Letter (Aug. 30, 2016) to the Archbishop and Hierarchy of the Church of Greece on the "Council" in Crete
Thessaloniki, 30/8/2016
To: The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece
I. Gennadios 14, 115 21 Athens
CC: To all of the Hierarchs of the Church of Greece
Your Beatitude and Holy President of the Synod,
Your Eminences, Holy Hierarchs,
In
view of the upcoming convocation of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy, I
would like to lay before you my small "Trilogy", for I believe that it
may in some way aid in the support of the unity of our Church.
This
"Trilogy" touches upon the surpassing value of the Spiritual unity of
the Church, the brutal abuse of the unity of the Church, and the
identification of the Church with its Administration.
I. The Surpassing Value of the Spiritual Unity of the Church
The
so-called Holy and Great Council of the Crete was called, according to
its originators and organizers, in order to express the unity of the
Church. However, the convening of a Pan-Orthodox Council for the purpose
of showcasing the unity of the Church is unknown and foreign to the
history of the Councils of the Orthodox Church. The truth of the matter,
as became apparent after the convening of the Council, is that not only
was this ambitious aim not realized, but, rather, events revealed the
veiled cunning of its organizers. However, let us examine just what the
unity of the Church consists, and in what way this particular "Council"
"proclaimed" it.
The
unity of the Church, as its foundational attribute, is a given in the
very nature of the Church and expresses the Church's self-understanding,
which was historically formulated in the Oros-Decision laid down by the
Second Ecumenical Council (381), which then became the Church's Symbol
of Faith (or Creed).
In
the Symbol of Faith we confess that we believe "in One, Holy, Catholic
and Apostolic Church." If, however, the Church is "One" - according to
our Creed - then, strictly speaking, there cannot be heterodox-heretical
Churches.
The
unity of the Church, as an attribute of the one body of the Church, is
absolutely and irrevocably assured by Her Head, Christ, through the
continual presence of the Holy Spirit in Her, already from Pentecost.
To
begin with, we must state that the unity of men with the Triune God and
between themselves - which constitutes the highest level of unity among
men - is the main and essential aim of the entire Divine Economy, which
was expressed through the incarnation of the Son and Word of God, but
more particularly by the establishment of His Church.
The
Church, as the mysteriological body of Christ, is the charismatic space
where the unity of the faithful is established, lived and made visible
as the image of the unity of the Triune God. Accordingly, then, the
theological and ontological presuppositions for the relation of the
faithful to the Triune unity are found in the establishment and
composition of the Church as the theanthropic body of Christ, in which
the faithful are befitted as His organic members. The unfailing unity of
the Church is guaranteed by Christ Himself as Her theanthropic Head.
The
unity of the Church, per se, is ontologically unbreakable and is
institutionally revealed in the faith, worship and administration of the
Church. This triple unity is grounded in the three-fold office of
Christ and draws from it; namely, the offices of prophet, priest and
king. Consequently, these three manifestations of the unity of the
Church must be understood as organically inter-dependent,
inter-penetrating and inseparably co-ordinated with the one and complete
unity of the Church.
The
unity of the Church, as a whole, while given mysteriologically, is
preserved and cultivated through the observance of the divine
commandments and is revealed, par excellence, eucharistically.
Consequently, this unity does not exist as a quality of our nature, nor
is it, much more, a result of an autonomous activity of men, but rather
consists of the fruit and gift of the Holy Spirit, within the context of
the mysteriological body of Christ alone, that is, within His one and
only Church. This is the case because this unity presupposes the
heavenly, uncreated and charismatic birth and therapy of human nature
from the ontological illness of sin, through the mystery of Holy Baptism
and the gift of uncreated divine grace and energy of the Holy Spirit in
the mystery of Holy Chrismation.
Thus,
the uncreated Reign of God within the faithful is established
irrevocably, which, however, remains active only under the
presupposition of the loving observance of the divine commandments, but
also the blameless partaking of the divine-acting mysteries of the
Church. It is precisely this Reign of God active within the faithful
which constitutes their essential ontological unity, firstly with the
Triune God and consequently between themselves, for then it is that the
charismatic-mysteriological appropriation of the Grace of the Holy
Spirit is manifest and the faithful are, in practice, made one Spirit
with the Triune God and between themselves. Then, that which unites them
- namely, the unifying power - is the uncreated divine love, given and
active charismatically within them, the divine glory and Reign, as was
lived historically by the elect disciples of Christ during His
transfiguration, and later by all of His disciples from the day of
Pentecost onward.
The
way in which this ecclesiastical unity is brought about is not created
but uncreated. This is confirmed for us by the incarnate Hypostatic
Truth in His High-Priestly Prayer. The core of the High-Priestly Prayer
is concerned with unity, both with regard to its ontological character
and the way in which it is acquired and appropriated: "And the glory
which thou gavest me, I have given them," says Christ to God the Father,
"that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me,
that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that
thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me" (John 17:
22-23).
In
other words, the uncreated Glory and Reign of the Triune God is not
only the way in which this Theanthropic unity is realized, but it is
also the unique spiritual "key" to the "unspeakable" experience and
"incomprehensible" knowledge of this unity, as the manifestation of the
uncreated love of God the Father which is imparted through Christ and
made one's own experientially in the Holy Spirit. The degree of the
charismatic unity of the faithful, as created beings, is comparable -
always analogously - to the degree of the natural uncreated unity which
God the Father has with His Son in the Holy Spirit.
From
the Scriptural passage above, it follows that the aim of the Triune God
for the faithful - clergy, monks, laymen, unmarried and married - is
the exactly the same, without exception, for all and to the same degree.
The aim is for all to become one Spirit with the Triune God and between
themselves, in order for them to reach "unreachably" uncreated
perfection and to taste it in this present life, for only in this way
can they experientially witness to His perfect and uncreated love and to
offer, in obedience to God, their missionary service to a world
alienated from God.
Consequently,
only in the Holy Spirit, that is, only uncreatedly, can we become one
in the Church, for the Holy Spirit, which we receive charismatically
through Her, is an uncreated reality. Through this uncreated unity the
present life, but also the future eternal life of the faithful, obtains
value to the highest degree as the aim of the Triune God in His one and
only Church. Within the context of this charismatic unity of the Church,
neither the refined idolizations of the married (both spouses and
children), nor of the unmarried (clergy or monastic), of any person or
institution, have any existential place whatsoever. Thus, if some form
of ecclesiastical unity happens to be idolized and clergy of all ranks
and laity appear as worshippers, this means that this form of unity is
created and autonomous from the Church itself, and, therefore, clearly
to be rejected, as foreign to its character.
The
perfect and charismatic unity of the Church is, according to St. John
Chrysostom, understood and revealed in practice as harmony as to the
phronema (mindset) - faith -, but also as harmony as to the internal
disposition - love. First of all, however, unity presupposes the
same-uniform phronema. Indeed, it is the oneness of mind that, in
practice, guarantees unity, whereas love - according to the same Father-
derives from the right faith (PG 62, 509). That is precisely the reason
that the "ἐν ἑνί στόματι καί μιᾷ καρδίᾳ" [with one mouth and one heart]
doxology of the Triune God in the divine worship presupposes not only
the faith, but necessarily also a life in the Holy Spirit, which is,
most essentially, a life of genuine and uncreated love. With these
experiential presuppositions, both the unity of the Church, as a whole,
and the unity of the faithful, as members of the Church, have their
visual manifestation in the Eucharistic Assembly, within the context of
Divine Worship.
From
all that has been stated above, we believe that it is clear and
absolutely understandable, that, both ontologically and practically,
unity with heretics condemned by Ecumenical Councils is totally
impossible without their repentance and entry - in accordance with the
Holy Canons - into the One and only, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church, the Orthodox Church.
It
is, therefore, also obvious that the unconditional and arbitrary
"ecclesiasticalization" of heretics by the so-called "Holy and Great
Council of Crete" is ecclesiastically unacceptable, void and
ineffectual, and constitutes spiritual adultery, which, according to the
Old Testament, is an abomination to God, Who is a "zealous" God. This
anti-canonical "ecclesiasticalization" in no way binds,
ecclesiastically, any Orthodox believer who wants to remain - being
truly faithful - true to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, "a
follower" - in this particular way - "of the holy fathers."
II. The Brutal Abuse of the Unity of the Church
Over
the past few decades, those among the ecumenists - whether they be
Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests or lay theologians - have often referred to
the unity of the Church in an entirely misleading way, extensively
misusing the High Priestly Prayer of Christ and especially its central
phrase: «ἵνα ὦσιν ἕν», or "that they all may be one".
The
systematic effort to carry out the brutal abuse of the unity of the
Church began as early as 1961, fifty-five years ago, with the
Pre-Synodical Conferences. Hence, the conclusions of the "Council" of
Crete, which are of a dogmatic character, do not simply represent a
sudden and serious theological misstep, but rather a pre-planned,
systematically promoted and decades-old objective of the advocates of
Ecumenism within the Orthodox Church. This "Council" chose whatever was
most exalted, most sacred in the Church - Her unbreakable unity,
grounded in the Holy Spirit - and profaned it all the while claiming to
defend and promote it. At the same time, with the pre-synodical and
synodical proceedings - based upon the Organization and Working
Procedure of the "Council" of Crete - and all of the accompanying
activity, the Spirit-inspired, conciliar way of our Most Holy Church was
terribly misrepresented.
In
particular, during both the Synaxis of the Primates and representatives
of the Autocephalous Churches in Chambésy, Switzerland and the
"Council" of Crete, there dominated a deceptive promotion, in a
misleading manner, as a frontispiece, of the supreme value of the unity
of the Church without, however, the meaning of "the unity of the Church"
having been previously determined with all theological exactitude, just
as Orthodox ecumenists had previously done with reference to the term
"love".
An
unspecified theological unity was systematically projected, and,
simultaneously, unity having been made absolute, autonomous and an idol,
the bugaboo of division was cultivated psychologically, with the
slogan: "we must not be divided." The result was that the papal view of
the "protos" ruled the day and pre-planned, unacceptable concessions and
dogmatic discounts were advanced, so that the "phil-adelphi" (love of
one's brother) ecumenist theory of unity was blindly adopted by its
admirers as a panacea, and "phil-theia" (love of God) set aside. They
promoted the supreme and surpassing value of the High Priestly Prayer,
aiming, in an autonomous and unconditional manner, at the condensing of
the content of ecclesiastical unity, which the Biblical phrase "that
they all may be one" expresses, and they abused it, just as was done by
the heterodox Roman Catholics and Protestants. They promoted, in other
words, a unity, essentially unspecified, theologically baseless and
primarily without presuppositions. Thus, the Hierarchs which gathered in
Crete, as ones not walking "in the Holy Spirit and Truth," did not
"rightly divide the word of Truth," for, in the name of a unity wrongly
conceived they made compromises in terms of dogma.
To
be even more precise, at the "Council" of Crete, after the
theoretically always accepted ontological unity of the Church, as the
unity of Her fullness in Christ and in the Holy Spirit with God the
Father, was essentially set aside, an attempt was made to synodically
ratify a new, strange, two-fold ecclesiology.
The
result of the vote of the "unequally yoked" Primates in favor of the
council's 6th text was a heterogeneous "fabrication," a "grotesque
distortion," a "monstrosity." This came to pass because of the
commingling of Orthodox and heterodox ecclesiology, since the heterodox,
those condemned by Ecumenical Councils as heretics, were reckoned to be
Churches.
Without
considerable theological or spiritual scrutiny, those Hierarchs voting
in favor of the text accepted heretics as Churches. They appeared to
accepted - theoretically - the ontological unity of the Church while
simultaneously recognizing "ecclesiality" among the heretics. Thus, they
introduced a new teaching - a cacodox ecclesiology. In practice, they
have adopted post-Patristic theology and theological double-mindedness.
Instead of the scriptural, "yea, yea," and "nay, nay" (Mat. 5:37), they
accepted the "yea" and "nay" of syncretistic Ecumenism, the
theologically and spiritually unacceptable and abominable communion of
"light" with "darkness" (see: 2 Cor. 6:14).
However,
with the theologically and spiritually repugnant double-mindedness and
two-fold ecclesiology introduced by those Hierarchs voting in favor of
the 6th text, the character of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church is undermined and distorted, the "door" to every Christian heresy
is flung open, the pan-heresy of Ecumenism is legitimized synodically
and, practically speaking, Orthodox Ecclesiology - defined with great
theological precision in the Oros and Symbol of Faith of the Second
Ecumenical Council - is distorted.
The
Hierarchs which gathered in Crete approved - light-heartedly and
without much scrutiny, motivated by a perverted and diabolical
"brotherly love" and desire to please men - a counterfeit ecclesiastical
unity, which is understood to be a synthesis of the diachronic
Spiritual, charismatic experience of the Orthodox Church with a unity of
an heretical character, introduced by the deceptive spirits of
delusion.
Thus,
at the "Council" of Crete the already existing, serious absence of
criteria for deceit-free, orthodox theologizing was made apparent. The
Spiritual gift of discerning the spirits, foundational for the spiritual
leader, was experientially shown to be absent in those who voted in
favor of the disputed text. This is so for they confused the Holy Spirit
with the unclean spirits, not discerning - in practice - the Holy
Spirit, which vivifies the Theanthropic body of the Church, from the
unclean spirits, which dominate within the heresies.
Carefully
considering the "conciliar" process and the results of the voting, we
come to see clearly, but with pain of heart, that those Hierarchs which
voted in favor were not looking to Christ but to the "Protos."
Consequently, they were unable to labor as συν-οδικοί [members of the
synod, lit. together on the way], literally speaking, since they were
not - practically - "following the Holy Fathers," both in terms of the
process of the Way and with respect to the content of the Hypostatic
Way. This is apparent, beyond all doubt and most especially, by the
results of the vote.
The
ecclesiastical responsibility of those Hierarchs who were Synodical
Representatives of the Church of Greece in Crete and accepted -
passively and in writing - the proposal of their Primate, is immense.
And, yet, likewise those Hierarchs who, although not in attendance, have
nonetheless passively accepted the mistaken decisions and, moreover,
the breech of the synodical decision of the Hierarchy of the Church of
Greece, also carry a great weight of responsibility.
In
practice, those Hierarchs who voted "yea" seemed to seek to please
their supposed heads (the Primates) and not Him (the Comforter) Who
ordained them as Hierarchs with equal honor. In this way, then, the
underlying papism of these Hierarchs was revealed. If we were to speak
with academic precision, we could say that here we have a "mutation" of
Papal Primacy under the guise of conciliarity, given that this
conciliarity was not functioning according to Orthodox presuppositions.
During the "Council" there appeared a collective Primacy of the Primates
of the Autocephalous Churches. Each group of 24 Hierarchs from each
Local Church was effectively immobilized, not having the right to vote.
Of course, this papal-type of mutation of the functioning of the
"Protos" had already made its practical appearance at the pre-synodical
Conferences for the sake of the falsely considered unity of the Church.
That
which is scandalously provocative and simultaneously tragic is that
even today certain of those Hierarchs who did not participate in the
"Council" of Crete, while having a burning interest to avoid divisions
between themselves and their Primate, in the name of brotherly love, but
maintaining a mistaken understanding of the unity of the Church, are
not in the least interested, for the sake of the love of God, in the
grave wound caused to the Spiritual unity of the Church - a wound caused
by the adoption of their two-fold Ecclesiology, including the
inadmissable "ecclesialization" of condemned and unrepentant heretics.
The
"Council" of Crete, not only did not work toward the expression of the
unity of the Church, as it was supposed to have done, it demolished the
existing unity between the Autocephalous Churches and the bishops who
represented them. This was made clear by the absence of the four
Patriarchates (Antioch, Russia, Bulgaria and Georgia), numbering an
overwhelming majority of faithful compared to the ten Autocephalous
Churches which were represented at the "Council." The demolishing of the
sought-for ecclesiastical unity also happened in practice and was
expressed by those Hierarchs who refused to sign the 6th text.
A
double standard was accepted at the "Council" of Crete, as a way of
serving the wrongly perceived ecclesiastical unity, as it was applied in
the cases of the Autocephalous Churches of Serbia and Greece. In
particular, the Primate of the Serbian Church voted in favor of the 6th
text, supposedly expressing the decision of the Synod of his Hierarchy,
but, in fact, coming into direct opposition with the majority of his
synodal bishops (17 out of 24), while the Primate of the Church of
Greece ignored the unanimous decision of the Hierarchy of his Church and
voted against it for the sake of the falsely understood unity of the
Church. In other words, he voted in favor of a unity, independent from
the synodical decision of his Church. In this move of his he was
supported by the inconsistency shown toward the unanimous synodical
decision of the Hierarchy by those 23 other Hierarchs in Crete who
signed the text, with the bright exception of the 24th bishop of the
retinue.
Likewise,
in the case of the Church of Cyprus things were not much better. After
the "Council" of Crete had finished, the Primate of the Church spoke ill
of the stance taken by four Hierarchs of his Church which did not sign
the 6th text and, entirely arbitrarily and in violation of every
administrative and spiritual code of conduct, signed on their behalf,
for the sake of the falsely considered unity, an action which not only
constitutes a papal mentality and a lack of integrity for a man of the
Church, but is likewise punishable as a crime.
Thus,
the triumphal refutation of the aim of expressing ecclesiastical unity,
which was presented as the purpose for which the "Holy and Great
Council" of Crete was called, was accomplished - in practice - with the
abstention of four Patriarchates, the glaring break in communion of two
Patriarchates (Jerusalem and Antioch), the synodically negligent vote in
favor of the 6th text by a Primate of an Autocephalous Church (Greece),
the refusal of a large number of participating Hierarchs to sign the
controversial dogmatic text, and finally, the lack of participation of
all of the bishops of the Church.
For
all of the above-mentioned theological reasons, the ecclesiastical
responsibility of the Hierarchy of our Church, but also of the entire
body of the Church, is exceptionally grave and extensive. Fortunately,
the devout ecclesiastical body of believers remains faithful to the
ecclesiology of the Second Ecumenical Council - ἑπόμενο τοῖς ἁγίοις
Πατράσι [following the Holy Fathers] - and rejects outright the two-fold
ecclesiology which was introduced and passed by the "Council" of Crete,
thus legitimizing "institutionally" the cancer of Ecumenism in the
"spotless" body of the Church.
In
particular, the Hierarchs of the Church of Greece are obliged to make a
responsible decision, first of all personally, but afterwards as a
collective body during the next meeting of the Hierarchy, mainly with
respect to the 6th text, by which heretics were recognized as Churches
at the "Council" of Crete. The devout body of the faithful, as guardians
of the faith of the Church (Council of 1848), likewise await an
explanation as to why the Primate of their Church did not stand up for
the unanimous decision of the Hierarchy. Even more importantly, the
faithful await from the Hierarchy a condemnation of the two-fold,
heretical, syncretistic and ecumenistic ecclesiology of the "Council" of
Crete.
As
faithful, we also await, in due time, for initiatives to be undertaken,
in cooperation with the four Patriarchates which did not take part in
the "Council" of Crete, to convene in the near future a Pan-Orthodox
Council which will, with its broader authority, restore - officially and
synodically - the shaken ecclesiastical unity, condemn the two-fold
ecclesiology of the "Council" of Crete and publish the minutes of the
questionable "Council".
Lastly,
we would like to end on a realistically optimistic note. We hold that,
with all that we have written above, we remain - as followers of the
Holy Fathers - with Christ and His Church, and, consequently, we remain
with the present and eschatological Victor. To be sure, having in mind
the indisputable Biblical and Patristic Truth that the instigator of all
heresy is the devil, it is certain that the deceiver thought that, for
the time being, he had won an exceptionally great victory against the
Church of Christ with the "Council" of Crete - since all of the
Christian heresies were "recognized" as Churches in the 6th text of the
Council. It is apparent that he does have every reason to celebrate to
the detriment of the Church, for there has never been, in the history of
the Church, such a "Council" as this, which legitimized synodically all
of the heresies in one text. This reality brings deep anguish and pain
to those faithful who are able to become informed and properly
understand what is now happening in their Church.
Nevertheless,
it is absolutely certain that his joy is already being turned to
profound sorrow. This is so because, the devout faithful of the Church,
motived by mindful obedience to the Church, diachronically and not
undiscerningly to its administration, on account of the experientially
lived repentance, ascetic stillness and prayer, will never accept this
"Council." This is how, in practice, the theologically and spiritually
shameful decision in favor of the "ecclesiasticalization" of the
heresies is overturned.
The "Council" of Crete, for the conscience of the devout body of the faithful of the Church, is as never having occurred.
III. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHURCH WITH HER ADMINISTRATION
The
"Council" of Crete, as is well known, neither made reference -
diachronically - to previous Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Councils, nor
condemned any of the heresies already condemned by earlier Councils,
nor, of course, any of the contemporary heresies - a state of affairs
which constitutes an “innovative” dissonance within the history of
Orthodox Church Councils.
Astonishingly, however, this "Council" threatens those Orthodox who will take issue with its decisions.
Furthermore,
the above "Council" unwittingly confuses the Church, per se, - as the
Theanthropic, mysteriological body of Christ - with her administration.
With
regard to this most crucial issue we will point out - as succinctly as
is possible - the following important points, from the perspective of
Orthodox ecclesiology.
Τhe
recent ecclesiological aberration of the "Council" of Crete
demonstrated, once again, that which is already recorded in the history
of our Church. Namely, the Council demonstrated that the synodical
system of itself does not mechanically assure the authenticity of the
Orthodox Faith. This happens only when the conciliar bishops have active
within them the Holy Spirit and the Hypostatic Way, that is, Christ,
and so as "syn-odikoi" [Συν-Οδικοί] (which in Greek means, those who go
on the Way which is Christ, together with Christ) they are also in
practice "followers of the Holy Fathers" [ἑπόμενοι τοῖς ἁγίοις Πατράσι].
Αs
was made clear, unfortunately this is not at all obvious in our days.
Hence, the argument which is often put forward by both believers and
priests and bishops is erroneous, namely, that we will do “whatever the
Church says” or “we wait for the Church’s decision”, by which is usually
meant, unwisely so, any decision of the Church administration, thus
ignoring that there is a clear distinction between the Church, per se,
as the Theanthropic, mysteriological Body of Christ and the Church
administration, which indeed expresses the Church, but only under
certain and clear presuppositions.
The
Bishops in their diocese and the Councils of the Bishops on a Local or
Pan-Orthodox level constitute the Church administration. These bishops,
along with their priests of the Local Churches and the faithful people
of God form the Church of Christ. Consequently, the Bishop cannot ignore
the priests and the fullness of the Church. This is also shown
historically. At the First Apostolic Council – where the "Protos" and
President was not the Apostle Peter but James the Brother of the Lord –
the Synodical Truth was expressed along "with the whole Church" (Acts
15:22): "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." The “us” referred
not only to the Apostles, but also to “those along with them” («οἱ σύν
αὐτοῖς»), namely the presbyters, “along with the whole Church” («σύν ὅλῃ
τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ»). The whole Church is also the faithful people. Likewise,
in the case of First Ecumenical Council, the whole Church expressed
Herself in the theological position of a young deacon, Athanasius the
Great.
Accordingly,
the correctness and universality of a Pan-Orthodox Council is judged
infallibly by the fullness of the members of the Church and specifically
by the vigilant dogmatic consciousness of the devout body of the
Church. This [dogmatic] consciousness [of the pious faithful]
constitutes the only interpretative “key” for the ascertainment of the
authenticity of Her phronema.
And
by dogmatic consciousness we mean the spiritual knowledge which is born
– charismatically – in the heart of the faithful by the uncreated
Spiritual Grace of their activated Holy Chrismation. It is the condensed
spiritual experience within the Church, i.e. the Holy Spirit, which we
received, acting within us. This is the only equality between men within
the Body of Christ. For this reason also the dogmatic consciousness of
the faithful is entirely independent of their worldly learning and their
possible intellectual or non-intellectual occupation. So, when this
dogmatic consciousness of the members of the Church is activated, it is
shown to be the supreme criterion of truth.
It
is a fact, arising from the very nature of the Church and witnessed to
irrefutably in our ecclesiastical history, that there have been not only
patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops that were heretics but even
Pan-Orthodox Councils, which – although they constitute the supreme
Administrative organs of the Church – were rejected by the conscience of
the body of the Church and were characterized as False or Robber
Councils.
And
this was because in dogmatic matters the truth does not lie with the
majority of the Synodical Hierarchs. The truth, per se, is preponderant.
Even when one man expresses it, the truth is the majority over the
millions and billions of opposing votes. For the Truth in the Church is
not an idea, it is not an opinion. It is Hypostatic. It is Christ
himself. For this reason, too, whoever stands opposed to the Truth is
cut off from the Church, after having been defrocked and excommunicated,
depending on the circumstances.
The
truth is the very Spirit of Truth, Which acts and is expressed even by
isolated individuals. History has shown this characteristically in the
person of Saint Maximus the Confessor, as well as St Mark (Evgenikos),
Metropolitan of Ephesus, at the false Council of Florence, who stood as
one against the reign of the majority.
Here
it is clearly shown that one man gave voice to the mind of the Church
and he was justified by Church History, and, moreover, he was sanctified
in relation to all the others - the Emperor, the Patriarch and all
other participants - who did not expound the truth. Therefore, it is not
a matter of numbers, but a matter of Truth or non-Truth. We must not
forget this, for it is the qualitative difference between Orthodoxy and
heterodoxy in practice. The Orthodox Church does not function in a papal
manner. In the Church the Pope does not stand above the Ecumenical
Councils, as he does among the papists, nor, of course, is there any
individual Pope in our Church who is placed above the Hierarchy of our
Church.
Therefore,
the criterion in the Church is not that the whole Orthodox Church came
together and decided something by majority. It is possible,
theoretically, that all the bishops could be present with one, two,
three, or just a few of them holding something to the contrary. It does
not hold that what the vast majority of the bishops say constitutes a
guarantee of Truth and that the body [of the Church] must necessarily
accept this. No, this is not how things are in the Church. The criterion
of Truth is whether what is said at the Ecclesiastical Councils is
“following the Holy Fathers”.
The
decisions of this Hierarchal “Conference” of Crete are a matter which
the entire Church must evaluate, in Council, in the future, both
theologically and definitively. Until this happens, however, every
faithful member of the Church can and ought to take a position on the
unconfirmed decisions of this “Conference” based upon the criteria of
the dogmatic, diachronic consciousness of the Church. The unassailable
criteria of this dogmatic consciousness are summed up in the patristic
saying: “following the holy Fathers”. This saying is crucial as it
pertains as much to the organization and way of the Councils as to their
dogmatic teaching.
In
other words, if the devout body of the faithful of the Church – as the
bearer of Her dogmatic consciousness – either confirms the correctness
of the decisions of Church Councils or nullifies decisions of
Pan-Orthodox Councils, considering them to be false councils, then it is
obvious that it also has the right and the duty to express itself, with
fear of God and divine zeal, with respect to the decisions of the
“Council” of Crete (cf. Fr. George Florovsky, The Body of Living God; An
Orthodox Interpretation of the Church, Armos, Athens, 1999, pp. 80-83).
With the deepest respect,
I kiss your right hand,
Demetrios Tselengidis
Professor of the Theological School
of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Translated by Fr. Peter Heers Πηγή
Δείτε το κείμενο στα ελληνικά εδώ
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου