THE PRE-20TH CENTURY
THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUES AND THEIR LEGACY
Faithful to Her identity
and Her uninterrupted poemantic praxis towards the heretics and schismatics who
left Her bosom, Orthodoxy had embarked on a series of theological dialogues
with them1, immediately after the Schism of 1054 and through to the end of the
19th century, catering to their return to the in-Christ Truth. Her
dialogues with Western Christianity (initially with Papism, and from the 16th
century with the various branches of Protestantism) left an important legacy,
which Orthodoxy cannot overlook even in Her current ecumenical relations, in
order to preserve Her historical continuity.
Besides, “dialogue” is
something that belongs to the essence of Christianity; it was introduced and
sanctified by The Creator Himself in the life of mankind. «Come, let us
discuss» says God (Isaiah1:18) to His creature. Moreover, our worship
is a continuous discussion between Creator and creature, for the salvation of
man.
After the time of the
Schism (1054), Orthodox fidelity to the apostolic-patristic tradition is
expressed positively, in its Orthodox dogmatic-symbolic texts and based on
them, the heretical Western delusions are rebutted, with an undisturbed
continuance and agreement. Orthodox self-awareness had thus remained
vigorous, according to which, «our Orthodox Eastern and Apostolic Church not
only does not embrace a heretical dogma, but repels even any suspicions
thereof»2.
Also confessed bluntly
is that «the Luther-Calvin and Papist dogmas are not consistent with our
Orthodox faith, but rather oppose it and are far removed from the truth »3.
It therefore becomes
obvious that the only acceptable basis for the reacceptance of any seceded ones
whatsoever is the unfalsified identity of the upright Faith and its unreserved
acceptance by the heterodox. This by no means comprises an arrogant
stance by the Orthodox, inasmuch as the return and the repentance of the
heterodox means that they are re-connecting with apostolic-patristic Orthodoxy,
which they had deserted. The statement by Saint Mark of Ephesus (the
Noble) has preserved its age-old validity, that: «in the divine dogmas there is
no place whatsoever for providence or condescension»4.
However, these criteria
became unactuated or disappeared, around the end of the 19th century, with the
ecclesiastic Leadership tied down by the demands of international politics.
Moreover, it was their political goals5 that had marginalized the
in-Christ, salvific Truth, which were the main reason for the failure of the
dialogues up until the Sacking of the City (1453). The “Reply to the
Constantinople Synod of 1895 addressed to Pope Leo XIII” can be regarded as the
turning point of this change in stance. According to this response, union
can be achieved, “by expectoration of the heretical… innovations and return to
the ancient status of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ»6.
Consequently, every unification endeavour that does not move within the
bounds of the orthodox-patristic tradition but instead aspires «to the passing
enjoyment of sin» (Hebr.11:25) is condemned to fail.
«ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT AND
ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE»
a) The official
announcements
“Ecumenical Movement”7
was the name given from the beginning of the 20th century for the awareness of
«the chasm and the differences» between the different Christian groups,
especially in the space of the West, and the organizing of a course of friendly
relations and contacts between them – the objective being their eventual
re-unification8. More specifically, this Movement aspires - «by means of
mutual theological, specialized office, as well as by means of meetings between
the delegates of the various Churches and Christian groups – to the
clarification of the dogmatic and other differences between them, in a spirit
of mutual understanding» - in order to seek out the suitable means for an
effective rapprochement between themselves, «thus smoothing out in advance the
path to the union»9. These official or unofficial meetings were named «Ecumenical
Dialogue», which, according to the honest statement by one of the pioneers of
Ecumenism, the former Archibishop of America, Iakovos († 1996), «aspired to the
unification or the rapprochement of the Churches and thereafter, of religions
in general»10.
According to the
official statement by the Ecumenical Patriarchate a few years ago: «the
Orthodox Church, being fully aware of Her identity and Her responsibility,
chose the constructive theological dialogue with the other Christian Churches
and confessions… both for the trustworthy projection of Orthodoxy to the
rest of the Christian world, but also for the re-connecting of the
heterodox to the common theological tradition of the period of the Ecumenical
Synods, in the obvious hope for their return to the Faith delivered by the
Apostles»11. Furthermore, the Ecumenical Patriarchate had already stated that
the purpose of its participation in the Ecumenical Movement was: «to
familiarize and impart to the heterodox the wealth of the Faith, its (Orthodoxy’s)
worship and its constitution, and its religious –along with its ascetic-
experience, and also to be informed about their (the heterodox) new methods and
their notions of ecclesiastic lifa and their activities»12. Especially
stressed by our Ecumenists is the danger of «isolation» - something that is not
reflected –as far as I know- in our pre-20th century ecclesiastic records.
Moreover, it is an argument that relates to the impermanence of the
present age and its menial objectives, in total antithesis to the words of our
Christ to the “Twelve”, when «many of His disciples» abandoned Him, not having
accepted His entire Truth. «Do you Too want to go away?»
(John 6:66-67).
«Isolation» exists,
wherever Christ is absent, as Orthodoxy. Besides, official reassurance is given
by the Ecumenical Centre, that «no concerns regarding a supposed betrayal of
the Orthodox faith or a weakening of the Orthodox conscience can be expressed,
through a sincere dialogue with the other Christian traditions» 13.
However, the first
concerns had appeared, even from the start. Fearing the relativization of the
Faith, the dogmatologist professor John Karmiris – a collaborator “in
principle” with the ecumenical endeavour – felt the need to underline that «the
participation of the Orthodox ... and their collaboration... has the meaning of
a community of love and not a community per dogmatic teaching and Mysteries»14.
Analogous criticism was also exercised by the renowned Professor
Panayiotis Trembelas, who noted that: «We are assuredly facing the danger of a
clime and atmosphere of indifference regarding the distinctions and the
differences of the dogma being created, in the midst of which, the mightier and
more numerous and the more composed and organized will calmly and imperceptibly
absorb the fewer and the more feebly organized»15.
However, a revelatory
and especially dynamic critique on the Ecumenical Movement overall was
expressed by the blessed Fr. Justin (Popovitch): «Ecumenism –he notes– is a
common name for pseudo-Christians, for the pseudo-churches of Western Europe.
Inside it can be found the heart of all the European Humanisms, with
Papism at the head. All of these pseudo-Christians, all of the pseudo-churches,
are nothing more than one heresy side-by-side with another heresy. Their
common evangelical name is pan-heresy»16. And he asks himself: «Was it
really necessary for the Orthodox Church – that immaculate God-human body and
organism of the Godman Christ – to be so monstrously humiliated, that Her
representative Theologians, even Hierarchs, would seek organic participation
and inclusion in the W.C.C.? Alas, it was an unheard of treason»17.
But the sacred Community
of the Holy Mountain, when writing «On the Dialogue of Orthodox and Papists18
as early as 1967, had expressed its concerns, by expressing serious
reservations as regards the possibility of “common prayers”, “participations in
each others’ liturgical and worshipping synaxes and other acts, which might
give the impression that our Orthodox Church accepts the Roman Catholics as a
complete (whole) Church and the Pope as a canonical Bishop of Rome»19. A
true prophecy, of the happenings of our time!
Furthermore, it has been
rightly supported, that «Orthodoxy has no need to hasten towards any dialogue,
when they have remained so tenacious and unbudging on the issues of
infallibility, primacy, Unia, and the rest of their cacodoxies.
The precipitating of the
dialogue under these conditions is equivalent to the spiritual suicide of
Orthodoxy. Out of many indications, the impression is given that the
Roman Catholics are preparing for a Uniate-style union. I wonder, are the
Orthodox who are hastening to the dialogue aware of this?»20.And the
confessional conclusion of the Hagiorite Fathers: «The Holy Mountain proclaims
that it will not be accepting finished events; by the Grace of God it will
remain faithful, as will the Orthodox people of the Lord, to the Faith of the
Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, and out of love for the heterodox as well,
who will essentially be helped, when the Orthodox – with their consistent
stance – make evident the magnitude of their spiritual illness and how they can
be healed»21.
b) The covert Plans
However, secret
fermentations also exist in the Dialogue, which inspire even more concern about
the sincerity of the official statements, when they are falsified by various
methodical plans. It would have been very interesting, if we knew what had
transpired on the 5th of January 1964 in Jerusalem, between Pope Paul VI
(1963-1978) and Patriarch Athenagoras (1948-1972) when they met - according to
Patriarch Athenagoras’ statement: «at 9 o’clock at night, at the Pope’s
residence». Athenagoras’ description is particularly revealing: «The two of us
went hand-in-hand to his room, and the two of us held a secret talk. What
did we say? Who knows what two souls say, when they speak! […] we made a common
program, with absolute parity, not with any difference…» 22.
Each one of us can give
his own interpretation to those words; however, the course of events confirms
the reference to «plans».
The entire pursuant
course of the Dialogue confirms the contracting of agreements and programming,
in Constantinople’s and Rome’s course23. Besides, in another statement of
his, former Primate of America, Iakovos, admits that «the W.C.C. is moving
towards the realization of its objective, through the mingling of
civilizations, religions and Peoples»24. The purpose of the founding of
the W.C.C. was, consequently, none other than the fulfilment of the New Age
plans and of Pan-religion – something that is now obvious in our day and age.
Prominent Hierarchs of the Ecumenical Throne such as Germanos (Strenopoulos) of
Thyatira do not hesitate to provocatively admit what the true objectives of the
inter-Christian dialogue are, by making a lengthy reference to the Decree of
1920, which he had composed together with other professors of the School of
Halke: «It is imperative – he said – that, apart from unity (in the narrow
sense of the word), the Churches must realize that there is also another, more
comprehensive meaning to unity, according to which, all who admit the
fundamental teaching of God’s revelation in Christ and who accept Him as
Saviour and Lord, must regard each other as members of the same body, and not
as strangers». «Without entering into an examination of dogmatic differences
that divide the Churches», added the Primate of Thyateira, «we must cultivate
precisely that idea of a broader unity...»25. What is obvious here is
the theory of a «broader Church», which will demand the marginalization of the
faith and the soteriological character of the dogma, as opposed to the
apostolic and patristic tradition of all the ages.
But, whatever is
happening in the space of the inter-Christian dialogue also applies in our
inter-faith policy. And here, the “line” has been given long since, and
is determinant. In his above address to the Orthodox Priests of emigrant
Hellenism, Patriarch Athenagoras had expressed his conviction that «with the
unification of the Churches, we are also walking towards a panhumanity»26.
It was the Vatican’s
peremptory desire that the dialogue be conducted, not with theological criteria,
but in the clime of a «dialogue of love», which «had to be continued and
extended»27. Athenagoras had faithfully followed the desire of Pope Paul
VI, and the theological dialogue or dialogue on the faith was subjugated to a
dialogue of love – that is, of good relations, sentimentalisms and verbalisms
of love. It was in this form of dialogue that the Patriarch also founded
the «common Chalice» - the sacramental intercommunion – which, according to his
public admission, was already a status quo in 197128. In 1986 the
inter-faith meetings and common prayers29 began officially in Assisi of Italy,
as synaxes of confessed union - with the Pope as the centre: a spiritual
leader, and in practice «Planetary Leader No.2» of the entire world, as he is
characterized internationally.
There is, consequently,
a glaring coincidence with the dialogues of the Byzantine period30, which were
used at the time for serving political expediencies; as such, the targeted
union becomes a means, not an objective. It has quite correctly been
observed that «the inter-faith dialogues appear to fully relate - in aspect and
in practice - with the manner in which syndicalists, politicians and ideologies
converse»31. But, according to Fr. Peter Heers, a Dr. of Theology, the
method followed by Ecumenism has the following steps:
Coexistence-Dialogue-Infiltration-Subversion. «Infiltration» relates to
«the alteration of the Orthodox conscience», which is substituted by the
«heterodox» one32. Per the «On Ecumenism» Decree of Vatican II, «the
communion of all the individual Churches with the Church of Rome is a necessary
prerequisite for unification»33. But, according to Athanasius the Great, «it is
necessary to first excise every disagreement regarding the faith, and then
attend to the examination of matters»34.
There is also, however,
the official and public methodical planning of the Dialogue. With the
1920 Decree35, the Ecumenical Patriarchate provided the Charter containing the
course of the Orthodox side within the Ecumenical Movement36.
Equally important is the
question of who decides about the course of the Dialogue. As noted by Fr.
Sarandis Sarandos: «For an important matter such as the Dialogue with the
heretic papists, not once has there convened the quorum of universal Bishops,
even if with just a few -at least- presbyters and deacons»37. This was a
fair observation, because there are Hierarchs of ours who have been protesting
about the absence of a proper update.
The ever-memorable
professor Constantine Mouratides had accurately diagnosed – already in 1980 –
the true objectives of the dialogue: «The supposedly theological dialogue is a
papist plot for the disorientation and deception of the Orthodox flock, by
subjugating as large a portion of it as possible to the heretic pope of Rome»38.
Furthermore, the
disadvantages and the snares of the Ecumenical Dialogue have been very
accurately described by the Very Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus:
«Ecumenism adopts and legitimizes all the heresies as “Churches”, thus
offending the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It
expounds, teaches and imposes a new dogma relating to “Church” and a new
ecclesiology, according to which, no individual Church has the right to claim
exclusively for itself the character of a catholic (universal) and true Church.
Each one of them is a segment, a part, but not the whole Church; all of
them together constitute “the Church”. But with this method, it is demolishing
the borders between truth and delusion, Orthodoxy and heresy, and is applying
itself excellently to the sport of demolishing Orthodoxy»39.
FAILURE AND «SUCCESS»!
a) A fruition
painful for Orthodoxy
Every endeavour is
judged by its fruits. This also applies to the “Ecumenical Dialogue” as a
whole. So, what will its fruits be, especially in regard to Orthodoxy and
the sacred matter of Christian unity? Because only thus can the success
or the failure of every form of Ecumenical Dialogue be evaluated (see Matth.
7:20). The matter, however, of success or failure presupposes a reference
to the sides involved in the dialogue, and to their objectives, because success
in one case can function as failure in another. Given, therefore, that two
magnitudes are involved in the ecumenical dialogue – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy –
will this be the gnomon that the question of ‘where the Ecumenical Dialogue has
led to until now’ will initially be answered, so that one can speak of success
or failure?
It has been expressed by
eminent lips, that the Dialogue is conducted «in accordance with the canonical
tradition and the perennial ecclesiastic praxis, on the relations of the
Orthodox Church with the heterodox»40. But is that how things are?
Unfortunately no! Each dialogue belongs to the core of Orthodoxy’s
poemantic opus and has a missionary character. It is a call to an
in-Christ (that is, in the upright faith) unity. If the purpose is not
«the unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit», but is deviated
towards compromises of any kind, it cannot be characterized as an «in-the-truth
Dialogue».
When the «outreach of
love» towards the others is in practice the subjugation of Orthodoxy to the
multi-faceted and polyonymous delusion, with salvation in jeopardy – not
only for the interlocutors with Orthodoxy (as they perceive it in our persons),
but also for us - then we cannot claim that our dialogue «is being conducted in
accordance with the perennial ecclesiastical praxis». .
Reversely, instead of
the Orthodox (that is, our ecclesiastic) Faith being the immovable point where
the Orthodox should meet with Heterodoxy, it is becoming the «sought after»
subject in the dialogue with them. But, it has been proven historically,
that in the post-Schism dialogues, «the criterion of patristic tradition comprised
the starting point or even the final objective in every theological discussion»41.
1) In today’s dialogues,
not a word is spoken about the return of the Heterodox to the One and
indivisible Church, which Orthodoxy has been perpetuating in the persons of our
Saints. Hence, our current dialogues are leading us, de facto, to the
awarding of the heretical delusion (since 1920) with the characterization of
the various western heretical groups as “Churches of Christ” (1920 Decree of
the Ecumenical Patriarchate).
2) The loudly touted
claim that the dialogue –especially with the Latin “Church”– is being conducted
«on equal terms» is actually discredited in practice, while simultaneously
placing in doubt the truth of patristic tradition, by acknowledging proven
heresies as ecclesiastical entities. Thus, the claim «on equal terms»
becomes a pretext in order to cover our plight when our interlocutors are
talking from a position of power. Besides, this phrase is also indicative of a
weakness on our part, as well as of our doubts as to the truth of our tradition43.
3) In the Dialogue, our
leaders have been acting as though the union has already taken place, judging
by the terminology being used. Is it ever possible, for example, for
«neo-Arianism» (Papism, that is) -according to the blessed Fr. Justin Popovic-
to be referred to as a «sister and complete Church»? On this point, the
former Pope was far more honest, when in 2007 he had denied Protestantism the
character of “Church”… albeit having characterized Orthodoxy as «deficient»
because it did not accept his primacy! In Balamand (1993), Papism was
recognized the way it is, as a «sister Church», while in Porto Allegre
(2005) Protestant ecclesiology was accepted, with no official reaction by any
local hierarchy. Quite rightly, then, the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos posed
the question: Given that «the Church is ONE, according to the Creed and the
self-awareness of the Orthodox Church, then how can there be talk of other
Christian Churches? It is obvious (he continues) that those other churches are
heterodox ones»44.
4) Recognition of
ecclesiasticity in heterodox groups signifies that the dialogue is perceived as
a «mutual recognition» that approaches the boundaries of a Uniatising stance
towards them. The inwardly directed - and «for popular consumption» - placatory
reassurances will not save apostasy; only the unwavering patristic stance –
which only then is truly a loving stance, also towards the Heterodox.
5) A sad symptom of the
dialogue to this day is the broad use (on our part) of the terms «divided
Church» and «extended Church» - for facilitating the course towards unification
- but detrimental to the Truth. In other words, what is taking place is a
dialogue of an academic character/nature, and not one between Orthodoxy, who is
fully conscious of Her identity, and Heterodoxy, who is fully aware of its
lapse. Thus, every sense of seriousness is lost, to say the least.
6) Such is the character
of arbitrary actions; as was, for example, the «lifting of the anathemas» of
1054, but without Rome’s return to the pre-Schism (1054) Faith. The latter
however had gone even further, by mentioning in the Latin text the «lifting of
excommunication» (1009). Thereafter, the Vatican II (1962-65) imposed
«sacramental intercommunion», thus promoting the unification in practice.
But Patriarch Athenagoras had also recommended this, to the Orthodox clergy of
Europe and the USA in 197245. According to the bold statement of the
Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, «the acceptance of Vatican II Council on the part of
Orthodox Theologians is a deviation from the Orthodox faith and the Theology of
the Fathers».
7) Even if the
recognition of heterodox baptism «after the completion of the theological
dialogue»46 is supported, the awarding of «baptismal Theology» becomes a fact.
In practice, situations are imposed that cannot later be doubted, because they
generate behaviours that refute Orthodoxy.
8) We have reached the
point of making improper use of the «two lungs» theory. And yes, the
Ecumenists may be invoking Fr. G. Florovsky and his reference to the pre-Schism
situation; however, in the circle of our Ecumenists, its use has been extended,
through to post-Schism Christianity also. But, since Papism is regarded
as a canonical “Church”, the use of the above expression in today’s situation
is obvious.
9) We are silently
accepting the papist machinations that aspire to the acceleration of the
unification endeavour. Included in the devices of Papism is also the
important and fundamental matter of the «Filioque». Its inclusion in the
Creed may have been sidestepped by resorting to the «Athanasian Creed» of the
6th – 7th century (Pope John Paul II’s choice47), however, the fact remains
that the sacred Symbol of Faith by the 2nd Ecumenical Synod (381) was tampered
with.
10) Our Ecumenists
resort to every kind of machination for the recognition and the imposition of
Papal primacy, given that there is not the slightest interest on the part of
the Vatican to sincerely abolish it, seeing that it is its most powerful
foothold and the expression of papal absolutism. Papism’s stubborn
insistence on its «Primacy of power», which comprises its identity and
continues to prevail in practice (in spite of what our Ecumenists claim) within
the Latin “Church”, is tragically obvious in the post-Vatican II authored
“Catechesis”, with its trustee former Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger) 48.
Instead of the Orthodox
side lovingly indicating that Papism’s obsession with the primacy - even within
its own bosom – is an obsession with a heretical delusion and that it annuls
every sense of dialogue with Orthodoxy, it strives with various comical
manoeuvres to accept the idea of the primacy - but not as the «primacy of
honour» - in Her own body also, in order to facilitate the recognition of the
papal primacy. The Pope’s primacy is, after all, inextricably tied to his
infallibility49, constituting whatever the term «papal institution» entails,
making it the biggest obstacle in the in-truth meeting between Papism and
(patristic) Orthodoxy.
11) In the official and
unofficial language of our Ecumenists, the Pope is regarded as a canonical
bishop, bearer of true priesthood, as if we are in the pre-Schism period.
This notion prevailed, after the lifting of the anathemas (1965), but
without the lifting of the delusion that had provoked them. So we wonder:
where is the difference, between the terminology used for the Pope of Rome:
«His Holiness and His Beatitude the Pope» (as chanted in the Orthodox “Pheme” –
the Bishops’ Anthem) and the respective one used for the Orthodox Patriarchs of
the East?
12) Analogous are the
results of the Inter-faith Dialogue so far50; «Common» points are likewise
sought in there, but in essence, the Christian truth is being relativized even
more51, with the participation of Orthodox Hierarchs in pan-religious common
prayers, or with the presence of other faiths in Orthodox liturgical synaxes.
Consequently, the
Dialogues are systematically leading to a “surrender to the lowest bidder” with
regard to the Orthodox faith - with the support of the monstrosity called
«Meta-Patristic Theology» - so that the Ecumenical Dialogue has been rendered
an ecclesiological heresy and syncretism.
13) And what can one say
of the baleful retreat, at the Vatican’s insistence for Unia52 to also
participate in the Dialogue, when it had already been condemned in Vienna and Freising
(1990) by the Orthodox AND Roman Catholic sub-committee, but was triumphantly
accepted at Balamand53? The protests of the Orthodox led to a (temporary)
interruption of the Dialogue in 2000 (Baltimore), only, however, to later
resume with Unia present.
The declaration by the
Orthodox side that «the Orthodox… are upset by the very existence itself of
Unia, which takes them back to grievous times»54, was unfortunately a pointless
diplomatic manoeuvre, which only confirms our complete surrender to the
dispositions of the Vatican. The appearance alone of the Uniates’
external (Orthodox!) attire in papal synods or liturgical synaxes creates
confusion in the faithful of both sides, trapping the insufficiently
informed.
14) It is unmistakably
obvious by now, that with the ecumenistic hysteria, we are heading (if we
haven’t already reached) towards a federal union with western heretical
panspermia, robbed of all possibility to influence our interlocutors, while
reversely, situations of secularization and de-Christianization are being
experienced. We have actually reached the point where the argument that
the Orthodox Church can no longer convene an Ecumenical Synod without the
participation of the Westerners55 is being projected.
It is therefore justified
to ask: How many heretics converted to Orthodoxy thanks to dialogues with them56
and not through missions in the heterodox world undertaken by humble Orthodox
Priests and Elders? On the contrary, persistence in the delusion is
encouraged, because of the stance of the Orthodox Ecumenistic Leadership.
15) In its every
dimension and version, Ecumenism has become a true Babylonian captivity, for
the Ecumenical Patriarchate as well as all for the local leaderships of the
Orthodox Church. The only thing achieved by the Ecumenical DIalogue is
the validation of a de-Christianized Western «Christianity» in its entirety.
We shall conclude these
ascertainments with the words of the Very Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of
Piraeus, who very astutely summarizes the sorry state of the Ecumenical
Dialogue:
«Ecumenism projects the
modern, endless ecumenistic theological dialogues, which are governed by a lack
of Orthodox confession, a lack of sincerity by the heterodox, an overstressing
of love and an understressing of the truth, the practice of not discussing the
things that divide, instead, only those that unite; the blunting of the
Orthodox criteria, the mutual recognition of ecclesiasticity, of apostolic
succession, priesthood, Grace, sacraments, dialogue on equal terms, the
pardoning, the acquittal and the awarding of the Trojan Horse of Papism (the
accursed and demonic Unia), participation in the pan-Protestant, so-called
«World Council of Churches» (or rather, of heresies); the endorsement of
mutual, anti-Orthodox announcements, statements and texts (for example
Balamand, Porto Allegre, Ravenna e.a.); the common prayers and sacramental
intercommunion».
And what can one say
about the unacceptable ecumenistic understanding of the words of the Lord «…that
all may be one…» (John 17:11, 21), which confirms the complete lack of any
association whatsoever with patristic spirituality - and not only among the
Heterodox 57.
Such are the sad results
that Orthodoxy’s participation in the «Ecumenical Dialogue» has arrived at.
The argument, that with our participation, help is being offered to the
Heterodox to find their way back to the Truth, has proved itself to be
unsubstantial one. It could have been regarded as valid, if the opposite
hadn’t occurred, i.e., Orthodoxy entering into a mélange with every kind of
delusion, and the spread of confusion in the conscience of the Orthodox flock.
b) Assessment of
Ecumenical relations
After all of the above,
how can Ecumenism be assessed? Is it possible for the Orthodox side to
say that it was conducted successfully and that it had positive results?
A successful Dialogue would have meant progress in an in-Truth meeting.
And yet, the polyonymous heresy became accepted as a «Church», and not only at
a personal level, but also by the local ecclesiastic Hierarchies and Synods.
This is expressed
chiefly by the terminology used in the relative documents. With a series of
scandalous actions, in a cadre of impermissible tolerance, the consciences of
the faithful are being traumatized by the constant disregard of the sacred
Canons and the Patristic Tradition.
The relativization of
the Orthodox Faith is constantly increasing, while its uniqueness and
exclusivity in the sacred matter of salvation is being overlooked. With the
anti-patristic language being used, the anti-canonical common prayers58, the
exchanged visits and contacts of a secular and political character by both
sides, constantly increase the dulling of the differences in the Faith and the
leveling of Orthodoxy, while this anti-Orthodox stance by our own people is
characterized as an expression of love towards NON-Orthodoxy.
Is it therefore
possible, for all of the above to be considered a success for the Orthodoxy of
Christ and of the Saints, when Her permanent objective through the ages is the
return of the Heterodox-Heretics and those of other faiths to the Flock of
Christ, and Her steadfast eschatological objective the word of our Christ: «…and
there will be ONE flock and ONE shepherd» (John 10:16), i.e., Christ?
Of course not! Ecumenism and its Dialogues – in their current form
and course – are a failure of Orthodoxy in Her patristic understanding.
The «Orthodoxy» of our Ecumenists has proved itself a mockery and a
rejection of the Orthodoxy of our Saints and Her Poemantics; even more so,
given that with the Dialogues, not only was unity not promoted, but rather, our
differences with the heterodox became more apparent – whom we are nevertheless
acknowledging as members of Christ’s Church!
But there is also
another aspect to the Dialogue. If, according to the Apostolic-Patristic Faith,
the ongoing «Ecumenical Dialogue» as a whole is an uncontested failure, it is
also (or at least is imagined) a «success», albeit a deadly one for our
Ecumenists and the Heterodox, because it is promoting their aspirations and
their objectives, while simultaneously aiding the plans of the New Age and its
instruments - both overt and covert.
Pursuant to the stance
of the Uniatizing pro-unionists, both before and after the Schism, a matter of
spiritual death is being ministered to and promoted faithfully. Today
also, as in the past, an enfeebled and heretizing «Orthodoxy» is being drawn
and dragged by secular powers that are working for the detriment of man and his
salvation, resulting in the elimination of Orthodoxy within a pan-religious,
syncretistic mash.
One thing is for sure:
The Patristic Orthodox, humble and bloodied by the attacks they have
endured, especially in the electronic media, are being vindicated more and
more, by having the honour of following in the footsteps of the Confessors and
the Martyrs of our Faith - and of the important Leaders of our anti-heretic
struggle such as Saints Photios the Great, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus
(“the Noble”) - but also of the entire chorus of unanimously believing souls
throughout History.
Indeed, «…there is
laid up (for them) the crown of righteousness» (2 Tim.4:8), which the
Leaders of Ecumenism have been working towards, by recently announcing the
already finalized decision for the… quashing (!!!) of the patristic Orthodox
who resist and react to the pseudo-union: «The Orthodox Church regards as
condemnable every form of disruption of the Church’s unity by individuals or
groups claiming that they are conforming with, or supposedly defending, genuine
Orthodoxy»59.
We are inclined to
believe that the Pan-Orthodox Synod is in danger of being used as a means by
the Ecumenists, for a triumphant awarding of the «Ecumenical Dialogue» and of
all its aforementioned juvenilities. Let the «guardian of the Orthodox
Faith» stand vigilant - that is, the ecclesiastic body of Clergy and Laity and
our monastic world - who have an age-old experience on how to confront those
powers, which the Apostle Paul had already warned us about, in the Acts of the
Apostles (20:29-30).
Consequently, if the
course of the Unifying Dialogue is not revised – which would be equivalent to a
massive miracle – and the downhill momentum that was initiated during the
Patriarchy of Athenagoras (after 1964) is not intercepted, then the
continuation of Ecumenical relations will be even more baleful for the
Orthodox.
******************
Translation by A.N.
NOTES
1. See “Unifying
attempts after the Schism and today’s dialogue of Orthodoxy with the Latin
church” by Fr. G.Metallinos, in: «Minutes of the Theological Meeting»
Primacy, Synodicity and Unity of the Church, Piraeus 2011, p.73-106.
Idem: “From Patricity to Post-Patricity – The self-confuting of the
Orthodox Leadership” in the “Combattant…..” by Fr. G.Metallinos, Thessaloinki
2012, p.39-61. See also the important (as fundamental) introduction by
the memorable Fr. J.Romanides,The Theologian in the service of the Church,
during the Ecumenical Dialogue, Athens 1981.
2. Responses...to
Oathless Anglicans, in “The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox
Catholic Church” by J.Karmiris, vol.Α, Athens 1960-2, p. 791.
3. John N. Karmiris,
“The Dogmatic and Symbolic ...”, p. 793.
4. Ibid., p. 787.
5. See “Unifying
attempts…….” By Fr. G.Metallinos, ibid., p.84 etc.
6. John N. Karmiris,
ibid., p.942.
7. Appeared officially
in the bosom of Protestantism and the participation of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate began in 1920. See Georges Tarard, “Geschichte de Ökumenischen
Bewegung”, Mainz 1964. Protopresbyter George Tsetsis: “The contribution of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate in the founding of the W.C.C.”, Katerini 1988. Fr.
G.D.Metallinos: “Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ecumenism”, in his book “On
the paths of Romanity”, Athens 2008, p.119-140.
8. See “History of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate” by Basil Th. Stavrides, Athens 1967, p.144.
9. Article by Basil
Moustakis in the Religious and Moral Encyclopedia, 4 (1964), vs. 1175.
10. Interview with
journalist Ms. Mary Pini, in magazine NEMESIS, November 1999.
11. Response by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Memorandum pertaining to the participation of
the Orthodox Church in the W.C.C., by the Sacred Community of the Holy
Mountain, in the magazine THEODROMIA, Jan-March 2009 issue, p.71-72.
12. John N. Karmiris ,
ibid., p.962.
13. Response by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate …….. ibid., p.65.
14. John N. Karmiris ,
ibid., p.956.
15. P.N.Trembelas: “Our
post-Vatican Synod obligations” (reprint from magazine ECCLESIA), Athens 1967,
p.58.
16. Blessed Justin
Popovic: “The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism”, Thessaloniki 1974, p.224. The
much-touted argument by the Ecumenists that the dialogues are conducted “so
that we don’t end up in isolation” is debunked, the way it was said by the
words of our Lord to His Disciples when His audience had deserted Him: “Do you
also want to go?” (John 6:53-67). The delusion of heresy isolates
man, whereas Orthodoxy, as the incarnate all-Truth, fills everything with
Light!
17. Ibid.
18. Magazine KOINONIA
1980, Issue No.3, p.125-128.
19. p.125-126.
20. p.128.
21. Ibid.
22. Fr. G.D.Metallinos:
”The Dialogues without the disguise” in his book “Testimonies and Spiritual and
Social topics”, Thessaloniki 2010, p.63.
23. Ibid., p.65.
24. Interview in the
Newspaper «ΤΟ ΒΗΜΑ», 22.8.1972.
25. “From Patricity to
Post-Patricity…..” by Fr. G.D. Metallinos, ibid., p.57.
26. Fr. G.D.Metallinos:
”The Dialogues without..., ibid., p.69/70.
27. EPISKEPSIS, No.221/1
Dec. 1979, p.14/70.
28. Fr. G.D.Metallinos:
”The Dialogues without …….” Ibid.,p.63. See article titled “They are
concealing the union with the Papists”, PARAKATATHEKE magazine, No. 105/2016.
Cmp.Athanasios K. Sakarellos: “The Union of the Churches has been made”,
Athens 2007 (especially p.63 etc.)
29. Ibid., p.71 etc.
30. “Unifying attempts
after the Schism ……..” by Fr. G.Metallinos, ibid., p.84 etc.
31. Fr. G.D.Metallinos:
”The Dialogues without ……..”, ibid., p.72.
32. Protopresbyter Fr.
Peter Heers: “The demonic method of Ecumenism” (Coexistence, Dialogue,
Infiltration, Subversion), THEODROMIA magazine 2015/3, p.465-469.
33. Another expression
of papist universal primacy.
34. Besides, it is
already a known fact that in the ecumenist synods and the dialogues on the
faith the Truth is not sought in the holy Fathers, but instead is confessed.
Otherwise it is a dialogue of ideologies. (Saint Athanasius the Great, To Monks
Everywhere…, ΡΟ 25, 736 Β)
35. “The Dogmatic and
Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church” by J.Karmiris, vol. Β',
p.957-960. (To the Churches of Christ everywhere). According to professor
Christos Yannaras, the Encyclical «either substitutes or suppresses the truth
of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the existential mystery of
salvation, for the sake of a sociable and pietistic notion of an ideological
Christianity». Seeing how in it, «there is not even an hint of the truth»
(Truth and unity of the Church, Athens 1997, p.196 etc.).
36. G.D.Metallinos:
“Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ecumenism”, in his book “On the paths of
Romanity”, Athens 2008, p.133.
37. Archimandrite
Sarandis Sarandos: “Ecumenical Steps from Ravenna to Elounda”, THEODROMIA
2009/1, p.95.
38. The Truth about the
“Theological” Dialogue between Orthodoxy and Papism, KOINONIA 1980/ Issue 2,
p.148.39. Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, “Convening a Local Synod of the
Hierarchy of the Church of Greece for the examination and condemnation of the
pan-heresy of Ecumenism”, THEODROMIA 2013/2, p.219.
40. “Response by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate……” ibid., p.70.
41. Ecclesiastic
History, Fr. Vlassios Feidas, Vol. Β', Athens 1994, p.610.
42. “Unifying attempts
after the Schism ……..” by Fr. G.Metallinos, ibid., p.90.
43. See
Pan.Simatis: “The Patristic Stance in the theological dialogues and
the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Trikala, Athens 2008, p.30.
44. ORTHODOX TYPOS
newspaper, Issue 16, Jan. 2015.
45. Fr. G.D.Metallinos:
”The Dialogues without ……..”, ibid., p.64.
46. “Response by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate……” ibid., p.71.
47. Hieromonk Nilus of
Vatopedion: “Papism and Ecumenism” in the Minutes of the
Inter-Orthodox Scientific Conventionm re
“Ecumenism-Creation-Expectations-Disprovals”, vol.Β', Thessaloniki 2008, p.153.
48. Catechesis of the
Catholic Church, Vatican. Cactos Publications, Athens 1996. See
Fr.G.Metallinos “The Dialogue on the Papal Primacy” in his book, «Combattant...»,
Thessaloniki 2012, p.149-156.
49. According to the
blessed Justin Popovic «the dogma regarding the Pope’s infallibility... is
nothing more than the rebirth of idolatry and polytheism». And according
to John Karmiris, «the two dogmas comprising the papal institution – Primacy
and Infallibility – are unacceptable to the Orthodox Catholic Church» as is
«the chief cause of the pitiful division of the Eastern and the Western Church»
(Section 5 Dogmatics. Orthodox Ecclesiology, Athens 1973, p.621 and 645).
According to the Vatican II Synod (1962-65), the Pope is infallible, «not
only when he officially opining as Pope, but whenever he opines» [Fr. George,
Abbott of the Holy Monastery of Hossios Grigorios, “Orthodoxy and Roman
Catholicism” (Papism), Holy Mountain 2016].
50. See Protopresbyter
Fr. Theodore Zisis: “Interfaith Meetings. Denial of the Gospel and an
insult to the Holy Martyrs”, Thessaloniki 2003.
51. Characteristic is
the statement by the person responsible for those dialogues (!) – the Very
Reverend Metropolitan of Switzerland, Damascenos: «This approach, he writes,
makes us suddenly acquire an awareness of the fact that –deep down- a church or
a mosque… aspire to the same spiritual awarding of man».
52. Fr.Theodore Zisis:
“Unia – Recent developments”, Thessaloniki 1994; Fr. G.Metallinos:
“Unia: the Face and the Disguise” in the Section: “Unia yesterday
and today”, Athens 1992, p.1149 and completed 1993 2.
53. See Fr. John
Romanides: Orthodox and Vaticanian Agreement on Uniatism (Balamand,
Lebanon, June 1993, in: KAIROS. Honorary Tome to Professor Emeritus Damianos
Ath. Doikos, Thessaloniki 1995 (= Meeting of Thessaloniki School of Theology,
Vol. 5, p.261-282).
54. Introduction by the
Rev. Metropolitan Geron of Pergamos, Metropolitan John: To the synaxis of the
Hierarchy of the Ecumenical Throne (30 August 2015) - typwritten (The
problem of Unia).
55. Entirely correct and
unanswerable is the observation by the Very Reverend Metropolitan of Piraeus,
Seraphim: «The position of His Holiness that the Orthodox Church can no longer
convene an Ecumenical Synod on account of the non-participation of the
Westerners is entirely erroneous. In essence, he is proclaiming with this
position of his that the Orthodox Church is a deficient, weak and incomplete
Church, and that it will be a perfect Church, only when it is “united” with
Papism and Protestantism, and can thus convene an Ecumenical Synod together
with the Westerners. This position however is a far cry from Orthodox
Ecclesiology» (Metropolitan Seraphim: Announcement regarding the Synaxis of the
«Hierarchs of the Ecumenical Throne) (Commentary on the Introduction by the
Ecumenical Patriarch), THEODROMIA, July-Sept. 2015, p.403.
56. ORTHODOX TYPOS
newspaper, Issue dated 5th February 2016.
57. The word of our Lord
does not have a socio-political character, but a spiritual one, with direct
reference to theopty/theosis (cmp. «so that they may see My glory», v. 24).
58. See the detailed
study by Fr. Anastasios Gotsopoulos: «One must not pray together with heretics
or schismatics», Patrae 2008.
59. See the Text of the
5th Pre-Synod Pan-Orthodox Convention (Chambesy Geneva, 10-17 October 2015.)
And this, without the slightest disposition for self critique by our
Leadership, who is claiming papal infallibility and primacy.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου