8
October
2009
To the Venerable Hierarchy of the Church
of Greece
Your Beatitude,
Most Reverend holy Hierarchs,
These last few days, in view of
the upcoming Plenary Meeting in Cyprus of the Joint
Commission for the Theological Dialogue between Orthodox
and Roman Catholics, an attempt is being made by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate to smear, slander, intimidate
and
silence
all those who have lately been expressing their
opposition to the recent ecumenistic movements and the
course that the theological dialogue is taking.
This attempt has been officially
expressed, in two letters: one by His Holiness the
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, addressed to His
Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece
Hieronymos, and the other letter by His Eminence the
Metropolitan of Pergamon, John (Zizioulas), addressed to
all the Reverend Metropolitans of the Church of Greece.
In both these letters, one observes the
tactic of intervention, infiltration into the affairs of
the Church of Greece, disorientation and selective
reference to actions and decisions; also, a thorough
absence of an argument and documented assertions can be
observed.
From
the tone and the content of those letters one can
perceive an underlying
contempt
towards the Church of Greece, Her Reverend
Metropolitans, Her clergy and monks, Her Professors of
Theology and Her faithful people. These are all being
upbraided for “zealot trends”, a schismatic disposition,
a lack of
knowledge,
“negligence”, a “disregard
of Conciliar decisions”, “malice,
fanaticism or an
obsession
for self-promotion”…
This is the
well-known
tactic of excommunication and an en masse
condemnation that does not tolerate
a contrary word,
cannot even consider a second opinion and crushes anyone
who dares to utter one. This is the familiar tactic,
which relies on coercion, on
marshalling forces,
on having the absolute upper hand, on ecclesiastic
servility.
The disposition on the part of both
of
the high-ranking dignitaries to penetrate the internal
affairs of the Church of Greece is obvious: the
herding and managing
of Hierarchs and the
synthetic
extraction
of their decision is being attempted by means of
outlandish representations
and
suggestions, indirect extortions and threats.
The Church of Greece is called upon, in this manner, to
essentially condemn Her very own Bishops, Her clergy,
Her Monks and Her faithful people, who have signed – and
continue to sign – the “Confession of Faith” because,
according to the Ecumenical Patriarch, “by
not condemning but instead silently condoning [the
confession]…. raises concern not only to Her flock, but
also to Her communion with the remaining Orthodox
Churches.”
If the Church of Constantinople had a flock that was
sensitized to the ecumenist activities, it would have
been faced with the same disquiet and the same,
well-meaning concern. The traditional Church of Greece
not only does not cause any problems in Her communion
with the other Orthodox Churches, our co-believing
brethren always rely upon Her and Her sound and
robust theological forces, as is apparent by the broad,
inter-orthodox acceptance of the “Confession”.
And we ask ourselves, with a grieving heart, whether the
Ecumenical Patriarch has ever considered, not only the
concern but also the profound sorrow, disappointment and
intense scandal that he himself and his
interactions
with
heretics has aroused in the
Orthodox
flock.
He
charges that allegedly
within the text of the “Confession of Faith” “the
seed of schism is inherent.”
But we ask ourselves: how can the self-evident
truths
of our Faith with such ease be
proclaimed
schismatic? Are
the Saints and the Fathers of our Church schismatic, who
had instituted and dogmatized the truth and the
precision of our immaculate Orthodox Faith? Could this
be a verification of an older, unacceptable patriarchal
stance, according to which “our predecessors who had
bequeathed division to us were the unfortunate victims
of the ancient serpent, and are already in the hands of
the
just
Judge, God?”(Episkepsis,
30.11.1998).
In both of the letters
[mentioned above]
there is a
repeated
invocation of pan-orthodox decisions, which pertain to
the continuation of the theological dialogue with the
heterodox. These decisions were never questioned by
those exercising criticism on ecumenism, although they
are by no means divine laws, nor do they override the
decisions of Ecumenical Councils and the dogmatic
teaching and the conscience of the Church.
The criticism that has been exercised chiefly pertains
to the
overtures,
the actions and the
documents
that have not been based on any pan-orthodox decision
and were never approved of in
council
[synodika], but on the contrary, were
met with disfavor by
the Orthodox.
What it amounts to is
the implementation and the acceptance in
practice of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.
In his letter to His Beatitude Archbishop Hieronymos the
Ecumenical Patriarch maintains that “all
the Orthodox Churches have approved communications with
the heterodox, through conciliar decisions.”
And the following questions are raised:
-
Which conciliar decision of all of
the Orthodox Churches has sanctioned the
participation of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the
Papist liturgies at the Vatican?
-
Which Conciliar decision of all of
the Orthodox Churches has approved the participation
of the Pope, the first among heretics, in the
Orthodox Divine Liturgy and in the liturgical
greeting exchanged with the Ecumenical Patriarch?
-
Which Conciliar decision of all of
the Orthodox Churches
has approved participation in the
common prayers and worship services of the
heterodox?
-
Which Conciliar decision of all of
the Orthodox Churches
has deemed acceptable to the Orthodox
the heretical “branch theory,” the “sister
churches,” the “two lungs” theory, and the
acceptance [per se] of heterodox baptisms?
-
Which Conciliar decision of all the
Orthodox Churches
has recognized the Vatican as a
Church and the Pope as a canonical bishop, and
co-responsible for the shepherding of the flock of
Christ?
The persistent invocation of conciliar decisions and
their entrenchment in them have rendered the
argumentation of both letters even more untrustworthy,
since it is apparent that
the majority
of their deeds were realized either void of, in
opposition to, or over and above
conciliar
decisions.
Let us also point out the well-known tactic
they employ,
namely that of
sailing two courses at once:
one purely orthodox course during Pan-Orthodox
Conventions and when making the rounds to the Dioceses
of Greece and on the Holy Mountain, and another,
ecumenistic course during contacts with the heterodox.
This is not
a case of “yes” meaning “yes” and “no” meaning “no”;
rather, a case of sometimes yes and sometimes no.
For example, the decisions of the
3rd Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference
(1986) that the Ecumenical Patriarch has invoked have
repeatedly been violated, to such a degree that they
have been rendered a blank letter.
As a characteristic example, we
can quote the final text of the 9th General
Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Porto
Alegre, which was co-signed by the Orthodox
representatives and in which it is confessed in common
[with the heterodox]
that “We
confess one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church as
expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381).
Each church
(that participates in the World
Council of Churches)
is the Church catholic, but not
the whole of it. Each church fulfils its catholicity
when it is in communion with the other churches."
(Porto Alegre,
February
2006).
As for the bipartite theological dialogue with the Roman
Catholics in the framework of the Joint International
Commission for the Theological Dialogue, the deviation
from pan-Orthodox decisions and commitments is obvious
to all. It is worth noting that the Memoranda of the
Orthodox Primates which the Most Reverend Metropolitan
of Pergamon has selectively invoked have laid down as a
prerequisite for the continuation of the dialogue and a
change in its theme the condemnation of
Uniatism.
To be sure,
the matter of
Uniatism
was not discussed in the
two previous
Meetings of the Joint Commission for the Theological
Dialogue – in Belgrade in 2004 and in Ravenna in 2007.
Indeed,
the Ravenna document indirectly yet explicitly
dissociates the matter of Uniatism from the dialogue
under discussion during this phase. The Ravenna Document
clearly states: “From
1990 until 2000, the main subject discussed by the
Commission was that of “Uniatism” (Balamand Document,
1993; Baltimore, 2000), a subject to which we shall give
further consideration in the near future. Now we take up
the theme raised at the end of the Valamo Document, and
reflect upon ecclesial communion, conciliarity and
authority.”
Noteworthy, also, is
the unacceptable and provocative suppression and
erasing
in Ravenna of
the condemnation of
Uniatism
by
decision of the Plenary Session in Freising of Munich in
1990.
This shows
just how irresponsible those in the Vatican
vis-a-vis
the Dialogue are, since they have accepted some
decisions and rejected others, thus showing the utmost
disrespect to us. It is also apparent that it is simply
a pretext and an evasion on the part of the Metropolitan
of Pergamon that the topic of
Uniatism
will be discussed in the near future, in the framework
of the discussion regarding the Papal primacy. The
matter of
Uniatism
should have been resolved, with the decision of Freising,
Munich, where Orthodox and Roman Catholics had both
endorsed the condemnation of
Uniatism.
Those who humiliated Orthodoxy at Balamand, Lebanon
(1993) should be ashamed, and not
further
provoke matters, given that in spite of the absence of
six autocephalous Churches (Jerusalem, Serbia, Bulgaria,
Georgia, Greece and Czechoslovakia), we have been
dragged into a new, redundant discussion regarding
Uniatism. Giving into the demands of the Vatican, we
annulled the decision of Munich (1990) and
acquitted Uniatism of all charges.
What is worse,
[in Balamand]
we embarked on serious concessions on matters of the
faith:
we ecclesiologically equated the Roman Catholic “church”
to the Orthodox Church, thus denying that the Orthodox
Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
This alone should have been reason enough to confine
the mouth and control the pen of those who dare to speak
of
respect towards conciliar decisions, which they have
utterly disparaged.
In fact, we are continuing to accept Uniates as our
interlocutor in the Dialogue
[as members of the Roman Catholic delegation].
With
regard to the Ravenna document overall – which has
received extremely caustic reviews from the Orthodox
side because it has relinquished Orthodox ecclesiology
to the heretics – to this day, there has been absolutely
no briefing
[of the bishops],
no discussion, no decision or approval at a conciliar
level by the Church of Greece.
To which Pan-Orthodox decisions are these
two dignitaries referring, when not even one of ten
documents issued by the Joint Commission has received
conciliar approval by the Church of Greece?
How is the representative sent by the Holy Synod of the
Church of Greece supposed to represent his church in the
drafting of the new document of the Commission, when the
previous text has yet to be approved synodically –
which, even so, comprises the very basis for the
[next text in]
impending dialogue?
What kind of credibility can such a dialogue have (under
the co-chairmanship of
His Eminence John of
Pergamon), when it is indifferent as to
[securing]
a conciliar approval of
its
findings
from
the Local Orthodox Churches that participate in it?
Why are they protesting about the
“Confession
of Faith”,
which is an example of conciliar participation of the
body of the Church – something which they should be
striving for, not banishing? This is not Orthodox
Ecclesiology,
but a papal hierocracy.
Is this the hierocratic
«authority
and prestige of Conciliar decisions»
that the Metropolitan of Pergamon is defending? Is this
the “ecclesiological peril” over which he is
agonizing?
The question which troubles us
is indeed inescapable. It is not phrased,
however, as the Metropolitan of Pergamon twists it, when
he closes his letter asking himself: “can there be
Orthodoxy and dogmas of the faith without conciliar
rulings?” but as it stands in reality: can there be
conciliar decisions without Orthodoxy and dogmas of the
faith.
This is what is truly being placed at
risk: the preservation of the truth and the exactitude (akriveia)
of our irreproachable Faith, expressed synodically by
our Most Holy Church, in the framework of Her unimpeded
functioning as an Autocephalous Local Orthodox Church.
By the Grace of God, we shall not
cease to defend that which is
at risk
and preserve it, uninfluenced and
unbending
in the face of intimidations, threats and extortions.
The
concerns and
speculations of the two, high-ranking letter-writers are
unfounded. Orthodox Ecclesiology is being
assailed,
by hierocratic tendencies that are oblivious to the body
(pleroma) of the Church, by a disregard for the
holy canonical and patristic tradition as demarcated in
the Ecumenical and Local Synods
vis-à-vis
our stance towards heretics, but also by the recently
intensified over-the-border
involvement in matters of the
autocephalous Church of Greece.
With trust in the Venerable Hierarchy of
our Church, we filially beseech His Beatitude the
Archbishop and our Most Reverend Hierarchs to pronounce
and express themselves synodically, with the
enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, and to give
reassurance to their flock in-Christ, which agonizes
uninformed, waiting for the voice of its Mother the
Church.
With the deepest respect,
On behalf of the Synaxis of Clergymen,
Monastics, and Laymen, signers of the
Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism
Archmandrite Mark Manolis,
Spiritual Superintendent of the
«Panhellenic
Orthodox Union»
Archmandrite Chrysostom Pechos,
Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Loggovarda
Archmandrite Athanasios Anastasiou,
Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Great Meteora
Archmandrite Maximos Karavas,
Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Saint Paraskeva,
Melochorion of Ptolemais
Archmandrite Theocletos Bolkas,
Abbot of the Sacred Retreat of Saint Arsenios the
Cappadocian,
Chalikidi
Archmandrite Gregory Hadjinikolaou,
Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity,
Ano Gatzea,
Volos
Archmandrite Sarantis Sarantos,
Parish Priest of the Holy Temple of the Dormition of the
Theotokos,
Amarousion,
Attica
Protopresbyter George Metallinos,
Professor Emeritus,
Athens University School of Theology
[OODE note: former Dean of the Athens
University School of Theology]
Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis,
Professor Emeritus,
Thessaloniki University School of Theology
Elder Priest-Monk
Efstratios Lavriotes
Presbyter Anastasios Gotsopoulos,
Parish Priest, St. Nicholas’ Church, Patrae