Moreover, the Holy Mountain cannot accept the opinion, expressed in the joint statement of the Patriarch and the Pope, concerning the 'cleansing of the historical memory of our Churches' and thepartialopening, by means of a dialogue of love, of the road towards 'new movements in theological work and a new attitude to the past which is common to both Churches' (Episkepsis, ibid., p. 19). Actually, the heretics must cleanse their own historical memory of all their own historically acknowledged deviations in faith and practice from the true, evangelical Orthodox Faith. On the contrary, the historical memory of the Orthodox, which is based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and on the constant experience of the apostolic faith of the God-bearing Fathers, must be lived by all of us in repentance and humility, and must instruct us both in the present and in the future life if we do not wish to fall from that faith. As Orthodox, we must cleanse ourselves by means of the historical memory of the Church, but not 'cleanse' her with an egotistical and anthropocentic spirit, setting ourselves up as judges of the Tradition of the Church.
5 The Holy Mountain is convinced, not without great anxiety,that although the Orthodox are making many concessions and compromises to the Roman Catholics, the latter antithetically continue to adhere to their own errors which have served as the cause of their schism from the Orthodox Church and later led to the Protestant split. Thus, the Pope during his visit to the center of Orthodoxy in the patriarchal cathedral, did not in the least hesitate to proclaim that he was coming to Constantinople as the successor of Peter, 'who as the ultimate authority has the responsibility of superintending the unity of all, to guarantee the agreement of the Church of God in fidelity and in the 'faith which was once delivered unto the saints' ( Jude 3) ( Episkepsis, ibid., p. 9). In other words, the Pope defended (papal) infallibility and primacy; and there are many other action and manifestations which the Pope has effected on behalf of uniatism.We remember the establishment of diplomatic relation between the Greek government and the Vatican which, even though it may justify papism, is unjust and strikes out at the Mother and Nourisher of our (Greek) nation, the Orthodox Church.
6 The Holy Mountain also expresses its anxiety over the constituency of the commision for the dialogue. Uniates comprise a portion of the Roman Catholic delegation, a fact which is a provocation for the Orthodox. The sensibilities and dignity of the Orthodox delegation demand the immediate substitution of others in place of the uniates in the membership. No Orthodox whose manner of thinking corresponds to this faith can agree to participate in a commission which includes uniates. Likewise, the Holy Mountain is disturbed by the great weakness and insufficiciency of the Orthodox delegation. The most remarkable Orthodox theologians are not participating. The Holy Mountain is also not represented, despite the fact that it is the sole monastic center which preserves the faith and the theology of the Fathers, and which is far removed from the influence of secularism and scholastic Western theology.
7 From the Orthodox point of view there is no justification for optimism in regard to the dialogue, and for this reason no haste should be exhibited concerning it. The Roman Catholics are pressing the dialogue, hoping to strengthen themselves by annexing Orthodoxy to themselves, for they are confronted by very powerful internal disturbances and crises, as is well known. The number of former Roman Catholics who have converted to Orthodoxy also disturbs them. But Orthodoxy has no reason to hasten towards dialogue since the papists remain so obdurate and immovable as regards infallibility, uniatism, and the rest of their pernicious teachings.

Hastening the dialogue under such conditions is equivalent to spiritual suicide for the Orthodox. Many facts give the impression that the Roman Catholics are preparing a union on the pattern of a unia. Can it be that the Orthodox who are hastening to the dialogue are conscious of this?
The Holy Mountain maintains that for it there can be no question of accepting a fait accompli,that, by the grace of God, it will remain faithful, as the Lord's Orthodox people, to the faith of the holy apostles and the holy Fathers, impelled to this also by the love for the heterodox, to whom real help is given only when the Orthodox show them the vastness of their spiritual sickness and the means of its cure by maintaining a consistently Orthodox position.
The unsuccessful attempts in the past with regard to union must teach us that steadfast unity in the truth of the Church, in accordance with the will of God, presupposes a different preparation and a path distinct from that taken in the past and from that which, apparently, is now being taken.
 
 
 

All of the superiors and representatives of the twenty sacred and pious monasteries of the Holy Mountain of Athos at the Extraordinary Joint Conference

I SAW WITH MY OWN EYES THE HOLY LIGHT





An eyewitness account of the appearing of the Holy Light
by fr. Antonios Stylianakis M.D.
 
 
INTRODUCTION / WOMEN HAVE GREAT IMAGINATION / WHAT WE WERE TO SEE IN JERUSALEM / PASCHA AT THE HOLY SEPULCHRE OF CHRIST / AND FINALLY THE MOMENT HAD ARRIVED FOR THE HOLY LIGHT/ UPON VIEWING THE VIDEO FILM IN THESSALONIKI / MY SECOND TRIP TO SEE THE HOLY LIGHT / A DESCRIPTION OF THE HOLY LIGHT AS WE HAD SEEN IT / THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS / FOR GOOD MEASURE / E P I L O G U E /
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
 
It hasn’t been that many years ago, since the events that I will describe took place; so I will try to relate them as objectively – without sentimentality – as possible, for it has to do with very significant events.
It was not easy for me to do something like this, because it is a matter of revealing such personal moments that I would never want to make known publicly, despite the fact that, as a psychiatrist, I am accustomed to hearing the personal accounts of others, all the same, my debt in the light of Eternal Truth, but also toward my brothers and sisters ( in Christ) has caused me to overcome my hesitations.
WOMEN HAVE GREAT IMAGINATION
I was a student in my last year of medical school, when a couple from Florina who were friends of ours, came to our house to relate to us impressions of their recent trip to the Holy Lands.
The woman spoke the most, out of enthusiasm for what she had seen and experienced.
She told the story of the phenomena of the Holy Light, which appears every year at Pascha and is witnessed by all who are present. She, herself, was an eye-witness; she stated that, while standing in the outside/courtyard area of the Church, she saw a blue light flickering above their heads like electrical discharges and in an undiscernible whisper, filled them with great joy…
I listened incredulously and thought to myself how easily women get charged up emotionally, to the point that they are seeing things and doing so in mass… (mass hysteria?) I do not wish to say here that I was an unbeliever… It’s just that I had excluded the possibility of miracles taking place before my very eyes in the twentieth century! And yet, when, after several years had gone by, I found myself, a devout pilgrim, fortified with all kinds of questions (a true representative of the rational age!) but also carrying a video camera at my side, I would never have thought that I would also be viewing for myself something which I had mocked others for… And not only that, but that God would make it possible for me to video tape a supernatural phenomena, a miracle which was unfolding before the very eyes of thousands of people.
On my way to the Holy Lands, within me I entreated God to show me a sign… A sign, so that my faith would be made firm (although I knew that such a request was both quite bold and extravagant), and in such a way I would be assured of my conviction to devote the rest of my life (to Him), as I had dreamed of doing during my childhood, and more recently had contemplated doing, with the blessing of my spiritual father.
WHAT WE WERE TO SEE IN JERUSALEM
It is quite worthwhile for someone to visit Jerusalem from several standpoints… even if only for its historical significance at the time of Christ. It still retains an appearance of antiquity and respectful of its monuments. Here one sees the encounter of the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism.
It was Pascha 1994. I was visiting the Holy Lands for the second time, and I was in a position to enjoy, with greater leisure time, things that one can not see in just one hurried visit.
Above all, it is worthwhile, and a must, to go on pilgrimage to the places, which not only have historical significance, but which are also related, in a sacred way, to Christ. The Church of the Resurrection – with the Holy Sepulchre within and the site of Golgotha and the Deposition (the unnailing of the body of Christ from the Cross) – overrides all. Gethsemane at the Brook Kidron, which appears as it, did in ancient times. Mary’s Tomb, the Upper Room, and a bit outside the City, Bethany where Lazarus’ Tomb is located and an Orthodox Monastery as well.
However, what commands the greatest attention throughout the Paschal season is the Holy Light. Many people come exclusively to see this and tie in the other sites as an aside… The Holy Light comes out every Holy Saturday at noon in a special ceremony conducted by the Patriarch. We’re talking about a heavenly “uncreated” light that becomes visible, moreover, to the naked eye!

PASCHA AT THE HOLY SEPULCHRE OF CHRIST
I will never forget that Pascha (the last one I spent as a layman), when I went to Jerusalem with a group of devout worshippers from the travel agency, Chorev, in Thessaloniki. The head of the group was Papa (Father) Savas, a dentist from the Brotherhood, Kerasies (of the Holy Mountain); and with me was my cousin, Dr. George E. Stylianakis.
A few days before Holy Saturday, I visited the Holy Church of the Resurrection, and after venerating (the icon) and saying my prayers, I began drawing up a plan for how and where I was going to install my video camera, so that I would be able to “capture” (on film) all that would be happening. And as such, I chose a small narrow balcony a little less than twenty (20) feet away from and above the Holy Sepulchre, not knowing, however, that this very spot had been designated as the official grandstand for government dignitaries from Greece and elsewhere… (I remember that the Minister of Transportation, J. Haralambos, was among the official personalities and administrative staff of Olympic Airlines, who came to Jerusalem that year).
The plan was to prepare to hold the camera in as steady a position as possible – on my shoulder – in order to shoot for the Holy Sepulchre. At the same time, I would keep an eye out, scouting the area, should any of the goings-on escape my attention. In this way, I thought it would be as if I were seeing with three eyes instead of one… at the time that I was looking through the camera (lens)! So if I didn’t catch something directly with my own eyes, my camera would. The end result proved me right, fortunately, and to an astonishing degree.
Of course, it became apparent that I wasn’t the only one to have a plan for how I was going to witness this most unique phenomenon in the entire world! Later, I found out there were people (women) who dressed up as nuns (even after having removed their eyebrows!) to fool the guards, as well as the crowd, in order to succeed in getting a better seat next to the dignitaries.
I, of course, with camera-in-hand, had a good alibi, making it easier, relatively speaking, for me to move about freely. But wouldn’t you know it, more than ten cameramen were also there, carrying huge professional ones, making mine look like a miniature!
And as if that weren’t enough, at one point, when I got tired, I sat down for a little while in a corner of the aisle where the boisterous, unrelenting Israeli police were parading back and forth… And that did it! They grabbed hold of me, threw me out of the Church before I was even able to protest!
The panic that overtook me can not described. To have come all the way from Greece to see the Holy Light, and to start out a day earlier in order to secure a place at the Church, only to be removed at the last minute was inconceivable to me. It seemed that any hopes of getting back in were dashed, because the Church had filled up and there were guards at all the doors. On the side where the Copts were, there was perhaps a better chance of entering; however, I couldn’t imagine playing the hypocrite in order to re-enter so as to see the Holy Light!
In the end, not even I know how it happened that I slipped inside again, I, who was over 6 feet tall… I’m sure that it was my constant prayers that helped, after what had happened to me.
I resituated myself across from the Holy Sepulchre and due to my height, I had a privileged view… Still, the pushing and shoving that I experienced from all sides were unbearable.
It was natural for everyone to want to be in front and to try to improve their visibility, without showing concern for the others. (At some point) you feel like your back is going to break from trying to keep a balance on one foot, then on your tiptoes or else on your heels!

AND FINALLY THE MOMENT HAD ARRIVED FOR THE HOLY LIGHT
It was Holy Saturday 1994 midday, around 2 p.m.
After what seemed like an endless wait all morning long, the processional with the Patriarch, finally, passed by in the direction of the Holy Sepulchre, while several shops turned on their projectors in order to have a better reception, but it’s a wonder the crowd didn’t try to lynch them, for they had come to see the Holy Light, not the photographers’ flashes! ! ! Finally, they complied with the shouts of the people, and everyone waited for the big moment. My anxiety was heightened by the fact that I didn’t know what/where to look for most, as well as what exactly to expect. The recollection that I had my camera-in-hand conforted me.
Finally, at some point, I heard people shouting triumphantly and cheering/whistling. I opened my camera lens, and I saw what seemed like a shower of lightening flashes, which I, initially, mistook for camera flashes, but I, immediately, realized that it was impossible for so many hundreds of cameras to go off in such an orchestrated fashion. Simultaneously, these “flashing lights” spread to the Church, so that the light was dancing on the walls and even on the church ceiling… The moments at hand were profound. Chills had taken hold of my body and I kept trying to remain calm so, as not to tremble. The pushing and elbowing were enough for me… Seconds later, I barely managed to see an orange fire–like ball coming out from the left side of the Sepulchre (from where I was standing), and like a rocket or a flare, taking off in an upward direction in somewhat slow time… (was it a balloon?) Very quickly I pointed my camera in that direction. And I managed to film the last phase just before it disappeared above the area designated for women, where people were automatically gathered, holding lit candles. Then after a little while, the Patriarch came out of the ciborium and lit the first candles.
My God what was it, torches or an outbreak of fire? I thought that everything had caught fire! Within moments, it passed by me and not taking notice of its approach, I bent down to light my candle. Later, I learned that at different points, candles were being lit miraculously, by themselves, so that in a very short while, the flame had spread everywhere, even outside the Church. Then, afterwards, inside the Church there were what seemed like flames from the candles, over one (1) meter high, because many people were holding several candles all at one time in their hands. Fortunately, the police were there, and with fire extinguishers, they put out the flames, the threatening ones, from a distance. Otherwise, we would have all caught fire; at some point, I put myself at risk in trying to save my camera from the flames! For several moments thereafter, shouts could be heard and there was a stir of emotion among the people; and I can’t hide the fact that I was anxious/concerned about something happening to us from so many flames.
UPON VIEWING THE VIDEO FILM IN THESSALONIKI
The first to view it was my mother, and since I knew its contents, at some point while she was watching it, I went out of the room… In a little while, she shouted for me to come and see something totally astounding. I turned the video back and saw a fiery ball (like the one I had seen from the left), coming from the right side of the Holy Sepulchre and casting itself, literally, on the people’s heads and then directing itself toward the nearest column, and after glowing brightly, wholly, it went out.
I turned the video back several times, as I could not get enough of seeing it. For a second time, I experienced something of wonder and a greater miracle. A clear indication that although I had seen the Holy Light, I had missed seeing many other things! ! ! Even more extraordinary was the fact that next to this column, many from our group were standing (among whom was my sister also, Athina, a dentist) and no one took notice of the fact that not only should they have seen it, but also they should have experienced terror/fright that the flame would burn them! “Great art thou O Lord, and I marvel at your Work!”
Later, when I showed the film to some Uncles of mine, one of them made the comment that, for certain, the priests had placed a laser on the ceiling… thereby simulating such a scene of lights and shadows! ! ! (I wondered, telling myself, that the laser should have been discovered in Jerusalem hundreds of years ago in view of the phenomena that occurs there). When the film reached the scene of the fiery ball, they were unable to offer any explanation at all…
MY SECOND TRIP TO SEE THE HOLY LIGHT
I was a Priest when I came for the second time at Pascha to Jerusalem, and I was one of the firsts to arrive on Holy Saturday, to come out from the Royal Doors, in the direction of the Holy Sepulchre. Something happened then, which had not happened over the past 12 years since the time, according to father Panteleimon who had been the guard of the Holy Tomb, as he told me later. The Holy Flame started flickering on the walls before the Patriarch had arrived at the Holy Tomb! I watched, keeping in mind the experience of the past, and asked the priests next to me if they saw what I was looking at. They stated with bewilderment that it must be the Holy Light…
When, however, the Patriarch entered the Tomb, the Flame became stronger, and everywhere, the Church of the Resurrection was bathed in its radiance.
My God, what inexpressible joy I experienced, when, after a great while, I entered the Holy Altar to receive the Patriarch’s blessing, just as everyone else was doing, and he was sitting on his throne, completely shaken, trembling and sobbing like a small child (who perhaps had been spanked and reprimanded quite severely!).
“What does it mean, O Lord, to enter your Heavenly Kingdom, when here (on earth) you grant us untold joys despite our unworthiness…?” Some people want to see miracles in order to believe. They don’t ask themselves if they are prepared to embrace see them, if their hearts can take it and if they can survive it!
It was my turn now to experience all of this, in order to understand (in a manner of speaking!) as a physician, what it all meant. Really, only now did I understand as a doctor of psychology what constitutes, thereabouts, a miracle.
When we all came out and asked each other what he had seen, I, for one, wasn’t sure what I had seen, whether I had seen the Holy Light or not! It was necessary for several hours to go by, in order for me to realize that I had seen something not seen on an ordinary day, because it was so extraordinary and wonderful.
A DESCRIPTION OF THE HOLY LIGHT AS WE HAD SEEN IT
It is a bluish (azure) white, clear light, in strips, and bathed in brilliance, and it moves by flickering in the atmosphere, on objects – creating a very pleasing impression.
What also elicits an impression is that from year to year, you don’t know exactly what form it will appear in, since there are out-of-the ordinary shapes which are made visible, such as the fiery balls that we saw and videotaped in 1994, which we didn’t observe the following year… What is certain to happen, though, everytime is:
A. That the vigil lamp above the Holy Sepulchre of Christ is lit and often times all of the votive lamps located above the entrance to the Sepulchre (are also lit).
B. The candles, which the masses hold, are lit by themselves, sporadically and disproportionately, even at great distances outside the Church (the latter phenomenon I had the good fortune to witness during Pascha 1995, when I participated as a Priestmonk, in the Holy Light ceremony and held high the torch. Mine didn’t light, but I saw with my own eyes (and shivered), other torches/candles in the crowd of people, being lit here and there, while at the very beginning there was smoke!)
C. Lightening – like streaks of blue – white light shine in the air for a few minutes on a continuous basis and create a feeling of chills among the worshippers.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
Included in the remainder of the itinerary was a visit to the Private /Special Museum containing the Bible, in Jerusalem.
In 1947, a chance but quite important discovery brought to light perhaps the most important manscripts in the history of humankind. Handwritten papyrus scrolls in their original state, whole chapters from the Old Testament and especially from the prophet Isaiah. A specialist who examined the scrolls estimated that they dated back to several years before Christ's birth, and for this reason, they are guarded (as the apple of one's eye) in the special environment of an underwater museum! It is a Jewish find, of extraordinary importance, and very valuable for Christendom as well.
The reason for this is that there have been many wars fought up until now that support the idea that it was the Christians who had later altered several passages from the Old Testament, so that they would fit the prophecies in the New Testament. Now, these findings persuade even the most unbelieving soul that the Old Testament passage is authentic and matches totally with what we have today, translated by the ’70 (seventy) – the Septuagint.
Christ was not some chance person in the history of humankind, but the sole, long awaited Messiah of Israel and of all humankind.

FOR GOOD MEASURE
It was January 17th, 1997. I was in the library of the Brotherhood, located at 22 Ethnikis Aminis Street, and I was talking to Stathis Hav. I learned (from him) that he had visited Father Mitrofanis – who has been a guard keeper of the Holy Sepulchre for many years – and saw many things. At some point Stathis’ wife called and told him that their Elder was not well and that perhaps he would be departing (this world)… He had confided in me also that, lately, he was suffering and that his soul very much wanted to leave us. I felt very sad because I realized how late it was to interview the only person I would ever have wanted to interview. However, I proposed (to Stathis) that we go together to see him.
We arrived at the Harissio Old Age Home. I hadn’t visited it in years, although Christians, and especially Clergymen, should be going to such places weekly! We entered his room. A pious woman was at his side, although he was deep, in sleep (perhaps in a "precomatous" condition). I checked his pulse which was good, although a bit irregular. His breathing was strong and regular. I looked round his room. It was full of the icons of Saints. It’s the first time I had ever seen so many well cared for icons all placed among flowers (some of which were not real) and some in frames. Each icon had a name and telephone number on the back of it. It was the person who would inherit it after his falling asleep, which he had foreseen – and so had seen to every thing (before his passing). And therefore he (now) was awaiting the hour of his encounter with the Lord, “face to face” for he had so much to ask Him and express his gratitude for…
We prayed together for his soul and felt like a weight had been removed from us. And we departed in hopes of seeing him again in a better state a few days later. However, the following day, I received a call that Father Mitropanis had left for the heavenly kingdom and was already tasting the blessedness of the Lord, Whom he had served so devoutly for so many years; and who knows how many revelations he received from Him! May his memory be eternal and may he intercede for us who are “absent”
E P I L O G U E
Dear brother, I am not an historian!
I don’t occupy my time with such… I have written all of this for you.
A person who has experienced such things can’t just ignore them. He must write them down. All the more so when the truth of eternal life is contained within.
What I have found so difficult to understand is how, up until now, such an enormous miracle, like none other, has remained so unknown and in such disdain. How is it that no one had ever spoken to me about it.
But what am I saying! And when I was told about it, did I believe it ?
Blessed are they who believe what they have read, even though they haven’t seen it with their own eyes.
As much as is dependent on me, I considered it my duty to bring this to the forefront. No one has the right (is justified) to allow others to thirst when he has found the well.
Two thousand years have gone by since Christ’s appearance on earth. He didn’t throw a book down from Heaven to tell us what He wants from us. He Himself showed us the Way that we must follow in order to enter once again the Paradise of God, in Whose image we are created, lest we forget. Since then, He has established His Church in order for Him to preserve the mysteries/sacraments leading to our salvation and His inadultered pure Grace. He has given us many indications/examples of Sainthood in the Church throughout the years.
Today He continues to talk to us by means of the Holy Light:
“Here is my Tomb! ! ! Here is where they crucified Me and where I was resurrected in order to prepare the way for you to come, too!
It is Orthodoxy which has preserved my Gospel without change and it is this which you must embrace and follow.”