Letter of Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis to Metropolitan Anthimos of Thessaloniki (March 3, 2017)
Orthodox Ethos is grateful to God to be asked to
publish the translation of the declaration of cessation of commemoration of the
honorable and upright Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis, submitted to his
Metropolitan on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, giving his defense and explanation of
the necessity for the drastic measure.
We hope all good-willed and interested Orthodox Christians will take the time to read the text and consider his arguments carefully, for if nothing else it will aid them in increasing their vigilance and watchfulness both for their soul's salvation as well as the unity of the Church and orthodoxy of Her confession - of which we are all co-responsible.
- - -
Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis
Professor Emeritus
Theological School, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki
Thessaloniki, Greece
March 3rd, 2017
His Eminence, Anthimos
Metropolitan of Thessaloniki
Subject: Notification concerning the Cessation
of Commemoration
Your Eminence,
With sorrow, but also with much spiritual joy
and happiness, I wish to inform you by means of the present letter that I am
ceasing to commemorate your name during the holy services following the
Apostolic and Patristic tradition as this pertains to communion with heretics
on account of the fact that you, along with many of your fellow bishops, have
abandoned the Holy Tradition and strayed from the path of the Holy Fathers.
Symbolically, this God-pleasing action,
commended by the Holy Canons, will occur on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (March 5th,
2017) when we celebrate the restoration of the holy icons and read out the
Synodikon of Orthodoxy with its anathemas against all heretics. Thus, within
the context of divine worship we show that we condemn the pan-heresy of
Ecumenism and reject the pseudo-council of Crete, which has recognized heresies
as churches, and affirmed syncretistic and destructive Ecumenism.
1. Iconoclasm and Ecumenism
The black clouds of heresy have been allowed to
cover and darken the blue sky of the Orthodox Faith, to divide and set at odds
the Orthodox faithful, to interrupt the uninterrupted continuity and succession
of the Orthodox dogmas for a nearly a hundred years. Now, however, by God's
grace and cooperation, through the prayers of the All-Holy Theotokos and of the
God-instructed and God-illumined Holy Fathers, we do our part to disperse the
black cloud of pan-heretical Ecumenism by our fervent Orthodox confession, just
as the black cloud of Iconclasm was dispersed after having tried the Church for
more than a century. Together with other priests—some of whom, being unable to
bear the darkness any longer, have already come out into the light, as the
monks of Olympus of Bithynia did during Iconoclasm—we have made a beginning. It
is our hope that in continuation God will raise up and reveal Patriarchs and
Bishops as he did in that era, bringing about a new Triumph of Orthodoxy over
new, hidden, and dangerous powers of darkness.
In order that the comparison with Ecumenism to
Iconoclasm might not be thought unfitting, here we will only take the time to
say that Ecumenism is worse than Iconoclasm in many regards. Apart from its
many other serious dogmatic issues, through its connection with Protestantism
it attacks the veneration of the Holy Icons and slanders and deprecates the
most-honorable and unique person of the All-Holy-Theotokos, along with the rest
of the Saints. In the so-called “World Council of Churches” we co-exist and
co-mingle with these iconoclasts and haters of the saints, the enemies of the Panaghia
and of the Saints, and we debase the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,
transforming it from the, “…pillar and ground of the truth,”[1] from the Bride
and Body of Christ,[2] into something equivalent to the tiniest and most abject
Protestant heresy.[3] That the pseudo-council of Crete extols this Protestant
mélange of heresies, recommends that we continue our participation in it, and
recommends that we persist in degrading the Church, ought to be cause enough
for us to reject it.
2. Ecumenism has met with Disapproval for
Decades
We shall not present the anti-canonical,
anti-orthodox, anti-patristic, anti-conciliar activities that have occurred and
continue to occur in our relations with old and new heresies, relations which
should have resulted in the defrocking and conciliar condemnation of those who
have transgressed the sacred canons and traditions. For many decades now holy
elders, confessors, hierachs, clergy and monastics, wise and conscientious
professors, as well as a large portion of the healthy faithful—and particularly
the Holy Mountain—have sought and continue to seek our withdrawal from the
so-called “World Council of Churches” (or better, “of Heresies”) as well as our
condemnation of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism. Praiseworthily, the churches of
Bulgaria and Georgia have already done this. This subject continues to agitate
the consciences of all those who recognize the depth of the ecclesiological
deviation these things represent.
In order to express their longstanding unease
and distress, the Synaxis of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics prepared and
circulated the Confession of Faith against Ecumenism in 2009. This truly
historic text was signed by a great number of hierarchs, hundreds of clergy and
monastics, and thousands of the faithful, and includes the following subsections:
1) We maintain, irremovably and without alteration, everything that the
Councils and the Fathers have instituted; 2) We proclaim that Roman Catholicism
is a womb of heresies and fallacies; 3) The same things apply to an even
greater degree to Protestantism, which as the offspring of Papism has inherited
many heresies, but has also added many more; 4) The only way that our communion
with heretics can be restored is if they renounce their delusion and repent, so
that there may be a true union and peace: a union with the Truth, and not with
delusion and heresy; 5) As long as the heterodox continue to remain in their
errors, we avoid communion with them, especially in common prayer; 6) Up until
the beginning of the 20th century, the Church has steadfastly and immutably
maintained a dismissive and condemnatory stance towards all heresies; 7) This
inter-Christian syncretism has now expanded into an inter-religious syncretism,
which equates all the religions with the unique knowledge of and reverence for
God and a Christ-like way of life – all revealed from on high by Christ; 8) We
believe and confess that salvation is possible in Christ alone. The religions
of the world, but also the various heresies, lead man to perdition; 9) There
are of course collective responsibilities also, and chiefly in the ecumenist
mindset of our hierarchs and theologians, towards the Orthodox body of the
faithful and their individual flocks.[4]
3. Why was there such a Rush to Convene the
Pseudo-Council of Crete?
This anti-ecumenist and anti-heretical activity
agitated those spearheading the Ecumenist cause. They witnessed the consciences
of Orthodox Christians awakening and thus understood their antichristian
vision—that “all might be one,” not in Truth, but in falsity and delusion—was
in danger. In the face of such a throng of Orthodox faithful who were not under
their control, those seated upon thrones and vested with power and authority
ought to have opposed the convocation of a typical council of bishops, one
which seemed legitimate from the outside, aimed at legitimizing and validating
Ecumenism. And yet the Cretan pseudo-council was convened, which craftily and
secretly altered the good path toward a much-needed Ecumenical Council and
brought us instead to an ecumenist and heretical pseudo-council. If we are to
be truthful, we must acknowledge the sudden acceleration in the preparations
for the “Council” beginning in 2009, and the striking of the “Special
Committee” to revise and update (but in essence to corrupt and alter) the pre-conciliar
texts so that they promoted the acceptance of Ecumenism. The Cretan 'Council'
bears no resemblance to Holy and Great Council which was being prepared and
which was being awaited with expectation. Instead, it represents a corrupted,
ecumenist, heretical pseudo-council.[5]
Many of us, both clergy and laity, attempted to
discourage its convocation, but we were not successful. Ecumenism stood in such
great need of affirmation, and those who were mixed up in it were so decided on
the matter, that they did not take into account the concerns and unease
expressed by those outside their circle. An example is the large conference
organized by the Holy Metropolises of Piraeus, Gortyna and Megapolis, Glyphada,
Kythira, and the Synaxis of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics and held in Piraeus
on March 23rd, 2016, at the packed Peace and Friendship Stadium. Neither were
they held back by the absence of the largest part of the Orthodox population,
who were not present on account of the fact that four churches (Antioch,
Russia, Bulgaria, and Georgia) did not attend, negating the Pan-Orthodox
character of the 'Council' and thereby giving expression to the unrest and
divisions that exist within the ecclesiastical body. Lacking pan-Orthodox
consensus, they lacerated and divided the Church for the sake of the pan-heresy
of Ecumenism. The conciliar affirmation of Ecumenism was so well-arranged that
every effort of representatives of a church to correct and improve the texts
was to no avail. One is astonished when he reads the Minutes—Texts of
the 5th Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Consultation (Chambesy, October
10-17th, 2015) which ultimately approved the texts which would later be
discussed and endorsed by the Cretan 'Council'. By means of an unacceptable and
novel Rule of Operation, some unseen directorate took care to ensure that
ecumenist pre-conciliar texts were prepared and that their approval was
secured. If even one representative of the ecumenist camp disagreed with any
proposed amendment which touched on ecumenist dogma, that amendment would not
be accepted and the ecumenist text would remain unchanged and untouched. Is
this not the very thing that happened during the Cretan ‘Council’? What happed
to most of the essential amendments proposed by the Hierarchy of the Church of
Greece, other churches, the Holy Mountain, and isolated hierarchs? One of the
Herculeses of Ecumenism disagreed, and the proposed Orthodox amendment was
thrown into the wastepaper basket.
4. Ecumenism is Legitimized and Introduced
into the Church
In this way, previously embattled Ecumenism
which was condemned by the ever-vigilant Orthodox consciousness, has acquired
conciliar backing for the first time. Certainly this entirely changes the
ecclesiological landscape and places a great responsibility upon us all. The
situation before the ‘Council’ is not the same as after it. “Last year’s
weather is not this year’s winter,” as the soldiers of 1821 said when facing
the dangerous army of Dramali.[6] By tooth and nail the supporters of the
‘Council’ try to justify the unjustifiable. Since they cannot employ
theological arguments in order to hide their theological and canonical
misdeeds, they insult, slander, and persecute those who resist, manifesting
externally their internal confusion and bitterness.
Apart from my personal writings wherein I have
critiqued and rejected the ‘Council’ following its close, as a member of the
Synaxis of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics I have also participated in the
composition and circulation of educational texts which aim at informing the
faithful of the Church who are generally unaware and uneducated with respect to
these things. For this reason, immediately following the completion of the work
of the ‘Council’, we circulated the text, The Council of Kolymbari, Crete,
and its Aligning with Ecumenism. The title alone shows that we consider the
‘Council’ to be ecumenist and not Orthodox.[7] A little later we circulated a
more extensive text under the title, An Open Letter: Confession concerning
the ‘Council’ of Crete, which was signed by thousands of clergy, monastics,
and laity. It contained the following subsections: 1) The ‘Council’ destroys
unity and invites division; 2) Nothing in common with the Orthodox Councils of
the Church; an ecumenist council; 3) It introduces a heretical ecclesiology; 4)
If the ‘Council’ is proclaimed by the Greek hierarchy: the cessation of
commemoration; 5) Pan-religious Ecumenism is introduced also into the
schools.[8]
Certain members of the Synaxis, by invitation of
the local ecclesiastical leaders, visited the Orthodox countries of Bulgaria,
Romania, Moldavia, and Georgia. These too were troubled by the ‘Council’ of
Crete, and there we presented our own assessment. Indeed, in Moldavia at an
organized round-table on June 29, 2016, immediately following the completion of
the ‘Council’, we presented a text which I co-authored with Professor Demetrios
Tselengidis and Monk Seraphim. The text was entitled, Assessment of the
Decisions of the 'Council' of Crete, and in it we stated that the ‘Council’
disappointed the healthy members of the Church; that it was neither holy, nor
great, nor a council, and that it neither resolved vital pastoral problems such
as the Calendar Issue, nor did it condemn the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.
Conversely, it legitimized and upheld Ecumenism, and proceeded to mix the
unmixable: Orthodoxy and heresies. Furthermore, it formulated a heretical
ecclesiology and shattered the abiding unity of the Faith of the Church. The
reception of the ‘Council’ brought Ecumenism within the Church. For this
reason, it is not possible to pass over it in silence and to hide from its
decisions, but rather their conciliar condemnation is required. I underline
also that the commemoration of bishops “by the church” is not without its
presuppositions: it is dependant upon their holding to the Orthodox Faith and
demonstrates that the one being commemorated and the one commemorating share
the same faith.[9]
5. We hoped that the Church of Greece would
protest, but these hopes were dashed. Another Ferreira-Florence.
Those of us who belong to the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the Church of Greece had hoped that its twenty-five member
delegation, headed by Archbishop Ieronymos, would respect the Hierarchy's
unanimous May 2016 decision which sought to move in an Orthodox direction the
‘Council's’ basic text, Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of
the Christian World, and to quiet the consciences of the Orthodox Faithful.
Sadly, however, they abandoned the decisions of the Hierarchy after pressure
was applied—as Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, a member of the
delegation, has charged. The Archbishop and the whole of the delegation—with
the exception of the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos—succumbed and made themselves
guilty of disobedience and showed disrespect for the conciliar decision. For
this they ought to give an account. Moreover, they also repeated the
subservience and cowardliness of those who took part in the pseudo-council of
Ferreira-Florence and signed the unionist texts under pressure, just as they
who signed ecumenist texts in Crete have done. At least back then, when the
delegation returned to Constantinople and were free from pressure, they
confessed their guilt before the faithful (by who they were condemned) saying,
“May this hand which signed be cut off; may this tongue which confessed, be
plucked out.”[10]
Today, however, those who took part in the
‘Council’ not only fail to show such contrition, but they have succeeded in
convincing almost the whole of the Hierarchy not only that they should not be
chastised for their philo-heretical stance at Crete, but that the unorthodox
decisions taken were good and divinely-inspired. On these grounds they have
asserted that there should simply be a discussion and report on the Cretan
‘Council’ at the Hierarchical Synod (November 23-24th, 2016), its acceptance
being assumed and not in doubt. The apex of this anti-Patristic stance taken by
the Hierarchy through the majority of its members was the Standing Holy Synod's
text, To the People, which clearly displays its positive view of the
pseudo-council, destroys all hope of further postponement of the issue, along
with the hopeful expectation that it will take canonical and orthodox
decisions. While supposedly aimed at informing the people, it is instead a
shameful and erroneous text, a monument of misinformation and deception. It
dares to lie brazenly to the people, knowing that they have been left untaught
and un-catechized, and that they will believe whatever their shepherds tell
them to be true.
One is left to wonder how everything became good
and rosy all of a sudden. What magic hand touched the dubious pre-conciliar
texts and rendered them Orthodox and Patristic? Did the ‘Council’ decide to
address the issue of the ancient heresy of Monophysitism, or the newer heresies
of Papism, Protestantism, and Ecumenism? Does the word ‘heresy’ appear anywhere
in the texts? Do they apprise and critique the texts produced at the
Theological Dialogues, many of which are full of heresy and delusion? Do they
question our participation in the so-called World Council of Churches, or
better, of heresies? Do they engage the burning issue of the Old and New
Calendar which has afflicted the body of the Church since 1924? Why were four
churches—Antioch, Russia, Bulgaria, and Georgia, who represent the largest
portion of the Orthodox faithful—not in attendance? Is there another example of
a council where only the Primates signed and not all of the bishops, where all
bishops did not participate, thereby violating the fundamental ecclesiological
principal that all bishops are equal? The episcopal prerogative is only
asserted in relations with those who are below them in the hierarchy, but are
forgotten when they interact with those equal in office.
Even the Athonite committee's text, which by all
rights ought to have rejected and condemned the ‘Council’, maintains a certain
dignity and conscientiousness with respect to the positions taken by ‘Council’,
seeing within its decisions many negatives amid the positives. In the text, To
the People, however, everything is good and rosy, nothing is negative.
Concerning the aforementioned Athonite stance, which does not express the view
of the whole of the Holy Mountain, we should note that everything should be
positive in conciliar texts: even the smallest negative thing destroys the
whole text since truth cannot possibly co-exist with falsity. Just a small drop
of poison renders the whole glass of water dangerous. As the Athonite Saint
Gregory Palamas says, “…in the things pertaining to God even the tiniest thing
is not small.”[11] Perhaps this is why the author, or authors, of the text, To
the People, saw everything as good and rosy, but rather spoke untruths,
deceived and deceiving. Here we are not able to present the theological and canonical
improprieties of the pseudo-council, but simply allude to them. One may find a
good, objective picture of them in the recent double-issue of Theodromia
(July—December 2016) wherein we present most—though not all—of the texts which
condemn the pseudo-council of Crete under four headings: 1) Texts of Churches;
2) Texts of Hierarchs; 3) Texts of Other Clergy and Monastics; 4) Texts of
Laity.
6. What needs to Happen? Cessation of
Commemoration
And now where do we find ourselves? What needs
to happen? Will we leave the disease of Ecumenism to infect the body of the
Church? It has already long infected a great portion of the Church's hierarchy
and academic theologians, the Ecumenical Patriarchate playing the leading role
in the spread of the disease. Justifiably some Athonite Fathers and hierarchs
of the so-called ‘New Lands’ had ceased commemoration of Athenagoras during the
years of 1969-1972, restoring commemoration in good faith in 1973 with the
elevation of the modest and humble Demetrios to the [Patriarchal] throne. They
were deceived, however, since he too followed in the footsteps of his
predecessor. Bartholomew, the current Ecumenical Patriarch, has daringly
surpassed his predecessors in heretical and anti-Orthodox actions. One shudders
and becomes dizzy when he reads the Patriarch's heretical statements, or when
he sees in his canonical violations in practice—his joint-prayer and other such
things. In a special text which we circulated entitled, The New Ecclesiology
of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the Synaxis of Orthodox Clergy and
Monastics has highlighted certain of his ecclesiological delusions. Apart from
the executive and members of the Synaxis, this text was also signed by the
eminent Metropolitans Amvrosios of Kalavryta and Aigialia, Andrew of
Dryinoupolis, Hierotheos of Zichnai and Nevrokopion, Seraphim of Piraeus, Paul
of Glyfada, Seraphim of Kythira, Kosmas of Aitolia and Acarnania, Ieremias of
Gortynos, hundreds of clergy and monastics and thousands of Orthodox
faithful.[12]
Whatever was said and done by the Patriarch and
his circle represented their personal opinions, and did not have ecclesiastical
ratification. It was impossible for them to present these opinions as the
teaching of the Church. Now, however, with the pseudo-council of Crete, this
has changed. At the highest level of authority and prestige, from atop a lofty
and impressive mountain, at the conciliar level, heresies revel and boast that
they are churches. The inter-Christian and inter-religious Ecumenism of Anti-Christ,
the mystery of iniquity, has been enthroned in the temple of God. The conciliar
decisions have been read out within the churches and distributed by the hands
of bishops and priests.
The Athonite monks in sketes and the kellia,
seeing the silence and complicity of the official Athonite Community, have
already ceased commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew. In this they are
following the firm tradition concerning how the Church confronts heresy. Their
consciences do not allow them to commemorate the name of Bartholomew as
Archbishop in their sacred offices and thereby to declare that they hold the
same faith as him, that they agree with his heretical mindset and with the
pseudo-council of Crete.
7. For the Bishop's Name to be Commemorated
it is Necessary that he Teaches Orthodox things, that he Rightly Divides the
Word of Truth
Certainly, the position of the bishop in the
Church is important and eminent. We all recognize and respect this fact. The
ecumenists do not need to recite for us well-known texts from the Holy Fathers
and the Holy Canons. The necessary presupposition for all of this, however, is
that the bishop teaches Orthodoxy, that he rightly divides the word of truth,
that he does not preach heresy. When he preaches heresy, we sever all relations
and communion with him and do not commemorate him in the divine services. Let
some unglue themselves from innovation of episcopo-centrism. The mysteries are
served in the name of Christ and of the Holy Trinity, not in the name of the
bishop as is asserted by the groundless and blasphemous Zizioulian
ecclesiology. One is not obliged to obey a heretical bishop. There is such a
thing as bad obedience and good disobedience as we showed a number of years ago
by means of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers in our book of the same
title.[13] If things were otherwise, there would be no Church today because
heretical Patriarchs, Bishops, and clergy throughout the ages would have
enforced heresy through the convocation of heretical councils and with the help
of heretical emperors. The darkness of delusion and the ignorance of God would
have triumphed. Is such a triumph the desire of those who persecute, but also
those who censure supposedly disobedient and stubborn clergy today? Let them
carefully re-read the 31st Apostolic Canon and the 15th
Canon of the First-Second Council convened under Saint Photios. And let them
not invoke unrelated canons, showing their theological ignorance. The
pseudo-council of Crete and those who support it clearly and openly—“bare-headed”—fall
under the 15th canon of the First-Second Council. Moreover,
according to this canon priests who cease from commemorating a heretical bishop
are praised and honoured, not punished.[14]
8. We Must Not Speak Lies before the Holy
Table
The cessation of commemoration was justifiable
with respect to Patriarch Bartholomew even before the ‘Council’, but much more
so after since the Patriarch was the ‘Council's’ architect and main player. The
response of the Athonite Fathers in the letter they sent to Emperor Michael
VIII Palaiologos, who attempted to pressure them to commemorate the pope in the
Divine Liturgy after the pseudo-council of Lyons (1273), is astonishing and
irrefutable. Rejecting this demand, they countered with the following: “How is
it possible for us to introduce heretics into the church during the offering of
the bloodless sacrifice of the Son of God upon the dread and mystical table
when the Holy Scriptures tells us neither to greet heretics in the street, nor
to receive them into our homes? A voice commemorating the enemy of God, the
Pope, can only possibly emanate from Hell. If simply greeting heretics makes us
communicants in heresy, how much more is this the case with the vocal official
commemoration of one during the celebration of the divine and dread mysteries?
And if Christ, who is present upon the Holy Table, is self-evident truth, how
will He look upon our great lie in claiming that the pope is Orthodox along
with the rest of the Orthodox patriarchs? During the dread mysteries can we
really play make-believe and present the non-existent as existent, heresy as
Orthodoxy? How can the Orthodox soul tolerate these things? How can he not
sever communion with those who do commemorate him? How can they not look upon
those who commemorate as sell-outs and as ones who trade the divine mysteries
for earthly gain?”[15] Within this context the Athonite Fathers also explain
why we commemorate the name of a hierarch during the Divine Liturgy. It is not
because the mystery cannot be celebrated without the commemoration of the name
of the hierarch—as some erroneously think today—but as a means of manifesting
their “perfect communion with one another,” that the one commemorated and the
one commemorating are identical in faith. In fact, this is mentioned in
Theodore of Andidon's explanation of the Divine Liturgy wherein he says that
the celebrant mentions the name of the hierarch in order to show his obedience
to the one over him, that he holds the same faith as him, and that he is an
heir of the divine mysteries according to succession.[16]
In the past, then, the Athonite Fathers rightly
and in accordance with the Holy Canons and the Tradition of the Church, ceased
commemoration of their bishop, Athenagoras, as today those Athonites in the
kellia have righly ceased commemoration of Bartholomew. The three metropolitans
of the ‘New Lands’, Metropolitans Amvrosios of Elevtheropolis, Avgoustinos of
Florina, and Paul of Paramythia also acted correctly in 1970 when they too
ceased commemoration of Athenagoras, and were neither chastized nor punished by
the Holy Synod of the day for so doing. Now, however, people quake and are
afraid. They do not even want to hear the words “Cessation of Commemoration” or
“Walling-off”, in an age when Bartholomew has exceeded every ecclesiological
boundary and introduced the pan-heresy of Ecumenism into the Church by means of
the Cretan pseudo-council, just as he led the Pope and other heretics into the
altar during the celebration of the Divine Mysteries.
9. The Cessation of Commemoration also
Extends to the Hierarchs of the Church of Greece
Up to this point we have been cautious with
respect to the cessation of commemoration of bishops of the ‘New Lands’ who
commemorate Patriarch Bartholomew at the Divine Liturgy. Under normal
circumstances the commemoration of these ought to have been ceased long before
the ‘Council’ of Crete, on account of what has been said and practiced
“bear-headed”. We endured, however, hearing our bishops lie while standing
before the Holy Altar, when asserting that the Patriarch rightly divides the
word of truth in the exclamation: “Among the first be mindful, O Lord, of our
Patriarch Bartholomew and of our Holy Synod, who rightly divide the word of
your truth.” At least according to its second-half, this exclamation used to be
true because the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece protested ecumenist
overtures of the Phanar for many years, and the majority of its hierarchs were
against Ecumenism even up to the time of the ever-memorable Archbishop Seraphim
who, as is well-known, categorically said, “Papism is not a church.” Now,
however, after the Synod of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece and the
Standing Synod's positive assessment and reception of the pseudo-council of
Crete expressed in To the People, the exclamation is now true neither of
the Patriarch, nor of the Holy Synod. Neither of them rightly divide the word
of Christ's truth. For this reason, even the priests of ‘Old Greece’, where the
bishops commemorate only the Holy Synod, have the canonical right to cease
commemoration of their bishop on account of their priestly consciences being
unable to suffer hearing lies said in the Church when, “Among the first be
mindful of our Holy Synod which rightly divides the word of your truth,” is exclaimed.
Much more is one justified in ceasing the commemoration of those bishops who
possess heretical-ecumenist mindsets—both in ‘Old Greece’ and in the ‘New
Lands’—and who teach, for example, that Papism is a church with grace,
Mysteries, and Apostolic Succession.
We do not reproach those bishops who are clearly
Orthodox in their mindset and do not agree with the ecumenists and the
pseudo-council of Crete, and yet, for what they consider serious reasons,
continue to commemorate the Patriarch and the Holy Synod. However, we beseech
them to consider the proliferation and prominence of Ecumenism and to perform
their pastoral duty; we await their protest too, a protest praised by the Holy
Apostles and Holy Fathers. Economia cannot destroy the akraiveia:
it is only temporary in character.[17]
10. The Metropolitan of Thessaloniki is a
Clear Ecumenist: He falls under the purview of the 15th Canon of the 1st-2nd
Council (861, under St. Photios the Great).
You, too, clearly belong to the category of
ecumenist bishops, Your Eminence, Metropolitan Anthimos of Thessaloniki, as I
explained to you just a few days ago in the letter I sent you in answer to your
“fatherly” and “admonitory” letter wherein you insisted that I stop speaking
about Ecumenism and the council of Crete because I was supposedly causing
confusion in consciences of the Church's faithful. You have shown
"bear-headed" your ecumenist identity through your laudatory
acceptance of the pseudo-council of Crete during the assembly of the Hierarchy of
the Church of Greece on the 23-24rd of November 2016, and with your directive
that the exceedingly deceptive text To the People be distributed and
read in the Sacred Churches of your Metropolis. Whatever attempts you and the
other ecumenist bishops make to dress-up the pseudo-council, you will not
succeed because it is neither holy, nor great, nor a council. The body of the
Church has truly borne witness to this, and this is likewise reflected in the
multitude of texts published in the last double-issue of Theodromia
(June—December 2016), which we have sent to you.
Since you fall into the category of those
bishops preaching heresy as set forth in the 15th canon of the 1st-2nd Council
of St. Photios the Great (861)—which council synopsizes the Apostolic and
Patristic tradition—I am thus ceasing commemoration of your name during the
sacred offices beginning today, the Sunday of Orthodoxy, in a symbolic gesture.
My priestly conscience cannot bear the fact that on the day when the Church of
the Holy Fathers and the Holy Councils condemns all the heresies and the
iconoclasts, you recognize heresies as churches and you stand together with the
iconoclast Protestants in the ‘World Council of Churches’. The commemoration of
your name would indicate that I am also an ecumenist, that I hold the same
faith as you, and would mean that I speak lies in the presence of the Truth,
our Lord Jesus Christ, the one offering and offered upon the Holy Table, just
as almost all of the bishops—of old and new Greece—officially and vocally
proclaim when they say that Patriarch Bartholomew and Holy Synod rightly divide
the word of truth.
I will rejoice greatly if you too, applying the
sacred canons—in particular the 15th of the 1st-2nd Council—will praise this
struggle for piety, or at least will leave me to continue my liturgical and
educational work at the Church of St. Anthony. Such was the response of
Patriarch Athenagoras when the Athonite Fathers ceased commemoration of him,
and such was the response of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece to the
three aforementioned metropolitans. They took no action against them and thus
they avoided the divisions that would have been avoided with the Calendar
reform if the Church had allowed those who wanted to follow the Old Calendar to
remain within the bosom of the Church as was done in many local churches and on
the Holy Mountain. If you start the casting out [of those who cease
commemoration], you will be a transgressor of the Holy Canons and the author of
a schismatic situation. I am not provoking schism since I will not join a
schismatic group, neither will I commemorate another bishop. I remain with the
high hopes of resuming your commemoration when you publically and "within
the churches" condemn the heresies of Monophysitism, Papism,
Protestantism, the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, and reject the Cretean ‘Council’.
If you persist in your philo-papist and ecumenist mindset, I wish to have no
further communion with you, following the example of the Atlas of Orthodoxy,
St. Mark Evgenicos, who summarizing the conciliar and patristic tradition of
the Church said that, “All the teachers of the Church, all the councils, and
all of Holy Scripture incites us to flee from the heterodox and not to have
communion with them.”[18 He urged us to flee the Latin-minded—the equivalent of
today's ecumenists—as someone would flee from snakes.[19] He was convinced that
whoever distanced himself from the Latin-minded Patriarch and those like him
were approaching God and the Saints, and when separating from them, he was
united to the truth, to the Holy Fathers, and to the Theologians of the
Church.[20
I, as a simple pastor and teacher, have done my
duty. I pray that you as archpastor will do whatever God enlightens you to do.
With respect for your archiepiscopacy,
Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis
- - -
ENDNOTES
1. 1 Timothy 3:15.
2. 1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 1:12, and 4-5.
3. See V. Laurent and J. Darrouzes, eds.,
“Ἀπολογία πατριάρχου Ἰωσὴφ πρὸς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα Μιχαὴλ Η´ Παλαιολόγον,” in
Dossier Grec de l’Union de Lyon: (1273-1277), vol. 16 of Archives de l’Orient
Chrétien (Paris: Institut Français d'études byzantines, 1976) 289: “Διὰ τοῦτο
καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησία, ἣν ἑαυτῷ νύμφην ‘ἄμωμον’ καὶ ἀμίαντον
ἐμνηστεύσατο, φυλάξασθε ἀπὸ τοῦ μιάσματος τούτου, παρακαλῶ, τοῦ τῶν Ἰταλῶν· μὴ
προσάψωμεν ἑαυτοῖς τὸν ἐκ τούτου μιασμόν, καὶ ἀποστραφῆ ἡμᾶς ὁ τῶν ψυχῶν
νυμφίος καὶ αἰωνίως καταισχυνώμεθα. ‘Μὴ δῶμεν τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ’.” Patriarch
Joseph is a saint of the Church and is commemorated on the 30th of October.
4 Synaxis of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics,
Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism, July 2009.
http://jordanville.org/files/Articles/A-CONFESSION-OF-FAITH.pdf.
5. See Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis,
“Μεταλλαγμένη καὶ ἀλλοιωμένη ἡ Ἁγία καὶ Μεγάλη Σύνοδος,” Theodromia 17 (2015),
3-9; ibid., “Ποιός καὶ γιατί ἄλλαξε τὸν χαρακτήρα τῆς Ἁγίας καὶ Μεγάλης
Συνόδου;” Theodromia 17 (2015): 602-628. The same articles also appear in his
book, Ἁγία καὶ Μεγάλη Σύνοδος: Πρέπει νὰ ἐλπίζουμε ἢ νὰ ἀνησυχοῦμε;
(Thessaloniki: Τὸ Παλίμψηστον, 2016), 49-94.
6. Mahmud Dramali Pasha (1780-1822), was the
leader of the Ottoman army tasked with crushing the Greek War of Independence.
He was famous for gathering one of the largest armies (20,000) to enter Greece
in over a hundred years; See “Mahmud Dramali Pasha,” Wikipedia, accessed March
23, 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Dramali_Pasha.
7. “Ἡ Σύνοδος τοῦ Κολυμπαρίου Κρήτης καὶ ἡ
σύμπλευσή της μὲ τὸν Οἰκουμενισμό,” Theodromia 18 (2016): 474-477 (in Greek).
http://thriskeftika.blogspot.ca/2016/06/blog-post_561.html.
8. “Ἀνοικτὴ Ἐπιστολὴ: Ὁμολογία γιὰ τὴν ‘Σύνοδο’
τῆς Κρήτης,” Theodromia 18 (2016): 478-487 (in Greek).
https://katanixis.blogspot.ca/2016/09/blog-post_159.html.
9. Theodromia 18 (2016): 495-502 (in Greek).
10. Doukas, Ἱστορία Βυζαντινὴ 31, PG 157, 1013:
“Ἀλλὰ πῶς ἡ δεξιὰ αὕτη ὑπέγραψεν; ἔλεγον. Κοπήτω· ἡ γλῶττα ὡμολόγησεν
ἐκριζούσθω.”
11. Saint Gregory Palamas, “Περὶ τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως
τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος: Λόγος Α´,” in Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ, Συγγράμματα, ed.
Panagiotis Chrestou (Thessaloniki: 1962), 24.
12. Synaxis of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics,
“The New Ecclesiology of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,” Theodromia,
November 19, 2014,
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/Petition-Concerning-the-New-Ecclesiology-of-Ecumenical-Patriarch-Bartholomew.pdf.
In Greek, http://www.theodromia.gr/A9455A79.el.aspx.
13. Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, Κακὴ ὑπακοὴ
καὶ ἁγία ἀνυπακοή (Thessaloniki: 2006).
14. The 31st Apostolic Canon reads: “If any
presbyter, despising his own bishop, shall collect a separate congregation, and
erect another altar, not having any grounds for condemning the bishop with
regard to religion or justice, let him be deposed for his ambition; for he is a
tyrant; in like manner also the rest of the clergy, and as many as join him;
and let laymen be excommunicated. Let this, however, be done after a first,
second, and third admonition from the bishop.” And the 15th Canons of the
First-Second Council: “The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and
Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in
case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from
the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter’s name in
accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but,
before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgment against
him, creates a schism, the holy Council has decreed that this person shall be
held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having
committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been
sealed and ordained as respecting those persons who under the pretext of
charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and
disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand,
who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers,
withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to
say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it barehead in church, such
persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their
having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a
Bishop before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the
contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them
among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but
pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the
Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the
Church from schisms and divisions.”
15. V. Laurent and J. Darrouzes, eds., “Ἐπιστολὴ
ὁμολογητικὴ τῶν Ἁγιορειτῶν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Μιχαὴλ Παλαιολόγον” in Dossier Grec
de l’Union de Lyon: (1273-1277), vol. 16 of Archives de l’Orient Chrétien
(Paris: Institut Français d'études byzantines, 1976), 397-399.
16. V. Laurent and J. Darrouzes, “Ἐπιστολὴ,”
399: “Ἄνωθεν γὰρ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὀρθόδοξος ἐκκλησία τὴν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδύτων ἀναφορὰν τοῦ
ὀνόματος τοῦ ἀρχιερέως συγκοινωνίαν τελείαν ἐδέξατο τοῦτο· γέγραπται γὰρ ἐν τῇ
ἐξηγήσει τῆς θείας λειτουργίας ὅτι ἀναφέρει ὁ ἱερουργῶν τὸ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ὄνομα,
‘δεικνύων καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸ ὑπερέχον ὑποταγὴν καὶ ὅτι κοινωνὸς αὐτοῦ τῆς πίστεως
καὶ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων διάδοχος’ ”; Bishop Theodore of Andidon, Προθεωρία
κεφαλαι-ώδης περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Θείᾳ Λειτουργίᾳ γινομένων συμβόλων καὶ μυστηρίων,
32, PG 140, 460-461: “Εἶτα ἡ ἐκφώνησις· Ἐν πρώτοις μνήσθητι Κύριε τοῦ
ἀρχιεπισκόπου ἡμῶν· ἀφ᾽ ἧς δείκνυται ὑποταγὴ ἡ πρὸς τὸ ὑπερέχον καὶ ὅτι τούτου
μνημονευομένου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως κοινωνός ἐστι καὶ ὁ προσφέρων τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς
παραδόσεως τῶν μυστηρίων διάδοχος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ καινὸς τις μύστης ἢ εὑρετὴς τῶν
παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ προσφερομένων συμβόλων.”
17. Saint Theodore Studite, Θεοκτίστῳ Μαγίστρω:
Ἐπιστολὴ Ι, 24, PG 99, 984: “Καὶ τοῦτο δεδιδάγμεθα, ἐν μὲν τοῖς Ἀποστόλοις παρὰ
τοῦ Παύλου ἁγνισαμένου καὶ περιτεμόντος τὸν Τιμόθεον· ἐν δὲ τοῖς Πατράσι παρὰ
τοῦ Μεγάλου Βασιλείου προσηκαμένου τὸ λῆμμα τοῦ Οὐάλεντος καὶ ὑποσιωπήσαντος
πρὸς καιρὸν τὴν Θεὸς φωνὴν γυμνὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ὁ Παῦλος ἔμεινεν
ἁγνιζόμενος, οὔτε Βασίλειος προσηκάμενος ἔτι τὸ τοῦ Οὐάλεντος δῶρον καὶ μὴ
κηρύττων Θεὸν τὸ Πνεῦμα. Τοὐναντίον μὲν οὖν ἀμφότεροι ὑπὲρ ἑκατέρων θανάτους
αἱρησάμενοι φαίνονται. Οὕτω τις ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος οἰκονομῶν οὐ διέσφαλται τοῦ
καλοῦ· θᾶττον γὰρ ἐπεδράξαντο ὃ μικρὸν ἐνέλιπον. Ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ οἰακοστρόφου,
ὑπανέντος μικρὸν τὸ πηδάλιον, διὰ τὴν ἀντιπνεύσασαν καταιγίδα. Ἑτέρως δὲ
διενεχθεὶς διήμαρτε τοῦ σκοποῦ· ἀντὶ οἰκονομίας παράβασιν τελέσας”; ibid.,
Ναυκρατίῳ τέκνῳ: Ἐπιστολὴ Ι, 49, PG 99, 1088: “Ἃ μέχρι τινὸς καιροῦ γινόμενα,
οὐδὲν ἔχει τὸ μεπτόν, οὐδὲ τὸ κατὰ τι ἀπηχὲς καὶ ἔκνομον· ὑφειμένον δ᾽ οὖν ὅμως
καὶ οὐκ ἄγαν ἀκριβές. Τοῦτο γὰρ οἰκονομία ἡ πρὸς καιρόν.”
18. Saint Mark of Ephesus, “Ὁμολογία τῆς ὀρθῆς
πίστεως ἐκτεθεῖσα ἐν Φλωρεντίᾳ” 5, Patrologia Orientalis 17, 442: “Ἅπαντες οἱ
τῆς Ἐκκλησίας διδάσκαλοι, πᾶσαι αἱ σύνοδοι καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ θεῖαι Γραφαὶ φεύγειν
τοὺς ἑτερόφρονας παραινοῦσι καὶ τῆς αὐτῶν κοινωνίας διΐστασθαι.”
19. Saint Mark of Ephesus, “Ἐγκύκλιος τοῖς
ἁπανταχοῦ τῆς γῆς καὶ τῶν νήσων εὑρισκομένοις Χριστιανοῖς 6,” in Τὰ Δογματικὰ
καὶ Συμβολικὰ Μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, vol. 1, eds. Ιωαννου
Καρμιρη (Athens: Επηυξημένη και Βελτιωμένη, 1962), 427: “Φευκτέον αὐτούς, ὡς
φεύγει τις ἀπὸ ὄφεως, ὡς αὐτοὺς ἐκείνους ἢ κακείνων πολλῷ χείρονας, ὡς χριστοκαπήλους
καὶ χριστεμ-πόρους.”
20. Saint Mark of Ephesus, Λόγοι ἐν τῇ τελευτῇ
αὐτοῦ, Patrologia Orientalis 17, 485: “Πέπεισμαι γὰρ ἀκριβῶς ὅτι ὅσον
ἀποδιίσταμαι τούτου καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἐγγίζω τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς Ἁγίοις, καί,
ὥσπερ τούτων χωρίζομαι, οὕτως ἑνοῦμαι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ τοῖς Ἁγίοις Πατράσι καὶ
Θεολόγοις τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.”
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου