Ioannis N. Markas
Researcher
We ought to note, at the outset, that our paper will be
restricted almost exclusively to the exploits of the “Academy of Theological
Studies” of the Holy Metropolis of Dimitriados and to the representative
activities of certain people who participate in its programmes. This is
because, in our humble estimation, this particular theological institute was
the first in Greece to officially establish and give foundation to the term
“post-Patricity” in the well-known, four-day conference which took place
between 2-6 June, 2010. This certainly
does not mean that the Academy and its collaborators coined post-Patricity, nor
that well-known post-Patristic circles are not active outside it, since the
post-Patristic issue is as old as the all-embracing heresy of Ecumenism, which,
in order to gain traction, was based largely on the famous “transcendence of
the Fathers”. We consider, however, that it is worth taking the trouble to
investigate, within the context of a brief paper, the case of the Academy in
particular, in such a way as to approach the “works and days” of its
post-Patristic agents, who have caused so much noise in the whole of the
Orthodox theological world.
For many, of course, it may sound strange that an academy
of theological studies should create such noise and so many reactions to its
very name. Is the problem of its operation really so important, and on what points
is this focused? In the first place, very generally and roughly, an initial
answer might be the fact that it is a theological institute within the Greek
Orthodox sphere, which is producing a “new wave” of theology, a kind of
“theological studies” different from what we have known so far, a purely “new
age” model of the workshop theology of syncretism, with a specialist academic
work group, whose mutual association seems to extend beyond the narrow bounds
of the academic/theological field. The problem, in short, is not superficial,
or one-dimensional, as some people might think, but complex, many-layered, with
deep roots and therefore difficult to approach and deal with. What, a few
decades ago, was thought of as the “margin” is now the dominant stream in the
theological sphere, even among the Orthodox.
The Volos Academy is the fruit and acquisition of the
modernizing spirit which has been relayed from the West into the Orthodox East.
The tactic which has been followed and is still being implemented is simple and
well-designed: teachers of the “New Age” undertake the education of suitable
people in order to make them the next heralds and missionaries of the New Age
theology of inter-Christian and inter-religious syncretism, to an Orthodox body
entirely uninstructed and uninformed as to their real intentions. A part of the
Church establishment is now assisting in this effort, hesitantly entering the
modernizing stage, supporting this new theology and its official agents and
encouraging it in practical ways. As we shall see shortly, all this subtle and
imperceptible
apostasy in the field of theology, in combination with the way of life -
imported from the West - which has come to dominate everyday affairs, is
shaping, in the Orthodox world, with slow but steady and methodical steps, a
pseudo-Christian spirituality, a theological caricature which is leading with
mathematical precision to the “religious baggaging” of peoples, via Universal
Religion and Ecumenism, i.e. to a new religious awareness of the global system.
A. Purpose – Structure- Funding
of the Volos Academy
The Academy of Theological Studies seems to serve such a
modernizing plan faithfully. One of the close colleagues of the Academy, the
well-known journalist, Stavros Zoumboulakis, of the Kathimerini newspaper, in an article in the periodical he edits
entitled “The renewal enterprise of the Academy of Theological Studies”[1],
expressed precisely that enthusiasm, over the birth of substantial change in
theological thought in Greece. His view is of particular interest because it
expresses the views of almost all those who are taking part in this profound
theological think-tank and shows us the sign-post being used as a direction
finder by the institute and its representatives. The first element is the fact
that the “Academy is entirely free of any theological anti-Westernism”. The
position of the Holy Fathers, that Western Christianity is- in the post-schism
era- a heresy, is characterized as laughable and, at the same time, theologians
of the West such as Aquinas and Luther are recognized as “colossal” names. A
second feature, according to Zoumboulakis, is that the Academy resists the
embellishment and much-lauded image of Byzantium, while at the same time is
praised for the fact that it is beginning to de-demonize the Enlightenment and
approach it without obscurantism and a fanatical spirit, while at the same time
targeting Byzantium for the way it has fought against it. A third feature, a real
achievement for the “academic” theologians is the conversation with
intellectuals and thinkers outside the Church “who are not Christians, but
agnostics and atheists”. This theological turn is of the greatest assistance in
making it possible for the issues under discussion by the Academia to be
characterized by an extroversion, “that is to be directed towards society and
culture”.
But what exactly is the complex known to us as the
“Academy of Theological Studies” of the Holy Metropolis of Dimitrias, which
made its appearance for the first time in the year 2000? In actual fact, it is
an Non-Governmental Organization, entitled “Academy of Dimitrias NGO”, headed
by the president, who is the local Metropolitan, Ignatios, and it follows the classic tactic, as all NGOs
commonly do: it participates in open government-funded programmes. As has been
aptly said, if you want money by the bucketful, found a non-governmental
organization. The truth is that, until recently, it was a reasonable and
serious question how such an institute was funded, to the extent of being able
to organize extremely expensive symposia and conferences or carry out
programmes and missions “away from home”, even in far away lands abroad[2],
and generally how it is possible in the middle of a severe economic crisis for
such an institution to function at full tilt.
So the interesting point is that we have to do with
an institute whose title and charter
declare that it has no connection with states or governments, yet whose
funding, in a good number of cases is from the state. Besides, only recently it
was revealed that the Academy of Dimitrias NGO was queuing up, with another 174
NGOs, to claim (and share with whoever it chose to) 280 million euros for
“social work” from a programme of the Ministry of Employment[3].
The example, moreover, is indicative of a day conference in April 2011, in
Athens, at the Caravel Hotel, on “the importance of inter-faith and
inter-cultural dialogue”[4],
and in which the Academy of Theological Studies played a leading role. The
conference was organized by the Embassy
of Indonesia, in Athens, under the aegis (and, therefore, funded by) the
Foreign Ministries of Greece and Indonesia. The conference was attended by
religious functionaries, university professors, ambassadors, and highly-placed
members of diplomatic delegations in Athens, of more than 20 states, as well
as journalists and also students. Among
much else, a message was read out from the Archbishop of Athens by his
representative, an indication of the high level of support it enjoyed from
different circles- including the Church- while an impression was made by the
variety of speakers: Muslims of university level, a Protestant woman “priest”,
Orthodox university professors, the mastermind of the Academy, Pandelis
Kalaïtzidis, and also a representative of the Greek Institute for European and
Foreign Policy (better known as EΛΙΑΜΕΠ/ELIAMEP), Professor Anna
Triandafyllidou, a researcher at the above centre, which is funded generously
by George Soros’ “Open Society Foundation”, the Ford Foundation, the Marshall
Foundation, the World Bank and other relatively “charitable” foundations[5].
Among all of these colossi- entirely fortuitously- a
leading role is played by the humble Volos Academy. And the equally humble
question which arises is what reason do the Foreign Ministries of Greek and
Indonesia have to be interested in inter-faith dialogue? Why should NGOs with a
global range, with well-known officials in the Bilderberg Club and in the
multi-national super-lodges, which now quite openly promote the idea of world
government, fund such an inter-faith day conference? And how is it that a
theological institute of an Orthodox Metropolis should be in co-operation with
all of them? Very simply, because, alongside world government, there follows
the idea of religious homogenization, through a call by religions to peace,
tolerance and reconciliation. And the mission of the Academy, as will be shown
in the unit immediately following, with the programmes and conferences it
organizes, is precisely this.
B. The programmes of
the Academy:
Towards a
“Post-Patristic” Theology
1. Leading
Personality of the Academy of Theological Studies,
Metropolitan
Ignatios of Dimitrias.
Certainly the Academy of Theological
Studies would not enjoy the status and legitimacy it does were it not under the
protection of an Orthodox Metropolis. Its foundation and operation by the Holy
Metropolis of Dimitrias fortified and extended the enterprise, as is clear from
its international recognition, as is the support it enjoys both from the
Ecumenical Patriarchate[6],
as well as the Archdiocese of Athens[7].
This is borne out by the leading role of His Eminence Metropolitan Ignatios of
Dimitrias, who, by his position, is the director of the Academy, together, of
course, with the co-ordinator and person
responsible, Pandelis Kalaïtzidis. And since, in a text/response written by the
Academy to its critics, entitled “Let us stand aright”[8],
it was claimed that the local metropolitan was on the end of “ill-intentioned”
and “dishonourable” comments concerning “words and phrases which he never said
or wrote”, let us examine carefully a very small sample of what His Eminence
has said, as published in his own sources.
For a start, let us refer to the
fact that, although Ignatios’ positions attempt to place themselves on the side of
moderation, in
fact they clearly give directions for the course of a conference, while also
presenting a concurrence with the spirit of the speakers, who usually follow
his own. The phraseology, as we shall see, is particular and tries to
create a climate in favour of “altericity”, of “extroversion”, of “Peace” and
“reconciliation”, against “anti-Europeanism” and “anti-Westernism”. In the
address he gave at the “Theology and Literature II” conference[9],
the Metropolitan of Dimitrias, stressed precisely this: “There is a present
danger of the Church becoming a closed caste of the pure, with ready
answers, dogmatic immobility and entrenched positions”. These “ready answers”
and the “dogmatic immobility” which terrify the Metropolitan of Dimitrias are
the post-Patristic seeds, which, as we shall see below, abound in almost all
the papers by the theologians of the Academy.
2. Religion for all,
but not for the Orthodox.
One of the issues that the Academy
in Volos has undertaken to expedite, unfortunately with catastrophic
consequences, is that of the nature of religious instruction in schools and the
way it is taught. Unfortunately for the Holy Metropolis of Dimitrias, its
Academy has become the centre for the modernization theological group ΚΑΙΡΟΣ (TIME), a theological
association of recent appearance, which, meeting no resistance from anywhere,
has promoted the deconstruction of the Orthodox confessional character of the
lesson of religious instruction as well as the introduction into school
timetables of a religion-related, syncretist lesson which will in essence bring
epistemological confusion and cause spiritual damage to Orthodox pupils. In
this field, too, the Volos Academy is taking the lead in the related
propaganda, basically posing to the theological world the ultimatum of: “either
a compulsory and religion-related lesson, or religion dropped from school
timetables”.
Equally incendiary are the papers by
modernizing theologians at various events and conferences organized by the
Academy on the subject, often with the Pedagogical Institute of the Ministry of
(formerly “National”) Education and Religious Beliefs. Let us see some typical
examples. In one of its assertions on the subject, the “Academy of Theological
Studies’ Training Team for the Lesson of Religious Instruction”, consisting of
three ladies and one man, states explicitly that the time has come “to break
all the negative terms mentioned above (that is the confessional and
catechetical lesson) and to work in the opposite direction: that is to be
with, talk to, measure up to the “different”, to overcome determined defences
and entrenched positions, to pursue not ideals inspired by ideology but ones
which are educationally vigorous, not to be satisfied with hand-me-down
answers, but to seek new ways to respond to active requirements”[10].
This position is also advocated by
Stavros Yangazoglou, one of the orchestrators of the de-construction of the
Orthodox confessional lesson, advisor to the Pedagogical Institute and
prominent member of “ΚΑΙΡΟΣ”.
An ardent admirer of the multicultural model, he constantly projects as a logical argument the right of the
minority against that of the majority. For him the priority is the encounter
with the other “with respect and understanding for the person of the
heterodox, for those of other religions,
those who are indifferent”[11].
Clearly to multiply the numbers of the indifferent. Of course, the issue is one
of great importance for Orthodox parents, because the insistence shown by the
theologians of “ΚΑΙΡΟΣ”
that the lesson of religious instruction be related to knowledge of religions
is anything but accidental. They knew full well that children, especially at
the impressionable age of the primary school do not have the epistemological
foundations to compare good and bad
knowledge and to reject the latter. So the first knowledge to which the
unsuspecting little pupils will be subjected may well turn out to be definitive
as regards the concepts they will form about God and religions[12].
3. Front and centre:
“Feminist theology”; “liturgical renewal”; “innovation”; and “world
peace”.
In the period 2002-3, the advances
attempted by the Volos Academy towards “feminist theology” were really
impressive; unheard of, however, in Greek terms. One issue literally non-negotiable
for the Orthodox was cleverly presented
in the papers of the modern theologians as an “existent” and deeply
ecclesiological problem[13].
We are talking about one of the favourite issues of the “post-Patristic”
adherents, which, from the beginning was shown, with good evidence, to be,
theologically, “a form of contextual theology”[14].
The tendency which dominates in the papers is clearly in favour even of the
“ordination” of women, making the riposte “the fact that arguments
put forward on the part of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church are not
founded on decisions of Ecumenical Synods, and the Church clearly does not
reach decisions in conferences, but in Ecumenical Synods…”[15][16].
As regards the “liturgical
renaissance”, much has been said and written in this area, too. A well-known
professor of the Theological School at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
has called it an imperative need, and claims that the prime concern of this
“renaissance” is “initially, the
participation of the laity in the matter of the liturgy, and thereafter in the
administrative and instructive work of the Church. That is, that those who
are baptized should express, as the
“royal priesthood”, the triple (priestly, royal and prophetic) office of Christ”[17].
But this proposal is a purely Protestant approach, where the things concerning
the “special” and the “general” priesthood are absorbed and equated and so,
precisely as in Protestantism, each person can be a pastor and carry out
priestly duties. Also, the other positions it expresses, such as the removal of
the exclusion of women from liturgical action; bringing back the people in the
place of the choir and the chanter; the translation of liturgical texts; the
abandonment of the secret reading of prayers; the removal of the iconostas and,
above all, the participation of all the congregation in Holy Communion
without the condition of proper preparation, are anti-Patristic and
unacceptable in their totality.
The above approaches, which probably
surprise those hearing them for the first time, are founded on and supported by
the dogma of “modernity”, which for some decades now has burst into the
theological sphere. In essence it is a reconciliation of theological thought
with the spirit of the Enlightenment and, as the post-Patristic-friendly
professor of the Panteio University, Thanos Lipovats, says, “the freedom of modernist Christianity
results, however, in the fact that people, as thinking and acting individuals,
are no longer bound by traditions and closed patterns of organization and
interpretation of nature and society”[18][19].
In the end, all this is happening “always
with the intention of compromise, generosity and an updated gambit towards
them” (i.e. the heterodox or even those of a different religion) “in the
name of the terms of modernity”[20].
The acceptance of “others/partners” legitimizes the famous encyclical of 1902 from
the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the “Christian Churches”, which makes mention of
“offshoots” of Christianity. Only that, in their anxiety to bring about their
much-desired “world peace”, some circles forget the incontrovertible words of
Our Lord Jesus Christ, that: “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut
down and thrown into the fire”[21].
It would appear, however, that this is of small importance to the “office
theologians”. The question is whether we are to arrive unconditionally at “they
may be one”, not only on the inter-Christian level but also the inter-faith.
The conference the Academy organized in 2006-7 and dedicated to Islam found the
apt element of unity (apart from “love” which is a given for them) in the
common provenance of the “children of Abraham”[22][23].
4. The
post-Patristic conference.
The straw that broke
the camel’s back.
And so we come to the four days of
June, 3-6, 2010 and the famous conference “Neo-Patristic Synthesis or
post-Patristic Theology? Can Orthodox Theology be Contextual?”. A conference
which was funded by the “Orthodox” section of Fordham University of New York, a
Jesuit-Papist foundation which is behind the organization of most of the
inter-Christian and Ecumenist symposia all over the globe, as well as the
German University of Münster. A great deal has been written about this
conference, there have been many reliable analyses, so we have no intention of
adding yet another. In our estimation, an entirely pertinent analysis can be
found in the astonishing “Note” by Metropolitan Pavlos of Glyfada, against
“post-Patristic/contextual theology” addressed to the Holy Synod[24].
All we would add here is that the conference in question essentially
concentrated the subject matter of all the previous periods of the Academy, the
sole difference being that officially “the contentious term was posed as
an open question for discussion and expansion”. The- essentially- affirmative
question (“Toward a post-Patristic theology?”) which was chosen as the title of
his paper by the director of the Academy, Pandelis Kalïtzidis, together with
his observation that “the demand for a new incarnation of the word and of
the textual reading of the Fathers has become urgent, also posing, at the same
time, the question of the possibility of the existence of a post-Patristic
Orthodox theology”[25], answers the
hypocritical question of the post-Patristic theologians, who, six months later,
wanted to “gain the higher ground” saying that at this conference “no
ecclesiastical dogma or creed was touched upon”. They do not have the
elementary courage and decency to support, openly, their heretical creeds,
which constitute a Protestant-inspired diminution and abrogation of Patristic
Tradition.
5. From
Post-Patristic to Nation-Annihilation Style.
The multicultural spirit of the
Academy of Theological Studies, however, apart from being post-Patristic, is
also extremely “nation-annihilistic”. In a theological institute where the word
“heresy” seems to be entirely forbidden, there is one instance where this word
is used generously. This is the case where the post-Patristic modernizers
have the chance, appositely or otherwise, to blast anything patriotic that
spoils their multicultural, New Order recipe. So they remember to talk about
the heresy of ethno-phyletism and, at the same time, to attack bishops who are
inspired by a strong patriotic outlook and/or prominent members of society when
they express their anxiety regarding the break up of the nation, forgetting, in
this case- according to the post-Patristic paper by Kalaïtzidis- to speak of
“tolerance for heretics… in today’s cultural pact”. On the contrary, the
euro-theologians of the Volos Academy, like faithful little soldiers of a
supra-religious and supra-national plan, even align themselves with plans for
the betrayal of the nation, such as that of Anan for Cyprus[26],
together with nation-annihilating groups of people like Bistis and Kounalakis
in this country, or
members of anti-Hellenic NGOs such as the “Greek Observatory for the Helsinki
Accords”, of the well-known- by his own public admission- homosexual, Grigoris
Vallianatos, in which the late professor of the Theological School of Athens
and one of the great teachers of post-Patristic theologians, Savvas Agouridis[27],
served for years.
C. The activity of
the Post-Patristic supporters is fundamentalist-
The phenomenon of
“Academic Fundamentalism”.
As is natural, the identification of
the Orthodox modernizing theologians with the spirit of the post-Patristic West
provoked, and continues to provoke, a variety of reactions throughout
Orthodoxy. The response on the part of the Post-Patristic supporters to these
reactions speaks of “Patristic fundamentalism” and “ecclesiastical
triumphalism” to the detriment of the “other”. Bereft of serious scientific
arguments, that is to say, the Academy people attempt, through these slogans
and New Order catchphrases devoid of content, to terrorize those who dare to
utter traditional views and this is why, as we shall see shortly, they do not
hesitate to fire off slurs and insults at those persons who put them in a
difficult position. In this way, they convert themselves into what they accuse
the others of being, i.e. fundamentalists of an “academic” type and so we can
say that, as opposed to the non-existent “Patristic fundamentalism”, they
operate and express a genuine “academic fundamentalism”, which, in reality, is
an “anti-Patristic” fundamentalism.
How is this
“academic, anti-Patristic fundamentalism” expressed?
a) with immoderate
insults and base slurs. For the “civilized” theolgians of the Academy, their
opponents are people: with complexes; fanatics; brainless; racist; anti-Semite;
revisionists; phobic; traditional-minded; nationalists; conservatives; immature;
and
mythomaniacs.
b) with slander and
blows “below the belt”, i.e. ad hominem attacks
on those who oppose them.
c) with exclusion
from the media, which, in part, funds the conferences of the Volos Academy, as
is the case of the newspaper “Thessalia” in Volos.
d) with the
criminalization of anti-heretical struggles and of actual people who have the
fibre to challenge the heretics: those “within” who, like wolves posing as
shepherds, are deconstructing Orthodox theology and dogmas; and those
“without”, who belong to other dogmas
and religions. With freakish legislation of the “hate speech” type which
obtains in the USA and will be aimed
at anyone who criticizes heretics, international Zionism and even homosexuals.
The Volos Academy is working methodically in this direction.
In brief, this is
the totalitarian manner of managing the “reactionaries with complexes” on the
part the luminaries who are professors at the Academy. The only thing is that
the real ones with complexes are not those who insist on not moving the
boundaries of the Faith which they received from the Fathers, but are the
self-same defenders of the Academy of Theological Studies, with the frantic
efforts they make to put Orthodox theology, at any price, on the rails of the
modernism of the enlightenment, or- even worse- of the post-modernity of
universal nihilism and the questioning of everything. These theologians of our
times who, according to the late Fr. John Romanides, are close in their
approach to the theology of the Roman Fathers, are the ones who are suffering
from an “inferiority complex”. This position is worth noting and entirely
well-supported, precisely because the theological method of the Fathers is
based on Orthodox spirituality and it is impossible for people who have an
inferiority complex and are slavishly attached, spiritually, to any and
everything foreign to Greek, Christian culture to understand Patristic theology
and spirituality[28].
Besides, it would be
good for some people to realize that the Orthodox Church does not seek unity in
the “that they may be one” sense which the post-Patristic theologians have
distorted, for the simple reason that the Church itself has the whole of the
truth and does not seek “a part of the truth” to the left or to the right. The
problem lies with the so-called “Western churches” which of their own volition
cut themselves off from the unity maintained by Orthodoxy, as the true bearer
of the revealed truth. For this attitude to be construed by some “janissary”
theologians of Orthodoxy as “fundamentalism” or “introversion” is, at the very
least, laughable and comical. Orthodoxy has not and does not serve any kind of
“fundamentalism”, but nor does it serve the theological pluralism which leads to Ecumenism and Syncretism. It
refuses to accept the “ branch theory” of the “capacity” of “two lungs”,
“baptismal” or “post-Patristic” theology. This attitude is entirely honourable,
since, for 2,000 years now it has served the truth and only the truth,
conscientiously and precisely, without relativizing it or contaminating it. It
totally rejects the Western Christian criteria for unity, because these are, at
bottom, imperialistic and extremely fundamentalist, since they rest on
underhand methods which clearly recall practices of Masonry. Today’s fractured
confessional Christianity cannot be repaired by a all-embracing confessional
agreement, nor with confessional equivalence, nor even with pan-confessional
welding or collocation[29],
but by the return of the deceived to the
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
D. New Pan-Heresy,
“Patroclasm”.
The encouraging thing in the whole
story, though, is undoubtedly the fact that many of those who reacted
against the anti-traditional
activities of the Academy were Bishops of the Church of Greece, who almost
immediately published monumental texts, with excellent Patristic argumentation,
which was a great comfort in this age of universal apostasy in which we are
living. In our own humble opinion, the best-supported position on the issue of
post-Patristic theology and its official spokespersons, came from the
distinguished emeritus professor of the Faculty of Pastoral and Social Theology
at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis,
who also proved that, with the continuous anti-Patristic programmes being
carried out by the Academy, they are becoming associated in the conscience of
the Church as “Patroclasts”. That is they have launched a direct, frontal
attack on the holy Fathers and recall the iconoclasts of Byzantium[30].
The position of Fr. Theodoros cannot
in any way be considered exaggerated or anti-scientific, because at this
conference the Fathers of the Church really were cast out and had their places
taken by Biblical theologians, mainly from Protestant circles, or even by
agnostic philosophers. The names which dominated in the papers were not those
of Gregory the Theologian, John the Damascan or Gregory Palamas, but Berdiaeff,
Jung, Barthes, Flaubert and Gartner! The implant, consequently and officially,
of post-Patristic theology is a serious departure from the Tradition of Holy
Orthodoxy. It is lack of knowledge and experience of the truth, a deviation
from the original theology and, as a result, is, according to the teaching of
the holy Fathers, a demonic situation, seeing as they emphasize explicitly and
categorically that each heresy “is not from the apostles but from the demons
and their father, the devil, and, rather, is barren and without reason and not
of the right mind, like that of the asses”[31].
In the same spirit, the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synods declare heretics to be
of not sound mind spiritually.
Here, against this
theological/ideological backdrop of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, we have the
formal, forceful recognition of their declaration of autonomy and departure
from the truth as it was revealed to us by the Word of God Himself. But this
autonomy comes at a high price. Without enlightenment from above, the
theologians of modernity see the world of beings very murkily, in
essence they imagine, they do not see, and therefore optical and evaluative
competence become weak, with the result that (new) idols are shaped and vices
are considered virtues[32].
And since, in the papers of the supporters of post-Patristic theology, the
feeling is often given that the Holy Spirit “will unfold new facets of the
revealed Truth, as progress and enrichment on the faith”, and, in particular,
Saint Augustine’s mistaken view is projected that “in the depths of time we
approach the truth more objectively”, it may be proper to stress, for the
correction of these theological inaccuracies, that the Fathers never accepted
Augustine’s position or that of the Latins who later followed him- and now of
the post-Patristic Orthodox- that the Church understands the faith and dogmas
better and more profoundly as time goes by. Every instance of glorification
throughout the centuries is participation “in the whole truth of Pentecost”,
which is susceptible neither to increase nor deeper understanding[33].
EPILOGUE. WHAT IS
REQUIRED
IS THE AWAKENING OF
THE PATRISTIC CONSCIENCE
OF THE FAITHFUL.
Before concluding, I should like to
note that what puts us in opposition to the Volos Academy is not its existence
in itself, but the distorting role it has undertaken to play in theological matters.
In its pure form, theology cannot be a discussion between offices or
drawing-rooms, accompanied by the accoutrements of those places, but should, on
the contrary be experienced, lived and charismatic. Pure theology is a created
expression of the experience of the uncreated
God and His mysteries, of the uncreated light, of the place and manner
of the presence of God. Truth in the Church is not an abstract notion or an
idea of the genuine. Truth is the outstanding hypostatic reality, i.e. the
person. It is Christ, as He Himself assured us: “I am the truth”[34][35].
Moreover, charismatic theology, as the experience of the Church in the Holy
Spirit, is not for everyone, and certainly not for those who have the
uncleanliness of the passions ingrained within them. The God-taught manner of
theologizing without error, according to Saint Gregory Palamas is not the
result of the “ascent of the intellect” and of speaking about God
intellectually, but rather of “speaking to God”[36].
Unfortunately, the practice of the Volos Academy is aimed in exactly the
opposite direction, and so the position once occupied by pure love for the
truth, is today taken over by the “elevation” of “mere curiosity”.
The most worrying point of all,
however, seems to be the total ignorance- in essence, the total indifference-
of the Orthodox faithful as regards this anti-traditional and anti-Patristic
pillage which has been precipitated in the realm of theology. The various
innovations which are being introduced gradually into the ecclesiastical world,
as a result of this long theological vitiation, have not merely not been picked
up in good time (e.g. the discontinuation of the anathemas which used to be
read on the Sunday of Orthodoxy), but also, when they are, they do not trouble
us, because of the intense secularization of the members of the Church. Allow
me to remark, then, that as Christians, we
have all become, long since, post-Patristic, with the result that,
today, particular theologians have come along and are putting this into words.
Once, in the Early Christian years, the Christians were full of Godly zeal and
kept vigil and prayed constantly, to be ready for anything. The wonderful story
described by Saint Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, with Peter sleeping
quietly, “between two soldiers, bound with two chains”[37],
but the Christians of Jerusalem praying all night “on his behalf” demonstrates
this very forcibly. In today’s era, unfortunately, most Christians sleep
quietly, because an awakening, living, prophetic, apostolic, patristic voice is
not longer heard in the churches. Today’s seminar certainly follows the thought
of the Holy Prophets, Apostles and Fathers, which is why we thank His Eminence
the Metropolitan of Piraeus for this God-pleasing initiative and pray that God
will keep him “safe, honourable, healthy, full of days and rightly dividing the
word of truth”.
Embroidered
Pagasetics
(brief
history, sharp diagnosis,
mild
antidote)
Allow me at once to beg your
forbearance, because I do not have the high range of the previous speaker. From
top C, permit me to drop two, maybe four intervals on the diatonic scale.
Apart
from being a teacher, of necessity I also became a farmer recently, a farmer on
barren and dry land. I labour, but do not succeed, to imitate Saint Gregory the
Theologian, who says- and, of course, did so- “he piled the fallow”, meaning he
brought under cultivation arid fields and, in particular, ploughed them well.
The recent appearance of newly-made post-Patristic theology is a shoot from an
imported hybrid, which was introduced by us into a greenhouse with a
para-ecclesiastical monoculture. The greenhouse has, among other things,
competent directing staff of para-scientific personnel, a great deal of
moisture, much putridity- I had another word in mind, less mellifluous- greater
self-regard and an equal portion of ambition. The label is written in a dialect
that is not masculine, in a style not manly.
The
closest beginning, to us, of this phenomenon can be traced to seeds in the
1970s. When
an archiepiscopal cadre, with a great deal of heterodoxy and a little
immorality, defamed the two theological schools. And founded, in 1972, the
higher, clerical school (I was a boarder for five months and have some idea of
its operation, staffing and aims). At that time, the enthusing, bombastic
leading lights of Ζωή (Life), hoped, and
planned, with sui generis, secular
arms, to renew rotten and immoral Greece, and the Church along with it. In this
school, what would be taught would be, among other things, pure and modern,
though elevated, Orthodox theology. And the Church would galvanize it with its
own executives.
The second enterprise, in terms of
time, was brought about, a few years ago, by an archiepiscopal garrison. And
after much friction and many vicissitudes, four higher ecclesiastical academies
were founded. Four times more the money for those students, four times less the
state money for those studying medicine, agriculture, theology, literature…
Now it is not Zωή that saves; now it
is the voluble, brilliant Chrysopaga. The aim is the same as that of
Ζωή, though now endowed
with a modernizing patina: careerists within universities, bourgeois preachers,
average scribblers- naturally of the theological market- and ring
fingers
supported and vitalized the allotments with their monocultures.
Third, not in terms of time, but
different and related as regards cost. The third enterprise, the foundation and
functioning of sui generis
theological academies, without girls, with boys as regular students in Metropoles. Beginning in Crete.
In Church matters, things do not happen with virgin births, whether they be
from us or from the common enemy.
In Metropoles (?) under (?) through
(?) the bishop (?) I do not know!
The most diversely occupied has
sprouted in a Metropolis in Central Greece. Its aims, structure, activities are
almost photocopies, deliberately blurred sometimes, of those of the earlier
enterprises.
I note two:
a) rabid polemic and defamation by
midgets against the native theological personnel, even though this latter body
of people enjoys world-wide recognition; b) building-developer style selling on
the internal market of ideological constructs and insistence on transatlantic
constructs. That about says it all. The level of journalistic discourse is
lower than average by academic standards, but is aided by lavish resources- a
good number of which have already been mentioned- and in co-operation with
powerful contacts with renowned circles at home and abroad.
The Academy - no more than a little
office in the beginning - today speaks to the mighty, to people in the Church
and universities, with index finger pointing, the thumb, of course, indicating
back towards the kowtower, the least of those who are puffed up. Because of the
brightness of the wrapping paper, because of its coincidental (?) alignment
with related political and social redistribution enterprises, the work of the sui generis academy has gained unusual
circulation. This construct is a special figurative edition of another
general one, that of post-modernism in Western bibliography and life in
general. We do not need an analysis of it here; that can take place in
university reading- rooms. What is of urgency here, or merely required, is an
ecclesiastical dissection and diagnosis, and since there are people here who
are more specialized and worthy than I am, they have done this and will
continue to do so. I shall only make two indicative incisions, which, I
emphasize, will be painful for all of us.
The first incision. I found the very
powerful fluoroscope of a mighty anatomist, Saint Gregory the Theologian. It
worked in the case, I stress and ask you pay particular attention, of the
female vilifier. That is what the saint called Eunomios. This tool penetrates
and films in ten successive tomes. He found and dissected “the new workshop of
impiety”, of Eunomios and his supporters. Please listen, with attention and
trepidation, for we’ll need it, to what the saint diagnosed as the programme of
this workshop. The workshop, then, (1) directly makes saints, (2) ordains
theologians, (3) inspires and runs instructions in such a way that it produces
unlearned scholars. It makes the unlearned scholars (4) in order to baptize
them, (5) calls many “conferences of unlearned
scholars” (6) trusses, that is binds tightly, ties and traps weaker people
in its arachnidan webs, (7) stirs up swarms of black and yellow hornets against
the faith, (8) plans the dissemination of the most current dialectics! That is,
it cultivates and distributes philosophical, secular and other lessons, and (9)
most brazenly feminizes ever more, through flattery, the already unmanly
features of its male adherents. Through all this, the saint makes his
diagnosis: “it creates the new workshop of impiety”. After the ten neoplasms or
functions of the workshop, the saint concludes with a final one: it reaps the
folly of those male adherents. That is, of those ever more feminized by
unmanliness. I translate freely: “the cunning programme and workshop of Eunomios
did not entertain European programmes. It was self-nourished by the sweet
bleeding of its adherents, its feminized adherents”.
I leave it to you, as homework, to
find similarities, differences, developments, and current trends, through a
comparison with today. I also found a second fluoroscopic tool, supplementary
to the first. It was employed by Saint Gregory Palamas against the perverse
Barlaam. I bring the figure up to date, applying it to current issues.
Post-Patristic theology, the hybrid seed in both essence and word, is a mixed
fabrication, concept, construct. It mixes a little ecclesiastical theology,
which is sprinkled with catch-phrases of its own choice which are the absolute
latest fashion, or are from special, secular workshops. This mixed fabrication
is sown to lunkheads, and for those not familiar with the term, I will
translate: gawping simpletons. The fabrication is then watered, fertilized in
permanent tubing with
damp tons of secular support, a great deal of mannish egotism, and good deal of
obsequiousness, that true offspring of the unnatural bond between selfishness
and ambition. The plants from the seeds are supported and tied to embroidery,
fool’s gold and silk ribbons which in days of yore ladies would put in their
hair. By versatile para-universtity types who, of course, earn respectable
remuneration.
My dear friends, do not rely merely
on the diagnoses I have just outlined. It is with sadness and compunction that
I confess and declare that what the Saints diagnosed and I presented briefly, I
am in a position to confirm from
the profession of teacher
(which I have followed for about thirty years now). So what I read in brief is
true also, mutatis mutandis of
course, for many of us here, myself most of all: that we have exchanged the
fervent faith of our natural and spiritual fathers, or converted respect for
the Holy Fathers into an ideology, a shallow faith, merely to be able to invoke
it, a fleshless ideology, sometimes spoiling for a fight, over-zealous. An
ideology that at times is close to that of football supporters. And we invoke this
ideology either to secure our rootless Orthodox outlook or to grind down
brothers as weak in faith as we are. Of course, we haven’t stuffed large
greenhouses, we haven’t stuffed workshops, but we do have our own little
individual greenhouses.
The difference between
us is a matter of degree, the extent to which audacity, gall and temerity are
calibrated. We cowards dare not come up with new-fangled teaching. But some of
us also experiment with obsequiousness at times, we score victories over our
brethren, we enjoy rich remuneration and
we do not even put our Orthodox outlook at risk. Rather we seal it with seven
seals. And with very many quotations from the Fathers, with sayings of
Prophets, Saints and Martyrs. If, then, we come to ourselves, if we look with
affection, as brethren, upon those called “opponents of the Fathers”, as
members of the same body for which Christ died, then it is likely that we shall
draw down upon ourselves the mercy of the Thrice-Holy God and that we will help
to support those who seems to us to be wavering in the faith or even fighting
against it. The suggestions which follow attempt to retain this ecclesiastical
sense of honour, along with solidarity and fraternity.
The wide-spread pestilence and particular aspects of post-Patristics can therefore be handled,
can begin, on the basis of three simple things, though in an ecclesiastical
manner. (1) We should examine ourselves honestly and in repentance. (2) We
should support our brothers and sisters who are as weak in the faith as we are.
(3) Then we should address ourselves to our bishops and spiritual fathers. In
brief, to scrutinize ourselves means that all we who blithely declare our
Orthodox outlook should come under, or stand before, the checks and balances of
confession. It may be that we, too, believe that our faith and our reverence
towards the Saints is a personal achievement, a sublime ideology and that we
are content with this. Scrutiny proceeds gradually, ecclesiastically. (1) We repent. We bend the knee, shed tears.
We light candles or icon-lamps. We bake and bring loaves for the liturgy rather
than buy ready-made ones. We suffer with miscreants. We give alms, secretly, to
the indigent. We forgive those who have wronged us and do all the other things
that we’ve known about since we were little children. (2) We support our
brethren, we examine our words and actions in case the brothers we’re judging have been crushed by them. Perhaps,
in seeking to crush them we are confirming our own self-satisfaction: that is,
that we are believers and God-fearing and have an Orthodox outlook. That we
confirm ourselves as pious, champion defenders of the faith and infallible.
Might it not be better to imitate certain Fathers of today, who- a truly
surprising thing- are keeping silent. They do not libel. They do not have the
time. Because they are praying without ceasing. Shedding copious tears, they
pray for all, without exception, for all those who are sorrowful and shaken. (3)
Not us, the ordinary laity, even teachers, supposedly mighty, going by the name
of professors, but those in charge of ecclesiastical decoration and legislation, might, among their other duties and
because it might be pleasing to God - that is demonstrating love for one’s
neighbor - attempt personal communication with one of those who are rumoured or
confirmed through texts to be advocating or teaching new-fangled doctrine. The
same should happen with any co-bishops, say those present here today (in the event
that some of their fellow bishops ever give them room to), with any bishops who
acquiesce to, concur with, are merely charmed or tempted (all of which is human
and not unlikely) by similar teachings. If personal communication between
bishops does not bear fruit, then perhaps it might be necessary for the bishops
to move on to the next step. Some of the more alert bishops should summarize
the new-fangled teaching, summarize the theological diagnosis, weigh the issues
spiritually and, if they think it incumbent upon them, should bring the matter
in question before the Body of Bishops for discussion. We, in the meantime,
continue to pray for all, as the Church wishes us to. And always gratefully
thanking God, the Good Lord, who, of old gave us, as He does to this day, Holy
Fathers who engender- this is what makes them Fathers- children of love,
patience and intercession.
[1] Νέα
Εστία, nο. 1805,
November 2007. All the references
are in Greek unless specified.
[2]
http://amen.gr/index.php?mod=news&op=article&aid=5798
[3]
http://www.kerdos.gr/default.aspx?id=1566728&nt=103
[4]
http://www.amen.gr/index.php?mod=news&op=article&aid=5354
[5] Yorgos Rakkas,
ΕΛΙΑΜΕΠ ή μήπως Ελληνικό Ίδρυμα Αμερικανικής Εξωτερικής Πολιτικής; periodical
Άρδην, vol.
58, p.
20.
[6] http://fanarion.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post_21.html
[7] http://thriskeftika.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post_7348.html
[8] http://www.acadimia.gr/content/view/314/1/lang,el/
[9] http://www.acadimia.gr/content/view/173/48/lang,el/
[10] http://www.acadimia.gr/content/view/325/48/lang,el/
[11] http://www.acadimia.gr/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=154&catid=40%3A---2005-2006&Itemid=76&lang=el
[12] See
http://www.acadimia.gr/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123&catid=38%3A---2003-2004&Itemid=76&lang=el
[13] Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivasileiadi,Η
Συμμετοχή των Γυναικών στη Ζωή της Εκκλησίας: μια ακόμη Υποτίμηση του Λαϊκού
Στοιχείου;, http://www.acadimia.gr/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=128&catid=39%3A---2004-2005&Itemid=76&lang=el
[14] Katerina Karkala-Zorba,
Υπάρχει θέση στην Ορθοδοξία για μια Φεμινιστική Θεολογία; http://www.acadimia.gr/content/view/78/35/lang,el/
[15] On the ordination
of women, see http://www.acadimia.gr/content/view/100/35/lang,el/
[16]
http://www.acadimia.gr/content/view/107/35/lang,el/
[17] P. Vasileiadis,,
Λειτουργική Αναγέννηση και Συμμετοχή των Λαϊκών, http://www.acadimia.gr/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=133&catid=39%3A---2004-2005&Itemid=76&lang=el
[18] Thanos Lipovats, Nεωτερικότητα και Εκκοσμίκευση, http://www.acadimia.gr/new/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=141&catid=40%3A---2005-2006&Itemid=76&lang=el
[19] Dimitris Bekridakis, Μετανεωτερικότητα, Θρησκεία και Ορθόδοξη
Θεολογία, http://www.acadimia.gr/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&catid=37%3A---2001-2002&Itemid=76&lang=el
[20] His Eminence Elder Chrysostomos (Konstnatinidis) of Ephesus, Ορθοδοξία και Θρησκευτική Ετερότητα, http://www.acadimia.gr/content/view/83/35/lang,el/
[21] Matth. 7, 19.
[22]
http://www.acadimia.gr/content/view/1/44/lang,el/
[23] See Petros Vasileiadis, Το θεολογικό πλαίσιο του διαθρησκειακού
διαλόγου, http://www.acadimia.gr/content/view/42/35/lang,el/
[24] http://www.impantokratoros.gr/2BE58A08.el.aspx
[25] http://www.amen.gr/index.php?mod=news&op=article&aid=2570
[26] http://olympia.gr/2011/02/17
[27] http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/greek/profile.html
[28] Protopresbyter John Romanides, Δογματική και Συμβολική Θεολογία της
Ορθοδόξου Καθολικής Εκκλησίας, vol I, p.
83.
[29] Konstantinos Kotsiopoulos, Ορθοδοξία και Φονταμενταλισμός, Νέα
Σιών, vol.
90 (2006), p.
136
[30] http://thriskeftika.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post_2310.html
[31] Anthony the Great, Life and Works, 82, PG26, 960B.
[32] Protopresbyter
Theodoros Zisis, Επόμενοι
τοις
Θείοις
Πατράσι, p. 28
[33] Protopresbyter John Romanidis,
op. cit.,p, 27.
[34] Jn. 14, 6.
[35] Dimitrios Tselengidis, Ορθόδοξη θεολογία και ζωή-Μελέτες
Συστηματικής Θεολογίας, Part IV, p.
162.
[36] Ibid, p. 233.
[37] Acts 12, 6.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου