BIRTH AND EVOLUTION OF THE POST-PATRISTIC BATTLE AGAINST THE FATHERS


Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis Emeritus Professor of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki


 The Scholasticism of the Franco-Papist West against the Patristic East

            In the West, until the 8th century, theology and spirituality, in essence, followed the route marked out by the East. As G. Dumont points out, the sources and principles of theological thought, liturgy and spirituality for the West, which characterize the flourishing era of Latin Catholicism, are to be found in the East, however much this may come as a surprise to many Western Christians. The West owes the East a debt as regards the fact that it formulated into dogmas the great mysteries of Christianity concerning the Holy Trinity, the union of divine and human nature in the one person of Christ, a large number of feasts in the Church’s year, especially in honour of the Mother of God, as well as the foundation and organization of monasticism. The estrangement between East and West begins at a particular time in history: the dynamic appearance on the historical stage of the German Franks of Charlemagne offered the throne of Rome a powerful ally against the pressures of the Byzantine emperor and gave the German prince and his successors the opportunity to found and construct the Holy Roman Empire of the German people as a replacement for Romania (New Rome/Constantinople) which was henceforth known as Byzantium. According to the analysis of Le Guillu, Charlemagne’s ambition was to create a new theological tradition independent of the Patristic Tradition of the East. As he explicitly says: “In the Carolingian books, the first attempt is made by the West to define itself in opposition to the East”[1].

            The greatest contribution to this estrangement was made by the abandonment of the Patristic Tradition and by the construction of a new theology on the Aristotelian syllogistic method, i.e. the formation of the Scholastic Theology. In the 14th century conflict between Saint Gregory Palamas and Barlaam the Calabrian, we have the clash of the new, scholastic theology with that of the Patristic Tradition of the East which was rooted in the Holy Spirit, and which, until then, the West had followed, too.
           
The Clash between Orthodox Illumination and Western Enlightenment in the 14th Century
            There was, indeed, a severe conflict between the scholastic, post-Patristic theology of the Westerners and the empirical theology of the Fathers of the Church which was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The former was expressed by Barlaam the Calabrian, one of the chief architects of the Western Renaissance and the latter by the great God-bearing and God-revealing Theologian, Gregory Palamas, who achieved in the 14th century what John Damascene had in the 8th: the expression and codification of the teachings of the Fathers who came before  on many issues, the most important being: a) whether theology ought to be dialectic or demonstrative, i.e. whether it should be founded on philosophical analysis and discussion, as Barlaam wanted, bringing the scholasticism of the West into the East, or founded on the certainty of the experience of the Holy Spirit which the Prophets, Apostles and Saints had enjoyed, as taught by Palamas; b) whether human wisdom leads to perfection and deification, as Barlaam claimed, or whether these were achieved only through divine wisdom, which is granted to those who keep the commandments of God and are cleansed of the passions, in which case, after purification, they receive divine illumination and thereafter attain to the vision of God, as Saint Gregory Palamas contended; and, c) whether this illumination is the fruit of the created energy of the intellect, as Barlaam would have it, or of the uncreated energy of God, as stated by Saint Gregory, which really deifies people by energy, by grace, but not by nature and essence, because the uncreated energies are distinct from the essence of God. Saint Gregory’s arguments were overwhelmingly successful and a famous victory was won by the Patristic East, inspired by the Holy Spirit over the scholastic and post-Patristic West. We shall not analyze this here[2], but merely observe that without observance of God’s commandments, the ascetic way of living, and the effort to purify oneself of evils and passions, as the Holy Fathers, those theologians of  experience, lived and taught, without these no-one can become wise in divine matters. So the only chance that someone who is not illumined and glorified has, when wishing speak about theology, is to follow those who were illumined and deified by the grace of the Holy Spirit. If this condition is not in place, we have no wisdom or theology, only foolishness and childishness. Addressing Barlaam, and all the post-Patristic theologians of all ages- the thinkers, philosophers, academics- Saint Gregory observes pithily in the Holy Spirit: “Without purification, even if you learn natural philosophy from as far back as Adam and up until the end of the world, you will be none the wiser”[3].
            Over the last few days I have been looking closely at Saint Gregory Palamas’ writings, to confirm what I wanted to say here “following the divine fathers and this God-revealing and God-seeing Father”. It would take a long time for me to present the Patristic attitude of Palamas, the honour and value he accords the Holy Fathers. Of the many things I have perused, I would present merely a few which are indicative, in order to show how mistaken and how far outside the Orthodox Tradition are those clergy and laity who, (at their academies and theological schools) instead of making the Spirit-inspired and God-illumined Holy Fathers the object of their studies, those who have given us access to the vast, uncreated world of divine majesty, instead bring us down to the created and petty things of human thoughts and philosophies and, often enough, initiate us into the depths of Satan, as Saint Gregory says. For example, they get rid of the confessional lesson of Religious Instruction from schools, catechism, dogmatics, liturgics, history, references to the Mother of God and the Saints, Scripture- Old and New Testaments- and have, instead, through the lesson dubbed “Religious Knowledge”, introduced Masonic, Satanic syncretism.
            In confirming his truly wondrous accord with the Fathers over all the intervening centuries, Saint Gregory says that it is impossible for the God-bearing Fathers not to agree among themselves, because they are all guided by the inspiration of one and the same Holy Spirit[4]. The Fathers are the sure guardians of the Gospel and Theology because the Spirit of genuine truth is manifested and resides in their spirit, so any people who apprentice themselves to them are taught by God[5]. With authority and mastery he stresses that: “this perfection is for salvation, both in knowledge and dogmas, saying everything regarding God and His creatures, as the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers held, and as all those through whom the Holy Spirit witnessed”[6].
            Barlaam would not have ended in heresy, and with him all the modern, post-Patristic Neo-Barlaamites, had he believed that the divine is not to be approached through human reasoning but with Godly faith; had he accepted, in simplicity, the traditions of the Holy Fathers, which we know are better and wiser than human musings, because they come from the Holy Spirit and have been proved by words rather than deeds[7]. In a snapshot of the Barlaam-like terminology of today’s post-Patristic theologians, Saint Gregory asks Barlaam if the latter has understood where this “piety greater than the Fathers” will lead[8].
            Barlaam was led there, to such a pit of impiety, because, with reason and philosophy, he investigated what is “beyond word and nature” and did not believe, as did Saint John Chrysostom, that it is not possible to interpret in words the manner of the prophetic sight except and unless you have learned it clearly through experience. For if no word is able to present the works and passions of nature, how much more is this true of the energy of the Spirit[9]?
            What we have said so far has been aimed at demonstrating that doubts began to be cast on the standing of the Fathers from the 9th century, with the development of scholastic theology and then the anthropocentric Humanism of the Renaissance. The scholastic theology of Papism is responsible for the neglect of the Fathers, not only because it made logic and dialectics the basic tools for theologizing and ignored the illumination from above, divine wisdom, but also because it dogmatized the elevation of the Pope over the synods and Fathers, even over the Church itself. The criterion for correct theological thinking was no longer one of being in agreement with the Fathers, but with the Pope.
            Whereas the Tradition of the Church functioned along the line of Christ – Apostles – Fathers, the Papal monarchist view went Christ – Peter – Pope. This powerful post-Patristic storm did not shake the Patristic tradition, the Patristic foundations of the Church, because God revealed, in the middle and late Byzantine times, three new, great hierarchs and ecumenical teachers: Photius the Great, who was the first, in the 9th century, to oppose systematically and most theologically the anti-Patristic and heretical Papist teaching on the issue of the filioque and that of the primacy of the Pope, endorsing the Orthodox teaching with a decision of the synod in Constantinople in 879, which is considered ecumenical; Saint Gregory Palamas, who, in the 14th century, opposed the humanist philosopher, Barlaam, at the time when Scholasticism was at its height, and who promulgated the illumination of theologians through the uncreated grace and energy of God, as opposed to the created and limited illumination of human wisdom, a position completely endorsed by the hesychast synods of 1451, in Constantinople, which are also considered ecumenical; and Saint Mark of Ephesus, that giant and Atlas of Orthodoxy, rightly called Anti-Papist and the Scourge of the Pope, who alone negated and nullified the decision of the pseudo-unifying synod of Ferrara-Florence, which scurrilously and oppressively dogmatized anti-Patristic and heretical teachings, and which to this day is numbered among the ecumenical synods by the Papists.
b) Patristics and Post-Patristics at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence
            Sylvestros Syropoulos, who wrote the history of the pseudo-synod of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439), where, on a Synodal level, Patristic Orthodox theology came into conflict with the post-Patristic scholastic theology of Papism, has preserved for us facts and information which help us to realize how far the Church is Patristic and how far the West, since the Franks seized the, until then, Orthodox Patriarchate of Old Rome in the 9th century, was converted into being post-Patristic, and anti-Patristic, giving rise to a whole host of heresies and schisms.
            The Orthodox patriarchs knew that Papism and scholastic theology had transcended and pushed aside the Fathers of the Church and had replaced them with their own “Fathers”, chief among whom was Thomas Aquinas (13th century), and so, in their letters appointing their representatives, (their locum tenentes)  they (the patriarchs) also set out the limits for the discussions and decisions of the Synod, whether this was to take place in Basel, Switzerland, where the reformist delegates awaited the Pope, or in some other place designated by the Pope. Union was to take place “canonically and legally, in accordance with the traditions of the holy ecumenical synods and the holy teachers of the Church and nothing was to be added to the faith nor removed or introduced as new”[10]. Otherwise they would not accept the anti-Patristic and post-Patristic decisions of the synod. By taking this stand, the patriarchs expressed the firm, permanent and inviolate position of the Church over the centuries that the Fathers constitute a sine qua non element of the identity of the Church and its theology. There is no theology which transcends the Fathers, and those who denigrate them, or, condemn them, or, even worse, transcend and surpass them, as at the well-known Conference in June 2010, at “The Academy of Theological Studies” of the Holy Metropolis of Volos, are no theologians. According to Saint John Damascene, the mouthpiece of all the Fathers and voice of the self-awareness of the Church, anyone who does not believe in accordance with the Tradition of the Church is an unbeliever[11]. Earlier than this, the truly great Athanasius, in his well-known letter to Serapion, makes it clear, in wonderful fashion, what this Tradition is on which the Church is founded: it is what Christ handed down, what the Apostles preached and what the Fathers preserved[12].
            The Orthodox Patriarchs’ most Orthodox and Patristic framework for the discussions and decisions of the council immediately met with resistance on the part of the papal theologian of the Council of Basel and legate to Constantinople, John of Ragusa, who, expressing the Western-Frankish spirit of theology which no longer needed the Fathers, intervened with Emperor Ioannes VIII Palaeologus to ask the patriarchs- and he succeeded in his aims- to change their letters, omitting the terms and limitations regarding agreement with the synods and the Holy Fathers. Unfortunately, the emperor gave way, in the face of his great need for financial and military assistance. But even worse, the patriarchs themselves retreated, even though their criteria ought to have been unalterable and firm, purely spiritual and never political, as regards matters of faith. Syropoulos sadly notes that this was an unfortunate prelude for what was to follow and indicated that the emperor had abdicated his role as “fidei defensor”: “It was to such preconditions that the defensor of the dogmas of our Church had submitted us”[13].
            Of course, the theologians on the Orthodox side, particularly Saint Mark of Ephesus, had no need of patriarchal suggestions in order to take a stand firmly on the Fathers and to force the Latin theologians into a difficult corner[14], since the latter did not have Patristic arguments and attempted to endorse their positions dialectically and philosophically in accordance with the prevailing Scholastic Theological method, which was based on the logical categories of Aristotle. Syropoulos actually preserves a charming and most instructive event for all of us, especially the post-Patristic innovators of our own times. According to him, when the representative of the Orthodox Church of Georgia (Iberia) heard Juan de Tarquemada, from Spain, frequently invoking Aristotle, he turned to Syropoulos in consternation and said: “What Aristotel, Aristotele? Aristotele no good”. When Syropoulos then asked him what was good, he replied: “Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Saint Basil, theologian Gregory, Chrysostom. No Aristotel Aristotele”. He mocked the Latin scholiast with hand movements, nods and gestures, but, as Syropoulos observes, “he was probably mocking us Orthodox, who had abandoned the Fathers and polluted ourselves with such teachers”[15].
Earlier, he relates another incident, with the same Georgian delegate leaving the Pope speechless and acting as a teacher to him. Just before the apostasy was completed and the shameful unifying text was signed, the Pope summoned this cleric and with the sweetest affability, which recalls the blandishments and geniality of our contemporary ecumenists, advised him to recognize that the Church of Rome was “the mother of all Churches and indeed the successor to Saint Peter and the locum tenens of Christ and the shepherd and universal teacher of all Christians”. So, in order to find salvation for your soul, added the Pope, you must follow the Mother Church, accept what She accepts, submit to the bishop and be taught and shepherded by him. The answer of the truly Orthodox bishop lies within the enduring position of the Church and is in agreement with the Fathers. It is a word for word repetition, a thousand years later, of the stance of Athanasius the Great, whom we have mentioned, and of all the Holy Fathers who came after him: “By the grace of God we are Christians and we accept and follow our Church. For our Church holds true to what it has received both from the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ and from the tradition of the Holy Apostles and of the ecumenical synods and of the holy teachers recognized by the Church; and it has never departed from their teaching nor has it added nor left anything to chance. But the Church of Rome has added to and transgressed the bounds of the Fathers. This is why we, who hold fast to the things of the Fathers, have cut it off or have removed ourselves from it. So, if your beatitude wishes to bring peace to the Church and unite us all, you must expunge the addition of the filioque from the Creed. You can do this easily, should you wish, because the nations of the Latins will accept whatever you suggest, since they consider you the successor to Saint Peter and respect your teaching”.
Syropoulos’ conclusion: the Pope expected to lead by the nose and win over the Iberian with his false blandishments, given that the man was a foreign-speaker, an individual both unlearned and barbarian. “But, when he heard this answer, he was left speechless”[16].
Expressions of post-Patricity during Turkish rule and in the Period after 1821
a) Turkish rule
            What happened, however, after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, and after the liberation and creation of the modern Greek state in 1821? In brief, the picture as regards the faith and Patristic tradition is as follows: by divine providence the reins of the church were taken over by Gennadius Scholaris, the first patriarch and ethnarch after the fall. He had been a prominent official at the imperial court, a professor and high judicial functionary. For two years prior to this he had also been a monk, a faithful disciple of Saint Mark Eugenicus of Ephesus, and adhered to the latter’s views in relation to the Fathers.
            Well aware of Scholaris’ piety and abilities, Mark, shortly before his death, named him his successor in the struggle on behalf of Orthodoxy, and was not mistaken in his choice. Saint Mark annulled the decisions of Ferrara-Florence with his decision not to sign them, and Gennadius Scholaris, advisor to the two emperors, John VIII and Constantine XII, the last, heroic emperor, prevented the renewal and implementation of the decisions of the council for more than ten years, until he became a monk in 1450 and withdrew voluntarily from the imperial court. As a result of this, the union was renewed with an anti-Patristic joint service on 12 December 1452, which was the main reason God abandoned the City and why it was captured by the Turks a few months later. Scholaris was himself an excellent Aristotelian philosopher and familiar with the theology of Thomas Aquinas, whose works he had translated. Moreover, he was present, as a theological advisor, at Ferrara-Florence, took an active part in the proceedings, and knew very well that the Orthodox faith had to be preserved in this new, painful captivity because, if it, too, were lost, then, together with political subjugation, there was a risk that Orthodox culture would also be lost, that New Rome would disappear and that the Church of the Fathers would be subjugated to that of the Pope[17].
            Amidst the ruins, as patriarch he rebuilt and reorganized the Church along the Patristic lines of Photius the Great, Saint Gregory Palamas, and his own teacher, Mark of Ephesus. As regards the Fathers, we shall mention only two of his important positions. In the first place, he says that the guidance of the Holy Fathers is so rich and so superior that following it is a sign of prudence and great intelligence, so that those who do not do so are being obtuse. Summing up the opinion of the Church regarding the Fathers, he says: “We are convinced that nothing is more sacred, nothing more wise than the Patristic tradition and we hope to run this course under faithful leaders”[18].
            The Church and theology proceeded along these Patristic lines, which were never broken, until the creation of the modern Greek state, even though new problems and challenges which were hostile to the Fathers of the Church now presented themselves. This had to do with the emergence and formation in the West of the great Protestant schism, which reinforced the anti-Patristic spirit, as well as  the European Enlightenment, which was linked to the atheism and anthropocentrism of the Renaissance. This passed into the East, too, as modern Greek Enlightenment, with Adamantios Koraïs as its main proponent. Papist and Protestant missionaries exploited the difficult historical circumstances, the poverty and the misery of the subjugated Orthodox by  engaging in hostile proselytism, while many young Orthodox who went to the West to study brought back the innovations of the Enlightenment into the spheres of the Church and education.
            It might be useful if I explain why Protestantism reinforced the anti-Patristic spirit, so that it may be better understood that today’s prevailing heresy of Ecumenism, which organizes and reinforces post-Patricity, is basically of Protestant provenance, with Papist roots, of course. The only difference is that the rationality and anthropocentricism of Papism pushed every Protestant to the extreme and changed them into an authentic voice and interpreter of the faith. Saint Justin Popović has this to say on the matter: “ Let us not fool ourselves: Western Christian/humanist maximalism, Papism, is really the most radical Protestantism and individualism, because it has transferred the foundation of Christianity from the eternal God to the individual human person. The Protestants did no more than accept this dogma (infallibility) in its essence, and then develop it to such an extent that it acquired terrible dimensions and detail. Essentially, Protestantism is nothing other than a generally applied Papism. For, in Protestantism, the fundamental principle of Papism is brought to life by each man individually. After the example of the infallible man in Rome, each Protestant is a cloned infallible man, because he pretends to personal infallibility in matters of faith. It can be said: Protestantism is vulgarized Papism…”[19].
            The abandonment of the Fathers of the Church by Papism, and its over-evaluation of philosophy, resulted in innovations being introduced in the West, anti-traditional teachings and heresies being formulated, and the unity of the Tradition which had linked the apostolic and patristic ages being fragmented. In the tradition of the Church, the faithful no longer saw the preaching and life of the Apostles, but human and secular patterns. This is why the Reformation of Luther and others brought everything crashing down. It turned to sola scriptura and diminished the Fathers of the Church and Tradition in general, because the reformers did not understand that it was the Fathers who, first and foremost, laid bare the recalcitrant attitude of Papism. As former papists, they were prejudiced against the “schismatic” East. They did not see the Patristic age as a continuum of the Apostolic, or the Fathers as continuing the work of the Apostles. Had Luther known the Eastern Patristic tradition (we know he was acquainted with but one work of Athanasius the Great- and that not genuine- and a few dogmatic works of the same author from Latin translations), he would certainly not have identified the whole of Patristic tradition with Papism and scholasticism. He may then have acknowledged in the Eastern Church the continuity of the Apostolic Church which he was seeking, and the Fathers of the Church as successors of the Prophets and Apostles, keeping alive, pure and unadulterated, the word and life of Christ and the Apostles.
            Of course, thereafter, both Papists and Protestants were forced to use the Fathers of the Church- each for their own purposes- in their internecine struggle, especially after the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which is why we have so many editions of Patristic works in the West at this time, not because they particularly respected and honoured the Fathers. The most serious charge of the Protestants against the Fathers, though it is entirely unfounded and flimsy, is that the Fathers altered the original message of the Gospel, overturning its biblical/Judaic foundations, and turned it into dogmas clearly influenced by Greek philosophy. This is the familiar theory of the Hellenization of Christianity by the Fathers as was formulated by the well-known Protestant historian, Harnack. Protestants continue to accept it to this day, and, like the pseudo-Jehovah’s Witnesses, suggest to the Orthodox in discussions between them, that they, too, should adopt sola scriptura and ignore the Fathers of the Church. It would be worth looking into whether the Orthodox in today’s theological dialogue accept this position and use the Fathers in a way which imitates that of the post-Patristic Protestants. The truth of the matter is that the Hellenization of Christianity, that is to say the alteration of knowledge, is what the heretics wanted to achieve- as they always do, whereas the Fathers, working against the heretics, saw off this danger, as was the case with Gnosticism, Arianism and Scholasticism, and as can be seen very clearly in the teaching of Saint Gregory Palamas against Barlaam the Calabrian. The Fathers do what the Apostles did in using Greek terminology. This was the case with Saint John the Theologian with the concept of the Word, and Saint Paul, with even word for word quotations from ancient Greek sages, since they were addressed to Greek audiences- indeed mainly to Greek audiences. So there is also Hellenization in  Scripture, in the New Testament, the sole source of the faith of the Protestants.
            Be that as it may, during Turkish rule, and despite its captivity to a barbarous and ruthless conqueror, as well as the lack of education and of a satisfactory number of teachers and theologians, the Church never budged an inch from the Tradition of the Fathers, but defended itself effectively against the attacks of the post-Patristic Papists and Protestants, as well as of the Greek Enlighteners, who wished to supersede the Fathers in the education of the Greek nation. Most of these people were imbued with uncritical admiration of Classical Greek antiquity and were intent on linking modern Greece to the ancient, missing out the intermediate stage of Byzantium, or New Rome.
            With repeated and strict Synodal decisions, the Church condemned the Papists and Protestants to its flock as dangerous heretics. It also condemned the subversive ideas of the supporters of the Enlightenment. With the well-known Kollyvades movement on the Holy Mountain, which successfully renewed the Patristic Tradition in the 18th century, it prepared its flock to resist the anti-Patristic spirit which was to become institutionalized with the Bavarian state apparatus after the [murder of the] only Orthodox governor, Ioannis Capodistrias, and was to Frankify, Europeanize Greek Orthodox culture. It did exactly the opposite of what the Church is doing today, the heads of which, in post-Patristic fashion, not only refuse to call Papism and Protestantism heresies, but have reached the point of recognizing these heresies, as well as the old one of Monophysitism, as Churches which provide grace and salvation.
            As a small example of this Patristic stance during Turkish rule, we quote a few opinions, synodal and patriarchal, as well as some actions of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers. In reply to the Anglican Nonjurors, the Patriarchs of the East (1716/1725) made it perfectly clear that the dogmas of the Orthodox Church were defined “correctly and piously” by the Holy Fathers at the Ecumenical Synods and that it is not possible either to add to or subtract from them. They strictly exclude any discussion on matters of faith and call upon the Anglican Protestants, if they desire union, to agree with what the Church taught, from the time of the Apostles and thereafter, through the God-bearing Fathers, without investigation and discussion, but in simplicity and obedience[20]. In the same spirit, the Confessor of Faith of the Synod in Constantinople in 1727 declared: “We pious Christians of the Eastern Church have been called from above through the Holy Spirit by the prophets, by our Saviour, Christ, by the Apostles, by the Ecumenical Synods and by all the Holy Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit, to believe and countenance whatever our Church of Christ has received and preserved to this day, unchanged and unadulterated, in its entirety, whether dogmas of the faith, terms and canons, or traditions of the Church, whether written or unwritten”[21]. Earlier, the well-known and truly great patriarch Jeremiah II (Tranos) in his second reply to the Lutheran theologians of Tübingen, after he had quickly realized that there could be no theological dialogue with them, particularly because they rejected the Holy Fathers, on whom the teaching of the Church is based, put an end to the dialogue, politely but decisively and let them go their own way (1581)[22]. On the basis of this most Patristic patriarchal position, all the harmful theological dialogues with all the heretics would have ended many years ago, as many clergymen and theologians have been demanding for long enough.
            The Kollyvades, and particularly the most prominent among them, Archbishop Makarios Notaras of Corinth, the Athonite monk Nicodemus and the hieromonk Athanasius Parios, completely neutralized the post-Patricity of the Papists, the Luthero-Calvinist Protestants and the Enlighteners, essentially through these measures: with the impressively massive publication of various Patristic works, chief of which is the ‘Philokalia’ of the holy Niptic fathers; with the promotion of Patristic liturgical traditions, such as frequent communion; and the performance of memorial services only on Saturdays, not on Sundays; with the composition of a rich store of hymns and services in the established language of the Church, despite the low level of education of the faithful at the time; with the anti-Papist and anti-Protestant teaching which we come across frequently in their works as well as their opposition to the European and Greek supporters of the Enlightenment, especially on the part of Saint Athanasius Parios, who, because of this, was greatly criticized by these ‘enlightened’ scholars. Particularly as regards the issue of the translation of liturgical texts, which is unnecessarily vexing Church circles currently, apart from the fact that such a concern never occurred to the Holy Fathers over the centuries and that, on the contrary, indeed, they have continued to compose services in the ancient language down to our own days, there is an almost unknown, important  stance taken by Saint Nicodemus the Athonite, which we present here, in case it, together with other Patristic views which have been discussed[23], may enlighten the three hierarchs, Meletios of Nikopolis, Ignatios of Demetrias, and Pavlos of Siatista, to return to the Patristic road. This most Patristic Athonite Saint writes: “Also beware, brethren, the thought which the devil implants in some and which says: you are unlettered and unlearned and do not understand what is said in church and so why do you submit to the Church in all things? You are answered, brethren, by an abba in the ‘Sayings of the Desert Fathers’, who tells you: ‘It may be that you do not understand what is said in church, but the devil does and quakes and fears and flees. I mean that you, too, even if you do not understand all the words spoken in church, you will understand a lot of them and benefit from them’. And I would add this: if you go often to church and hear divine words, the continuation of this is that, in time, you will understand what you-  earlier-  did not, as Chrysostom says, because God, seeing your willingness, will open your mind and illumine you to understand”[24].
            When referring to the Holy Kollyvades and, in general, to the Patricity of the period of enslavement, we cannot forget the glory and boast of the Church in more modern times, the New Martyr Saints. Not only those who had the blessing to have the Holy Kollyvades and other blessed Elders, as ‘trainers’ for their martyrdom, but also the host of other New Martyrs, men and women who followed the Tradition of the Holy Apostles and Fathers which asserts that Christ is the only road to salvation. They refused to convert, and even used harsh words against Mohammed, paying for their refusal and confession with their blood. It is a gross insult to the new martyrs, what is being said in the context of the inter-faith dialogues of the Ecumenists, even by patriarchs, bishops and other clergymen and theologians, to wit, that other religions are a road to salvation, that Mohammad is a prophet, that the three monotheistic religions-  Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism-  have the same God, and that the Koran is a holy and sacred book, worthy of being given as a gift. Do they not know of the great Holy Fathers’ severe criticism; of the total rejection of Mohammed and the Koran by Saints Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene, by Gregory Palamas and many others[25]? Do they not know that that most celebrated popular teacher and equal to the Apostles, Saint Cosmas Aitolos identified- very carefully and covertly, of course- both Mohammed and the Pope as anti-Christs? He said: “The anti-Christ is: one, the Pope, and the other, he who is over our heads, though I won’t say his name. You understand, but its saddening to tell you, because, as things stand these anti-Christs are for perdition. We have restraint, they have perdition; we fast, they gorge; we are chaste, they are licentious; we have justice, they have injustice”[26]. Let us not forget, also, his Patristic prophecy and recommendation: “Curse the Pope, for he will be to blame”[27]. How encouraging for the faithful was what he said about Orthodoxy and the Holy Fathers. “I read about sacred things and impious, heretical and ungodly. I searched the depths of wisdom. All faiths are false. This I understood as true: only the faith of Orthodox Christians is good and holy for us to believe and we should be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Let me tell you this at the end: be glad that you’re Orthodox Christians and weep for the impious and heretics who are walking in darkness”[28].
Post-Patricity after the Creation of the Modern Greek State.
            The conclusion from our references to the period of Turkish rule is that the post-patricity of the Papists, the Protestants and the Enlighteners did not shake the patricity of the Tradition of the Church. We lost our freedom in the body, but retained our souls, free and unsubdued, to the point where martyrs for the faith came forth. But how were things in the period of free political life? Alas, we must begin with “where shall I start to mourn” and write a new Jeremiad. That which the great figures of the Greek nation-  Photius the Great, Saint Gregory Palamas, Saint Mark Eugenicus and Gennadios Scholarios-  refused to accept, that is, the betrayal of Orthodoxy in order to save the state, or, under Turkish rule, what the Saints and New Martyrs refused to do to save their skins and their enjoyment of life, we unfortunately did and do worse today. We handed Greece into the hands of foreigners, Otto’s Bavarians and their indigenous supporters, who, from that time forth, have had as their permanent aim the uprooting and abolition of anything that recalls Orthodoxy and  Byzantium and the Fathers of the Church. They want to weaken spiritual resistance completely, to make Greece unrecognizable, un-Orthodox and un-Greek, so that, once it is Frankified, Latinized, Papist, Protestant, and ‘enlightened’ (endarkened), they can then absorb it and get rid of it.
            The post-Patristic and anti-Patristic supporters exist and have been active for years now. It is simply that now they have been given form, outline and expression, quite openly, by the ‘Academy of Theological Studies’ of the Holy Metropolis of Demetrias, which, as a most pious and combative fellow-clergyman brilliantly observed, has ceased to be academic and has become epidemic. We owe a debt of gratitude to the hierarchs who, in the face of the danger to the faith, ignored the much-abused ‘brotherly love’ and excoriated what was said at the post-Patristic conference at the Academy in June 2010. In particular, to Metropolitan Ierotheos of Nafpaktos, whom we have with us, teaching and confessing, and who has lost no time in aligning himself with those hierarchs with a most theological article in which he condemned the burgeoning, new heresy of post-Patricity. And finally, to other hierarchs, clergy and laymen who criticized the heretical gathering in Volos, in articles, comments and phrases, and especially to the flag-ship of Orthodox struggles for fifty years now, the combative newspaper Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος (Orthodox Press), the newspaper of the blessed Elders, to the founders and editors, the late Charalampos Vasilopoulos, and his worthy successor, Fr. Mark Manolis, which brought to the fore and highlighted the issue of the post-Patristic heresy.
            But let us now look at some of the tallest trees and the most bitter and deadly fruits of the post-Patristic forest.
            The 19th century, during Bavarian rule, unfolded with serious anti-Patristic actions, which, however, came up against Orthodox resistance. In defiance of the sacred canons of the Holy Fathers, the schismatic autocephaly of the Church of Greece was proclaimed, peremptorily, without the opinion or consent of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. A statist system was imposed on relations between Church and state, which brought about the subjection of the Church to Caesar, the boss of the synod being a royal commissioner, without whose agreement the Holy Synod was unable to decide anything whatsoever. Otto’s Protestant commissioner, Mauer, eradicated monasticism by dissolving 400 of the 500 monasteries in existence and, at the same time, seizing their property and casting the monks and nuns into poverty, as that genuine Greek patriot, General Makrygiannis charges in his very moving Memoirs[29]. The blows against monasticism in any age, including ours when a plan has been put into operation to defame and corrode, from the inside, the Holy Mountain- that unique ark of Orthodoxy- are costly because they are aimed at drying up the source which produces, which gushes forth, Fathers, since it is well-known that almost all the Holy Fathers came from the order of monks.
            In the same period, the organization and curriculum of the Theological School founded at the National Capodistrian University followed German models, and an almost necessary requirement for a career there was to have studied in the West. The result was that Papist and Protestant theology began, through the teachers, to influence clerical and lay graduates. Two telling examples, to prove the point: Professor Demetrios Balanos, who held the chair of Patrology at the Theological School of Athens, spoke slightingly and disparagingly of the struggles and theology of Saint Gregory Palamas, that preacher of Grace and of the light of the Transfiguration, the voice of the Fathers who went before him. To this day, in the same school, the Patristic era is limited to the first eight centuries, up to John Damascene, and lessons in Patrology deal only with them, whereas the later saints belong to a different category of knowledge, that is Byzantine Church writers, as if the Holy Spirit had ceased to act in the Church from then until now and did not beget Fathers such as Photius the Great, Symeon the New Theologian, Gregory Palamas, Mark Eugenicus, the prominent Kollyvades Fathers, and Nektarios of Pentapolis in the 20th century. Here, too, it succumbs to the Papist notion of sidelining the Holy Fathers by their own scholastic ‘Fathers’ and theologians from the ninth century onwards, and, much more so, by the Protestant concept that only those who lived almost in Gospel times, that is in the first centuries and at the latest the 5th, can be called Fathers. Having taught Patrology for years at the Theological School in Thessaloniki, we have been forced, each year, to explain to the new intake of students that for an author to be called a Father of the Church, he does not have to have the characteristic of antiquity, as the heterodox manuals of Patrology demand, and as indeed do some of our own; what is required is purity of life and Orthodox teaching.
            The reference to the Theological School in Athens should not be taken to mean that every single one of the teachers there reinforced the post-Patristic and anti-Patristic spirit. There are splendid examples of genuine, Patristic, academic teachers, such as the late Professor Konstantinos Mouratides and certain others, outstanding among whom is my splendid and beloved fellow-priest, George Metallinos, whose presence in theological literature emits the scent and authenticity of Patristic wisdom. In relation to this, I would like to make a suggestion and a rectification which concerns the Volos Academy. My suggestion is that an event or conference be organized on the person and work of Professor Konstantinos Mouratides, as the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Fr. George Metallinos most worthily did with the great Patristic theologian, Fr. John Romanides. The rectification has to do with the dean of theologians in the 20th century, that giant of theological thought and production, the late Professor Panagiotis Trembelas. Any misjudgements on his part regarding the theology of Saint Gregory Palamas, and regarding his theological conflict with Fr. John Romanides, can be justified, in part, by the ignorance, at that time, of the writings of Saint Gregory. He was not, however, post-Patristic or anti-Patristic, as the Volos ‘Academy’ gave out at the conference we have referred to. We will not give him up to the post-Patricians. He is Patristic, most Patristic. The mere study of his three-volume Dogmatics and his valuable hermeneutical notes on the Old and New Testaments, where the reader will admire the abundant use of Patristic writings and what he wrote critically about the theological dialogues with the heterodox, estrange him entirely from the post-Patristic ecumenists[30].
            The Theological School of Thessaloniki, much younger than that of Athens, having been founded in 1942, was able, within the first two decades, to shift the centre of gravity with the decisive contribution of the late Professor Panagiotis Christou to the publication and investigation of the writings of Saint Gregory Palamas and other Fathers of the Church, through which it acquired international status as the School of the Fathers of the Church. This early blossoming, however, soon faded and today it is characterized by the Ecumenism of the majority of the professors, outstanding exceptions being those colleagues who are present this evening, chairmen of the session and speakers.
            But the great earthquake of post-Patricity began at the start of the 20th century with the two synodical and patriarchal encyclicals of the reign of Ioakeim III, in 1902 and 1904. It became more powerful with the synodical encyclical of 1920 and has continued to this day, with even greater intensity. In the encyclicals, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in a completely new, post-Patristic spirit, abandoned the strict Patristic attitude towards the heretics of the West, Papist and Protestant, which it had held until a few years before, until 1895. Addressing the heads of the autocephalous Churches, among others, it sought their views on the relationship of the Orthodox “with the two great branches of Christianity, that is of the West and of the Protestants”. At the same time, it posed the question of the reform of the calendar, not, however, taking a stand in favour of the retention or rejection of the Julian calendar, which had been observed for centuries, but awaiting the views of the autocephalous churches. Since the answers from almost all the Churches was negative, the initial surge slackened for a while, only to return with a vengence in 1920, when the modern, post-Patristic spirit recognized, for the first time officially, the ecclesiastical standing of the heretical communities, since the encyclical was addressed “To the Churches of Christ everywhere”, and not only to the Orthodox. The powerful personality of Meletios Metaxakis, who was beyond question a Mason[31] and served as Metropolitan of Kition in Cyprus, Metropolitan of Athens, Ecumenical Patriarch and Patriarch of Alexandria, played a decisive role at this point in the Masonic promotion of Ecumenism, which they planned and have been promulgating to this day. This Ecumenism is inter-Christian and inter-faith and its aim is to weaken the uniqueness of Orthodoxy in relation to other confessions and to equate it to them, as it does Christianity to other religions. The most heinous achievement of Metaxakis was the promotion of the reformation of the calendar and the replacement of the Julian, which was the ancient practice, with the Papist Gregorian one, without a Pan-Orthodox resolution, but with the support, unfortunately, of the exceptional ecclesiastical historian and scholar, Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens, a former associate of Metaxakis at the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, whence he began his impressive, but, also, destructive activities which resulted in the creation of the well-known schism in the Church.
            The foundation of the Protestant World Council of Churches in Amsterdam in 1948, in which the Ecumenical Patriarchate willingly took part, as did other Orthodox Churches, is the worst ecclesiological deviation on the part of the leadership of the  Orthodox Church. Through the WCC, the devil, appearing as an angel of light behind the mask of love and unity, is attempting to shake the Apostolic and Patristic foundations of the Church, annulling what the Holy Fathers taught about heretics and heresies which are not equated to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Patristic Church. This is not a World Council of Churches, but a “World Collection of Heresies” as Professor Konstantinos Mouratides eloquently dubbed it[32].
            The legacy of Meletios Metaxakis was invested and increased by another powerful personality, Patriarch Athenagoras, who was called from America to the ecumenical throne, and it has been continued ever since then relentlessly and powerfully, within the context of the anti-Patristic Ecumenism of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, despite an intervening period during the modest, but focused reign of Demetrios.
            Within this climate of opposition to the Patristic Tradition, post-Patristic and anti-Patristic positions have been expressed which entirely justify the post-Patricity of the ‘Academy of Theological Studies’ in Volos, which in any case is supported, protected and justified by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
            A few indicative positions of the post-Patristic Ecumenists who have been active for sixty years now, demonstrate that, unfortunately, the healthy part of the Church has been slow to awaken and react.
            Patriarch Athenagoras recognized the primacy of Pope Paul II, without the latter’s repentance and rejection of errors. He places him directly with his namesake, Saint Paul the Apostle, and describes him as one of the greatest popes in history[33]. The heresy of the filioque was not, for Athenagoras, an impediment to the union of the two churches. The opposition expressed in the theology of the Holy Fathers was not heeded in our times.  He literally said: “What ink has been shed and what hatred, over the filioque. Love came and everything retreats at its passing”[34]. Here is another of his many other anti-Patristic declarations: “We are deceived and sin if we think that the Orthodox faith descended from heaven and that the other dogmas are unworthy. Three hundred million people have chosen Mohammedanism to reach their God and hundreds of millions of others are Protestants, Catholics and Buddhists. The aim of every religion is the improvement of people”[35].
            Two of his close and favourite associates said terrible things and it is a matter of wonder how neither the Synod at the Phanar nor any other Orthodox synod ever dealt with these people. Archbishop Athenagoras (Kokkinakis) of Thyateira and Great Britain, described the sacred canons of the Holy Fathers as “human commands and patterns of foolishness and hatred”. He also said: “What is the criterion by which what claims to be exclusive knowledge of the truth will be proved? Whatever we say, the fact remains that, divided as it is, it cannot be healthy, but is wounded, and a part cannot claim to be the whole in truth.    Neither the riches nor the- oft-repeated in words and arguments- integrity of teaching, nor the patterns of traditional conservatism are of benefit to or strengthen the arguments of those seeking exclusivity. I know the teaching of Saint Gregory Palamas and the positions of modern theologians of the East, but these are human volitions and inventions”[36].
            Even greater is the blasphemous position of Iakovos of America, even worse than the heresies of Arius, because he denies in toto the dogma of the Holy Trinity. He was accused by scandalized Greeks in America and by monasteries on the Holy Mountain which demanded that the Synod of the Phanar depose him, but in vain. Iakovos said: “The notion of God is an abstract, Greek idea which people today do not accept, nor will they tomorrow. In particular this verdict has to do with the Trinitarian dogma. So it is necessary that the Theology of the Church be stripped of its Greek vestments, one of these is the dogma of the Holy Trinity”[37].
            In the study “On the codification of the Sacred Canons and canonical ordinances in the Orthodox Church”, the claim is made that many of the canons of the Holy Fathers should be abolished, and then follows these exact words (in Greek): “ The ordinances governing relations between Orthodox Christians and heterodox and those of other faiths cannot be applied today and should be amended. It is not possible for the Church to have ordinances forbidding the entry of heterodox into churches and common prayer with them, at the same time as, through its representatives, it is praying for final union in faith, love and hope. Many canonical ordinances need to be ‘irrigated’ with more love in order for them to ‘revive’. We need the amendment of certain ordinances, to make them more charitable and realistic. The Church cannot and must not live outside space and time”[38]. In the above spirit, certain Sacred Canons have been broken in repeated, brazen services of common prayer with heretics. It would appear that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has abdicated from the duty of the Church to bring the heterodox and those of other faiths to the truth of the Gospel, because it has, literally, been said : “the Orthodox Church does not seek to persuade others about any particular concept of the truth, nor does it seek to convert them to any particular mode of thought”[39]. Much has been made of the sanctity and equality of the “Sacred Scriptures” of the Church and Islam, i.e. the Gospels and the Koran. And the most terrible of all is what has been said about the Holy Fathers by the most official lips, which has led to intense protests from the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain. It has been said: “Our forefathers who bequeathed to us the rift were unfortunate victims of the evil serpent and are now in the hands of God, the Righteous Judge”[40].
            In agreement with all that has been said above is Metropolitan John of Pergamon. Apart from his old position on ‘narcissized Orthodoxy’ which denies the exclusivity of the Truth for the Orthodox, as Athenagoras of Thyateira had preached before him, he now promotes so-called ‘baptismal ecclesiology’ claiming that even the baptism of the heretics leads to the Church. He accepts the following unheard of statements: “Baptism sets a bound on the Church. Baptism, Orthodox or otherwise, encompasses the Church, which includes Orthodox and heterodox. There are baptismal limits to the Church and ‘outside Baptism’ there is no Church”. On the other hand, “within Baptism, even if there is a separation, a division, a schism, we can speak of the Church”.
            I shall refer to very few of the positions of the still very few post-Patristic Ecumenists in order for us to form a first, painful picture about where post-Patristic humanism has led us, and also to strengthen and reinforce the awareness of the need to understand that we must not hide, or ignore, or underestimate, the delusion and lies which appear as truth and light and thus corrupt and seduce the uninformed and uninstructed Orthodox faithful. It is a pressing need and urgent priority to compile all of the most important wrongly-held opinions of known Ecumenists, clergy and laity, so that the faithful can know them by name, and with proof, and learn of the extent of the abuse which the truths of the faith are suffering, without, unfortunately, the healthy part of the Church reacting and resisting in an Apostolic, Patristic manner.
            Earlier, a similarly prominent lay theologian, Nikolaos Nisiotis, Professor of the Theological School of the University of Athens, one of the prime movers and officials of Ecumenism, made unacceptable statements concerning ecclesiological positions, though he was censured by Konstantinos Mouratides (whom we have already mentioned) for denying the truth that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Nisiotis condemns the Ecumenical provincialism of the Orthodox and, through a question, excludes the identification of the Orthodox Church with the One Church. He asks: “Do we not think continually and act as if the Una Sancta were restricted to the bounds of our own Church or Confession? But the experience of encounter at conferences and meetings shakes this self-satisfaction of ours”[41]. Pergamon’s ‘narcissim’ was preceded by the ‘self-satisfaction’ of Nisiotis, who, as Professor Mouratides observes: “asks that we should avoid calling each other ‘schismatics’ or ‘heretics’, since there are no schismatics but only historical Churches, which in their divisions present a schismatic condition within the one indivisible Church!”[42]. We are all divided and in schism, within an undivided Church, clearly invisible, according to the Protestants, who have made it visible as the “World Council of Churches”.
            Of the modern lay theologian professors, one who has particularly saddened the Orthodox and brought joy to those mistaken in their beliefs, according to the apposite Dismissal Hymn of Saint Euphemia, is Georgios Martzelos, Professor of Dogmatics at the Theological School of the University of Thessaloniki. He promoted and approved two doctoral theses which rendered obsolete, in post-Patristic fashion, the decisions of synods and the teaching of the Holy Fathers, as well as the enduring conscience of the Church, expressed in very many texts of worship and in the “Synodal Tome of Orthodoxy”, that Dioscorus and Severus are heretical Monophysites. These two doctoral theses by young theologians go beyond the Tradition of the Holy Fathers, their authors are wiser than the instructors of the Faith. Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint John Damascene, Photius the Great, were all mistaken and now Professor Martzelos’ students have come to correct them. And so, Dioscorus and Severus, who for centuries have been anathematized as heretics, are presented as Orthodox. But the professor, in general, acquits the Monophysites, and, in related publications by the Holy Monastery of the Blessed Gregoriou on the Holy Mountain, has been sharply and most Orthodoxically chastised for doing so.
            The anti-Patristic post-Patricity of Professor Christos Yannaras is different because he is not much involved in the goings-on of the ecumenists, as are all the other post-Patristic theologians, even though in older publications he adopted Athenagoras’ positions against the forensic theology of the Fathers and spoke of ‘the pointless efforts of those who are concerned with the research into the filioque[43], being praised for this by the Uniates. His weighty philosophical equipment and his disposition to meditation have not allowed him to place his undoubted gifts, in humility, at the service of the promotion and interpretation of the concord of the Holy Fathers, as this has been manifested over the centuries, to follow the Holy Fathers, as many other philosophers, academics and thinkers have done with the Holy Fathers who preceded them. We would simply recall the example of Saint John Damascene, who was endowed with rare philosophical gifts and who, in humility, tells us that nothing that he writes is his own, but rather an anthology of the Saints. This is why he is considered the voice of the Patristic Tradition before him and why his Dogmatics, i.e. his work ‘Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith’ is and will remain the most authentic, genuine and most precise source for the dogmas of the faith.
            Unfortunately, Professor Yannaras has transcended the fathers, he does not follow the Fathers. He writes anti-Patristic teachings which are also morally dangerous, such as his teaching on human, physical love as a way to knowledge of God, for which he was chastised with powerful and invincible arguments by the late Elder Theoklitos of the Monastery of Dionysiou, in a series of publications in which this teaching is called a re-appearance of the heresy of Nicolaitism, or Neo-Nicolaitism. Indeed, Fr. Theoklitos not only found transcendence and disregard of the Fathers, but also polemics and calumny against them. He writes: “And though, on the one hand, he possesses ‘rather well-developed thinking and judgement’, he does not, on the other, possess adequate spiritual experience, and having no suspicion of this inadequacy of his, he has ranged himself, without fear of God, against the moral and spiritual teaching of our Most Holy Orthodox Church, with articles accusing it of Manichaeism! He has suffered a psychosis over this, it has become his purpose, he uses it in all his attempts aimed at reshaping, and, everywhere in Patristic spiritual teaching, he discerns influences of Manichaeism. In one of his boldest books, which was published recently…he feels the need to commemorate ‘the perversion of the Christian soul by Manichaean influences’! What are we to say? Does the Church not care about these heretical outlooks of this brazen theologian? Is there no press office… to follow the calumnies directed at Orthodox spiritual teaching by supposedly Orthodox theologians?”[44]. And, addressing Professor Yannaras at another point, Fr. Theoklitos writes: “With anti-academic frivolity and journalistic shallowness you touch upon the most basic issues of the Church, indifferent to your diversions into a variety of heresies. You began your theological career with a war against the sacred canons- which you are still conducting indirectly, and in a frenzy of conceit you do not shrink from attributing carnal accretion to the Holy Fathers, without this causing you any concern as to your unfathomable aberration. And you continue to distort them, or ignore them or mock them”[45].
            Indeed, Professor Yannaras has continued to mock and slander the Holy Fathers, his particular target now being the most prominent and prolific of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers, Saint Nicodemus the Athonite. He accuses him of creating, through his writings, “an outlook which seeks to sow into a traditional Christian society the seeds of the Manichaean distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ people” and that, supposedly, “scattered throughout the works of Nicodemus is the insistence of the teaching of Anselm and the Thomists concerning the satisfaction of divine Righteousness by Christ’s death on the Cross’” in that, in the ‘Guide to Confession’, by Saint Nicodemus, “the legalistic, entirely Western, spirit reigns”[46].
            A fundamental and successful critique of Yannaras’ unsupported, unjust and blasphemous polemic against a great Father and Teacher of the Church, was written by Fr. Vasileios Voloudakis in his exceptional work, ‘Orthodoxy and Ch. Yannaras’, in which, at the end, is published a text from the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain entitled: “Negation of the mistaken positions of Christos Yannaras regarding our Father among the Saints Nicodemus the Athonite”.
            The post-Patricity, then, of Professor Yannaras assumes a more weighty character than that of the other post-Patristic theologians mentioned, because it ends in a clear anti-Patricity with calumnious, unjust and unfounded polemic against the whole of Patristic Tradition, singling out Saint Nicodemus the Athonite and encouraging young people to moral laxity. As the text of the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain notes: “Mr. Yannaras urges his readers, and particularly the young, to become critics of the Saints and to remain in the Church, but all the while satisfying their passions, without being trained in the acquisition of true repentance, humility, purity and obedience, without which true freedom in Christ is unfeasible”[47].
            We would also mention, as fruits of this anti-Patristic post-Patricity, the unacceptable texts co-signed by representatives of the Orthodox Churches at the Theological Dialogues, texts which overturn the Patristic, Orthodox tradition. In the dialogue with the Papists, the text signed at Balamand in the Lebanon in 1993, apart from acquitting the Unia for the first time, also offers ecclesiastical fullness and validity to heretic Rome. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are held to be equal and both are considered to be possessors of the genuine apostolic faith, sacramental grace and the apostolic succession. For the first time, Orthodox ‘theologians’, setting aside the firm and holy Tradition of the Fathers, denied that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, because the terms of the text mean that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches constitute the One Church, and that they are both co-responsible for people’s salvation. The teaching of the great saints and Fathers of the Church concerning the fact that the Latins are schismatics and heretics was also dismissed at the same time and abandoned. The terms of the Balamand text are very treacherous for the Creed: “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. It is in this connection that the Catholic Churches and 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” (Balamand Declaration paras. 13,14) [48].
            The text of the 9th General Assembly of the “World Council of Churches” in Porto Alegre, Brazil,  in February 2006, is on precisely the same wave-length. This heretical text, which was signed by the vast majority of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, including, unfortunately, the Church of Greece- though they have not been called to answer before synods- rejects the most basic Orthodox ecclesiological dogmas. It proclaims the dreadful ecclesiological heresy that the total membership of the “World Council of Churches” makes up the Catholic Church. “Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it. Each church fulfils its catholicity when it is in common with the other churches” (para.6., Official Report, page. 257). “Apart from one another we are impoverished” (para.7)[49]. What synod will call to account those delegates who signed this heretical document, when the “leader of Orthodoxy” (!) speaks in triumphant terms about the text and considers that with it “we have been freed from the rigidities of the past”?
            Earlier, and quite contrary to the clear teaching of the 4th Ecumenical Synod in Chalcedon, the Orthodox representatives signed two Common Declarations with the Anti-Chalcedonian Monophysites (1989 and 1990) in which they recognize that we have a common faith (!) with the heretical Monophysites, who at no stage in the Dialogue agreed to recognize the 4th Ecumenical Synod in Chalcedon (451) and to number as two the natures of Christ after union. The second “Agreed Statement” of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which was drawn up at Chambesy in September 1990, states: “In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith and the unbroken continuity of the Apostolic tradition, though they may have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic tradition that should be the basis of our unity and communion” (para. 9)[50].
            We would also mention certain anti-Patristic measures which have been taken and are in operation in the Church of Greece, such as the performance of mixed marriages, the abolition of the reading in churches on the Sunday of Orthodoxy of the anathemas against heretics, the removal from Lauds at Matins on Great Saturday of hymns that contain slighting references to Jews, and other liturgical innovations of the so-called “Liturgical Renaissance”, such as translations of the liturgical texts, to which we have already referred. Even the visits and the welcome extended in Orthodox churches in Greece to the Pope, as the canonical Bishop of Rome as well as the annual increase in ecumenist joint prayer services, especially the one appointed for the last week in January each year, in which even Orthodox Patriarchs take part. As regards the last point it is worth noting the Patristic and confessional statement by Metropolitan Anthimos of Thessaloniki when he was asked why no Orthodox clergy were present at the joint prayer service held in the Roman Catholic church in Thessaloniki. He said: “It is not within the order of the Orthodox Church to take part in religious services or joint prayers with heterodox, much less with representatives of other religions”. The Pedagogical Institute of the Ministry of Education has been trying for years to reduce the catechetical, confessional Orthodox lesson of Religious Instruction, either by reducing the number of hours of teaching or by making it optional, even for Orthodox pupils. The final and desired aim is to transform it into a lesson of general religious knowledge, so that even from Primary School, children will be initiated into the Satan-inspired heresy of Ecumenism and World Religion. Alas, it appears to be succeeding with the collaboration, agreement and encouragement of its theological advisors, co-workers of the Governing Church, friends and fellow-travellers of the Volos “Academy of Theological Studies”. The leading light in this is the theologian, Stavros Yangazoglou who has recently been appointed editor of “Theology”, the Church’s official periodical. How is it possible that an official in the upper echelons of the Church should undermine the Orthodox character of the lesson of Religious Instruction? What is worth noting here is that when it was confessional and catechetical it was under fire, but now that it is general religious knowledge it has been upgraded and even provides points for university entrance. Many and great are the ploys of Satan!
Epilogue
            With enduring awareness throughout the years from Apostolic times until today, the Church has always respected and honoured the Holy Fathers and teachers, not for their human wisdom, which, being created, grows old, decays and becomes obsolescent, but for their illumination by the Holy Spirit, the action of Whom, in their teaching and in their lives, does not grow old nor become obsolescent, needing to be transcended and surpassed by the newly-minted teaching of older and younger Post-Patristic Theologians.
            The Church is not only Apostolic, it is also Patristic. If it were allowed to make an addition to the Creed, to the ecclesiological article “In One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, we might very well add “Patristic”:  “ In One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Patristic Church”. The Fathers do not need to be transcended or surpassed, just as the message of the Apostles cannot be transcended, because, as Canon 1 of the 7th Ecumenical Synod says: “for, enlightened all by one and the same Spirit, they determined what was best”. The message of the Apostles and the dogmas of the Fathers together weave the garment of Truth, as it says in the beautiful hymn for the feast of the Holy Fathers. Indeed, the Synodikon of Orthodoxy repeats the Term of the 7th Ecumenical Synod: “This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Orthodox, this faith has supported the whole world”.
            We are sad that Papism, Protestantism and the Enlightenment, which first denigrated the Holy Fathers, should have found good pupils and supporters even among the Orthodox, particularly those who back the universal heresy of Ecumenism, to which belongs the “Volos Academy of Theological Studies”, which gave rise to this discussion through its anti-Patristic conference on “post-Patristic” and “contextual” Theology. Why is it that modern anti-Patristic theologians ignore and transcend the Fathers? For the same reason that the Papal theologian, John of Ragusa, reacted just before the Council of Ferrara-Florence, when the Orthodox Patriarchs bound their representatives, with official letters, to follow what the Fathers had determined at the Ecumenical Synods and in their writings. If that policy had been adhered to, we would not have arrived at the final betrayal of and apostasy from the faith. So now, when a similar or worse apostasy is being planned with Ecumenism, they believe that the Fathers of the Church are a great obstacle to their plans and they therefore wish to transcend them. But this, too, is a famous victory for the Holy Fathers because it demonstrates that the post-Patristic theologians cannot argue and oppose their teaching and so have had to find a way round them.
            The anti-Patristic stance of Masonically-inspired Ecumenism and Syncretism is a clear indication of their anti-Christ nature, since according to the sacred text of the Revelation, the Antichrist himself will blaspheme against the Saints: “It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is those who dwell in heaven”[51]. We of the Church will continue to follow the Holy Fathers and will not move nor overstep the bounds they have set. To all the post-Patrisitic and anti-Patristic theologians of modern Ecumenism and universal Syncretism, who, apart from anything else are imbued with egotism and philosophical arrogance, we would repeat what Saint Gregory of Nyssa wrote: “Let us cease to want to be teachers of the teachers. Let us detest quarrelsomeness to the detriment of those listening. Let us believe what  our Fathers have passed down to us. We are not wiser than the Fathers: we are not more exact than the teachers”[52].


[1]See H. Biedermann, “ Einige Grundlinien Orthodoxen Kirchenverständnisses”, Ostkirchlihe Studien19 (1970) 3rd ed.; M-J, Le Guillu, Vom Geist der Orthodoxie, Aschaffenburg 1963, p. 7. Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, πόμενοι τος θείοις πατράσι, ρχς κα κριτήρια τς Πατερικς Θεολογίας, Thessaloniki 1997, p 179, ff.
[2] There is a very rich bibliography on the theology of Saint Gregory Palamas. Among many others, see my own studies in my book Θεολόγοι τς Θεσσαλονίκης, Thessaloniki 1997.
[3] πρ τν ερς συχαζόντων 1, 1, 3.
[4] Περ τς κπορεύσεως το γίου Πνεύματος 2, 38.
[5] Πρς Βαρλαάμ, 1, 31.
[6] πρ τν ερς συχαζόντων 2, 1, 42
[7] Ibid, 1, 1 14.
[8] Πρς Βαρλαάμ, 1 55.
[9] πρ τν ερς συχαζόντων 3, 3, 3.
[10] V. Laurent, Les “Memoires” de Grand Ecclésiarque de l’Eglise de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le concile de Florence (1438-9), Paris 1971, Memoirs 3, 5, p. 166.
[11] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, PG, 94, 1128.
[12] Πρς Σεραπίωνα 1, 28
[13] Laurent, op. cit., 3, 5. p. 166.
[14] Ibid, 5, 29, p. 282.
[15] Ibid, 9, 28; Laurent, p. 464.
[16] Ibid, 9, 27-8; Laurent, pp. 462-4.
[17] On this great, prophetic figure of the Greek nation and of Orthodoxy, who has been slandered and maltreated by Western historians and by some of our own foolish writers, see my extensive monograph Γεννάδιος ΒΣχολάριος, Βίος-Συγγράμματα-Διδασκαλία, νάλεκτα Βλατάδων 30, Thessaloniki 1988.
[18] Oeuvres completes de Georges Scholaris, ed. L. Petit- X. Siderides- M. Jugie, Paris 1928-36, vol. II, 15 and II, 44.
[19]Archimandrite Justin Popović, The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, (in Greek) pp. 176 and 219.

[20] I. Karmiris, Τ Δογματικ κα Συμβολικ Μνημεα τς ρθδόξου Καθολικς κκλησίας, Graz 1968, vol. II, p. 819 (899).
[21] Ibid, pp. 862-3 (942-3).
[22] Ibid, pp. 489 (589).
[23] On this, see Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, Πρέπει ν μεταφρασθον τ λειτουργικ κείμενα; Νεοβαρλααμισμς «Λειτουργικ νανγέννηση», Thessaloniki 2003.
[24] Nicodemus the Athonite, Χρηστοήθεια τν Χριστιανν, Rigopoulos Publications, Thessaloniki 1999, p. 305, footnote.
[25] On all this see, Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, Διαθρησκειακς Συναντήσεις. ρνηση το υαγγελίου κα προσβολ τν γίων Μαρτύρων.Thessaloniki 2003.
[26] Bishop Avgoustinos (Kantiotis), Metropolitan of Florina, Κοσμς Ατωλς (1714-1779. Συναξάριον-Διδαχαί-κολουθίαAthens 2005, p. 286.
[27] Ibid, p. 348.
[28] Ibid, p.p. 131-2.
[29] Makrygiannis, Memoirs: “They demolished all the monasteries and the poor monks, if they didn’t die in the struggle, starved to death in the streets, as if those monasteries weren’t the outposts of our revolution. Because that’s where all our food and supplies were and all the necessities of war and that they were hidden and a mystery to the Turks. And the poor monks sacrificed and most of them were killed in the struggle. And the Bavarians, expecting them to be the Capuchins of Europe didn’t know that they were modest and good people and that they’d gotten those things by the work of their hands, struggling and working for so many centuries and that so many poor people lived with them and were fed. And the accursed politicians of our country and the corrupt bishops and the Turkish-minded Kostakis Skinas from Constantinople agreed with Bavarians and damaged and despoiled all the churches in the monasteries”.

[30] Protopresbyter Ioannis Romanides, Δογματικ κα Συμβολικ Θεολογία τς ρθοδόξου Καθολικς κκλησίας vol. I, Pournaras, Thessaloniki 2009[4], p. 6.
[31]For the Masonic capacity of Meletios Metaxakis, see the entry “Geistliche” in Internationalisches Freimauerlexikon, E. Lennhof- O. Posner, Amalthaia, Wien-München 1975 (Reprint of the 1932 edition). Also Alexandros Zervoudakis, «Μελέτιος Μεταχάκης» Τεκτονικν Δελτίον, year 17 (Jan.-Feb., 1967), pp. 25-50.
[32] K. Mouratidis, Οκουμενικ Κίνησις. σύγχρονος μέγας πειρασμς τς ρθοδοξίας, Athens 1973, p. 14.

[33] See «Καθολική» 38 (1996) p. 4, in Archimandrite Spyridon Bilalis, ρθοδοξία κα Παπισμός, Athens 1988, p. 409.
[34] Aristeidis Panotis, Παλος ΣΤ’ θηναγόρας Α’. Ειρηνοποιοί, Athens1971, in Archimandrite Spyridon Bilalis, αρεση το Filioque, Athens 1972, vol. I, p. 476.
[35] See the newspaper «ρθόδοξος Τύπος», no 94, Dec. 1968.
[36] Mouratidis, op. cit., p. 29 and idem Ο ερο Κανόνες στύλος κα δραίωμα τς ρθοδοξιας. πάντησις ες τν σεβασμιώατον ρχιεπίσκοπον Θυατείρων κα Μ. Βρεττανίας κ. Αθηναγοραν, Athens 1972, pp. 21-2.
[37] See Mouratidis, Οκουμενικ Κίνησις, p. 45.
[38] See Περ τν κοδικοποίησιν τν . Κανόων κα τν κανονικν διατάξεων ν τ ρθοδόξ κκλησί, νάλεκτα Βλατάδων 6, Thessaloniki 1970.
[39] See «Καθολική», 22-7-2003, pp. 4 and 5, and Nikolaos Sotiropoulos, ντιοικουμενιστικ Athens 2004, pp. 24-6.
[40] See κκλησιαστικ λήθεια, 16/12/1998.
[41]See Mouratidis, Οκουμενικ Κίνησις, p. 33.
[42] Ibid, pp. 34-5.
[43]See Monk Theoklitos of Dionysiou, Περ θείου κα νθρωπίνου ρωτος Α’, Νεονικολαϊτισμς το Χρ. Γιανναρ, Spiliotis Publications, Athens2003, p. 27.
[44] Ibid, pp. 28-9
[45] Ibid, p.77.
[46] Presbyter Vasileios Voloudakis, ρθοδοξία κα Χρ. Γιανναρς, Athens 1993, Ypakoë Publications, pp. 37 and 53-4.
[47] Ibid, p. 268.
[48] More in Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, Ονία. καταδίκη κα θώωση (στ Freising κα στ Balamand), Thessaloniki 2002, p. 156 ff.
[49] Synaxis of Orthodox Clergy and Monks Οκ σμν τν Πατέρων σοφώτεροι, in Fotis Kondoglou κδοση τς Συνάξεως ρθοδόξων Ρωμην «Φώτης Κόντογλου», Trikala, Christmas 2011, p. 72 ff. and Θεοδρομία13 (2011), 629.
[50] See Stavros Bozovitis, Τ αώνια σύνορα τς ρθοδοξίας κα ο ντιχαλκηδόνιοι, “Soter” Brotherhood of Theologians, Athens 1994, p. 109. We owe the best critical presentation of what transpired and was agreed in the dialogue with the Monophysites to Dr. Andres Papavasileiou, former Inspector of Secondary Education in Cyprus, who took part in the dialogue as representative of the Church of Cyprus and has given us an objective historico/dogmatic picture in his monograph:  Θεολογικς Διάλογος μεταξ ρθοδόξων κα ντιχαλκηδονίων. Εναι συμφωνία π το χριστολογικο δόγματος θεολογικς διάβλητη κα πατερικς γκυρη;, Lefkosia 2000.
[51] Rev. 13, 6.
[52] PG, 46, 1112A.

Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:

Δημοσίευση σχολίου