The sign of the Cross
Its Power, Meaning and Miracles.
Introduction
Twenty centuries ago the Cross was an instrument of dishonourable punishment and of frightful death. The Romans condemned violent convicts to the punishment of crucifixion.
Today the Cross is paramount in the whole life of pious Christians, and of the whole life of our Church, as an instrument of sacrifice, salvation, joy, sanctity and grace. As Saint Chrysostom writes, "this cursed and abominable symbol of the worst punishment now has become a desirable and beloved. One sees it everywhere. "On the holy Altar, in the ordination of priests, in the divine liturgy, in the homes, at the markets, in the deserts and on the roads; at sea in the ships and the islands; on the beds and vestments, at the weddings, at banquets, on gold and silver utensils, on jewelry and on frescos....... So desirable, this gift has become to all an inexpressible joy.
Truly, wherever one looks, whether inside or outside the Church one sees the sign of the Cross. As a visible symbol but also as a sacred gesture. The sign of the Cross dominates in the life of the Church.
But why?
Because from the time God, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was nailed to the Cross and died for the salvation of the world, this instrument of punishment became an instrument of salvation. "... for no more it is an indictment to punishment but a proven trophy of our salvation" says a troparion. The object of shame became the glory of the Church. The symbol of a curse became "the release payment for the ancient curse". The wood, from mourning and death, became "sign of joy" and "treasury of life". And all these because upon the wood of the Cross with His immaculate body, the Lord nailed also our sins. As saint Paul writes; He gave us "the document erasing all our trespasses..... and nailed it on the Cross".
The Cross of Christ reconciled us with our heavenly Father, from Whom the devil separated us, by deceiving our forefathers. The Cross of Christ opened the kingdom of heavens to us, which, up until the Crucifixion, Hades swallowed insatiably even the righteous. That is why it has so much power and grace, the power and grace of Christ, which while He was crucified, He transferred it in a mystical and incomprehensible way to His holy Cross as the hymnology wisely tells us. "Your Cross, Christ, being visible wood in essence, yet it represents a divine reign and appearing perceptible to the world, noetically miraculously works our salvation...."
The Cross therefore has become the symbol of Christ Himself. Symbol that causes the demons to tremble.
The invaluable worth of the Holy Cross
If therefore it is so, why then there are people who deny, detest and dishonour the Cross? "For those who trespass" writes the Apostle Paul, "to whom I would tell, now even crying I say, the enemies of the Cross of Christ, their end is perdition".
Truly, certain heretics are "enemies if the Cross". They say, the Cross is a tool of crime and granting it honour constitutes idolatry. They even maintain that the early Church did not use the sign of the Cross.
This view is fallacious. Firstly, because our Church does not honour the Cross as though a random geometrical shape. Secondly, because the honour given to the sign of the Cross already has its beginning from apostolic times. Thirdly, because God Himself showed with supernatural events on different occasions and times that the Cross is His symbol. And fourthly, because with the sign of the Cross were performed and are performed amazing miracles.
Let us however take things in their order.
A. The honour given to the Cross is inseparably tied with our Crucified and Resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ.
Our Church does not honour the Cross by itself, as a simple sign, separate from the crucified Lord. This would have truly been idolatry. She honours it as a symbol of the great sacrifice of Christ from which flows grace, sanctity and the salvation of man. She kisses and venerates it as the sign of the Son of man (Matt 24:30) that has received mystically and incomprehensibly as we already said, the grace and His power.
The faithful seeing the sign of the Cross, making the sign of the Cross, venerating the "type" and symbol of the Cross, sees with the eyes of his soul and worships the crucified Christ. "We do not embrace the Cross as God but we demonstrate this way the sincere disposition of our soul towards the crucified" writes Saint Hieronymos. Saint John Damascene also clarifies that apart from the holy Wood, we venerate also the type of the holy and life giving Cross, even if it is made from different matter, of course not honouring the matter, God forbid, but the type, as symbol of Christ".
How justified are the Holy Fathers, can be determined below, testing the sanctifying and miraculous power of the sign of the Cross.
B. The honour to the sign of the Cross existed always and from the beginning in the Church.
The beginning of the honour accorded the sign of the Cross disappears in the depth of early Christianity, once it was delivered from the apostolic times.
Saint Peter the apostle was condemned to death by crucifixion, like the Lord. He so much honoured the sign of the Cross that he begged his executioners "I am not worthy to be crucified upright like my Christ. He was crucified like that to look at the earth, because He was going to hades to free the souls that were there. However, crucify me with my head down, so that I look to heaven, where I am about to go"
The holy apostle Andrew, the first called, when he saw the Cross of his martyrdom (X-shaped) cried out with awe and emotion: "Welcome, o Cross that was sanctified by the body of Christ and who, with His members, as though pearls, you were adorned! Before my Lord was nailed on you, you were formidable to people. Now though all the faithful know how much grace hides within you, I approach you with no fear and with joy. Eagerly receive me too, the disciple of the crucified Christ..... Oh blessed and most desirable Cross, take me from the people and deliver me to my Teacher"!
The antiquity of use of the sign of the Cross is confirmed by one of the great apologetics, Tertullian (ca 160-220AD) who wrote: "Wherever we are going to arrive and whenever we need to begin from, when we arrive and when we depart, when we put on our shoes, when we wash ourselves, when we eat, when we light the lamp, when we go to bed, when we sit on the stool, when we begin a conversation we make the sign of the Cross on our forehead" (De corona 3, 11)
C. God reveals the power of the Holy Cross with supernatural events.
The Lord Himself with supernatural events and amazing revelations revealed during different occasions in a vociferous manner that the sign of the Cross constitutes His symbol and the invincible trophy of the faithful. We shall present a few examples from the innumerable ones that are preserved in the ecclesiastic history, the holy Fathers and the book of Saints.
1.The well known ecclesiastic historian Eusebius of Caesaria (+340), a contemporary of Saint Constantine, describes lucidly and irrefutably the most renown event of the appearance of the bright Cross in the presence of Constantine the Great with the inscription "By this, Conquer" and in fact during broad daylight with all the men of his army as witnesses.
2. Apart from the above supernatural appearance of the sign of the Cross another one happened, again in front of innumerable witnesses when Constantios, the son of Saint Constantine was king and Saint Cyril was archbishop of Jerusalem. The miracle is described by Saint Cyril himself to the king in his letter, in which he says that during that day (7 May 346AD during the period of Pentecost) around the 3rd hour, there appeared in the sky the sign of the holy Cross, huge, brilliant, spanning from Holy Calvary to the Mount of Olives. Not one or two saw it but all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And it did not appear for only a moment but for many hours remained hanging in the firmament. And it was so brilliant that it was brighter than the sun's rays and that is why they could watch it clearly during noon. Seeing this miracle, the people of the city ran to the Temple of the Resurrection. Everybody glorified our Lord Jesus Christ with one mouth, having by now been taught from these events that the most sacred dogma of the Christians does not rest in human wisdom that convinces with words and logic but in the proofs given by the spiritual gifts and the miraculous powers. And the dogma is not preached only by people but is testified by God Himself from Heaven.
The commemoration "of the appearance of the Holy Cross in heaven" is celebrated on the 7th May, the day of its appearance.
3. The holy great martyr Efstathios (20th September) was found worthy to have a wondrous vision, thanks to which he converted from idolatry to the Christian faith. Sensible, sober, charitable and just, even though an idolater, saint Efstathios (who was then called Plakidas) attracted to himself the grace of Christ who was revealed to him in an unusual manner. Specifically, while hunting one day in the forest, he saw at a distance a most beautiful and large stag, which, while walking away, would turn its head every so often and would observe him eye to eye. The saint spurred his horse to catch up with it but he could not. His friends followed him but in vain. After a while they decided to abandon the effort because their horses were exhausted. Only the saint was determined to ride after the untiring stag. Finally, full of sweat, he and his horse reached a great crevice. The stag easily jumped over to the other side, where it stopped and was looking at the saint. The horse though could not jump over so he decided to stop. Then with indescribable surprise, the saint saw between the horns of the stag a brilliant Cross that bore the crucified Lord and heard a voice telling him: "Plakida, why do you hunt me? I am Christ whom you do not know but you please Me with your good works. For your sake therefore I appeared to you on this stag. Your charities and good works have pleased Me. For this I appeared to you, for it is not just that a person like you not to know the truth .......". These things and many more the Lord told him, before sending him to the local bishop, who baptized him together with his whole family, giving him the name Efstathios.
Three of the innumerable examples of divine revelations regarding the sign of the Cross are the ones we described above, which teach us that the sign of the Cross is the seal of Christ.
D. The sign of the Cross is miraculous
To support with more evidence the honour that the Church accords to the Cross and to present vividly the power of the Cross as a sign of Christ, we will describe below a few sporadic miracles- most of them from the lives of the saints- that occurred at various times with this all-holy symbol.
Saint John the theologian (26 Sept) healed in Patmos the paralyzed idolater priest of Apollo by making the sign of the Cross on him.
Saint Anthony the Great (17 Jan) wishing to put to shame certain idolaters who went to offend him, brought before them some demon-possessed persons and told them: "Either you cleanse them with your musings and any other art or sorcery you want, invoking your idols, otherwise if you cannot, give up your polemics against us and you shall see the power of the Cross of Christ". And at that moment he invoked the Lord, making the sign of the Cross on the demonics three times. Immediately they were freed from the demons and were healed, glorifying God.
When Saint Epiphanios, archbishop of Cyprus (12 May) was still a young, 10-year old child, an unruly calf seriously wounded him in the thigh and threw him down, unable to get up. A pious Christian, Cleovios, made the sign of the Cross three times on his wounded member and immediately the little Epiphanios was healed and stood up. The same saint, much later, made the sign of the Cross on the daughter of the king of Persia and relieved her immediately from the demon that tormented her.
Saint Basil the Great (1st Jan) when the Arian king Valens ordered the surrender of the Cathedral Church of Nicea to the Arians, he requested that God be allowed to opine on the matter. He suggested that the Church be closed and then they, both Arians and Orthodox should pray. If the Church opened with the prayers of the Orthodox then it should remain with them. Otherwise, if it opened with the prayers of the Arians or even if it did not open at all for both of them, then the Arians could take it. So it was. However the prayers of the Arians were not fruitful. On the contrary, when Saint Basil made the sign of the Cross three times on the closed door of the Church, saying, "Blessed is the God of the Christians in the ages of ages" immediately the gears engaged and the door panels opened. Thus the Church remained with the Orthodox.
The holy Vasilissa (3rd Sept) when the ruler of Nicomedia, Alexander threw her into a furnace, she made the sign of the Cross three times and was not at all harmed by the fire.
With the sign of the Cross Saint Thalleleus (20May) healed all the sick that were running to him to regain their health.
With the sign of the Cross, Hossios Andrew, the fool for Christ (28 May) and Saint Zacharias the shoemaker (17 Nov) would open the locked gates of the Churches of Constantinople at night, where they would go to pray secretly from the people and in the same way would close them when leaving.
But there is no end to the miracles of the Cross.
One continuously recurring miracle is that of the blessing of the waters. Only the Orthodox Church, the Ark of the Truth, has this divine gift and right. Only our Church has holy water. With the blessing of the crucifix by the priest and with the triple immersion of the Cross into the water, it becomes sanctified and becomes the "healing of both soul and body and wards off any opposing power" while furthermore it remains intact and unspoiled with the passing of time!
Saint John of Cronstand is correct when he writes: "The Cross is the icon of the crucified Christ, the Son of God. That is why also its sign and even its shadow alone causes terror to the demons because it is the sign of Christ, because it is the protection of the Crucified. For this it is enough for someone to dip the Cross into the water, to sanctify it. After this the water becomes therapeutic and expels demons.
The value of the sign of the Holy Cross and the need for its very frequent use by the faithful.
With everything we briefly expounded on this point it is fully self explanatory and understandable why our Church bestows to the sign of the Cross such a great honour as well as its very frequent use, both during the divine liturgy as well as in the daily life of the faithful.
In all the movements of the officiater during the performance of the Divine Liturgy from the "Blessed is the kingdom..." to the "Through the blessings" the sign of the Cross is predominant.
In all the acts of worship and functions wherever there is mention of a blessing, according to unwritten tradition of the Church it is necessary that the "sign of the Cross" be made by the priest.
Wherever one turns his gaze, inside or outside of the Orthodox Church, he will see the sign of the Cross impressed: on the building of the Church, in the iconography, in the ecclesiastic décor, in the liturgical books, on the sacred vestments and utensils ...
But also in our daily life all the faithful keep as a valuable spiritual and sanctifying heritage, the same holy habit of the use of the sign of the Cross.
The pious Christians make the sign of the Cross very frequently: in the morning when one wakes up from sleep; during the duration of all their prayers; when they leave their house; when they pass outside Churches; when they finish their work; before drinking water or other drinks; before food; after food; before retiring to bed; when they hear either good news or bad news........ At every occasion, the sign of the Cross! .... The day of the faithful begins - and must begin- with the Cross and ends with the Cross! But also vise-versa his night begins and ends again with the Cross!
Many times also Christians go to the Church, asking the priest, to "Cross" them, namely to bless them with the sign of the Cross (either with the Cross, or with another holy vessel or vestment) with the intention to be strengthened against the temptations or to be relieved of some sickness.
So great is the power of the sign of the Cross, the sign of the almighty Son of God. So great is the grace that it envelops mystically within it! As briefly and vividly Saint Makarios of Moscow (+1563) notes "Oftentimes, one single sign of the Cross that is made with faith and intense experiences is more powerful than many words of prayer in front of the throne of the Most High. In it exists the light that illuminates the soul, the healing power that heals the sicknesses of the souls and bodies, the mystical power that acts against all harm. Do unclean thoughts and desires disturb your soul? Become encompassed by the sign of the Cross, double and triple this wall and the unclean thoughts will be tamed. Is your heart tormented from depression and sadness? Are you overcome by fear or are you surrounded by temptations? Do you feel the wiles of invisible enemies? Run to this power of the Cross, and the peace of your soul shall return, the temptation will go away, the consolation of the grace of God and spiritual joy will flood your heart".
Why do we always repeat the blessing of the sign of the Cross?
After the above, however, the question justifiably is raised: If the sign of the Cross has so much grace and so much power, why can't we all enjoy its blessings and gifts always?
The answer is simple: Because we do not use it properly, as we should, as God and the Church wants us to. We shall refer indicatively to only four reasons:
A) Perhaps because we are of little faith and lukewarm. We do not make the sign of the Cross with living faith to the crucified Lord and in the power of the grace of His Cross.
B) Perhaps because we have no humility. Thus because if the Lord activates the power of the sign of the Cross, there is a danger of falling in pride, believing the results of this divine power as our own accomplishment.
C) Perhaps because of our hardheartedness, sinfulness and our unrepentance. As Saint Cosmas the Aetolian characteristically says, "we should have our hand clean of sins and uncontaminated and then, as we make the sign of the Cross, the devil gets burnt and departs. Seeing that we are contaminated with sins, the sign of the Cross is not valid when we Cross ourselves (and so) the demons are not afraid".
D) Finally, perhaps we do not make the sign of the Cross correctly, according to the tradition that the Church has delivered to us, offending this way both the sanctity of the Cross and the Lord Himself.
This last one we must pay a lot of attention to it. A lot of attention. All of us - clerics, monks and lay people - are guilty, some a little and others a lot, for a careless or mechanical or even impious execution of the sign of the Cross on our body.
Some move their hand hurriedly over their chest or in the air, without touching their body at all, other times they make a triangular sign or an X and other times one could say they are playing the guitar. How could one characterize such a pointless and mindless movement, that reaches the limits of blasphemy? Heavy but true is the word of Saint Chrysostom who wrote that sometimes the devil himself moves the hand of these inattentive Christians to mock the most holy symbol of the holy Cross and to damn themselves.
Some Christians again fall into another error. They are those who come to the Church, who usually stand in prominent spots and there, in front of everybody, with hollow exhibitionism, bend their waist in deep prostrations, extend their hands uncontrollably here and there, crossing themselves with excessive, indiscreet and sometimes ridiculous movements......
There is a third category of Christians who completely avoid making the sign of the Cross and especially in public. It is those who are ashamed to confess their faith in Christ and to His Cross. They are afraid of the irony, contempt, the mocking of the people of the world. As the holy evangelist John writes, "They love the glory of the people over that of God". If we belong to them, let us remember the instruction of the holy apostle Paul, "And be not conformed to this world" (Rom. 12:2) as well as the serious warning of the Lord Himself "Whosoever does not confess Me in front of the people I too will deny him in front of My Father in heaven". And beyond these let us be conscious that we deprive ourselves from yet another almighty weapon against the temptations, the passions, the sicknesses and the demons. Let us be careful what Saint Cyril of Jerusalem advises us: "Let us not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ. And if someone else is ashamed and hides it, you make your Cross visibly so that the demons may see the sign of the King Christ and depart far, trembling. In fact make the sign of the Cross often, whether you eat or sit, or rest, or rise or speak or walk, in other words at every situation. Because whoever Crosses himself here on earth, he noetically is up in heaven..... The protection is great. Freely do the poor receive it and without toil by the sick because the grace derives from God. It is the sign of the faithful and the fear of the demons.
How we make the sign of the Cross correctly
How can the sign of the Cross become a protection for us too? How can it become in our hands the terror of the demons? If we do it correctly. If we do it as our Church shows us and teaches us, that is, with faith, piety, consciously, sacredly, humbly and with discretion.
In other words, how?
Firstly we bring together the three first fingers of the right hand, thus confessing our faith to God, who is at the same time three hypostases, three persons- "The Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit- of the same essence, united between them "inseparably" and "indivisibly". The other two fingers that touch against the palm, symbolize the two natures, the two wills and the two energies of our Lord, Jesus Christ, namely the divine and the human. This way we make a symbolic confession of our Orthodox faith, whose bases and foundations constitute the Trinitarian and Christological dogma.
Then we bring our hand to the forehead, the physical spot of our thought function, revealing in this way that we love God with all our mind and we dedicate all our thoughts to Him.
The hand then goes to the abdomen. This way we symbolically declare that we dedicate to the Lord all our desires and all our emotions.
Finally, we bring our hand to our shoulders, first to the right one and then to the left one, this way confessing that every bodily activity belongs to Him.
One other complementary interpretation, most theological in its simplicity is given to us in the fifth teaching of Saint Cosmas Etolos: "Listen my Christians how the Cross is made and what it means. The Bible tells us that the Holy Trinity, God, is glorified in heaven more than the angels. What should you also do? You bring your three fingers of your right hand and not being able to ascend to heaven to worship, you place your hand to your head because your head is round and indicates the heaven and you say with your mouth; Just as Your angels glorify the Holy Trinity in heaven likewise I as an unworthy servant, glorify and worship the Holy Trinity. And as these fingers are three-they are separate and they are together- this way is also the Holy Trinity, God, three persons and a single God. You then lower your hand from your head and place it on your belly and say; I submit and worship You, my Lord, for You condescended and were incarnated in the belly of the Theotokos for our sins. You then place on your right shoulder and say; I supplicate You, my God, to forgive me and place me at Your right, along with the just. Then placing the hand on the left shoulder, you say; I implore You my Lord, do not place me at Your left, with the sinners. Then bending down to the ground you say; I glorify You my God, I submit and worship You, for as You were placed in the Tomb, so too will I be placed in the tomb. And when you stand erect, you indicate the Resurrection and say; I glorify You my Lord, I submit and worship You, for You arose from the dead, to grant us eternal life". That is what is the meaning of the most holy Cross.
Conclusion
As we note from the above, the sign of the Cross includes in it all the salvific events that are found in the infinite love of God for fallen man. Exactly because of this it is a salvific sign, a life giving sign, a sanctifying sign, a "victory-bringing weapon" (Saint Sophronios of Jerusalem), "protection against evil" (Saint Gregory of Nyssa), "the capital of everything good" (Saint John Chrysostom) for the Christians. Let us therefore use it, as often as we can, sanctifying with it every bit of our daily and spiritual life.
"Cross: the guardian of the world,
Cross: the beauty of the Church,
Cross: the strength of kings,
Cross: the support of the faithful,
Cross: the angels' glory
and the demons' injury".
lundi 16 novembre 2009
A CONFESSION OF FAITH
A CONFESSION OF FAITH
Against Ecumenism
From the Convention of Orthodox Clergymen and Monks April 2009
Those of us who by the Grace of God have been raised with the dogmas of piety and who follow in everything the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, believe that:
The sole path to salvation of mankind [i] is the faith in the Holy Trinity, the work and the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, and their continuance within His Body, the Holy Church. Christ is the only true Light [ii]; there are no other lights to illuminate us, nor any other names that can save us: «Salvation is not within anything else; nor is there any other name under the heavens that has been given to mankind, in which we can be saved» [iii]. All other beliefs, all religions that ignore and do not confess Christ "having come in the flesh" [iv], are human manufacturings and works of the Devil, [v] which do not lead to the true knowledge of God and rebirth through divine Baptism, but instead, mislead men and lead them to perdition. As Christians who believe in the Holy Trinity, we do not have the same God as any other religion, nor with the so-called monotheistic religions, Judaism and Mohammedanism, which do not believe in the Holy Trinity.
For two thousand years, the Christ-founded and Holy Spirit-guided Church has remained stable and unshakeable in the salvific Truth that was taught by Christ, delivered by the Holy Apostles and preserved by the Holy Fathers. She did not buckle under the cruel persecutions by the Judeans initially and later by idolaters during the first three centuries; She brought forth a host of martyrs and came out victorious, thus proving Her divine origin. As Saint John the Chrysostom beautifully expressed it: «Nothing is stronger than the Church... if you fight against a man, you either conquer or are conquered; but if you fight against the Church, it is not possible for you to win, for God is the strongest of all» [vi].
Following the cessation of the persecutions and the triumph of the Church over Her external enemies - in other words, the Judeans and the idolaters - the internal enemies of the Church began to multiply and strengthen. The various heresies began to appear, which endeavoured to overthrow and adulterate the delivered faith so that the faithful would become confused, and their trust in the truth of the Gospel and traditions be debilitated. In outlining the ecclesiastic state of affairs that the prevalence for over 40 years - even administratively - that the heresy of Arius had created, Saint Basil the Great says: «The dogmas of the Fathers have been entirely disregarded, the apostolic traditions withered, the inventions of younger people are observed in the Churches; people are therefore technologizing when they should be theologizing; the wisdom of the world seems to be pushing aside the boasting in the Cross. Pastors are sent away, and in their place are inserted harsh wolves, who disperse Christ's flock» [vii].
Whatever happened to the external enemies - religions - also happened to the internal ones - heresies. Through major and enlightened Holy Fathers, the Church demarcated and entrenched the Orthodox faith with decisions by Local and Ecumenical Synods (Councils) in the cases of specific, dubious teachings, but with the agreement of all the Fathers (Consensus Patrum), on all the matters of the Faith. We are now therefore safe, when we follow the Holy Fathers and do not move the boundaries that they had set. The expressions «Following after our Holy Fathers» and «Not withdrawing the boundaries that our Fathers had set» constitute a steady, straight course and a safety valve for the Orthodox faith and way of life. Consequently, the basic positions of our Confession are the following:
1. We maintain, irremovably and without alteration, everything that the Synods and the Fathers have instituted. We accept everything that they accept and condemn everything that they condemn; we furthermore avoid communication with those who innovate on matters of the Faith. We neither add, nor remove, any teaching, nor do we alter it. Already, the God-bearing Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his epistle to Saint Polycarp of Smyrna had written: «Anyone who says contrary to what has been decreed - even if he is trustworthy, even if he fasts, even if he is celibate, even if he performs signs, let him appear to you as a wolf in a sheep's hide, aspiring to the corruption of the sheep». Saint John the Chrysostom in interpreting the Apostle Paul's words "should anyone evangelize to you something that was not delivered to you, let him be anathema", observes that the Apostle "did not say if they should proclaim something contrary or if they should overturn everything, but that even if they should evangelize even the smallest thing that has not been delivered to you, even if they should prompt it, let them be anathema" [viii]. Upon announcing its decisions against the Iconoclasts to the clergy of Constantinople, the 7th Ecumenical Synod wrote: «We have followed the tradition of the Catholic Church, and have not made any omission or any redundancy, but, having been taught in the apostolic manner, we maintain the traditions that we received, accepting and respecting everything that the Holy Catholic Church has received from the first years, unwritten and written... for the true and straightforward judgment of the Church does not make any allowance for innovations within Her, or for attempts to remove anything. We, therefore, by following the laws of our Fathers, having received grace by the one Spirit, have duly safeguarded without any innovations and reductions, all the things of the Church» [ix].
Along with the Holy Fathers and the Synods, we too reject and anathematize all the heresies that appeared during the historical course of the Church. Of the old heresies that have survived to this day, we condemn Arianism (still surviving, in the pseudo-Witnesses of Jehovah) and Monophysitism - the extreme form of Eutychius and the more moderate form of Sevirus and Dioscorus - according to the decisions of the 4th Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon and the Christological teaching of major Holy Fathers and Teachers such as Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint John of Damascus, Photios the Great and the hymns of our worship.
2. We proclaim that Papism is the womb of heresies and fallacies. The teaching of the "Filioque" - that is, the procession of the Holy Spirit AND from the Son - is contrary to everything that Christ Himself taught about the Holy Spirit. The entire chorus of Fathers, both in Synods and individually, regard Papism as a heresy because apart from the Filioque, it produced a host of other fallacies, such as the primacy and the infallibility of the Pope, the unleavened bread (host), the fires of Purgatory, the immaculate conception of the Theotokos, created Grace, the purchasing of absolution (indulgences)... it has altered nearly all of the teaching and the practice pertaining to Baptism, Chrismation, the Divine Eucharist and the other Sacraments, and has converted the Church to a secular State.
Contemporary Papism has deviated much further than medieval Papism from the teaching of the Church, to the extent that it no longer comprises a continuance of the ancient Church of the West. It has introduced a swarm of new exaggerations in its "Mariology", such as the teaching that the Theotokos is a parallel redeemer (corredemptrix) of the human race. It has reinforced the "Charismatic Movement" of Pentecostal (supposedly Spirit-centered) groups. It has adopted further innovations to Divine Worship, such as dances and musical instruments. It has shortened and essentially ruined the Divine Liturgy. In the area of Ecumenism it has set down the bases for the Pan-religion with its 2nd Vatican Council, by recognizing "spiritual life" in the people of other religions. Dogmatic minimalism has led it to a minimizing of moral prerequisites, on account of the bond between dogma and morality, the result of which was the moral failures of leading clergymen and an increase in moral deviations such as homosexuality and pedophilia among clergymen [x]. By continuing to support "Unia" - that caricature of Orthodoxy with which it victimizes and proselytizes faithful - Papism is sabotaging the Dialogue and is contradicting its supposedly sincere intentions for union.
Generally speaking, there has been a radical change in Papism and a turn towards Protestantism after the 2nd Vatican Council, and even an adopting of various "spiritual" movements of the "New Age".
According to Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki, the Mystagogue, Papism caused more damage to the Church than all the heresies and schisms put together. We Orthodox have communion with the pre-Schism Popes and we commemorate many Popes as saints. The post-Schism popes are heretics; they have ceased to be successors to the throne of Rome; they no longer have Apostolic succession, because they no longer have the faith of the Apostles and the Fathers. It is for this reason that with each such pope, «not only do we have no communion, but we also call him a heretic». On account of their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with their teaching of the Filioque, they forfeited the presence of the Holy Spirit and therefore everything of theirs is deprived of Grace. Not one of their sacraments is valid, according to Saint Simeon. «Therefore the innovators are blaspheming and are far away from the Spirit, by blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, hence everything of theirs is Grace-less, inasmuch as they have violated and have demoted the Grace of the Spirit... which is why the Holy Spirit is not among them, and there is nothing spiritual about them, as everything theirs is new and altered and contrary to divine tradition» [xi].
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; It has rejected Tradition, accepting only the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) which it however misinterprets; it has abolished Priesthood as a specialized sacramental Grace, as well as the veneration of Saints and of holy icons; it has vilified the Person of the Holy Mother Theotokos; it has rejected Monasticism; of the Holy Sacraments, it accepts only Baptism and the Divine Eucharist, albeit altering in them also the teaching and the praxis of the Church; it teaches absolute predestination (Calvinism) and vindication only through faith. Furthermore, its more "progressive" sector has introduced Priesthood for women and marriage between homosexuals - who they even accept into the Priesthood. But above all, it lacks ecclesiology, because the notion of Church as perceived by the Orthodox Tradition is nonexistent to them.
4. The only way that our communion with heretics can be restored is if they renounce their fallacy and repent, so that there may be a true union and peace: a union with the Truth, and not with fallacy and heresy. For the incorporation of heretics into the Church, canonical precision requires that they be accepted through Baptism. Their previous "baptism", performed outside the Church without the triple immersion and emersion of the one being baptized in specially sanctified water, and performed by a non-Orthodox priest, is in no way a baptism. It lacks the Grace of the Holy Spirit (Who does not remain within schisms and heresies) and as such, we have nothing in common that unites us, as Basil the Great points out: «As for those who have distanced themselves from the Church, they no longer have the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them, for transmission has ceased with those who have interrupted the sequence... as for the ones who have broken away, who have now become laity, they no longer have the authority to either baptize, or ordain by the placing of their hands, being now unable to provide the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which (grace) they have fallen away» [xii]
That is why the new attempt by Ecumenists to project the position that we have a common baptism with heretics is unfounded and hanging in mid-air, as is their assertion that it is possible to support the unity of the Church with this nonexistent baptismal unity, which supposedly exists wherever a baptism may exist [xiii]. In the Church however, one enters and becomes Her member, not with just any baptism, but only with the one, uniformly performed Baptism, officiated by Priests who have received the Priesthood of the Church.
5. For as long as heretics continue to remain in their fallacy, we avoid communion with them, especially in common prayer. The holy canons in their entirety prohibit not only common officiating and in-temple common praying, but even ordinary prayers in private quarters. The Church's strict stance opposite heretics springs from true love and sincere concern for their salvation, and out of Her pastoral care that the faithful are not carried away by heresies. Whosoever loves, reveals the truth and does not leave the other in a falsehood; otherwise, any love and agreement with him would only be counterfeit and false. There is such a thing as a good war and a bad peace. «...for a praiseworthy war is superior to a peace that separates one from God» says Saint Gregory the Theologian [xiv]. And Saint John the Chrysostom recommends: «If you should see devoutness vitiated anywhere, do not prefer the harmony of a truth, but stand fast to the death... betraying the truth nowhere». And elsewhere, he recommends with emphasis: «Do not acknowledge any illegitimate dogma that has the pretext of love»[xv]. This stance of the Fathers was also adopted by the major defender and confessor of the Orthodox faith against the Latins, Saint Mark of Ephesus, who concluded his own Confession of Faith in Florence with the following words: «All the teachers of the Church, all the synods and all the divine Scriptures exhort us to keep away from those with other beliefs, and to refrain from communion with them. Therefore, am I to disregard them all, and follow those who under the pretense of a manufactured peace strive for union? Those, who have counterfeited the sacred and divine Symbol (Creed) and who introduced the Son as the second cause of the Holy Spirit? [...] May this never happen to us, o benevolent Paraclete (Comforter), and may I never fall away from my own duteous thoughts, but, by following Your teaching and the blessed men who were inspired by You, may I be added to my fathers, by bringing in, if nothing else, this: piety» [xvi].
6. Up until the beginnings of the 20th century, the Church has steadfastly and immutably maintained a rejective and condemnatory stance towards all heresies, as clearly formulated in the Synodicon of Orthodoxy which is recited on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Heresies and heretics are anathematized, each one separately; furthermore, in order to ensure that not one of them has been left out of the anathema, there is a general anathema at the end of the text: «Let all heretics be anathematized».
Unfortunately, this uniform, steady and unswerving stance of the Church has, up until the beginnings of the 20th century, begun to be gradually abandoned, following the encyclical that was released by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1920 «To all the churches of Christ», which for the first time had officially characterized heresies as 'churches' that are not alienated from the Church, but are familiar and related to Her. It recommended that «the love between the Churches should above all be rekindled and reinforced, no longer thinking of each other as foreign and alien, but rather as related and familiar in Christ, and co-inheritors and co-incorporated in the promise of God in Christ» (see I.Karmiris', "The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church", vol. 2, page 958).
The path is now open for the adoption, the shaping and the development within the sphere of the Orthodox Church, of the initially Protestant invention - and now with Papal acceptance - heresy of Ecumenism; this pan-heresy, which adopts and legalizes all heresies as 'churches' and insults the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now developed, taught and imposed by Patriarchs and bishops is the new dogma regarding the Church, a new ecclesiology. According to this, no Church is entitled to demand for itself exclusively the character of a catholic and true Church. Instead, each one of them is a piece, a part, and not the entire Church; they all together comprise the Church.
All the boundaries that the Fathers had set have been torn down; there is no longer a dividing line between heresy and Church, between truth and fallacy. Even heresies are now 'churches'; in fact, many of them -like the Papist one- are now regarded as 'sister churches' to which God has entrusted, jointly with us, the care for mankind's salvation [xvii].
The Grace of the Holy Spirit now also exists within heresies, and therefore their baptisms - like all their other 'sacraments' - are considered valid. All who have been baptized, and in whichever heresy they may belong, are now considered members of Christ's Body, the Church. The condemnations and the anathemas of the Synods are no longer valid and should be stricken from liturgical books. We are now housed in the "World Council of Churches" and have essentially betrayed - even with our mere accession to participate - our ecclesiastic self-awareness. We have removed the dogma regarding the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - the dogma of «one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism» [xviii].
7. This inter-Christian syncretism has now expanded into an inter-religion syncretism, which equates all other religions to the unique, God-revealed, through Christ reverence for God, the knowledge of God and the Christ-like way of life. Consequently, it is not only the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in relation to heresies that is being attacked, but also the fundamental dogma worldwide of the one and only Revelation and salvation of mankind through Jesus Christ in relation to the religions of the world. It is the worst imaginable fallacy, the biggest heresy of all ages.
8. We believe and confess that only in Christ is there a possibility for salvation. The religions of the world and the heresies all lead to perdition. The Orthodox Church is not merely the true Church; She is the only Church. She alone has remained faithful to the Gospel, the Synods and the Fathers, and consequently She alone represents the true catholic Church of Christ. According to the blessed Elder Justin Popovitch, Ecumenism is a common name for the pseudo-churches of Western Europe; their common name is actually "pan-heresy" [xix].
This pan-heresy has been accepted by many Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, clergymen, monks and laity. They teach it, «barefacedly»; they apply it and impose it in practice, communing with heretics in every possible manner - with common prayers, with exchanges of visits, with pastoral collaborations - thus essentially placing themselves outside the Church. Our stance, per the Conciliar canonical decisions and per the example of the Saints, is obvious. Each one must now undertake his own responsibilities.
9. There are of course collective responsibilities also, and chiefly in the ecumenistic conscience of our Hierarchs and Theologians, towards the Orthodox corpus and their individual flocks. To them, we declare with a fear of God and with love that this stance of theirs and their openings towards all Ecumenistic activities are condemnable from every aspect, because:
a) they are doubting in practice our Orthodox-Patristic tradition and Faith;
b) they are sowing doubt in the hearts of their flock and are unsettling many, thus leading things to division and schism, and
c) they are misleading a portion of the flock towards a fallacy, and through it, to spiritual disaster.
We are therefore declaring that, for the aforementioned reasons, those who are moving within this Ecumenist irresponsibility, whichever rank they may be holding within the Ecclesiastic Organization, are opposed to the tradition of our Saints and consequently opposed to them.
This is the reason that their stance must be condemned and rejected, by the entirety of the Hierarchs and the faithful People.
NOTICE:
Whosoever of the clergy, monks, nuns and the laity desires to participate in this small deposition of Orthodox confession may declare it, by writing:
"I agree with the Confession of Faith against Ecumenism, and subscribe to it"
They may send this declaration indicating their name and their ecclesiastic, monastic or professional status, to the following address:
Periodical "THEODROMIA", P.O.Box 1602, Thessaloniki 541 24, Greece - Fax +30 2310 276590 - email address: palimpce@otenet.gr
OODE note:
This is an UNOFFICIAL translation of the original Greek text. The present translation is available for re-publication by anyone who wishes to use it. We would be very pleased to see a reference to our website as the initial translators, but it is not compulsory.
********************************
The above Confession of Faith has been signed by the following, as a first indication.
It has been signed and will be signed by many more:
Metropolitan of Kythera and Antikythera, Seraphim
Metropolitan of Aetolia and Akarnania Kosmas
Metropolitan of Piraeus, Seraphim
Metropolitan of Gortyna and Megaloupolis, Jeremiah, Professor of School of Theology Athens University
Archmandrite Joseph, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Xiropotamos, Holy Mountain
Protopresbyter fr. George Metallinos, Professor Emeritus of the Athens University School of Theology
Protopresbyter fr. Theodore Zisis, Professor Emeritus of the Thessaloniki University School of Theology
Archmandrite Mark Manolis, Spiritual Superintendent of the "Pan-Hellenic Orthodox Union"
Archmandrite Athanasius, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Stavrovounion, Cyprus
Archmandrite Timothy Sakkas, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Paraclete, Oropos
Archmandrite Cyril Kehayioglou, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Pantocrator, Melissohori, Langadas
Archmandrite Sarandis Sarandos, Parish Priest of the Holy Temple of the Dormition of the Theotokos, Amarousion
Archmandrite Maximus Karavas, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Saint Paraskeve, Milochori, Ptolemais
Archmandrite Gregory Hadjinikolaou, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gazea, Volos
Archmandrite Athanasius Anastasiou, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Great Meteora
Archmandrite Theocletus Bolkas, Abbot of the Sacred Hermitage of Saint Arsenios the Cappadocian, Chalkidike
Archmandrite Chrysostomos, Abbot of the Sacred Coenobium of Hossios Nicodemus, Pentalofos, Goumenissa
Archmandrite Theodore Diamantis, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Panaghia Molyvdoskepasti, Konitsa
Archmandrite Palamas Kyrillides, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Kallipetra, Veria
Archmandrite Lavrentios Gratsias, Sacred Metropolis of Florina, Prespae and Eordaia
Archmandrite Meletios Vadrahanis, Sacred Metropolis of Florina, Prespae and Eordaia
Archmandrite Paul Dimitrakopoulos, Sacred Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Saviour, Moutsiala, Veria
Archmandrite Ignatius Kalaitzopoulos, Sacred Monastery of Saint Paraskeve, Milochori, Ptolemais
Archmandrite Simeon Georgiades, Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gazea, Volos
Archmandrite Augustine Siarras, Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gazea, Volos
Archmandrite Ambrose Gionis, Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gazea, Volos
Elder Gregory, Hieromonk, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Elder Efstratios, Hieromonk, Sacred Monastery of the Great Lavra, Holy Mountain
Elder Philippos, Hieromonk, Retreat of Athanasius the Great, Lesser Saint Anna Monastery, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Athanasius, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Nicodemus, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Nephon, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Chrysostom Kartsonas, Retreat of Saint George, Lesser Saint Anna Monastery, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Onuphrios, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Chrysanthos, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Azarias, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Gabriel, Sacred Retreat of Panaghia Gorgoepikoos, Sacred Monastery of the Pantocrator, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Pandeleimon, Sacred Retreat of Saint Pandeleimon, Sacred Monastery of the Pantocrator, Holy Mountain
Protopresbyter Lambros Fotopoulos, Parish Priest, Sacred Temple of Saint Kosmas of Aetolia, Amarousion, Attica Province
Protopresbyter John Fotopoulos, Parish Priest Sacred Temple of Saint Paraskeve, Attica Province
Protopresbyter Athanasios Menas, Loutraki, Corinthia Province
Protopresbyter Eleftherios Palamas, Saint Christophers, Ptolemais
Protopresbyter Constantine Mygdalis, Parish Priest, Sacred Temple of Saint Constantine, Volos
Protopresbyter Photios Vezynias, Professor, Sacred Metropolis of Lagadas
Protopresbyter Anthony Bousdekis, Parish Priest, Sacred Temple of Saint Nicholas, Nikaia, Piraeus
Protopresbyter Demetrios Vasiliades, Sacred Metropolis of Maronia and Komotene
Presbyter Dionysios Tatsis, Educator, Konitsa
Presbyter Demetrios Sarris, Parish Priest, Sacred Temple of the Mighty Archangels, Sesklon, Aesonia
Presbyter Efthimios Antoniades, Sacred Metropolis of Larisa
Presbyter Anastasios Gotsopoulos, Parish Priest, Sacred Temple of Saint Nicholas, Patrae
Presbyter George Papageorgiou, Sacred Metropolis of Demetrias
Presbyter Peter Hirsch, Petrokerasa, Chalkidike
Presbyter Theophanes Manouras, Parish Priest of the Sacred Temple of Saint Athanasius, Velestino, Magnesia Province
Deacon Theologos Kostopoulos, Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gazea, Volos
Presbyter Paschalis Ginoudis, Sacred Metropolis of Larisa
Presbyter George Diamantopoulos, Lavrion, Sacred Metropolis of Mesogaia
Presbyter Basili Kokolakis, Parish Priest of the Sacred Temple of the Precious Cross, Holargos, Attica
Presbyter Peter Pantazis, Parish Priest of the Sacred Temple of the Transfiguration, Halandri, Attica
Elder Theoliptos, Monk, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Elder Gabriel, Monk, Retreat of Saint Christodoulos, Karyes, Holy Mountain
Elder Hilarion, Monk, near the Constamonite Monastery harbour, Holy Mountain
Elder Daniel, Monk, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Elder Akakios, Monk, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Elder Stephanos, Monk, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Elder Paul, Monk, Sacred Retreat of the Holy Apostles, Scete of the Xenophon Monastery, Holy Mountain
Elder Onuphrios, Monk, Sacred Retreat of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Holy Monastery of the Pantocrator, Holy Mountain
Elder Nectarios, Monk, Sacred Cell of the Zoodochos Fount, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion, Holy Mountain
Elder Isaac, Monk, Sacred Cell of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Sacred Monastery of Stavronikita, Holy Mountain
Monk Arsenios Vliagoftis, Sacred Retreat of Saint Arsenios the Cappadocian, Halkidike
Monk George, Sacred Retreat of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Holy Monastery of the Pantocrator, Holy Mountain
Monk Christophoros, Sacred Retreat of the Holy Apostles, Scete of the Xenophon Monastery, Holy Mountain
Monk Maximos, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Monk Dositheos, Kathesma of the Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion, Holy Mountain
Monk Spyridon, Cell of Saint Nicholas, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion, Holy Mountain
Monk Damascenos, Sacred Cell of the Precious Forerunner, Holy Monastery of Karakallou, Holy Mountain
Monk Savvas, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra, Holy Mountain
Monk Theophilos, Sacred Cell of Sambre, Holy Mountain
Monk Paisios, Sacred Cell of the Holy Archangels "Savvaioi" of the Holy Mountain
Monk Cherubim, Sacred Cell of the Holy Archangels, of Saint John Koukouzelis, Holy Mountain
Monk Nicodemus, Sacred Cell of Saint Nectarios, Kapsala, Holy Mountain
Monk Dositheos, Sacred Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Saviour, Sochos, Lagadas, Thessaloniki
Monk Chariton, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Monk Nicodemus, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Monk Averkios, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Monk Prodromos, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Monk Arsenios, Sacred Retreat of holy martyr Gerasimos, Scete of St.Pandeleimon, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion, Holy Mountain
Sister Mariam, Abbess of the Holy Monastery of Saint Lavrentios, Pelion
Sister Christonymphe of the Holy Monastery of Saint Lavrentios, Pelion
Sister Lavrentia of the Holy Monastery of Saint Lavrentios, Pelion
Nicholas Vasiliades, Theologian-Author, Brotherhood of Theologians "SOTER"
Despina Anastasiadou-Georgouda, infant school teacher, former School Counselor
Panagiota Anjou, Philologist-Theologian, Thessaloniki
George Georgoudas, Dr. of Theology, former School Counselor
John Dekliomis, Theologian, Thessaloniki
Stephen Ziogas, Philologist-Educator, Thessaloniki
Demetrios Karayannides, Gymnast, Thessaloniki
Vasilios Kermeniotis, Professor, Ptolemais
Agathe Kyriakidou-Theodosiou, Philologist, Thessaloniki
Gabriel Lampsides, Journalist, Thessaloniki
Sotirios Lysikatos, Theologian-Philologist, Thessaloniki
Christina Boulaki-Zisi, former Reserve Professor of the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki School of Theology
Dimitrios Mavrides, Mathematician, Thessaloniki
Constantine Nousis, Philologist-Theologian, Volos
Lavrentios Digiorgio, publisher-author, President of the Philorthodox Union "Kosmas Flamiatos"
Andreas Papavasiliou, Dr. of Theology, former Inspector of Secondary Education, Cyprus
Panagiotis Sematis, Professor of Theology, Secretary of the Philorthodox Union "Kosmas Flamiatos", Aegion
Constantine Stavrinides, Holargos, Athens
Marina Stravakou, Philologist, Thessaloniki
Aphrate Strakali-Tzoanopoulou, Philologist, Thessaloniki
Malamate Strakali-Papaioannou, Philologist, Thessaloniki
Dimitrios Zisis, School Counselor, graduate of theology, Kastoria
List updated to the 3rd June 2009.
This list will be regularly updated with added names.
Readers can see the constantly updated list of signatures in Greek, here:
http://www.impantokratoros.gr/ABF82395.el.aspx"
**********************************************************
[i] See treatise by Gennadius II Scholarios, Patriarch of Constantinople: "Regarding the only way to the salvation of mankind" , to George Scholarios "The complete extant works - Oevres Completes de Georges Scholarios", Volumes I-VII, Paris 1928-1936, publ. L. Petit - X. Siderides - M. Jugie, Vol. III, 434-452.
[ii] John 8:12 «I am the light of the world - whosoever follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life». John 3:19 «The light had come to the world and men loved the darkness rather than the light».
[iii] Acts 4:14.
[iv] 1 John 4:2-3 «Every spirit that confesses Jesus had cometh in the flesh, is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus Christ had cometh in the flesh, is not from God. And this is what you have heard regarding the antichrist: that he cometh and is now already in the world».
[v] See "Didaches" (Teachings) of St.Cosmas of Aetolia, of I.Menounos, "Cosmas of Aetolia teachings (and biography), Tinos publications, Athens, Didache A1, 37, page 142: «"All faiths are false, counterfeit, all of them the Devil's. This I realized as being true, divine, heavenly, correct, perfect, both by my word and by your word: that the faith of the pious and orthodox christians is good and holy, and that we must believe and be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit».
[vi] 'Homily prior to the exile' 1, ΕΠΕ 33, 186.
[vii] Epistle 90, "To the most holy brothers and bishops in the West" 2, ΕΠΕ 2, 20
[viii] Galatians. 1, 9. To Gall. Homily chapt. 1, PG 61, 624.
[ix] Mansi, 13, 409-412.
[x] The moral laxity and decadence, even among the clergy, had already been noted at the beginning of the 15th century, by Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki (see 'Dogmatic Epistle 16' in D. Balfour, by Simeon of Thessaloniki (1416/17-1429) "Theological Works, Vlatades gleanings 34, Thessaloniki 1981, page 218: «And furthermore, that they did not regard fornication at all entailing Hell, not even among their priests, but instead, they would unscrupulously have concubines and youths for fornication and would every day officiate.» Ibid, 15, page 216: «They also do not follow an evangelical lifestyle; for, every kind of luxury and fornication to them is not a reprehensible matter, nor anything else that is forbidden for Christians». ) The moral decadence that is observed of late even among the Orthodox clergy is the result of Ecumenism's liberalism and secularism..
[xi] Dialogue 23, PG 155, 120-121. Epistle regarding blessedness 5, in D. Balfour, Simeon Archbishop of Thessaloniki (1416/17-1429), "Theological Works, Vlatades gleanings 34, Thessaloniki 1981, page 226.
[xii] Canonical Epistle Ά, To Amphilochios of Iconion, Canon a.
[xiii] In the text of the 9th General Convention of the World Council of Churches in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2006, which was accepted by the representatives of the Orthodox churches and was titled "Called to be the One Chuch", in paragraph 8 it states: "All those baptized in Christ are united in His name." In paragraph 9: "That we all belong in common to Christ through baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, gives the churches the possibility and it invites them to walk together, even when they disagree. We assure that there is one baptism, exactly as there is one body and one Spirit, one hope in our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one God and Father to all of us (see Ephes.4:4-6)". The Metropolitan of Pergamos John (Zizioulas) in his work "Orthodox Ecclesiology and the Ecumenical Movement", Sourozh Diocesan Magazine (England, August 1985, vol.21, page 23), had paved the way for this position, by stating: "Within baptism, even if there is a break, a division, a schism, you can still speak of the Church... The Orthodox, in my understanding at least, participate in the ecumenical movement as a movement of baptized Christians, who are in a state of division because they cannot express the same faith together. In the past this has happened because of a lack of love which is now, thank God, disappearing."
[xiv] Apologetics on the flight to Pontus 82, ΕΠΕ 1, 176.
[xv] To Romans, Homily 22, 2, PG 60, 611. To Philippians, Homily 2,1, PG 62, 119.
[xvi] Confession of faith displayed in Florence, in Documents relatifs au Concile de Florence, II, Oeuvres anticonciliaires de Marc d'Ephèse, par L. Petit, Patrologia Orientalis 17, 442.
[xvii] See joint statement by Pope John-Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew during the latter's visit to Rome on the 29th of June, 1995. The same had been proclaimed at an earlier date by the Combined Theological Committee for the Dialogue between Orthodox and Papists, in Balamand of Lebanon in 1993.
[xviii] Ephesians 4: 5.
[xix] Archmandr. Justin Popovitch, Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, Thessaloniki 1974, page 224...
Against Ecumenism
From the Convention of Orthodox Clergymen and Monks April 2009
Those of us who by the Grace of God have been raised with the dogmas of piety and who follow in everything the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, believe that:
The sole path to salvation of mankind [i] is the faith in the Holy Trinity, the work and the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, and their continuance within His Body, the Holy Church. Christ is the only true Light [ii]; there are no other lights to illuminate us, nor any other names that can save us: «Salvation is not within anything else; nor is there any other name under the heavens that has been given to mankind, in which we can be saved» [iii]. All other beliefs, all religions that ignore and do not confess Christ "having come in the flesh" [iv], are human manufacturings and works of the Devil, [v] which do not lead to the true knowledge of God and rebirth through divine Baptism, but instead, mislead men and lead them to perdition. As Christians who believe in the Holy Trinity, we do not have the same God as any other religion, nor with the so-called monotheistic religions, Judaism and Mohammedanism, which do not believe in the Holy Trinity.
For two thousand years, the Christ-founded and Holy Spirit-guided Church has remained stable and unshakeable in the salvific Truth that was taught by Christ, delivered by the Holy Apostles and preserved by the Holy Fathers. She did not buckle under the cruel persecutions by the Judeans initially and later by idolaters during the first three centuries; She brought forth a host of martyrs and came out victorious, thus proving Her divine origin. As Saint John the Chrysostom beautifully expressed it: «Nothing is stronger than the Church... if you fight against a man, you either conquer or are conquered; but if you fight against the Church, it is not possible for you to win, for God is the strongest of all» [vi].
Following the cessation of the persecutions and the triumph of the Church over Her external enemies - in other words, the Judeans and the idolaters - the internal enemies of the Church began to multiply and strengthen. The various heresies began to appear, which endeavoured to overthrow and adulterate the delivered faith so that the faithful would become confused, and their trust in the truth of the Gospel and traditions be debilitated. In outlining the ecclesiastic state of affairs that the prevalence for over 40 years - even administratively - that the heresy of Arius had created, Saint Basil the Great says: «The dogmas of the Fathers have been entirely disregarded, the apostolic traditions withered, the inventions of younger people are observed in the Churches; people are therefore technologizing when they should be theologizing; the wisdom of the world seems to be pushing aside the boasting in the Cross. Pastors are sent away, and in their place are inserted harsh wolves, who disperse Christ's flock» [vii].
Whatever happened to the external enemies - religions - also happened to the internal ones - heresies. Through major and enlightened Holy Fathers, the Church demarcated and entrenched the Orthodox faith with decisions by Local and Ecumenical Synods (Councils) in the cases of specific, dubious teachings, but with the agreement of all the Fathers (Consensus Patrum), on all the matters of the Faith. We are now therefore safe, when we follow the Holy Fathers and do not move the boundaries that they had set. The expressions «Following after our Holy Fathers» and «Not withdrawing the boundaries that our Fathers had set» constitute a steady, straight course and a safety valve for the Orthodox faith and way of life. Consequently, the basic positions of our Confession are the following:
1. We maintain, irremovably and without alteration, everything that the Synods and the Fathers have instituted. We accept everything that they accept and condemn everything that they condemn; we furthermore avoid communication with those who innovate on matters of the Faith. We neither add, nor remove, any teaching, nor do we alter it. Already, the God-bearing Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his epistle to Saint Polycarp of Smyrna had written: «Anyone who says contrary to what has been decreed - even if he is trustworthy, even if he fasts, even if he is celibate, even if he performs signs, let him appear to you as a wolf in a sheep's hide, aspiring to the corruption of the sheep». Saint John the Chrysostom in interpreting the Apostle Paul's words "should anyone evangelize to you something that was not delivered to you, let him be anathema", observes that the Apostle "did not say if they should proclaim something contrary or if they should overturn everything, but that even if they should evangelize even the smallest thing that has not been delivered to you, even if they should prompt it, let them be anathema" [viii]. Upon announcing its decisions against the Iconoclasts to the clergy of Constantinople, the 7th Ecumenical Synod wrote: «We have followed the tradition of the Catholic Church, and have not made any omission or any redundancy, but, having been taught in the apostolic manner, we maintain the traditions that we received, accepting and respecting everything that the Holy Catholic Church has received from the first years, unwritten and written... for the true and straightforward judgment of the Church does not make any allowance for innovations within Her, or for attempts to remove anything. We, therefore, by following the laws of our Fathers, having received grace by the one Spirit, have duly safeguarded without any innovations and reductions, all the things of the Church» [ix].
Along with the Holy Fathers and the Synods, we too reject and anathematize all the heresies that appeared during the historical course of the Church. Of the old heresies that have survived to this day, we condemn Arianism (still surviving, in the pseudo-Witnesses of Jehovah) and Monophysitism - the extreme form of Eutychius and the more moderate form of Sevirus and Dioscorus - according to the decisions of the 4th Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon and the Christological teaching of major Holy Fathers and Teachers such as Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint John of Damascus, Photios the Great and the hymns of our worship.
2. We proclaim that Papism is the womb of heresies and fallacies. The teaching of the "Filioque" - that is, the procession of the Holy Spirit AND from the Son - is contrary to everything that Christ Himself taught about the Holy Spirit. The entire chorus of Fathers, both in Synods and individually, regard Papism as a heresy because apart from the Filioque, it produced a host of other fallacies, such as the primacy and the infallibility of the Pope, the unleavened bread (host), the fires of Purgatory, the immaculate conception of the Theotokos, created Grace, the purchasing of absolution (indulgences)... it has altered nearly all of the teaching and the practice pertaining to Baptism, Chrismation, the Divine Eucharist and the other Sacraments, and has converted the Church to a secular State.
Contemporary Papism has deviated much further than medieval Papism from the teaching of the Church, to the extent that it no longer comprises a continuance of the ancient Church of the West. It has introduced a swarm of new exaggerations in its "Mariology", such as the teaching that the Theotokos is a parallel redeemer (corredemptrix) of the human race. It has reinforced the "Charismatic Movement" of Pentecostal (supposedly Spirit-centered) groups. It has adopted further innovations to Divine Worship, such as dances and musical instruments. It has shortened and essentially ruined the Divine Liturgy. In the area of Ecumenism it has set down the bases for the Pan-religion with its 2nd Vatican Council, by recognizing "spiritual life" in the people of other religions. Dogmatic minimalism has led it to a minimizing of moral prerequisites, on account of the bond between dogma and morality, the result of which was the moral failures of leading clergymen and an increase in moral deviations such as homosexuality and pedophilia among clergymen [x]. By continuing to support "Unia" - that caricature of Orthodoxy with which it victimizes and proselytizes faithful - Papism is sabotaging the Dialogue and is contradicting its supposedly sincere intentions for union.
Generally speaking, there has been a radical change in Papism and a turn towards Protestantism after the 2nd Vatican Council, and even an adopting of various "spiritual" movements of the "New Age".
According to Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki, the Mystagogue, Papism caused more damage to the Church than all the heresies and schisms put together. We Orthodox have communion with the pre-Schism Popes and we commemorate many Popes as saints. The post-Schism popes are heretics; they have ceased to be successors to the throne of Rome; they no longer have Apostolic succession, because they no longer have the faith of the Apostles and the Fathers. It is for this reason that with each such pope, «not only do we have no communion, but we also call him a heretic». On account of their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with their teaching of the Filioque, they forfeited the presence of the Holy Spirit and therefore everything of theirs is deprived of Grace. Not one of their sacraments is valid, according to Saint Simeon. «Therefore the innovators are blaspheming and are far away from the Spirit, by blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, hence everything of theirs is Grace-less, inasmuch as they have violated and have demoted the Grace of the Spirit... which is why the Holy Spirit is not among them, and there is nothing spiritual about them, as everything theirs is new and altered and contrary to divine tradition» [xi].
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; It has rejected Tradition, accepting only the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) which it however misinterprets; it has abolished Priesthood as a specialized sacramental Grace, as well as the veneration of Saints and of holy icons; it has vilified the Person of the Holy Mother Theotokos; it has rejected Monasticism; of the Holy Sacraments, it accepts only Baptism and the Divine Eucharist, albeit altering in them also the teaching and the praxis of the Church; it teaches absolute predestination (Calvinism) and vindication only through faith. Furthermore, its more "progressive" sector has introduced Priesthood for women and marriage between homosexuals - who they even accept into the Priesthood. But above all, it lacks ecclesiology, because the notion of Church as perceived by the Orthodox Tradition is nonexistent to them.
4. The only way that our communion with heretics can be restored is if they renounce their fallacy and repent, so that there may be a true union and peace: a union with the Truth, and not with fallacy and heresy. For the incorporation of heretics into the Church, canonical precision requires that they be accepted through Baptism. Their previous "baptism", performed outside the Church without the triple immersion and emersion of the one being baptized in specially sanctified water, and performed by a non-Orthodox priest, is in no way a baptism. It lacks the Grace of the Holy Spirit (Who does not remain within schisms and heresies) and as such, we have nothing in common that unites us, as Basil the Great points out: «As for those who have distanced themselves from the Church, they no longer have the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them, for transmission has ceased with those who have interrupted the sequence... as for the ones who have broken away, who have now become laity, they no longer have the authority to either baptize, or ordain by the placing of their hands, being now unable to provide the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which (grace) they have fallen away» [xii]
That is why the new attempt by Ecumenists to project the position that we have a common baptism with heretics is unfounded and hanging in mid-air, as is their assertion that it is possible to support the unity of the Church with this nonexistent baptismal unity, which supposedly exists wherever a baptism may exist [xiii]. In the Church however, one enters and becomes Her member, not with just any baptism, but only with the one, uniformly performed Baptism, officiated by Priests who have received the Priesthood of the Church.
5. For as long as heretics continue to remain in their fallacy, we avoid communion with them, especially in common prayer. The holy canons in their entirety prohibit not only common officiating and in-temple common praying, but even ordinary prayers in private quarters. The Church's strict stance opposite heretics springs from true love and sincere concern for their salvation, and out of Her pastoral care that the faithful are not carried away by heresies. Whosoever loves, reveals the truth and does not leave the other in a falsehood; otherwise, any love and agreement with him would only be counterfeit and false. There is such a thing as a good war and a bad peace. «...for a praiseworthy war is superior to a peace that separates one from God» says Saint Gregory the Theologian [xiv]. And Saint John the Chrysostom recommends: «If you should see devoutness vitiated anywhere, do not prefer the harmony of a truth, but stand fast to the death... betraying the truth nowhere». And elsewhere, he recommends with emphasis: «Do not acknowledge any illegitimate dogma that has the pretext of love»[xv]. This stance of the Fathers was also adopted by the major defender and confessor of the Orthodox faith against the Latins, Saint Mark of Ephesus, who concluded his own Confession of Faith in Florence with the following words: «All the teachers of the Church, all the synods and all the divine Scriptures exhort us to keep away from those with other beliefs, and to refrain from communion with them. Therefore, am I to disregard them all, and follow those who under the pretense of a manufactured peace strive for union? Those, who have counterfeited the sacred and divine Symbol (Creed) and who introduced the Son as the second cause of the Holy Spirit? [...] May this never happen to us, o benevolent Paraclete (Comforter), and may I never fall away from my own duteous thoughts, but, by following Your teaching and the blessed men who were inspired by You, may I be added to my fathers, by bringing in, if nothing else, this: piety» [xvi].
6. Up until the beginnings of the 20th century, the Church has steadfastly and immutably maintained a rejective and condemnatory stance towards all heresies, as clearly formulated in the Synodicon of Orthodoxy which is recited on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Heresies and heretics are anathematized, each one separately; furthermore, in order to ensure that not one of them has been left out of the anathema, there is a general anathema at the end of the text: «Let all heretics be anathematized».
Unfortunately, this uniform, steady and unswerving stance of the Church has, up until the beginnings of the 20th century, begun to be gradually abandoned, following the encyclical that was released by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1920 «To all the churches of Christ», which for the first time had officially characterized heresies as 'churches' that are not alienated from the Church, but are familiar and related to Her. It recommended that «the love between the Churches should above all be rekindled and reinforced, no longer thinking of each other as foreign and alien, but rather as related and familiar in Christ, and co-inheritors and co-incorporated in the promise of God in Christ» (see I.Karmiris', "The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church", vol. 2, page 958).
The path is now open for the adoption, the shaping and the development within the sphere of the Orthodox Church, of the initially Protestant invention - and now with Papal acceptance - heresy of Ecumenism; this pan-heresy, which adopts and legalizes all heresies as 'churches' and insults the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now developed, taught and imposed by Patriarchs and bishops is the new dogma regarding the Church, a new ecclesiology. According to this, no Church is entitled to demand for itself exclusively the character of a catholic and true Church. Instead, each one of them is a piece, a part, and not the entire Church; they all together comprise the Church.
All the boundaries that the Fathers had set have been torn down; there is no longer a dividing line between heresy and Church, between truth and fallacy. Even heresies are now 'churches'; in fact, many of them -like the Papist one- are now regarded as 'sister churches' to which God has entrusted, jointly with us, the care for mankind's salvation [xvii].
The Grace of the Holy Spirit now also exists within heresies, and therefore their baptisms - like all their other 'sacraments' - are considered valid. All who have been baptized, and in whichever heresy they may belong, are now considered members of Christ's Body, the Church. The condemnations and the anathemas of the Synods are no longer valid and should be stricken from liturgical books. We are now housed in the "World Council of Churches" and have essentially betrayed - even with our mere accession to participate - our ecclesiastic self-awareness. We have removed the dogma regarding the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - the dogma of «one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism» [xviii].
7. This inter-Christian syncretism has now expanded into an inter-religion syncretism, which equates all other religions to the unique, God-revealed, through Christ reverence for God, the knowledge of God and the Christ-like way of life. Consequently, it is not only the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in relation to heresies that is being attacked, but also the fundamental dogma worldwide of the one and only Revelation and salvation of mankind through Jesus Christ in relation to the religions of the world. It is the worst imaginable fallacy, the biggest heresy of all ages.
8. We believe and confess that only in Christ is there a possibility for salvation. The religions of the world and the heresies all lead to perdition. The Orthodox Church is not merely the true Church; She is the only Church. She alone has remained faithful to the Gospel, the Synods and the Fathers, and consequently She alone represents the true catholic Church of Christ. According to the blessed Elder Justin Popovitch, Ecumenism is a common name for the pseudo-churches of Western Europe; their common name is actually "pan-heresy" [xix].
This pan-heresy has been accepted by many Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, clergymen, monks and laity. They teach it, «barefacedly»; they apply it and impose it in practice, communing with heretics in every possible manner - with common prayers, with exchanges of visits, with pastoral collaborations - thus essentially placing themselves outside the Church. Our stance, per the Conciliar canonical decisions and per the example of the Saints, is obvious. Each one must now undertake his own responsibilities.
9. There are of course collective responsibilities also, and chiefly in the ecumenistic conscience of our Hierarchs and Theologians, towards the Orthodox corpus and their individual flocks. To them, we declare with a fear of God and with love that this stance of theirs and their openings towards all Ecumenistic activities are condemnable from every aspect, because:
a) they are doubting in practice our Orthodox-Patristic tradition and Faith;
b) they are sowing doubt in the hearts of their flock and are unsettling many, thus leading things to division and schism, and
c) they are misleading a portion of the flock towards a fallacy, and through it, to spiritual disaster.
We are therefore declaring that, for the aforementioned reasons, those who are moving within this Ecumenist irresponsibility, whichever rank they may be holding within the Ecclesiastic Organization, are opposed to the tradition of our Saints and consequently opposed to them.
This is the reason that their stance must be condemned and rejected, by the entirety of the Hierarchs and the faithful People.
NOTICE:
Whosoever of the clergy, monks, nuns and the laity desires to participate in this small deposition of Orthodox confession may declare it, by writing:
"I agree with the Confession of Faith against Ecumenism, and subscribe to it"
They may send this declaration indicating their name and their ecclesiastic, monastic or professional status, to the following address:
Periodical "THEODROMIA", P.O.Box 1602, Thessaloniki 541 24, Greece - Fax +30 2310 276590 - email address: palimpce@otenet.gr
OODE note:
This is an UNOFFICIAL translation of the original Greek text. The present translation is available for re-publication by anyone who wishes to use it. We would be very pleased to see a reference to our website as the initial translators, but it is not compulsory.
********************************
The above Confession of Faith has been signed by the following, as a first indication.
It has been signed and will be signed by many more:
Metropolitan of Kythera and Antikythera, Seraphim
Metropolitan of Aetolia and Akarnania Kosmas
Metropolitan of Piraeus, Seraphim
Metropolitan of Gortyna and Megaloupolis, Jeremiah, Professor of School of Theology Athens University
Archmandrite Joseph, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Xiropotamos, Holy Mountain
Protopresbyter fr. George Metallinos, Professor Emeritus of the Athens University School of Theology
Protopresbyter fr. Theodore Zisis, Professor Emeritus of the Thessaloniki University School of Theology
Archmandrite Mark Manolis, Spiritual Superintendent of the "Pan-Hellenic Orthodox Union"
Archmandrite Athanasius, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Stavrovounion, Cyprus
Archmandrite Timothy Sakkas, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Paraclete, Oropos
Archmandrite Cyril Kehayioglou, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Pantocrator, Melissohori, Langadas
Archmandrite Sarandis Sarandos, Parish Priest of the Holy Temple of the Dormition of the Theotokos, Amarousion
Archmandrite Maximus Karavas, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Saint Paraskeve, Milochori, Ptolemais
Archmandrite Gregory Hadjinikolaou, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gazea, Volos
Archmandrite Athanasius Anastasiou, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Great Meteora
Archmandrite Theocletus Bolkas, Abbot of the Sacred Hermitage of Saint Arsenios the Cappadocian, Chalkidike
Archmandrite Chrysostomos, Abbot of the Sacred Coenobium of Hossios Nicodemus, Pentalofos, Goumenissa
Archmandrite Theodore Diamantis, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Panaghia Molyvdoskepasti, Konitsa
Archmandrite Palamas Kyrillides, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Kallipetra, Veria
Archmandrite Lavrentios Gratsias, Sacred Metropolis of Florina, Prespae and Eordaia
Archmandrite Meletios Vadrahanis, Sacred Metropolis of Florina, Prespae and Eordaia
Archmandrite Paul Dimitrakopoulos, Sacred Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Saviour, Moutsiala, Veria
Archmandrite Ignatius Kalaitzopoulos, Sacred Monastery of Saint Paraskeve, Milochori, Ptolemais
Archmandrite Simeon Georgiades, Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gazea, Volos
Archmandrite Augustine Siarras, Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gazea, Volos
Archmandrite Ambrose Gionis, Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gazea, Volos
Elder Gregory, Hieromonk, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Elder Efstratios, Hieromonk, Sacred Monastery of the Great Lavra, Holy Mountain
Elder Philippos, Hieromonk, Retreat of Athanasius the Great, Lesser Saint Anna Monastery, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Athanasius, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Nicodemus, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Nephon, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Chrysostom Kartsonas, Retreat of Saint George, Lesser Saint Anna Monastery, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Onuphrios, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Chrysanthos, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Azarias, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Gabriel, Sacred Retreat of Panaghia Gorgoepikoos, Sacred Monastery of the Pantocrator, Holy Mountain
Hieromonk Pandeleimon, Sacred Retreat of Saint Pandeleimon, Sacred Monastery of the Pantocrator, Holy Mountain
Protopresbyter Lambros Fotopoulos, Parish Priest, Sacred Temple of Saint Kosmas of Aetolia, Amarousion, Attica Province
Protopresbyter John Fotopoulos, Parish Priest Sacred Temple of Saint Paraskeve, Attica Province
Protopresbyter Athanasios Menas, Loutraki, Corinthia Province
Protopresbyter Eleftherios Palamas, Saint Christophers, Ptolemais
Protopresbyter Constantine Mygdalis, Parish Priest, Sacred Temple of Saint Constantine, Volos
Protopresbyter Photios Vezynias, Professor, Sacred Metropolis of Lagadas
Protopresbyter Anthony Bousdekis, Parish Priest, Sacred Temple of Saint Nicholas, Nikaia, Piraeus
Protopresbyter Demetrios Vasiliades, Sacred Metropolis of Maronia and Komotene
Presbyter Dionysios Tatsis, Educator, Konitsa
Presbyter Demetrios Sarris, Parish Priest, Sacred Temple of the Mighty Archangels, Sesklon, Aesonia
Presbyter Efthimios Antoniades, Sacred Metropolis of Larisa
Presbyter Anastasios Gotsopoulos, Parish Priest, Sacred Temple of Saint Nicholas, Patrae
Presbyter George Papageorgiou, Sacred Metropolis of Demetrias
Presbyter Peter Hirsch, Petrokerasa, Chalkidike
Presbyter Theophanes Manouras, Parish Priest of the Sacred Temple of Saint Athanasius, Velestino, Magnesia Province
Deacon Theologos Kostopoulos, Sacred Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ano Gazea, Volos
Presbyter Paschalis Ginoudis, Sacred Metropolis of Larisa
Presbyter George Diamantopoulos, Lavrion, Sacred Metropolis of Mesogaia
Presbyter Basili Kokolakis, Parish Priest of the Sacred Temple of the Precious Cross, Holargos, Attica
Presbyter Peter Pantazis, Parish Priest of the Sacred Temple of the Transfiguration, Halandri, Attica
Elder Theoliptos, Monk, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Elder Gabriel, Monk, Retreat of Saint Christodoulos, Karyes, Holy Mountain
Elder Hilarion, Monk, near the Constamonite Monastery harbour, Holy Mountain
Elder Daniel, Monk, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Elder Akakios, Monk, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Elder Stephanos, Monk, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Elder Paul, Monk, Sacred Retreat of the Holy Apostles, Scete of the Xenophon Monastery, Holy Mountain
Elder Onuphrios, Monk, Sacred Retreat of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Holy Monastery of the Pantocrator, Holy Mountain
Elder Nectarios, Monk, Sacred Cell of the Zoodochos Fount, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion, Holy Mountain
Elder Isaac, Monk, Sacred Cell of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Sacred Monastery of Stavronikita, Holy Mountain
Monk Arsenios Vliagoftis, Sacred Retreat of Saint Arsenios the Cappadocian, Halkidike
Monk George, Sacred Retreat of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Holy Monastery of the Pantocrator, Holy Mountain
Monk Christophoros, Sacred Retreat of the Holy Apostles, Scete of the Xenophon Monastery, Holy Mountain
Monk Maximos, Danielites' Sacred Hermitage, Katounakia, Holy Mountain
Monk Dositheos, Kathesma of the Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion, Holy Mountain
Monk Spyridon, Cell of Saint Nicholas, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion, Holy Mountain
Monk Damascenos, Sacred Cell of the Precious Forerunner, Holy Monastery of Karakallou, Holy Mountain
Monk Savvas, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra, Holy Mountain
Monk Theophilos, Sacred Cell of Sambre, Holy Mountain
Monk Paisios, Sacred Cell of the Holy Archangels "Savvaioi" of the Holy Mountain
Monk Cherubim, Sacred Cell of the Holy Archangels, of Saint John Koukouzelis, Holy Mountain
Monk Nicodemus, Sacred Cell of Saint Nectarios, Kapsala, Holy Mountain
Monk Dositheos, Sacred Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Saviour, Sochos, Lagadas, Thessaloniki
Monk Chariton, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Monk Nicodemus, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Monk Averkios, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Monk Prodromos, Retreat of the Precious Forerunner, Sacred Scete of Saint Anna, Holy Mountain
Monk Arsenios, Sacred Retreat of holy martyr Gerasimos, Scete of St.Pandeleimon, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion, Holy Mountain
Sister Mariam, Abbess of the Holy Monastery of Saint Lavrentios, Pelion
Sister Christonymphe of the Holy Monastery of Saint Lavrentios, Pelion
Sister Lavrentia of the Holy Monastery of Saint Lavrentios, Pelion
Nicholas Vasiliades, Theologian-Author, Brotherhood of Theologians "SOTER"
Despina Anastasiadou-Georgouda, infant school teacher, former School Counselor
Panagiota Anjou, Philologist-Theologian, Thessaloniki
George Georgoudas, Dr. of Theology, former School Counselor
John Dekliomis, Theologian, Thessaloniki
Stephen Ziogas, Philologist-Educator, Thessaloniki
Demetrios Karayannides, Gymnast, Thessaloniki
Vasilios Kermeniotis, Professor, Ptolemais
Agathe Kyriakidou-Theodosiou, Philologist, Thessaloniki
Gabriel Lampsides, Journalist, Thessaloniki
Sotirios Lysikatos, Theologian-Philologist, Thessaloniki
Christina Boulaki-Zisi, former Reserve Professor of the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki School of Theology
Dimitrios Mavrides, Mathematician, Thessaloniki
Constantine Nousis, Philologist-Theologian, Volos
Lavrentios Digiorgio, publisher-author, President of the Philorthodox Union "Kosmas Flamiatos"
Andreas Papavasiliou, Dr. of Theology, former Inspector of Secondary Education, Cyprus
Panagiotis Sematis, Professor of Theology, Secretary of the Philorthodox Union "Kosmas Flamiatos", Aegion
Constantine Stavrinides, Holargos, Athens
Marina Stravakou, Philologist, Thessaloniki
Aphrate Strakali-Tzoanopoulou, Philologist, Thessaloniki
Malamate Strakali-Papaioannou, Philologist, Thessaloniki
Dimitrios Zisis, School Counselor, graduate of theology, Kastoria
List updated to the 3rd June 2009.
This list will be regularly updated with added names.
Readers can see the constantly updated list of signatures in Greek, here:
http://www.impantokratoros.gr/ABF82395.el.aspx"
**********************************************************
[i] See treatise by Gennadius II Scholarios, Patriarch of Constantinople: "Regarding the only way to the salvation of mankind" , to George Scholarios "The complete extant works - Oevres Completes de Georges Scholarios", Volumes I-VII, Paris 1928-1936, publ. L. Petit - X. Siderides - M. Jugie, Vol. III, 434-452.
[ii] John 8:12 «I am the light of the world - whosoever follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life». John 3:19 «The light had come to the world and men loved the darkness rather than the light».
[iii] Acts 4:14.
[iv] 1 John 4:2-3 «Every spirit that confesses Jesus had cometh in the flesh, is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus Christ had cometh in the flesh, is not from God. And this is what you have heard regarding the antichrist: that he cometh and is now already in the world».
[v] See "Didaches" (Teachings) of St.Cosmas of Aetolia, of I.Menounos, "Cosmas of Aetolia teachings (and biography), Tinos publications, Athens, Didache A1, 37, page 142: «"All faiths are false, counterfeit, all of them the Devil's. This I realized as being true, divine, heavenly, correct, perfect, both by my word and by your word: that the faith of the pious and orthodox christians is good and holy, and that we must believe and be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit».
[vi] 'Homily prior to the exile' 1, ΕΠΕ 33, 186.
[vii] Epistle 90, "To the most holy brothers and bishops in the West" 2, ΕΠΕ 2, 20
[viii] Galatians. 1, 9. To Gall. Homily chapt. 1, PG 61, 624.
[ix] Mansi, 13, 409-412.
[x] The moral laxity and decadence, even among the clergy, had already been noted at the beginning of the 15th century, by Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki (see 'Dogmatic Epistle 16' in D. Balfour, by Simeon of Thessaloniki (1416/17-1429) "Theological Works, Vlatades gleanings 34, Thessaloniki 1981, page 218: «And furthermore, that they did not regard fornication at all entailing Hell, not even among their priests, but instead, they would unscrupulously have concubines and youths for fornication and would every day officiate.» Ibid, 15, page 216: «They also do not follow an evangelical lifestyle; for, every kind of luxury and fornication to them is not a reprehensible matter, nor anything else that is forbidden for Christians». ) The moral decadence that is observed of late even among the Orthodox clergy is the result of Ecumenism's liberalism and secularism..
[xi] Dialogue 23, PG 155, 120-121. Epistle regarding blessedness 5, in D. Balfour, Simeon Archbishop of Thessaloniki (1416/17-1429), "Theological Works, Vlatades gleanings 34, Thessaloniki 1981, page 226.
[xii] Canonical Epistle Ά, To Amphilochios of Iconion, Canon a.
[xiii] In the text of the 9th General Convention of the World Council of Churches in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2006, which was accepted by the representatives of the Orthodox churches and was titled "Called to be the One Chuch", in paragraph 8 it states: "All those baptized in Christ are united in His name." In paragraph 9: "That we all belong in common to Christ through baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, gives the churches the possibility and it invites them to walk together, even when they disagree. We assure that there is one baptism, exactly as there is one body and one Spirit, one hope in our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one God and Father to all of us (see Ephes.4:4-6)". The Metropolitan of Pergamos John (Zizioulas) in his work "Orthodox Ecclesiology and the Ecumenical Movement", Sourozh Diocesan Magazine (England, August 1985, vol.21, page 23), had paved the way for this position, by stating: "Within baptism, even if there is a break, a division, a schism, you can still speak of the Church... The Orthodox, in my understanding at least, participate in the ecumenical movement as a movement of baptized Christians, who are in a state of division because they cannot express the same faith together. In the past this has happened because of a lack of love which is now, thank God, disappearing."
[xiv] Apologetics on the flight to Pontus 82, ΕΠΕ 1, 176.
[xv] To Romans, Homily 22, 2, PG 60, 611. To Philippians, Homily 2,1, PG 62, 119.
[xvi] Confession of faith displayed in Florence, in Documents relatifs au Concile de Florence, II, Oeuvres anticonciliaires de Marc d'Ephèse, par L. Petit, Patrologia Orientalis 17, 442.
[xvii] See joint statement by Pope John-Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew during the latter's visit to Rome on the 29th of June, 1995. The same had been proclaimed at an earlier date by the Combined Theological Committee for the Dialogue between Orthodox and Papists, in Balamand of Lebanon in 1993.
[xviii] Ephesians 4: 5.
[xix] Archmandr. Justin Popovitch, Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, Thessaloniki 1974, page 224...
mardi 10 novembre 2009
PAPAL PRIMACY
PAPAL PRIMACY - A Hideous Ecclesiological Heresy
By Nicholas P. Vasiliades
Introduction
It is well-known that the Papists insist upon the so-called "primacy" of the Pope with unrelenting obstinacy. In addition, they have declared that: "Union of Christianity means nothing else but subjugation [to the Pope], the only representative of Christ on earth". And that "the primacy and infallibility are not ecclesiastical decrees that the Church can annul but dogmas whose foundations no one is in a position to shake"[1]. And furthermore that "the Catholic Church [i.e. the papist parachurch] is not going to sacrifice anything from its truths [note: rather its falsehoods]". "In other words", as the Professor of Dogmatics at the Theological School of the Aristotelian University of Thessalonica Demetrius Tselengides writes in an epistle he sent to the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain, "the Pope in the Latin West - through the dogmatically consolidated "infallibility", also affirmed by the Second Vatican Council, and through the contested primacy of authority upon the entire Church - has arbitrarily taken the place of the Spirit of Truth in the Universal Church"[2].
The Papists' constant reiteration of this position leaves no doubt as to what type of union they seek through their dialogues with the Orthodox. They seek a union modelled after the detestable Unia.
Many worthy books par excellence have been written on where the Papists base their arguments for the "primacy", how that came to be and how it was established. As an example, we bring three such paradigmatic informative, scientific and weighty studies: a] St. Nectarius of Pentapolis, Historical study on the causes of the Schism ... and on the question of possibility or not for union; b] Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Chrysostom Papadopoulos, The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome [a historical and critical study], ed. Periodical "Ecclesia", Athens 19642; c] P. N. Trembelas, On the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, ed. "O Soter", Athens 1965.
In this short study that follows, we re-publish five texts that have been previously published in the magazine "O Soter" [Year 2001 Volume] and we reply to the unacceptable position that the Synod of Constantinople [Eighth Ecumenical Synod, AD 879-880] supposedly acknowledged the Pope's "primacy of authority", and that consequently the matter has already been settled since then! ...
We publish these articles supplemented with additional material into one new article on account of the discussions taking place as regards the "role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all nations" in the way that came to be accepted by the Joint International Theological Commission for the theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Papists in Ravenna [8-14 October 2007][1]. The conversation focuses on how we Orthodox need to understand or interpret the blatantly heretical "Papist Primacy", so that the union between Orthodox and Papists is established! ...
The stance held by certain Orthodox on the matter is deplorable, if we are to judge by the things we heard from them during the proceedings of the "Scientific Meeting" entitled "The Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches", organised by the Department of Dogmatic Theology [of the Faculty of Theology] of the Aristotelian University School of Theology on 20 May 2009 in the Ceremonies Hall of the aforementioned University[2].
It is deplorable and extremely worrying because these Orthodox, as Professors of Theology, with their present demeanour not only scandalise the Orthodox fold but they also harm the Papists themselves. Unfortunately, once again it is verified that the words of St. Basil the Great addressed to Bishop Eusebius of Samosata about the Pope and the Westerners of his time have diachronic validity. He wrote: "Truly, when those of a proud nature are flattered, it is natural for them to become more arrogant than they usually are. After all, if the Lord is merciful to us what other help do we need? If however the wrath of God remains against us, then what possible use is there for the help from the Westerners' "eyebrow" [i.e. arrogance, haughtiness, pride]?"[3]
Let the Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph II also instruct us, who went to the pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence [AD 1438-1439] with great courage believing also [rather naively] that the Orthodox would return "triumphant victors"! It was not long however before he was utterly disappointed and confessed: The Latins are "quarrelsome people, vainglorious and inconvincible. They do not come around or consent to our words, nor do they want to submit to the truth[4]."
It is about time we feared the God of Truth. And it is about time we felt for Christ's rational flock, the Christian fold of our Orthodoxy. Let us not wound them with our constant retreats to the heresy of Papism or with our uncompromising union with cacodoxy, believing ourselves to be wiser than the God-bearing Fathers and Orthodoxy's Saints had been.
Unacceptable positions
The Papists do not leave any opportunity that may serve Papism's dreadful ecclesiological heresy on the Papist primacy go unexploited. This way we find "Katholiki", the Uniate Papist newspaper of Greece, on 26 June 2001 republishing an envoy's article from the Athenian newspaper "BEMA" [29 April 2001] entitled "The primacy of the Pope of Rome and the way it is exercised". The article included the following: "More and more people insist that supposedly the Eastern Church [viz. Orthodoxy] does not recognise, not has she ever recognised any primacy to Rome, apart from a mere honorary seniority in the etiquette, we could call it, of the presbygenous patriarchates. This position", the author continued, "is so baseless that it harms the credibility of those who uphold it and renders in advance the outcome of any serious dialogue that promptly aims towards the gradual rapprochement of the two Churches to be impossible. [...] Those who support such a position in good faith, and there are of course many who do, overlook, among other things, that the Synod of Constantinople of 879-880, through which the complete restoration of the relations between Old and New Rome was sealed, adopted a Canon through which not only was the primacy of Rome recognised, as the Synod itself understood it in those days, but also sealed this establishment opposite future doubts and controversy".
Next, the writer of the article insists on the aforementioned Canon, the 1st canon of the Synod of Constantinople in 879-880, about which he says that his Orthodox interpreters, among them the ever-memorable Professor of Dogmatics John Carmiris, gave "a different, diametrically opposite, interpretation to the last paragraph". This interpretation he considers it to be "outrageous"!
It is obvious that the Uniate - Papist newspaper rushed to re-publish the article in question because it supports the positions of the Vatican and in particular the "primacy of authority" that the Pope insists he has.
According to John Carmiris, during the Synod of AD 879-880, the Orthodox supported that "based on a recommendation by the Papal representatives ... any innovation of the honorary rank and privileges of the pope of Rome, i.e. every alteration of the primatus honoris [primacy of honour] of his into primatus jurisdictionis [administrative primacy], was prohibited"[5]. The interpretation of this Canon by the ever-memorable Professor John Carmiris is not at all "outrageous", as we shall be proved further down.
Before we do this however we first have to reply to the article's accusation that the position held by the Orthodox, that "the Eastern Church does not recognise, nor has she ever recognised any primacy for Rome, apart from a mere honorary primacy in the etiquette ... of the presbygenous patriarchates" is "baseless". This position is not at all baseless."
Ecclesiastical History confirms that during the course of the first three centuries we do not find any event during whose course the Church recognised any administrative primacy to the Bishop of Rome. During that period, the Church of Christ was not being governed "monarchically" nor was it receiving orders from Rome. Ecclesiastical Synods would convene unbeknownst to the Bishop of Rome. Bishops would be elected and judged without any interference from the Bishop of Rome.
This tactic is also confirmed by the Apostolic Canons where the principles for the governance of the Church of Christ during the first centuries have been recorded. The great and most significant authority of these Canons has already been evidenced by the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod [AD 325] in its 1st, 2nd, 5th, 9th and 10th Canons. According to the Apostolic Canons, every local Church would be governed by her own Bishop [cf. Apostolic Canons 32, 35, 38, 39, and 76], while any type of interference of a Bishop in another Bishop's jurisdiction was prohibited [Apostolic Canons 34, 35].
The local episcopates [communities] constituted the local Churches, each one of which would be governed by the "first" as its "head". However, the "first" would never do anything without the concordant opinion of the other Bishops, just as none of the others would do something without the concordant opinion of the "first". "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing superfluous without his opinion; each one must only do whatever is within his own community, and in the lands that are subject to it. But neither should he do anything without the opinion of the others; for that is how there will be concord ..." [Apostolic Canon 34]. In other words: the bishops of every land must acknowledge who is "first" among them; that is, bishops must know who their Metropolitan is, and regard him as the "head", and not do anything without his opinion that may be superfluous; namely, anything that does not pertain to the parishes of the bishop's own episcopate, but attempts to transgress this. Each and every bishop may act without obtaining the opinion of his Metropolitan, only on whatever belongs to the limits of his own episcopacy and in the territories that fall within those boundaries. But even the Metropolitan must not proceed with anything of common concern "on his own and according to his own opinion", without the opinion of all his bishops. Only in this way can concord exist.... Therefore, the Bishop of Rome likewise had jurisdiction ONLY over his own episcopate whose "head" he was, and no other[6].
This system applied during the first three centuries of Ecclesiastic History. What ensued in the centuries that followed we shall describe further along.
The difference between "Primacy of Honour" and "Primacy of Authority"
As already mentioned above, during the first three centuries, the Church of Christ solved all the emerging problems by means of local Synods. There is no instance where the Church had sought the resolution of an issue of general ecclesiastical nature, only by the Bishop of Rome. However, from the 4th century onwards, on account of the major issues that had appeared, which had been caused by the various heresies, these issues were discussed and resolved by Ecumenical Synods. In these Synods, the representatives of the Bishop of Rome were accorded first place, not because he had any authority over all the other Bishops, but because the Bishop of Rome was regarded as the "first" in honour among all the other "first" Bishops. He was acknowledged "honourably" as "first" because his See was situated in Rome, the State capital. At the time when the Holy First Ecumenical Synod [AD 325] was convened, "firsts" were the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. They were regarded as equals among themselves, in compliance with the 6th canon of the First Ecumenical Synod.
When the Ecumenical Synods bestowed Bishops with a primacy of "honour" and determined the order of the "firsts", they would only accept as a basis for this determination the political significance associated with the cities in which these older hierarchs were Bishops. This, after all, is the reason that the Holy Canons command "to co-adjust ecclesiastical things with political ones" for the preservation and increment of a state's "cohesion". This principle was upheld both in the East and in the West, throughout all the centuries.
Besides, "the first characteristic of every Ecumenical [Synods] is that they must be convened upon the orders not of the Pope or a certain Patriarch, but by royal commands"[7]. "Pope" was the title given to the Bishops of Rome from the 8th century onwards. It should be noted however that the Bishop of Alexandria was already being addressed as "Pope", even before the 8th century; as for the title "Patriarch", it began to be bestowed during the reign of emperor Theodosius II the [AD 408-450].
Ecumenical Synods were usually presided over by those who were first among the ranks of Bishops, and not by the Papal "legati" [=envoys, representatives]. No Bishop of Rome had ever been present in person, during any of the Ecumenical Synods. As for the solving of various issues that were discussed during Ecumenical Synods, the one who could have authority and influence - and essentially did have - was only the one who stood out for the constancy, integrity, clarity and strength of his Orthodox convictions; that is, anyone who presented himself and proved himself to be a genuine expresser and representative of the evangelical truth, even if he were not a Bishop. A characteristic example of this is St. Athanasius the Great who played a very basic and important role in the Holy First Ecumenical Synod, even though at the time he was only a young archdeacon of the Church of Alexandria.
After all, the validity and legitimacy of the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods were dependent just as much on the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as they were on the validation by any other Patriarch. Moreover, the decisions of the Holy Synods, in which neither the Pope nor his representatives were present, these had absolute and complete validity and were of a compulsory nature for all the Bishops. They were just as compulsory for the Bishop of Rome.
During the course of the first eight centuries, in other words during the period prior to the devastating Schism, when the Church of Christ was still united, the supreme authority in the Church belonged exclusively to the Ecumenical Synods. They were the ones that authentically and infallibly formulated the teaching of the Church; they were the ones who judged the Bishops, even if the Bishop was a Pope or a Patriarch. It is well-known that the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod [AD 680] condemned the Patriarchs of Constantinople Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul II and Peter, Pope of Rome Honorius, Cyrus of Alexander and others.
Now, if the Ecumenical Synods gave a "primacy of honour" to the Pope, in parallel to all the other Patriarchs, this was not an authority or leadership. Because there can be "primacy" among equals. Whereas leadership or authority presuppose subordinates, subjects and the subjugated.
The "primacy" that was recognized in the Pope was only a primacy of honour and not a privilege of authority and leadership. Besides, the Holy Second Ecumenical Synod had also bestowed the "equal rank of honour" as that of the bishop of Rome to the Bishop of Constantinople. The God-bearing Fathers of this Synod decided: "Τον μεν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Επίσκοπον έχειν τα πρεσβεία της τιμής μετά τον της Ρώμης Επίσκοπον, δια το είναι αυτήν Νέαν Ρώμην" [Canon 3]. [The Bishop of Constantinople should have the rank of honour immediately after that of the Bishop of Rome, on account of Constantinople being the New Rome and is called such for this reason. However, in this case, the preposition "after" as correctly interpreted by St. Nicodemus the Haghiorite "does not denote a later point in time", as some interpret, "but neither a demotion or a reduction" as others do, but "it denotes an equality in honour and rank, according to which, the one is first, the other is second, in order of honour"[8].
The Holy Fourth Ecumenical Synod institutes similar things with its 28th Canon, whereby, according to Saint Nicodemus' interpretation: "Just as the Fathers had rightly given privileges to the throne of Old Rome on account of the presence of regency in that city - in other words, that he [the city's Bishop] be addressed as the "first" of all the other Patriarchs in rank, thus likewise they gave equal and identical honorary privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome - that is, of Constantinople." [9].
But the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod also instituted the same things. In its 36th Canon it mentions: "We stipulate that the throne of Constantinople is to enjoy equal honours with that of Old Rome". In other words, the God-bearing Fathers of this Synod were stipulating that the Bishop of Constantinople "should enjoy equal and the same privileges as the bishop of Rome [...], being second to him only in rank"[10].
The 1st, 3rd, 4th Ecumenical Synods and the Synods of Constantinople of AD 867 and 869 on the "Primacy" of the Pope
The Metropolitan system of the ancient Church, which was not at all monarchic, is interpreted in an excellent manner by the 6th Canon of the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod [AD 325]. It states: "The ancient customs should be preserved, the ones in Egypt and in Libya and in Pentapolis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria will have authority over all of these [places], because this [the ethos, custom] is also usual for the Bishop in Rome. Similarly in Antioch and in the other provinces, the ranks of honour are preserved by the Churches". This Canon testifies that the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch "were regarded as equals towards each other". The Canon says; in the same way that the Bishop of Rome has the same custom [ethos] as the Bishop of Alexandria, thus does he have the same authority as he does. Furthermore, the same Canon testifies that the system in the ancient Church was not a monarchic one. It also interprets that "the Bishops were not assigned under only one Bishop, nor were all the Churches under one Church. All Bishops and all Churches were administratively independent of each other. But among all the Bishops, the one of Rome was recognized as the "first throne", for being the Bishop of the capital city of the State. His status did not differ from the status of the Patriarch of Constantinople that he now has in the Orthodox Church"[11].
On the Latins' insistence that the Holy 3rd Ecumenical Synod [AD 431] had proclaimed the "primacy" of authority of the Bishop of Rome in the overall-universal Church, we refer the reader to the wonderful scientific work of the Archbishop of Athens Chrysostom Papadopoulos, The 3rd Ecumenical Synod and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Reply to the encyclical of Pius XI "Lux Veritatis", Athens, 1932. The truth is that the Holy 3rd Ecumenical Synod not only did not alter, but with the same decree had supported the existing order in Church administration even more. "It strictly prohibited the violation of the rights that belonged to the local episcopal thrones of the Administrations and the Provinces, according to the custom that prevailed long before, during ancient times" and "it proved that it was foreign to any notion of monarchical primacy", that is, of "the authority of one episcopal throne over the others"[12].
Nor did the Holy 4th Ecumenical Synod [AD 451] recognize any "primacy" in the Bishop of Rome. Like the 3rd Ecumenical Synod, it too repulsed every notion of administrative primacy for the Bishop of Rome. "Glaringly evident proof of this is all that [ took place] during the [discussion] of the sensational 28th Canon of this Synod"[13].
This is the situation that prevailed in the Church during the first 8 centuries.
We now come to respond to the claim that the 8th Ecumenical Synod [Synod of Constantinople of 879-880] had supposedly recognised and sanctioned the "primacy" of authority for the Bishop of Rome!
The arbitrary intervention by Pope Nicolas I in the internal affairs of the Church of Constantinople, which was brought on by the deposing of Patriarch Ignatius and the election as Patriarch of Photios the Great [despite his involuntariness] in 858AD is well-known. Pope Nicholas I was the one who had presented the Church of Rome as an ecumenical Church! He therefore perceived this as an opportunity to impose himself on the Eastern Church also. However, his scandalous interventions in the internal administrative affairs of the Bishop of Constantinople were repulsed and condemned by the Synod of Constantinople of AD 867. This Synod, "condemned and anathematised the unprecedented for the Church of the East and with such arrogance projected ‘primacy' [of the Pope], by means of which "the canonical order that was designated by the Ecumenical Synods as well as the independence of the Patriarchal thrones was being overturned" and by means of which "the Bishop of Rome striving to render himself the absolute monarch over the catholic [= entire] Church"[14].
But also in the Synod of Constantinople of AD 869, the independence, autonomy and equality of the five Patriarchal thrones had been supported without any objection by the Papists. Furthermore, every notion of a monarchic primacy or a primacy of authority for Rome was rejected. In this manner, "the Papal primacy with its new meaning", which had been presented in a dictatorial and anti-ecclesiastic manner by pope Nicholas I, was not accepted by this Synod either[15].
However, the primacy of the Pope's authority was also rejected triumphantly at the Synod of AD 879-880. This Synod is the last general Synod of the united ancient Church of Christ. Both the Fathers and the ecclesiastical authors characterized it as the 8th Ecumenical Synod. But even the Synod itself had characterised itself many times in its Minutes as "Ecumenical". [For more information read here].
The Synod of AD 879-880 was convened by Photios the Great, who had already risen to the rank of Patriarch. He was also the one who presided over the Synod, while three representatives of the Pope also participated, as well as three representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, 18 Metropolitans and many Bishops from the ecclesiastic administrations of Thrace, Pontus, Ephesus, Illyria and Southern Italy; 383 Bishops in all. This Synod was truly imposing. Unanimity prevailed; its activities were conducted smoothly, and during its fifth Session the Minutes of the Holy 7th Ecumenical Synod were acknowledged by everyone.
Further along we shall comment upon the truly important first Canon of this Synod, which directly relates to our topic.
The important Synod of AD 879-880 in Constantinople
At this most important Synod of Constantinople of AD 879-880, it was clarified that the reinstatement of Photios to the patriarchal throne was not accomplished by the Pope, the way that the Pope had wanted it to be acknowledged. The latter had acknowledged the reinstatement as a finalized matter. It is however characteristic that, with regard to the renowned decree of the 1st Canon of this Synod, the Papist historians had attempted to dispute its authenticity! But because they did not succeed, they attempted to misinterpret it and ascribe to it a meaning according to which this decree supposedly does not limit, but rather it validates, the privileges of the Pope and the Papist church! ...
Unfortunately for the Papists, the truth of the matter differs. The purpose of the decree - as can be surmised in general, both from the Minutes of the Synod as well as from the content of the decree - was to avert the anomalies that arose from the fact that clerics convicted in Constantinople resorted to the West in order to be acquitted! In fact, there were followers of Ignatius who, encouraged by Rome, did not recognize Patriarch Photios!
However the tendency of Pope Nicholas I and his successors to arbitrarily acquit clergymen of another Church, whom She had condemned - or to condemn clergymen of another church by anti-canonically intervening in its internal affairs - was an obvious innovation. The same should of course have applied for any possible anti-canonical out-of-bounds intervention by the Patriarch of Constantinople in the internal affairs of the Church of Rome, and the possible acceptance and acquittal by the Patriarch of Constantinople of Latin clerics who had been condemned by Rome.
Pursuant to this paragraph, the decree ends as follows: "...on none of the ranks of honour that belong to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans or to Her President (or Primate) overall shall we innovate now, or later on". The rank of honour referred to here, is the one that pertained to the Pope.
These had already been determined by the 6th Canon of the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod, the 3rd Canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod, the 28th of the 4th Ecumenical Synod and the 36th of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod. Subsequently, with the aforementioned decree, every innovation to the privileges of the Bishop of Rome was forbidden, as was every transformation - both now and in the future - of the "primacy of honour" into a "primacy of authority" As the Archbishop of Athens Chrysostom Papadopoulos correctly observes "through the aforementioned decree, the Patriarch of Constantinople was equated to the Patriarch of Rome, and subsequently every transgression by the latter [the Pope] was forbidden. Not only was the Bishop of Constantinople equated to the Bishop of Rome, but Photios himself was personally elevated above Pope John." The Patriarchs of the East had praised Photios with their epistles. Michael of Alexandria addressed him as "a luminous and illuminated person, the perfection of Priesthood, the gnomon of truth, arch-pastor of the Church of God". Theodosius of Jerusalem referred to him as "head of the body of the Church". Theodosius of Antioch as "holy father" while Avramius of Amida also called him "holy father". But even the papal representatives compared Photios "to the sun" that illuminates "all of creation". During the last session, where Procopius of Caesaria in praise of Photios had said: "this is the kind of person that should truly have the supervision of the entire world - in the manner of the arch-shepherd, Christ our God", the papal representatives had added: What you said is true "and we, who live at the end of the earth, these are the same things that we hear"! But even before these words were uttered, the same representatives had said[16]: "Blessed be our God, for the good fame of the most holy Photios the Patriarch has reached not only our land, but all over the world". And yet, Saint Photios "did not puff up [become arrogant, pompous, haughty] on account of these praises, and he never sought to exercise an office above the one set by the holy canons".
It is also worth noting that the Synod of AD 879-880 ended with the following statements about Photios: "Paul and Eugene, the most holy Bishops and vicars of Old Rome, also Peter, the very God-fearing presbyter and cardinal, said: if someone does not consider him [Photios] to be a holy Patriarch and does not respect communion with him, let his portion be with that of Judas and let him not be included at all among the Christians. And the Holy Synod cried out: all of us believe and think the same, and if someone does not consider him a Hierarch of God, let him not see the glory of God"[17].
Pope John VIII initially acknowledged this Synod, after being notified of its Minutes. The Latins however did not want the Minutes to be published! At the same time they attempted to alter them, or to deny their authenticity! ... Scientifically however, all these attempts have now been refuted so, nowadays both the authority of that historic Synod, as well as its Minutes "remains incontestable".
A timely blow against the Papist primacy of authority
It was very natural that the decision of the historic Synod of AD 879-880 would displease the Pope. For this reason, on account of certain complaints made by the Pope against this most important Synod [chiefly because the Church of Bulgaria was not ceded to his jurisdiction and because Patriarch Photios had not officially expressed his gratitude towards the Roman Church in that Synod, for the recognition on their part of Photios], Latin historians asserted that the Papal representatives who had participated in the aforementioned Synod: a] had violated the instructions that had been given to them; b] were not familiar with the Hellenic language and for this reason were not in a position to properly whatever was being discussed; c] were bribed! ... But these arguments by the Franco-Latin historians merely prove that either the Pope's representatives were incapable of faithfully upholding Rome's guidelines or, that when observing and familiarizing themselves with matters at close range, they perceived the irrationality of the Pope's demands[18]. Besides, the two Bishops [representatives] of the Pope had remained in Constantinople for about two years prior to the Synod of AD 879-880 and therefore it was only natural that they would have learnt and subsequently comprehended the Hellenic language very well. Furthermore, Cardinal Peter, a member of the Pope's delegation at the Synod, had vividly participated in the Synod's discussions, proving his familiarity with the Hellenic language. Moreover, all three Papal representatives "were convinced by and acquiesced on the decisions" during the Synod.
Apart from the other very positive results of the aforementioned Synod, it was also "proven" that the Bishop of Rome "is not the ruler of the catholic [entire] Church; that his authority is not absolute and therefore he had improperly and mom-canonically intervened in the internal affairs of the Church of Constantinople [...]. Hence a timely blow was struck against Papal authority, given that it had expressed itself with non-canonical acts. The new primacy of authority was rebutted. It was accepted that the Pope of Rome is one of the five Patriarchs of the catholic [overall] Church and that the honorary primacy that he has -along with them- does not give him the right for arbitrary transgressions [...]. Through this [Synod], the Church had once more officially refuted the primacy of authority of the Bishop of Rome. The decisions of this Synod were in accordance with what the preceding Ecumenical Synods had instituted, in compliance with the Tradition of the Church"[19].
Conclusion
Pursuant to the above, it is proven that the united Church during the first millennium had never acknowledged in the Bishop of Rome "a primacy of authority and power at a universal level". It only admitted that the Bishop of Rome was first among equals (primus inter pares) - among the five Patriarchs. It conceded that he, just like the Bishop of Antioch, did not inherit any privilege of administrative authority or office from the Apostle Peter, who -after all- was never the head or any kind of monarch of the Christian world, nor was he the founder of the Church of Rome, nor had he ever served as bishop for a long time in Rome. Furthermore, the Bishop of Rome is not a successor of the Apostle Peter, given that Peter had never been Bishop of Rome. These claims have no historical basis[20]. But even if we accept that the Apostle Peter had founded the Church of Rome, so what? Was that the only Church that he had founded? Both he and the Apostle Paul had founded many Churches.
Therefore, the office of Pope was the same as the office of the other Patriarchs. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Ecumenical Synods, which had spoken of the "primacy of honour" for the Bishop of Rome, did not state that they had determined this as a "divine right" or "by divine command and in relation to the Apostle Peter"; they had determined it thus, because Rome was the ancient capital of the State. Besides, it was for this reason that the throne of Constantinople was honoured "for Her being the New Rome"[21].
This, therefore, has been the steadfast faith of the Eastern Orthodox Church, who has continued to unswervingly uphold the guideline, the teaching and the tradition of the united Church of the first eight centuries. This was also declared by the response of the Synod of Constantinople of 1895 to Pope Leo XIII, who had been inviting the Orthodox to a union with Rome, on the basis of the principles of the Latin Unia! That significant Patriarchal and Synodical Epistle, which had been sent to the Pope in August of 1895, mentioned among other things [excerpt conveyed here in an English translation]:
"XVI. Each particular self-governing Church, both in the East and West, was totally independent and self-administered in the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. And just as the bishops of the self-governing Churches of the East, so also those of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany and Britain managed the affairs of their own Churches, each by their local synods, the Bishop of Rome having no right to interfere, and he himself also was equally subject and obedient to the decrees of synods. But on important questions which needed the sanction of the universal Church an appeal was made to an Ecumenical Council, which alone was and is the supreme tribunal in the universal Church. Such was the ancient constitution of the Church; but the bishops were independent of each other and each entirely free within his own bounds, obeying only the synodical decrees, and they sat as equal one to another in synods"[22]. Moreover, none of them ever laid claim to monarchical rights over the universal Church; and ii sometimes certain ambitious bishops of Rome raised excessive claims to an absolutism unknown to the Church, such were duly reproved and rebuked The assertion therefore of Leo XIII, when he says in his Encyclical that before the period of the great Photius the name of the Roman throne was holy among all the peoples of the Christian world, and that the East, like the West, with one accord and without opposition, was subject to the Roman pontiff as lawful successor, so to say, of the Apostle Peter, and consequently vicar of Jesus Christ on earth is proved to be inaccurate and a manifest error.
XVII. During the nine centuries of the Ecumenical Councils the Eastern Orthodox Church never recognized the excessive claims of primacy on the part of the bishops of Rome, nor consequently did she ever submit herself to them, as Church history plainly bears witness [...]".
These are the things that prevailed up until the time that the Church was united. This position is summarised very nicely by Professor Demetrius Tselengides, who writes:
During the first millennium, when the Church was united, "the supreme authority in the Universal Church was exercised always and only by the Ecumenical Synods. Besides, the Orthodox Church had never accepted the papal primacy, the way it was perceived and interpreted by the 1st Vatican Council [1869-1870], which had proclaimed the Pope as the infallible expresser of the conscience of the Church, with the ability to contradict even those decisions by an Ecumenical Synod!" With this decision, the heretic Papists "not only invalidate the synodic system of administration of the Church; they essentially invalidate that very presence of the Holy Spirit in Her"[23].
Now that the "Church" of Rome is clearly heretical, the primacy of honour in the Orthodox Church is held by the Patriarch of Constantinople ["for her being New Rome"], who is, however, "the first among equals". Every other position is inadmissible and constitutes an entirely illegitimate and conceited claim to disastrous authoritarianism in the Church and a Luciferian mindset.
Those who strive to support this antichristian mindset are doing so in vain and are committing a grave sin. This is the reason that every time this foreign mindset appeared the Church reacted, checked it, castigated it and rejected it. That is why there can be no substantial dialogue with the Vatican as long as the Pope continues to persist in the accursed "primacy of authority" which is a horrible ecclesiological heresy, as are "infallibility", the procession of the Holy Spirit "and from the Son " [Filioque] and his other heresies.
"Papal primacy: a Hideous Ecclesiological Heresy"
NICHOLAS P. VASILIADES
BROTHERHOOD OF THEOLOGIANS "O SOTER" - ATHENS 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Cf. the Ravenna Document: Ecclesiological and Canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority.
[2] Cf. "The Theological Dialogue between Orthodoxy and Papism", magazine "O Soter", issue 1985, pp. 361-363 and issue 1986, pp. 390-392
[3] St. BASIL THE GREAT, Epistles 239, To Eusebius Bishop of Samosata, PG 32, 893B
[4] S. SYROPOULOS, Les "MEMOIRS" sur le Concile de Florence [1438-1439], supervised byV. Laurent, ed. Du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1971, Vol. VII, Chap. 22, p. 372 [17-21]. For more cf. NIK. P. VASILIADES, St. Mark the Eugenicus and the Union of the Churches. Edition "O Soter", 20076, p.109
[5] JOHN CARMIRIS, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Vol. 1, Athens 19602, p.267
[6] For more see also CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, The primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Historical and critical study, ed. Periodical "Ecclesia", Athens 19642, pp. 15-20.
[7] Cf. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Rudder of the noetic nous of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, ed. "Aster", Al. and E. Papadimitriou, Athens 1970, "Prolegomena" to the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod, p.118, footnote 1.
[8] St. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Rudder, pp. 157-158
[9] St. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Hermeneutics on the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Synod, Rudder, pp. 207-208
[10] St. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Rudder, p.252
[11] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit., p.22
[12] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit., p.71
[13] For more information cf. CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. pp. 78-86
[14] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.176
[15] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.184
[16] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. pp. 192-193. Mansi XVI, 521; 524
[17] Mansi XVII, 524
[18] Cf. CONSTANTINE PAPARREGOPOULOS, History of the Hellenic Nation, ed. Eleutheroudakis, Athens 1932, Vol. 4, Part 1, p.265
[19] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. pp. 198-199
[20] For more information cf. CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.10
[21] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.204. For the position and role of Apostle Peter in the Church, see the beautiful and very informative study of P. N. TREMBELAS On the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, ed. "O Soter", Athens 1965
[22] For the entire text of the very important reply cf. JOHN CARMIRIS, The Dogmatic and Symbol Records of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Vol. 2, Graz-Austria 19682, p.932[1018]-946a[1032]
[23] Letter of DEMETRIUS TSELENGIDES, To the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Newspaper KATHOLIKI [instrument of the Uniates of Greece], Athens 16.10.1963
[2] Cf. Letter of the Professor of the theological School of the A.U.T. DEMETRIUS TSELENGIDES to the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain [www.romfea.gr, 14.9.2009]
By Nicholas P. Vasiliades
Introduction
It is well-known that the Papists insist upon the so-called "primacy" of the Pope with unrelenting obstinacy. In addition, they have declared that: "Union of Christianity means nothing else but subjugation [to the Pope], the only representative of Christ on earth". And that "the primacy and infallibility are not ecclesiastical decrees that the Church can annul but dogmas whose foundations no one is in a position to shake"[1]. And furthermore that "the Catholic Church [i.e. the papist parachurch] is not going to sacrifice anything from its truths [note: rather its falsehoods]". "In other words", as the Professor of Dogmatics at the Theological School of the Aristotelian University of Thessalonica Demetrius Tselengides writes in an epistle he sent to the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain, "the Pope in the Latin West - through the dogmatically consolidated "infallibility", also affirmed by the Second Vatican Council, and through the contested primacy of authority upon the entire Church - has arbitrarily taken the place of the Spirit of Truth in the Universal Church"[2].
The Papists' constant reiteration of this position leaves no doubt as to what type of union they seek through their dialogues with the Orthodox. They seek a union modelled after the detestable Unia.
Many worthy books par excellence have been written on where the Papists base their arguments for the "primacy", how that came to be and how it was established. As an example, we bring three such paradigmatic informative, scientific and weighty studies: a] St. Nectarius of Pentapolis, Historical study on the causes of the Schism ... and on the question of possibility or not for union; b] Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Chrysostom Papadopoulos, The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome [a historical and critical study], ed. Periodical "Ecclesia", Athens 19642; c] P. N. Trembelas, On the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, ed. "O Soter", Athens 1965.
In this short study that follows, we re-publish five texts that have been previously published in the magazine "O Soter" [Year 2001 Volume] and we reply to the unacceptable position that the Synod of Constantinople [Eighth Ecumenical Synod, AD 879-880] supposedly acknowledged the Pope's "primacy of authority", and that consequently the matter has already been settled since then! ...
We publish these articles supplemented with additional material into one new article on account of the discussions taking place as regards the "role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all nations" in the way that came to be accepted by the Joint International Theological Commission for the theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Papists in Ravenna [8-14 October 2007][1]. The conversation focuses on how we Orthodox need to understand or interpret the blatantly heretical "Papist Primacy", so that the union between Orthodox and Papists is established! ...
The stance held by certain Orthodox on the matter is deplorable, if we are to judge by the things we heard from them during the proceedings of the "Scientific Meeting" entitled "The Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches", organised by the Department of Dogmatic Theology [of the Faculty of Theology] of the Aristotelian University School of Theology on 20 May 2009 in the Ceremonies Hall of the aforementioned University[2].
It is deplorable and extremely worrying because these Orthodox, as Professors of Theology, with their present demeanour not only scandalise the Orthodox fold but they also harm the Papists themselves. Unfortunately, once again it is verified that the words of St. Basil the Great addressed to Bishop Eusebius of Samosata about the Pope and the Westerners of his time have diachronic validity. He wrote: "Truly, when those of a proud nature are flattered, it is natural for them to become more arrogant than they usually are. After all, if the Lord is merciful to us what other help do we need? If however the wrath of God remains against us, then what possible use is there for the help from the Westerners' "eyebrow" [i.e. arrogance, haughtiness, pride]?"[3]
Let the Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph II also instruct us, who went to the pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence [AD 1438-1439] with great courage believing also [rather naively] that the Orthodox would return "triumphant victors"! It was not long however before he was utterly disappointed and confessed: The Latins are "quarrelsome people, vainglorious and inconvincible. They do not come around or consent to our words, nor do they want to submit to the truth[4]."
It is about time we feared the God of Truth. And it is about time we felt for Christ's rational flock, the Christian fold of our Orthodoxy. Let us not wound them with our constant retreats to the heresy of Papism or with our uncompromising union with cacodoxy, believing ourselves to be wiser than the God-bearing Fathers and Orthodoxy's Saints had been.
Unacceptable positions
The Papists do not leave any opportunity that may serve Papism's dreadful ecclesiological heresy on the Papist primacy go unexploited. This way we find "Katholiki", the Uniate Papist newspaper of Greece, on 26 June 2001 republishing an envoy's article from the Athenian newspaper "BEMA" [29 April 2001] entitled "The primacy of the Pope of Rome and the way it is exercised". The article included the following: "More and more people insist that supposedly the Eastern Church [viz. Orthodoxy] does not recognise, not has she ever recognised any primacy to Rome, apart from a mere honorary seniority in the etiquette, we could call it, of the presbygenous patriarchates. This position", the author continued, "is so baseless that it harms the credibility of those who uphold it and renders in advance the outcome of any serious dialogue that promptly aims towards the gradual rapprochement of the two Churches to be impossible. [...] Those who support such a position in good faith, and there are of course many who do, overlook, among other things, that the Synod of Constantinople of 879-880, through which the complete restoration of the relations between Old and New Rome was sealed, adopted a Canon through which not only was the primacy of Rome recognised, as the Synod itself understood it in those days, but also sealed this establishment opposite future doubts and controversy".
Next, the writer of the article insists on the aforementioned Canon, the 1st canon of the Synod of Constantinople in 879-880, about which he says that his Orthodox interpreters, among them the ever-memorable Professor of Dogmatics John Carmiris, gave "a different, diametrically opposite, interpretation to the last paragraph". This interpretation he considers it to be "outrageous"!
It is obvious that the Uniate - Papist newspaper rushed to re-publish the article in question because it supports the positions of the Vatican and in particular the "primacy of authority" that the Pope insists he has.
According to John Carmiris, during the Synod of AD 879-880, the Orthodox supported that "based on a recommendation by the Papal representatives ... any innovation of the honorary rank and privileges of the pope of Rome, i.e. every alteration of the primatus honoris [primacy of honour] of his into primatus jurisdictionis [administrative primacy], was prohibited"[5]. The interpretation of this Canon by the ever-memorable Professor John Carmiris is not at all "outrageous", as we shall be proved further down.
Before we do this however we first have to reply to the article's accusation that the position held by the Orthodox, that "the Eastern Church does not recognise, nor has she ever recognised any primacy for Rome, apart from a mere honorary primacy in the etiquette ... of the presbygenous patriarchates" is "baseless". This position is not at all baseless."
Ecclesiastical History confirms that during the course of the first three centuries we do not find any event during whose course the Church recognised any administrative primacy to the Bishop of Rome. During that period, the Church of Christ was not being governed "monarchically" nor was it receiving orders from Rome. Ecclesiastical Synods would convene unbeknownst to the Bishop of Rome. Bishops would be elected and judged without any interference from the Bishop of Rome.
This tactic is also confirmed by the Apostolic Canons where the principles for the governance of the Church of Christ during the first centuries have been recorded. The great and most significant authority of these Canons has already been evidenced by the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod [AD 325] in its 1st, 2nd, 5th, 9th and 10th Canons. According to the Apostolic Canons, every local Church would be governed by her own Bishop [cf. Apostolic Canons 32, 35, 38, 39, and 76], while any type of interference of a Bishop in another Bishop's jurisdiction was prohibited [Apostolic Canons 34, 35].
The local episcopates [communities] constituted the local Churches, each one of which would be governed by the "first" as its "head". However, the "first" would never do anything without the concordant opinion of the other Bishops, just as none of the others would do something without the concordant opinion of the "first". "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing superfluous without his opinion; each one must only do whatever is within his own community, and in the lands that are subject to it. But neither should he do anything without the opinion of the others; for that is how there will be concord ..." [Apostolic Canon 34]. In other words: the bishops of every land must acknowledge who is "first" among them; that is, bishops must know who their Metropolitan is, and regard him as the "head", and not do anything without his opinion that may be superfluous; namely, anything that does not pertain to the parishes of the bishop's own episcopate, but attempts to transgress this. Each and every bishop may act without obtaining the opinion of his Metropolitan, only on whatever belongs to the limits of his own episcopacy and in the territories that fall within those boundaries. But even the Metropolitan must not proceed with anything of common concern "on his own and according to his own opinion", without the opinion of all his bishops. Only in this way can concord exist.... Therefore, the Bishop of Rome likewise had jurisdiction ONLY over his own episcopate whose "head" he was, and no other[6].
This system applied during the first three centuries of Ecclesiastic History. What ensued in the centuries that followed we shall describe further along.
The difference between "Primacy of Honour" and "Primacy of Authority"
As already mentioned above, during the first three centuries, the Church of Christ solved all the emerging problems by means of local Synods. There is no instance where the Church had sought the resolution of an issue of general ecclesiastical nature, only by the Bishop of Rome. However, from the 4th century onwards, on account of the major issues that had appeared, which had been caused by the various heresies, these issues were discussed and resolved by Ecumenical Synods. In these Synods, the representatives of the Bishop of Rome were accorded first place, not because he had any authority over all the other Bishops, but because the Bishop of Rome was regarded as the "first" in honour among all the other "first" Bishops. He was acknowledged "honourably" as "first" because his See was situated in Rome, the State capital. At the time when the Holy First Ecumenical Synod [AD 325] was convened, "firsts" were the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. They were regarded as equals among themselves, in compliance with the 6th canon of the First Ecumenical Synod.
When the Ecumenical Synods bestowed Bishops with a primacy of "honour" and determined the order of the "firsts", they would only accept as a basis for this determination the political significance associated with the cities in which these older hierarchs were Bishops. This, after all, is the reason that the Holy Canons command "to co-adjust ecclesiastical things with political ones" for the preservation and increment of a state's "cohesion". This principle was upheld both in the East and in the West, throughout all the centuries.
Besides, "the first characteristic of every Ecumenical [Synods] is that they must be convened upon the orders not of the Pope or a certain Patriarch, but by royal commands"[7]. "Pope" was the title given to the Bishops of Rome from the 8th century onwards. It should be noted however that the Bishop of Alexandria was already being addressed as "Pope", even before the 8th century; as for the title "Patriarch", it began to be bestowed during the reign of emperor Theodosius II the [AD 408-450].
Ecumenical Synods were usually presided over by those who were first among the ranks of Bishops, and not by the Papal "legati" [=envoys, representatives]. No Bishop of Rome had ever been present in person, during any of the Ecumenical Synods. As for the solving of various issues that were discussed during Ecumenical Synods, the one who could have authority and influence - and essentially did have - was only the one who stood out for the constancy, integrity, clarity and strength of his Orthodox convictions; that is, anyone who presented himself and proved himself to be a genuine expresser and representative of the evangelical truth, even if he were not a Bishop. A characteristic example of this is St. Athanasius the Great who played a very basic and important role in the Holy First Ecumenical Synod, even though at the time he was only a young archdeacon of the Church of Alexandria.
After all, the validity and legitimacy of the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods were dependent just as much on the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as they were on the validation by any other Patriarch. Moreover, the decisions of the Holy Synods, in which neither the Pope nor his representatives were present, these had absolute and complete validity and were of a compulsory nature for all the Bishops. They were just as compulsory for the Bishop of Rome.
During the course of the first eight centuries, in other words during the period prior to the devastating Schism, when the Church of Christ was still united, the supreme authority in the Church belonged exclusively to the Ecumenical Synods. They were the ones that authentically and infallibly formulated the teaching of the Church; they were the ones who judged the Bishops, even if the Bishop was a Pope or a Patriarch. It is well-known that the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod [AD 680] condemned the Patriarchs of Constantinople Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul II and Peter, Pope of Rome Honorius, Cyrus of Alexander and others.
Now, if the Ecumenical Synods gave a "primacy of honour" to the Pope, in parallel to all the other Patriarchs, this was not an authority or leadership. Because there can be "primacy" among equals. Whereas leadership or authority presuppose subordinates, subjects and the subjugated.
The "primacy" that was recognized in the Pope was only a primacy of honour and not a privilege of authority and leadership. Besides, the Holy Second Ecumenical Synod had also bestowed the "equal rank of honour" as that of the bishop of Rome to the Bishop of Constantinople. The God-bearing Fathers of this Synod decided: "Τον μεν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Επίσκοπον έχειν τα πρεσβεία της τιμής μετά τον της Ρώμης Επίσκοπον, δια το είναι αυτήν Νέαν Ρώμην" [Canon 3]. [The Bishop of Constantinople should have the rank of honour immediately after that of the Bishop of Rome, on account of Constantinople being the New Rome and is called such for this reason. However, in this case, the preposition "after" as correctly interpreted by St. Nicodemus the Haghiorite "does not denote a later point in time", as some interpret, "but neither a demotion or a reduction" as others do, but "it denotes an equality in honour and rank, according to which, the one is first, the other is second, in order of honour"[8].
The Holy Fourth Ecumenical Synod institutes similar things with its 28th Canon, whereby, according to Saint Nicodemus' interpretation: "Just as the Fathers had rightly given privileges to the throne of Old Rome on account of the presence of regency in that city - in other words, that he [the city's Bishop] be addressed as the "first" of all the other Patriarchs in rank, thus likewise they gave equal and identical honorary privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome - that is, of Constantinople." [9].
But the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod also instituted the same things. In its 36th Canon it mentions: "We stipulate that the throne of Constantinople is to enjoy equal honours with that of Old Rome". In other words, the God-bearing Fathers of this Synod were stipulating that the Bishop of Constantinople "should enjoy equal and the same privileges as the bishop of Rome [...], being second to him only in rank"[10].
The 1st, 3rd, 4th Ecumenical Synods and the Synods of Constantinople of AD 867 and 869 on the "Primacy" of the Pope
The Metropolitan system of the ancient Church, which was not at all monarchic, is interpreted in an excellent manner by the 6th Canon of the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod [AD 325]. It states: "The ancient customs should be preserved, the ones in Egypt and in Libya and in Pentapolis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria will have authority over all of these [places], because this [the ethos, custom] is also usual for the Bishop in Rome. Similarly in Antioch and in the other provinces, the ranks of honour are preserved by the Churches". This Canon testifies that the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch "were regarded as equals towards each other". The Canon says; in the same way that the Bishop of Rome has the same custom [ethos] as the Bishop of Alexandria, thus does he have the same authority as he does. Furthermore, the same Canon testifies that the system in the ancient Church was not a monarchic one. It also interprets that "the Bishops were not assigned under only one Bishop, nor were all the Churches under one Church. All Bishops and all Churches were administratively independent of each other. But among all the Bishops, the one of Rome was recognized as the "first throne", for being the Bishop of the capital city of the State. His status did not differ from the status of the Patriarch of Constantinople that he now has in the Orthodox Church"[11].
On the Latins' insistence that the Holy 3rd Ecumenical Synod [AD 431] had proclaimed the "primacy" of authority of the Bishop of Rome in the overall-universal Church, we refer the reader to the wonderful scientific work of the Archbishop of Athens Chrysostom Papadopoulos, The 3rd Ecumenical Synod and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Reply to the encyclical of Pius XI "Lux Veritatis", Athens, 1932. The truth is that the Holy 3rd Ecumenical Synod not only did not alter, but with the same decree had supported the existing order in Church administration even more. "It strictly prohibited the violation of the rights that belonged to the local episcopal thrones of the Administrations and the Provinces, according to the custom that prevailed long before, during ancient times" and "it proved that it was foreign to any notion of monarchical primacy", that is, of "the authority of one episcopal throne over the others"[12].
Nor did the Holy 4th Ecumenical Synod [AD 451] recognize any "primacy" in the Bishop of Rome. Like the 3rd Ecumenical Synod, it too repulsed every notion of administrative primacy for the Bishop of Rome. "Glaringly evident proof of this is all that [ took place] during the [discussion] of the sensational 28th Canon of this Synod"[13].
This is the situation that prevailed in the Church during the first 8 centuries.
We now come to respond to the claim that the 8th Ecumenical Synod [Synod of Constantinople of 879-880] had supposedly recognised and sanctioned the "primacy" of authority for the Bishop of Rome!
The arbitrary intervention by Pope Nicolas I in the internal affairs of the Church of Constantinople, which was brought on by the deposing of Patriarch Ignatius and the election as Patriarch of Photios the Great [despite his involuntariness] in 858AD is well-known. Pope Nicholas I was the one who had presented the Church of Rome as an ecumenical Church! He therefore perceived this as an opportunity to impose himself on the Eastern Church also. However, his scandalous interventions in the internal administrative affairs of the Bishop of Constantinople were repulsed and condemned by the Synod of Constantinople of AD 867. This Synod, "condemned and anathematised the unprecedented for the Church of the East and with such arrogance projected ‘primacy' [of the Pope], by means of which "the canonical order that was designated by the Ecumenical Synods as well as the independence of the Patriarchal thrones was being overturned" and by means of which "the Bishop of Rome striving to render himself the absolute monarch over the catholic [= entire] Church"[14].
But also in the Synod of Constantinople of AD 869, the independence, autonomy and equality of the five Patriarchal thrones had been supported without any objection by the Papists. Furthermore, every notion of a monarchic primacy or a primacy of authority for Rome was rejected. In this manner, "the Papal primacy with its new meaning", which had been presented in a dictatorial and anti-ecclesiastic manner by pope Nicholas I, was not accepted by this Synod either[15].
However, the primacy of the Pope's authority was also rejected triumphantly at the Synod of AD 879-880. This Synod is the last general Synod of the united ancient Church of Christ. Both the Fathers and the ecclesiastical authors characterized it as the 8th Ecumenical Synod. But even the Synod itself had characterised itself many times in its Minutes as "Ecumenical". [For more information read here].
The Synod of AD 879-880 was convened by Photios the Great, who had already risen to the rank of Patriarch. He was also the one who presided over the Synod, while three representatives of the Pope also participated, as well as three representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, 18 Metropolitans and many Bishops from the ecclesiastic administrations of Thrace, Pontus, Ephesus, Illyria and Southern Italy; 383 Bishops in all. This Synod was truly imposing. Unanimity prevailed; its activities were conducted smoothly, and during its fifth Session the Minutes of the Holy 7th Ecumenical Synod were acknowledged by everyone.
Further along we shall comment upon the truly important first Canon of this Synod, which directly relates to our topic.
The important Synod of AD 879-880 in Constantinople
At this most important Synod of Constantinople of AD 879-880, it was clarified that the reinstatement of Photios to the patriarchal throne was not accomplished by the Pope, the way that the Pope had wanted it to be acknowledged. The latter had acknowledged the reinstatement as a finalized matter. It is however characteristic that, with regard to the renowned decree of the 1st Canon of this Synod, the Papist historians had attempted to dispute its authenticity! But because they did not succeed, they attempted to misinterpret it and ascribe to it a meaning according to which this decree supposedly does not limit, but rather it validates, the privileges of the Pope and the Papist church! ...
Unfortunately for the Papists, the truth of the matter differs. The purpose of the decree - as can be surmised in general, both from the Minutes of the Synod as well as from the content of the decree - was to avert the anomalies that arose from the fact that clerics convicted in Constantinople resorted to the West in order to be acquitted! In fact, there were followers of Ignatius who, encouraged by Rome, did not recognize Patriarch Photios!
However the tendency of Pope Nicholas I and his successors to arbitrarily acquit clergymen of another Church, whom She had condemned - or to condemn clergymen of another church by anti-canonically intervening in its internal affairs - was an obvious innovation. The same should of course have applied for any possible anti-canonical out-of-bounds intervention by the Patriarch of Constantinople in the internal affairs of the Church of Rome, and the possible acceptance and acquittal by the Patriarch of Constantinople of Latin clerics who had been condemned by Rome.
Pursuant to this paragraph, the decree ends as follows: "...on none of the ranks of honour that belong to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans or to Her President (or Primate) overall shall we innovate now, or later on". The rank of honour referred to here, is the one that pertained to the Pope.
These had already been determined by the 6th Canon of the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod, the 3rd Canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod, the 28th of the 4th Ecumenical Synod and the 36th of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod. Subsequently, with the aforementioned decree, every innovation to the privileges of the Bishop of Rome was forbidden, as was every transformation - both now and in the future - of the "primacy of honour" into a "primacy of authority" As the Archbishop of Athens Chrysostom Papadopoulos correctly observes "through the aforementioned decree, the Patriarch of Constantinople was equated to the Patriarch of Rome, and subsequently every transgression by the latter [the Pope] was forbidden. Not only was the Bishop of Constantinople equated to the Bishop of Rome, but Photios himself was personally elevated above Pope John." The Patriarchs of the East had praised Photios with their epistles. Michael of Alexandria addressed him as "a luminous and illuminated person, the perfection of Priesthood, the gnomon of truth, arch-pastor of the Church of God". Theodosius of Jerusalem referred to him as "head of the body of the Church". Theodosius of Antioch as "holy father" while Avramius of Amida also called him "holy father". But even the papal representatives compared Photios "to the sun" that illuminates "all of creation". During the last session, where Procopius of Caesaria in praise of Photios had said: "this is the kind of person that should truly have the supervision of the entire world - in the manner of the arch-shepherd, Christ our God", the papal representatives had added: What you said is true "and we, who live at the end of the earth, these are the same things that we hear"! But even before these words were uttered, the same representatives had said[16]: "Blessed be our God, for the good fame of the most holy Photios the Patriarch has reached not only our land, but all over the world". And yet, Saint Photios "did not puff up [become arrogant, pompous, haughty] on account of these praises, and he never sought to exercise an office above the one set by the holy canons".
It is also worth noting that the Synod of AD 879-880 ended with the following statements about Photios: "Paul and Eugene, the most holy Bishops and vicars of Old Rome, also Peter, the very God-fearing presbyter and cardinal, said: if someone does not consider him [Photios] to be a holy Patriarch and does not respect communion with him, let his portion be with that of Judas and let him not be included at all among the Christians. And the Holy Synod cried out: all of us believe and think the same, and if someone does not consider him a Hierarch of God, let him not see the glory of God"[17].
Pope John VIII initially acknowledged this Synod, after being notified of its Minutes. The Latins however did not want the Minutes to be published! At the same time they attempted to alter them, or to deny their authenticity! ... Scientifically however, all these attempts have now been refuted so, nowadays both the authority of that historic Synod, as well as its Minutes "remains incontestable".
A timely blow against the Papist primacy of authority
It was very natural that the decision of the historic Synod of AD 879-880 would displease the Pope. For this reason, on account of certain complaints made by the Pope against this most important Synod [chiefly because the Church of Bulgaria was not ceded to his jurisdiction and because Patriarch Photios had not officially expressed his gratitude towards the Roman Church in that Synod, for the recognition on their part of Photios], Latin historians asserted that the Papal representatives who had participated in the aforementioned Synod: a] had violated the instructions that had been given to them; b] were not familiar with the Hellenic language and for this reason were not in a position to properly whatever was being discussed; c] were bribed! ... But these arguments by the Franco-Latin historians merely prove that either the Pope's representatives were incapable of faithfully upholding Rome's guidelines or, that when observing and familiarizing themselves with matters at close range, they perceived the irrationality of the Pope's demands[18]. Besides, the two Bishops [representatives] of the Pope had remained in Constantinople for about two years prior to the Synod of AD 879-880 and therefore it was only natural that they would have learnt and subsequently comprehended the Hellenic language very well. Furthermore, Cardinal Peter, a member of the Pope's delegation at the Synod, had vividly participated in the Synod's discussions, proving his familiarity with the Hellenic language. Moreover, all three Papal representatives "were convinced by and acquiesced on the decisions" during the Synod.
Apart from the other very positive results of the aforementioned Synod, it was also "proven" that the Bishop of Rome "is not the ruler of the catholic [entire] Church; that his authority is not absolute and therefore he had improperly and mom-canonically intervened in the internal affairs of the Church of Constantinople [...]. Hence a timely blow was struck against Papal authority, given that it had expressed itself with non-canonical acts. The new primacy of authority was rebutted. It was accepted that the Pope of Rome is one of the five Patriarchs of the catholic [overall] Church and that the honorary primacy that he has -along with them- does not give him the right for arbitrary transgressions [...]. Through this [Synod], the Church had once more officially refuted the primacy of authority of the Bishop of Rome. The decisions of this Synod were in accordance with what the preceding Ecumenical Synods had instituted, in compliance with the Tradition of the Church"[19].
Conclusion
Pursuant to the above, it is proven that the united Church during the first millennium had never acknowledged in the Bishop of Rome "a primacy of authority and power at a universal level". It only admitted that the Bishop of Rome was first among equals (primus inter pares) - among the five Patriarchs. It conceded that he, just like the Bishop of Antioch, did not inherit any privilege of administrative authority or office from the Apostle Peter, who -after all- was never the head or any kind of monarch of the Christian world, nor was he the founder of the Church of Rome, nor had he ever served as bishop for a long time in Rome. Furthermore, the Bishop of Rome is not a successor of the Apostle Peter, given that Peter had never been Bishop of Rome. These claims have no historical basis[20]. But even if we accept that the Apostle Peter had founded the Church of Rome, so what? Was that the only Church that he had founded? Both he and the Apostle Paul had founded many Churches.
Therefore, the office of Pope was the same as the office of the other Patriarchs. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Ecumenical Synods, which had spoken of the "primacy of honour" for the Bishop of Rome, did not state that they had determined this as a "divine right" or "by divine command and in relation to the Apostle Peter"; they had determined it thus, because Rome was the ancient capital of the State. Besides, it was for this reason that the throne of Constantinople was honoured "for Her being the New Rome"[21].
This, therefore, has been the steadfast faith of the Eastern Orthodox Church, who has continued to unswervingly uphold the guideline, the teaching and the tradition of the united Church of the first eight centuries. This was also declared by the response of the Synod of Constantinople of 1895 to Pope Leo XIII, who had been inviting the Orthodox to a union with Rome, on the basis of the principles of the Latin Unia! That significant Patriarchal and Synodical Epistle, which had been sent to the Pope in August of 1895, mentioned among other things [excerpt conveyed here in an English translation]:
"XVI. Each particular self-governing Church, both in the East and West, was totally independent and self-administered in the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. And just as the bishops of the self-governing Churches of the East, so also those of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany and Britain managed the affairs of their own Churches, each by their local synods, the Bishop of Rome having no right to interfere, and he himself also was equally subject and obedient to the decrees of synods. But on important questions which needed the sanction of the universal Church an appeal was made to an Ecumenical Council, which alone was and is the supreme tribunal in the universal Church. Such was the ancient constitution of the Church; but the bishops were independent of each other and each entirely free within his own bounds, obeying only the synodical decrees, and they sat as equal one to another in synods"[22]. Moreover, none of them ever laid claim to monarchical rights over the universal Church; and ii sometimes certain ambitious bishops of Rome raised excessive claims to an absolutism unknown to the Church, such were duly reproved and rebuked The assertion therefore of Leo XIII, when he says in his Encyclical that before the period of the great Photius the name of the Roman throne was holy among all the peoples of the Christian world, and that the East, like the West, with one accord and without opposition, was subject to the Roman pontiff as lawful successor, so to say, of the Apostle Peter, and consequently vicar of Jesus Christ on earth is proved to be inaccurate and a manifest error.
XVII. During the nine centuries of the Ecumenical Councils the Eastern Orthodox Church never recognized the excessive claims of primacy on the part of the bishops of Rome, nor consequently did she ever submit herself to them, as Church history plainly bears witness [...]".
These are the things that prevailed up until the time that the Church was united. This position is summarised very nicely by Professor Demetrius Tselengides, who writes:
During the first millennium, when the Church was united, "the supreme authority in the Universal Church was exercised always and only by the Ecumenical Synods. Besides, the Orthodox Church had never accepted the papal primacy, the way it was perceived and interpreted by the 1st Vatican Council [1869-1870], which had proclaimed the Pope as the infallible expresser of the conscience of the Church, with the ability to contradict even those decisions by an Ecumenical Synod!" With this decision, the heretic Papists "not only invalidate the synodic system of administration of the Church; they essentially invalidate that very presence of the Holy Spirit in Her"[23].
Now that the "Church" of Rome is clearly heretical, the primacy of honour in the Orthodox Church is held by the Patriarch of Constantinople ["for her being New Rome"], who is, however, "the first among equals". Every other position is inadmissible and constitutes an entirely illegitimate and conceited claim to disastrous authoritarianism in the Church and a Luciferian mindset.
Those who strive to support this antichristian mindset are doing so in vain and are committing a grave sin. This is the reason that every time this foreign mindset appeared the Church reacted, checked it, castigated it and rejected it. That is why there can be no substantial dialogue with the Vatican as long as the Pope continues to persist in the accursed "primacy of authority" which is a horrible ecclesiological heresy, as are "infallibility", the procession of the Holy Spirit "and from the Son " [Filioque] and his other heresies.
"Papal primacy: a Hideous Ecclesiological Heresy"
NICHOLAS P. VASILIADES
BROTHERHOOD OF THEOLOGIANS "O SOTER" - ATHENS 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Cf. the Ravenna Document: Ecclesiological and Canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority.
[2] Cf. "The Theological Dialogue between Orthodoxy and Papism", magazine "O Soter", issue 1985, pp. 361-363 and issue 1986, pp. 390-392
[3] St. BASIL THE GREAT, Epistles 239, To Eusebius Bishop of Samosata, PG 32, 893B
[4] S. SYROPOULOS, Les "MEMOIRS" sur le Concile de Florence [1438-1439], supervised byV. Laurent, ed. Du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1971, Vol. VII, Chap. 22, p. 372 [17-21]. For more cf. NIK. P. VASILIADES, St. Mark the Eugenicus and the Union of the Churches. Edition "O Soter", 20076, p.109
[5] JOHN CARMIRIS, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Vol. 1, Athens 19602, p.267
[6] For more see also CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, The primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Historical and critical study, ed. Periodical "Ecclesia", Athens 19642, pp. 15-20.
[7] Cf. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Rudder of the noetic nous of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, ed. "Aster", Al. and E. Papadimitriou, Athens 1970, "Prolegomena" to the Holy 1st Ecumenical Synod, p.118, footnote 1.
[8] St. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Rudder, pp. 157-158
[9] St. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Hermeneutics on the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Synod, Rudder, pp. 207-208
[10] St. NICODEMUS THE HAGHIORITE, Rudder, p.252
[11] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit., p.22
[12] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit., p.71
[13] For more information cf. CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. pp. 78-86
[14] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.176
[15] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.184
[16] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. pp. 192-193. Mansi XVI, 521; 524
[17] Mansi XVII, 524
[18] Cf. CONSTANTINE PAPARREGOPOULOS, History of the Hellenic Nation, ed. Eleutheroudakis, Athens 1932, Vol. 4, Part 1, p.265
[19] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. pp. 198-199
[20] For more information cf. CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.10
[21] CHRYSOSTOM PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit. p.204. For the position and role of Apostle Peter in the Church, see the beautiful and very informative study of P. N. TREMBELAS On the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, ed. "O Soter", Athens 1965
[22] For the entire text of the very important reply cf. JOHN CARMIRIS, The Dogmatic and Symbol Records of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Vol. 2, Graz-Austria 19682, p.932[1018]-946a[1032]
[23] Letter of DEMETRIUS TSELENGIDES, To the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Newspaper KATHOLIKI [instrument of the Uniates of Greece], Athens 16.10.1963
[2] Cf. Letter of the Professor of the theological School of the A.U.T. DEMETRIUS TSELENGIDES to the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain [www.romfea.gr, 14.9.2009]
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
