His Eminence Met. Hierotheos Vlachos
[T]he final text is…distinguished by its “creative ambiguity”…imbued with baptismal theology and the branch theory…and moved slightly, but consciously, away from the principle of exclusivity and towards the principle of inclusiveness.
[I]t is strange for a Hierarch to invoke former professors and not the Prophets, the Apostles and the Church Fathers, which is what he confessed at his ordination as Bishop. — Met. Hierotheos
Source: AOIUSA
Original Text in Greek: Ναυπάκτου κ. Ἱεροθέου: Οἱ ἀποφάσεις τῆς Ἱεραρχίας τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος γιὰ τὴν «Ἁγία καὶ Μεγάλη Σύνοδο» καὶ ἡ κατάληξή τους. Translated, for the Holy Metropolis of Nafpaktos and St. Vlassios, by Anastasios Filippides.
The Decisions of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece on the “Holy and Great Council” and the Final Outcome
By His Eminence Met. Hierotheos Vlachos
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
AT ITS MEETINGS on 24 and 25 May 2016, the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, as was its right and responsibility, studied the texts adopted by the Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences and Summits of the Primates, further to the decision and proposal of the Standing Holy Synod. Having taken into account Article 11 of the Organisation and Working Procedure of the “Holy and Great Council” it decided to submit proposals, amendments, corrections and additions, which were submitted within the prescribed time to the competent Pan-Orthodox Secretariat of the “Holy and Great Council”.
As stated in Article 11 of the Organisation and Working Procedure of the Holy and Great Council “At the conclusion of deliberations, the approval of any change is expressed, according to pan-Orthodox procedures, by the consensus of the delegations of each autocephalous Orthodox Church. This means that an amendment that is not approved unanimously shall not be passed.”
The important thing is that most of these proposals were adopted unanimously by the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, while some were approved with a minority of one or two Bishops voting against out of a total of 76 present, and one proposal was approved by an open vote. These facts imply that this decision by the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece was solidly supported and expresses the consciousness of the Orthodox Church in Greece, which has a high theological, pastoral and monastic ecclesiastical level.
I. The Key Points of the Decisions of the Hierarchy
There are four key points in the decisions taken by the Hierarchy, namely, the issue of the person, the granting of autonomy to an ecclesiastical province, the Orthodox Church and the rest of the Christian world, and the unity of the Church as a given fact.
- According to the Fathers of the Church, the term person was attributed to the Triune God, while throughout patristic literature the biblical term human being (anthropos) is used for humans in the theological meaning of human beings created in the image and likeness of God. When sometimes the Fathers use the term hypostasisfor human beings, they use it based on the Bible and not on philosophy.
- However, in modern philosophy existential personalism has developed, which deviates from patristic tradition by identifying nature with need and sin, and desire-volition with the person. For this reason the expression “human person” (anthropino prosopo) must be replaced with the biblical term human being (anthropos), which is understood in all languages.
- The way of granting autonomy to a Church Province. Because the granting of autonomy by its Mother Church to a province may cause schisms, divisions and separatist deviations, it was proposed to maintain unchanged the ecclesiastical position which was decided by Synodical-Patriarchal Tomes or Patriarchal-Synodical Acts. This was proposed with a view to Church unity and to avoid schisms.
- In the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world” it is written that the Church is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”, therefore the term Church cannot be attributed to other Christian Confessions, in order not to undermine the supreme truth that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Therefore other Christian groups should be called “Christian Confessions and Communities.”
- The unity of the Church is a given fact, because the Church is the Body of Christ and is not separated from the Head, that is, from Christ. Consequently, those who at various times move away from the faith and worship of the Church are outside the Church and need to return to it. This is the aim of theological dialogue, because we confess: “as the Prophets have seen, as the Apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the teachers have set forth in dogmas … thus do we believe, thus we speak, thus we preach Christ our true God,” and we proceed “according to the God-inspired theologies of the saints and the devout mind of the Church.” The principle of exclusivity cannot fall victim to the principle of inclusiveness, which undermines the given fact of the unshakable unity of the One Church.
II. The Encyclical of the Standing Holy Synod
Because these basic decisions had been taken by the Hierarchy, the Encyclical sent by the Standing Holy Synod to the Dioceses and read in all the churches gave the assurance that the decisions taken were based on the teaching of the Church and that in the “Holy and Great Council” the Bishops would express the experience and faith of the mystery of Pentecost and the confession of our Saints. Specifically, among other things, it writes:
The Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, with absolute faith in the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers, and with respect for the Conciliar polity of the Orthodox Church, has studied thoroughly the proposals of the Standing Synod one by one, in a spirit of unity, responsibility and seriousness, and with unanimity on most points and an absolute majority in others, has made corrections to the texts presented, and additions where needed, so that these are the final decisions of our Church with regard to these texts.
The corrections and additions, which are substantial and in accord with the timeless experience and tradition of the Church, will be submitted to the Pan-Orthodox Secretariat of the Holy and Great Council in Crete and will supported by Archbishop Hieronymus of Athens and All Greece, in order to improve the texts already elaborated by the Primates of the Orthodox Churches and thus to give a good ecclesiastical testimony of faith and unity to the modern world, in tune with the whole tradition of the Church.
It is, of course, understood that the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece discussed these serious issues with responsibility, sobriety and knowledge. The important thing is that it has preserved its unity. The views of many Hierarchs were heard and the decisions were almost unanimous.
Because recently there has been concern, largely justified, among many members of the Clergy, monks and laypeople, about the texts to be discussed by the Holy and Great Council, we recommend that everyone should remain calm, because we Hierarchs were the first to make our confession of faith at our ordination, promising to keep safe the Apostolic and Patristic heritage which we received, and we remain vigilant for our flock, to the glory of God and the praise of the Church.
It is known that the Holy and Great Council will be held from the day of Pentecost until the Sunday of All Saints. This means that the Bishops and other Clergy and laity who will represent the Church of Greece at this Council, will try, together with the other Churches, to express the experience and faith of the mystery of Pentecost and the confession of our Saints, which is a continuation of Pentecost in history.
I thought that this assurance which we gave to the entire body of the Church had to be observed strictly. This was the feeling prevailing in me during the sessions of the Council in Crete.
In what follows the decisions of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece on the three texts will be presented, with some theological EXPLANATORY COMMENT to illustrate their value, together with an indication of which ones were approved or rejected during the meetings of this Council in Crete.
III. Documents That Were Changed
Changes, corrections, additions and removals were proposed to three of the six texts distributed to the Hierarchs. We shall look at these in detail.
A. “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World”
The text entitled “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in today’s world” signed by the Primates of the Orthodox Church in Geneva in January 2016 differs in many respects from the corresponding text prior to 2014. Many changes and modifications had been made, so the Hierarchy proposed the following changes:
1. Orthodox Church and Religions
The third paragraph of the text of the Primates read:
3. As a presupposition for a wider co-operation in this regard the common acceptance of the highest value of the human person may be useful. The Orthodox Churches are called to contribute to inter-religious understanding and co-operation to eradicate fanaticism of every kind, establish reconciliation among peoples, as well as help freedom and peace prevail throughout the world in order to serve humankind, irrespective of race and religion. Of course, such cooperation excludes both syncretism and the attempts of any one religion to impose itself on others.
Instead of this, the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece decided to correct the text in the places emphasized in bold letters:
3. As a presupposition for a wider co-operation in this regard the common acceptance of the highest value of the human being may be useful. Local Orthodox Churches cancontribute to inter-religious understanding and co-operation for the peaceful co-existence and social cohabitation of peoples, without this involving any kind of religious syncretism. (Emphasis added.)
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
It is proposed to add “local” to the expression “Orthodox Churches” because the Orthodox Church is One and despite the existence of many local Churches, which have a common faith, worship and life, its unity is not broken. In the Eucharistic phrase, “the Lamb of God is apportioned and distributed; apportioned, but not divided; ever eaten, yet never consumed”, and in the patristic phrase, “the body has been divided but the grace remains undivided.” What happens with the Eucharistic bread, also happens with the Church, which is the Body of Christ, and Christ is the Head of the Church, according to the words of the Apostle Paul: “And he appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” (Eph. 1:22-23).
Moreover, the Orthodox Church contributes to understanding with other religions, but not on the issue of faith and truth, because if this happened it would lead to religious syncretism. It contributes to the “peaceful coexistence and social cohabitation of peoples, without this involving any kind of religious syncretism.”
As is well known, the term “syncretism” denotes the mixing of elements from various religions to get something new, which is incompatible with Orthodox theology and ecclesiology. Local Orthodox Churches discuss with non-Christians about social issues and aim at peaceful coexistence within social conditions and not at religious syncretism.
This addition and correction by the Church of Greece was accepted and included in the final text, except for the words “human being”. The words “human person” remained because the debate on this issue took place on the following paragraph.
2. Person and Human Being
The decision of the Hierarchy was to replace the expression “human person” in this and other paragraphs with the term “human being”, so as to establish uniform terminology and textual consistency. So:
It is proposed to replace the phrase ‘The value of human person …’ with the phrase ‘the value of human being’ in paragraph A1, the phrase ‘the concept of the human person’ with the phrase ‘the concept of the human being’ in paragraph B3, and the phrase ‘of the human person …’ with the phrase ‘of the human being’ in paragraph C1 of the same text. (Emphasis added.)
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
In the pre-2014 text the term “human person” was expressly identified with the theological and biblical term “in the image and likeness”. In this respect it mentioned:
Indeed, throughout the period of its historical life, Orthodoxy served with consistency, continuity and zeal the majesty of the human person in the absolute and universal sense with which this was connected in the context of Christian anthropology. The human being, as the climax and summary of divine creation and as having been created in the image and likeness of the Creator, has been for the Orthodox Church the whole content of its mission to the world and the history of salvation.
But the new text speaks about “the highest value of the human person” without such clarity. Only once does it refer to the image, without reference to the likeness, which means that the word “person” for “human being” moves away from theology and is nearer to contemporary existential and idealistic philosophy.
In particular, it should be noted that the term “person” is assigned by the Fathers to the Triune God, while for humans the biblical term “human being” (anthropos) is used, with the specification that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God.
The Apostle Paul writes: “We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction [‘hypostasis’] firmly to the very end” (Heb. 3:14). In this passage it is clear that the hypostasis is regarded as being in the image and likeness. This is the so-called “hypostatic principle”. But when the hypostasis-person is interpreted only as being in the image without being the likeness, then there is a problem.
Modern Western philosophy used the term “person” for human beings too. But this is viewed according to the principle of personalism (in the philosophical, psychological and existential sense) and humankind’s fall from the theological concept of being in the image and likeness of God. Unfortunately this Western personalism has been brought into Orthodox theology by some.
Moreover, the term “human being” (anthropos) has become established in all languages, while the person is perceived in various ways, either in the sense of the mask, or in the sense of psychology and logic, or in the sense of freedom of existence, or in terms of German idealism, or in the sense of voluntarism, or in a sociological sense.
In addition, the word ‘“person” for “human being” can be understood in various ways in different languages.
It should be emphasised that throughout the document the two terms, “human being” and “human person”, are used interchangeably. The term “human being” is used about 70 times and the term “person” or “human person” is used 7 times. Also, wherever the text refers to the human person according to the Fathers, the patristic passages cited refer to the human being, not to the person.
Because the text is inconsistent on this subject, it may be inferred that a human being is different from a human person, and this will cause confusion as to what a human being is and what a human person is, and what the difference is between the two. So this text should be made consistent on this point.
For all these reasons, it was suggested by our Church that the term “person” be replaced with the term “human being” (anthropos), so that it can be understood by everyone and so as to use consistent terminology in the text.
After the first discussions His Eminence Aristarchos of Constantine, on behalf of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, said:
I think the discussion has indicated that there is a problem with the term ‘human person’, and as it only occurs seven times in the text it would seem preferable to delete it, as the Synod of the Church of Greece has maintained, and the Primate of the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Jerusalem agree.
In the course of discussion on the “human person”, Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro, on behalf of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and Patriarch Daniel of Romania agreed with the proposal of our Church using various arguments. Thus, along with our Church, this issue was supported by four of the ten Churches present.
However, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew insisted on the retention of the word “person”. After praising the level of theology of the Metropolitans of Pergamon and of Nafpaktos, he proposed:
…that the theological, productive discussion be continued between fine and prolific theologians, such as the Metropolitans of Pergamon and Nafpaktos. We appreciate them, we admire how they produce those books one after the other, which are translated into foreign languages. We, therefore, as the Church of Constantinople, are in favour of leaving the text as it stands.
Therefore, the word “person” remained in the text, along with “human being”, for further discussion, but the discussion returned to the issue of the ontology of the person and community of persons in the next paragraph, as will now be seen.
3. Ontology of the Person – Community of Persons
The first sentence of paragraph B1 of the text reads:
Freedom and Responsibility. 1. Freedom is one of God’s greatest gifts to the human being as a specific bearer of the image of the personal God and as a member of a community of persons who, through the unity of the human race, reflect by grace the life and communion of the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity.
Instead of this, the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece decided to propose the following wording:
Freedom and Responsibility. 1. Freedom is one of God’s greatest gifts to the human being.
In other words, it suggested the deletion of the parenthetical phrases – “both as a specific bearer of the image of the personal God and as a member of a community of persons who, through the unity of the human race, reflect by grace the life and communion of the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity” – which refer to the ontology of the person and the community of persons, and are theologically problematic.
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
In the context of the previous comment about the person, the aim is to emphasise the freedom of humans, as creations of God, by deleting the expressions in parenthesis. The parenthetical phrases risk starting a discussion about defining what is meant by the “communion of the Divine Persons”, and what is meant by “a community of human persons” who reflect the unity according to grace of the human race “in the life and communion of the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity.” There might also be a discussion about determining what is meant by the human being “as a specific bearer of the image of the personal God.” Thus these ambiguous theological concepts give rise to different interpretations, some of which are completely anti-patristic.
Since the aim of this section is to stress that human beings as created by God have freedom as a divine gift, it is unnecessary to cite ambiguous theological phrases in parenthesis. Anyhow, immediately following this patristic passages are cited which refer to the freedom of human beings and not to the community of persons etc.
After a discussion on these issues, the proposal of the Church of Greece was accepted and in this specific paragraph everything relating to the ontology of the person and the community of persons was deleted.
This means that the overall proposal of the Church with regard to the ontology of the person and the community of persons was accepted by the “Holy and Great Council”, and the entire phrase referring to the community of persons who reflect by grace, through the unity of human race, the life in the Holy Trinity and the communion of the Divine Persons was deleted. However in some places the term “human person” remained for further discussion.
I think this was a success for the Church of Greece. Nevertheless, because the term “person” was retained, I expressed my reservations.
B. “Autonomy and the Means by Which it is Proclaimed”
The Hierarchy of the Church of Greece proposed that a new paragraph be added to this text, and also that a word be added to an existing paragraph.
The new addition to the text is as follows:
Ecclesiastical Provinces for which a Patriarchal Tomos or Act has been issued cannot apply for autonomy, and their existing ecclesiastical status is maintained unshakeable.
And in paragraph 2B, where it says that the Autocephalous Church which receives the request from a province to be granted autonomy “decides whether or not to grant autonomy”, the Hierarchy of the Church adds the word “unanimously” at the end of the paragraph after the word “autonomy”.
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
This paragraph is added to this text in order not to disturb the harmonious relations between the local Churches and in order to maintain unity and love in the Holy Spirit. The possibility of an application being made by a local Church to be granted autonomy, especially when it is bound by a Synodical and Patriarchal Tomos, and by a Patriarchal Synodical Act, is likely to foment ecclesiastical separatist objectives or political and national ones, to the detriment of ecclesiastical and national unity.
Therefore the addition of this paragraph to the text ensures the unity between the Churches, because the fragmentation of local Churches creates more problems than it promises to solve, and in any case assists power-seeking members of the Clergy.
As soon as the Archbishop read out the proposal of the Hierarchy, the Ecumenical Patriarch immediately gave the necessary explanations. Among other things, he specifically said:
For each Autocephalous Church a Tomos has been issued, which means that by this reasoning no part of any Autocephalous Church could claim autonomy, since for all a Tomos or an Act has been issued. However, with this thinking, autonomy is prohibited to all.
Referring to the so-called New Lands, he gave assurances that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has no thought of granting autonomy to these regions. He clarified, however, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate considers that “they are its own Provinces, they belong to the Ecumenical Patriarchate spiritually and canonically, and after the Asia Minor catastrophe the Patriarchate ceded the administration of the Metropolises of the New Lands to the sister Church of Greece. Administratively these Metropolises belong to the Church of Greece and there is no objection.”
He finished by giving assurances in front of all the Fathers of the “Holy and Great Council” that “There is no reason to worry, we have no such intention,” but “the current status quo will continue.” Furthermore he clarified that this applies “to all Autocephalous Churches for which a Tomos or Act has been issued”, that is, “autonomy cannot be granted.”
After this the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece said that we would be delighted to receive the Patriarch in the Church of Greece, whether in the southern or in the northern Provinces. So the Church of Greece did not insist on the inclusion of the paragraph in the text, because it considered that, after the explanation by the Ecumenical Patriarch, the question was redundant.
C. Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”
The text put before the “Holy and Great Council” for discussion and decision entitled “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world” is derived from the combination of two texts which had been elaborated in Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences. One of them had the same title as the text under discussion, and the other was entitled “The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement”.
The merging of the above texts, which was carried out in the period 2014-2015 by the special Inter-Orthodox Commission for the review of the texts, gave rise to a number of problems and contradictions crept in, as we will now see.
1. The Orthodox Church and Those Outside It
The pre-2014 text used the term “the rest of the Christian world” for Christians outside the Orthodox Church, not only in the West but also in the East, and spoke of dialogues between the Orthodox Church and these Christians. The whole text was divided into chapters, namely: “The Dialogue with the Anglicans”, “The Dialogue with the Old Catholics”, “The Dialogue with the ancient Eastern Churches”, “The Dialogue with the Roman Catholics”, “The Dialogue with the Lutherans”, “The Dialogue with the Protestants.”
It is obvious that the title “the rest of the Christian world” includes a wide circle of Christians who differ in doctrinal matters from ancient Church tradition that is preserved in the Orthodox Church, which is thus the historical Church. They are ancient and modern heretics.
It is understandable that sometimes in speech the word “Church” is used to characterise all Christian groups and Communities, but it is even more understandable that when precise expositions of the Orthodox faith are compiled, which will constitute the Decisions of a Holy and Great Council, there must be precision with regard to terms and their meanings.
According to Professor George Mantzaridis, the word “church” is also used in everyday language for various Christian Confessions with a sociological meaning. But he subsequently notes that “the use of the term ‘church’ on a theological level with a sociological meaning is misleading and compromises any substantive theological dialogue. According to Orthodox Ecclesiology the term ‘church’ cannot include non-Orthodox Christian institutions.”
It should be noted that the old text, “The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement”, which was combined with the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world”, included the words:
The Orthodox Church ascertains that over time, for various reasons and in various ways, many important departures from the tradition of the undivided Church have taken place. So in the Christian world diverging perceptions of the unity and the very essence of the Church have emerged. (Emphasis added.)
This significant comment disappeared in the consolidated text signed by the Primates of the Churches in Geneva in January 2016!
In other words, from that text it was clearly inferred that the One Church is the Orthodox Church, whereas other Christian groups have broken away from it. And yet this paragraph was deleted before the text was signed by the Primates.
These reasons prompted the Standing Holy Synod and the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece to bring the whole text into line with the meaning of the title, “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world”. Among other things, they decided to use the phrase “Christian Confessions and Communities”.
Specifically Paragraph 6 read:
The Orthodox Church acknowledges the historical existence of other Christian Churches and Confessions not in communion with her.
Instead of this, the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece decided to propose the following wording:
The Orthodox Church is aware of the historical existence of other Christian Confessions and Communities not in communion with her. (Emphasis added.)
The same phrase is repeated in the same paragraph and in paragraphs 16, 19, 20 and 21 of this document and is corrected likewise.”
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
As is well known, the title of this text refers to the Orthodox Church and the rest of the Christian world, in both East and West, namely, the Pre-Chalcedonians, Nestorians, Monothelites, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Old Catholics, Reformed, etc.
This implies that the content of the text ought not to differ from its title, which indicates the difference between the Orthodox Church and the rest of the Christian world.
The rest of the Christian world, in other words, those outside the Orthodox Church, apart from the Christians of the East, is divided into the Christians of the West who broke away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in the 11th century, centred on the Pope, and also the Protestants who broke away from the Pope, who are divided into many Christian groups. During the second millennium they were assigned various names, such as Latins, Franco-Latins, Papists, etc., while the Reformers, Protestants, Anglicans and their groups were called Confessions. The Christians of the East are included among them.
Because the Orthodox Church has the self-awareness that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the term “Christian Confessions and Communities” was preferred by the Hierarchy among other descriptions of the rest of the Christian world such as “heterodox Churches” etc.
The texts to be adopted by the Holy and Great Synod must be precise expositions of the Orthodox faith and its universal consciousness and must use terminology that is as precise as possible, in line with the timeless Tradition of the Church.
At the Council of Crete there was wide-ranging discussion on this issue, because two other Churches had related proposals. The Patriarchate of Romania proposed to replace the phrase “Christian Churches” with the phrase “heterodox Communities”, and the Church of Cyprus proposed that they be called “heterodox Churches”.
It was possible to keep the phrase that was in the title of the text, namely, “The Orthodox Church and the rest of the Christian world”, or the phrase “The Orthodox Church and those outside it” or “the non-Orthodox”.
During the discussion the Patriarchate of Romania withdrew its proposal and there remained the proposals from the Churches of Cyprus and Greece.
This proposal by the Church of Greece was not accepted and the Ecumenical Patriarch urged Archbishop Hieronymus of Athens to submit a new proposal.
Consequently the Archbishop suggested to the Delegation of the Church of Greece a new proposal, which was accepted by a majority of the Bishops of the Delegation.
There was no authorisation for the new proposal, as its meaning does not meet the recommendations of the Hierarchy. Unfortunately, added to all this is the fact that it was decided in a matter of minutes. Its content is as follows:
The Church of Greece proposes “in paragraph 6, instead of: ‘The Orthodox Church recognises [Note: In the original version the verb was ‘is aware of’, not ‘recognises’] the historical existence of other Christian Churches and Confessions’, the wording: ‘The Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other heterodox Christian Churches and Confessions’.”
In its final form, the text was recast as follows:
The Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other heterodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion with her. (Emphasis added.)
That is, “is aware of” became “accept”, the term “historical existence” became “historical name” and the word “heterodox” was added to Churches.
The questions are many: Why not keep the verb “is aware of”? Can there be a name for something without existence? What does “heterodox Christian churches” mean, since heterodox means heretical?
Indeed, His Beatitude Archbishop Hieronymus of Athens understood the rationale of the decision, according to a press release issued by the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece:
With this amendment we achieve a conciliar decision which for the first time in history limits the historical context of the relations with the heterodox not to the existence, but ONLY to their historical name as heterodox Christian Churches or Confessions. The ecclesiological implications of this change are obvious. Not only do they not adversely affect in any way the age-old Orthodox tradition, but rather they protect Orthodox ecclesiology in a very clear way.
This new proposal was accepted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and many of the Hierarchs present applauded.
Therefore, the proposal of the Hierarchy of our Church was not accepted. What was accepted was a new proposal voted by a majority of the Delegation of the Church of Greece.
In the Press Release of the Church of Greece on that day (25-6-2016) it was suggested that the Delegation of our Church suggested the new proposal “in line with the spirit of the Hierarchy”.
However, despite the good intentions of the Archbishop and some Hierarchs eager to close the matter without much discussion, any serious reader of the two texts will find that the new proposal submitted by the Delegation of our Church after a majority vote was not in the spirit of the decision of the Hierarchy. I will develop this issue in another text, which will analyse the fact that this proposal is essentially anti-Orthodox for many theological reasons.
During the brief discussion we had on this issue among the members of the Delegation, I stressed that for reasons of conscience and for theological reasons, mostly because we did not have the authorisation of the Hierarchy to change its decision, I did not agree and would not sign the specific text. This was the reason why I abstained from the article-by-article discussion of this text, and of course I did not sign this particular text.
In my opinion, two sad events occurred: a) the circumvention of the decision of the Hierarchy unconsciously or consciously, and b) the recognition of the ecclesiastical status of heterodox confessions, i.e. heretical communities. This is very dangerous when one considers that in the USA alone there are over 50,000 Christian Protestant groups, with many distinctive characteristics, who call themselves “Churches”!
2. Participation in the World Council of Churches (WCC)
Paragraph 17 refers to the World Council of Churches and the participation of the Orthodox Churches in it. The Orthodox Churches “contribute to the witness of truth and promotion of unity among Christians by all the means at their disposal.”
In the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece in May 2016 there was a long debate on the WCC. Some Bishops asked that the paragraphs of the text referring to the WCC should be deleted and the Church of Greece should withdraw from it. A vote was taken by show of hands and the view that prevailed was that these paragraphs should remain in the text and the Church of Greece should participate in the WCC. Personally I argued that we should be observers, as the “Roman Catholics” are.
Subsequently the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece decided to propose the following wording in that particular paragraph:
The local Orthodox churches that are members of the WCC, … contribute by all the means at their disposal to the promotion of peaceful coexistence and cooperation on major socio-political challenges and problems. (Emphasis added.)
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
The Orthodox Church participates in the “World Council of Churches” (WCC) under certain conditions and set criteria. The Orthodox Church does not in any way accept the idea of the “equality of Confessions”, and the WCC “is not and under no circumstances can become a super-Church.”
This completely justifies replacing the phrase that the Orthodox local churches participating as members of the WCC “contribute to the witness of truth and promotion of unity among Christians by all the means at their disposal” with the phrase “for the promotion of peaceful coexistence and cooperation on major socio-political challenges and problems.”
The self-awareness of the Orthodox Church requires it to cooperate with Christian Communities and Confessions, in both East and West, to solve many social problems, such as wars, many social crises etc. And whenever there is discussion on Christian unity, this takes place with the prospect that those distanced from the single tradition of the first millennium should return to the Orthodox Church, which preserves the truth of revealed faith.
This proposal by the Church of Greece was accepted in the text, with the deletion of the word “problems”, leaving the phrase “socio-political challenges”.
3. Dialogues With The Heterodox and the Way They Are Admitted to the Orthodox Church
Paragraph 20 of the original text read:
The prospects for conducting theological dialogues between the Orthodox Church and other Christian Churches and Confessions are always determined on the basis of the canonical criteria of the already established Church Tradition (Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canon 95 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council).
Instead of this, the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece decided to propose the following redrafting and formulation, as shown below in the phrases in bold:
The prospects for conducting theological dialogues between the Orthodox Church and other Christian Confessions and Communities are always determined on the basis of the principles of Orthodox Ecclesiology and the canonical criteria of established Church Tradition, according to the sacred canons of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Local Councils recognised by them, such as Canons 46, 47 and 50 of the Holy Apostles, 8 and 19 of the First Ecumenical Council, 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council, 95 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, and 7 and 8 of Laodicea.
It is clarified that, when applying economy by admitting the heterodox by Libel and Holy Chrism, this is not to imply that the Orthodox Church recognises the validity of their Baptism or their other Sacraments.
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
The Orthodox Church always converses “with those separated from her, close and far”, based on the theological and canonical criteria of the already established ecclesiastical tradition, defined by the decisions and sacred Canons of the Local and Ecumenical Councils.
The dogmatic decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are the formulation of the revealed faith, and the sacred Canons are the application of dogmatic decisions to the administration and pastoral practice of the Church. The selective use of sacred Canons is not consistent with the Orthodox ecclesiastical spirit.
It is known that the sacred Canons of the ancient Local Councils and the Fathers acquired universal authority with the 2nd Canon of the Quinisext Council. These particular Canons refer to the way the heterodox are admitted to the Orthodox Church, sometimes with strictness, sometimes with economy. Strictness means by Baptism, economy means by libel and chrismation, but with clear preconditions, in other words, depending on whether they had been baptised in the heretical group to which they previously belonged with the invocation of the Triune God and with the preservation of the form of Baptism, i.e. by triple immersion.
According to St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, two “kinds of government and correction are kept in the Church of Christ”, i.e. strictness and economy. The Bishops who are “the administrators of the Churches of God” express in practice the mystery of the divine Economy, that is, the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son and Word of God. Economy is a suspension of strictness for a short period and for specific reasons, and it cannot be changed into strictness with continuous validity.
Then, the admission by economy of the heterodox by libel and holy Chrism does not mean recognition of the validity of the Baptism or other Sacraments of those outside the Church.
The Synodical decision of the Patriarchs of the East in 1484, which had the consciousness that it was “ecumenical”, on its own admission, not only overturned the decisions of the Synod of Ferrara-Florence, but at the same time also decreed the admission of “Latins” and those returning “from the Latin heresy to the truth of the Gospel” of Christ by libel and chrismation. In the service that was drawn up there is reference to the “Latin heresy” and the return to the “pure devout theology, confession and tradition”.
At that time, of course, the exact form of baptism still applied among the Latins, too, namely, triple immersion, which was abolished later at the Council of Trent (1545-1563), and this is why it was decreed that the Latins should be admitted to the Orthodox Church by libel and chrismation.
Eventually, from the proposal of the Church of Greece only one phrase was accepted, that “Dialogues are always determined on the basis of the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology”. The other three proposals, which clarify what is meant by the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology, were not accepted. Specifically:
- The phrase “with the other Christian Confessions and Communities” was not accepted, because the Church of Greece herself had already produced a new proposal on this issue.
It should be noted that, although the proposal of the Church of Greece that this phrase should be replaced with the words “with the other Christian confessions and communities” was not accepted, the phrase “with the other Christian Churches” was replaced with the phrase “with the rest of the Christian world.” The paradox is that here the change was accepted, while in the sixth paragraph the change was not accepted, even with the same phrase “with the rest of the Christian world.”
- The addition of Canons 46, 47 and 50 of the Holy Apostles, 8 and 19 of the First Ecumenical Council and 7 and 8 of Laodicea, the contents of which were mentioned above, was not accepted.
- The proposal of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece that “when applying economy by admitting the heterodox by Libel and Holy Chrism, this is not to imply that the Orthodox Church recognises the validity of their Baptism or their other Sacraments” was not accepted.
At the same time the reference to the 7th Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council and the 95th Canon of the Quinisext Council was deleted from the original text.
This means that in this paragraph, by not accepting the proposal of the Church of Greece, the Council of Crete accepted at least baptismal theology. Anyhow, the opinion was heard during the discussions that heterodox Baptism is valid!
So, after granting ecclesiastical status to the heterodox, the greatest problem that resulted from the Council was the implicit recognition of the validity of the baptism of the heterodox!
During the discussions, some Hierarchs from other Orthodox Churches claimed that it is impossible not to accept the validity of the Baptism of the heterodox, especially since we accept mixed marriages, that is, marriages between Orthodox and heterodox. What was said publicly led me to express my clear reservations about the ecclesiastical consequences of mixed marriages in the text on the Sacrament of Marriage.
4. The Conciliar System
In paragraph 22 the text of the Primates said:
The Orthodox Church considers all efforts to break the unity of the Church, undertaken by individuals or groups under the pretext of maintaining or allegedly defending true Orthodoxy, as being worthy of condemnation. As evidenced throughout the life of the Orthodox Church, the preservation of the true Orthodox faith is ensured only through the conciliar system, which has always represented the competent final judge in the Church on matters of faith.
Instead, the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece decided to propose the following wording:
The Orthodox Church considers all efforts to break the unity of the Church, undertaken by individuals or groups under the pretext of maintaining or allegedly defending true Orthodoxy, as being worthy of condemnation. As evidenced throughout the life of the Orthodox Church, the preservation of the true Orthodox faith is ensured [the word only was deleted] through the conciliar system (Canons 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council and 14 and 15 of the First-Second Council).” At the same time it proposed deleting the phrase “which has always represented the competent final judge in the Church on matters of faith.
This means that at this point the Church of Greece deleted the word ONLY, that is to say, that the preservation of the true Orthodox faith is ensured ONLY by the conciliar system. It added specific Canons and deleted the phrase that the conciliar system always represented “the competent final judge in the Church on matters of faith.”
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
The conciliar system is the basis and the expression of Orthodox ecclesiastical polity. The Orthodox Church lives and works at all levels as a Council: a Council “between bishops and heads of local Churches, thus bearing witness to the communion of the churches under them; as also in all acts of communion between the first bishop (Metropolitan) and his bishops; between the bishop and his priests; between the priest, the head of a community, and the clergy and laity who make up that community; finally the laypeople among themselves.” (Archimandrite Georgios Kapsanis, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory on the Holy Mountain, “Pastoral Ministry according to the holy Canons”, ed. Athos, Piraeus, 1976, p. 112ff.)
The conciliar system at the level of Bishops expresses and ensures the consciousness of the Orthodox Churches, Clergy and people, a consciousness experienced in the sacraments, in asceticism and in the confession of faith. Certainly, it is the Council of Bishops which takes the final decisions, but the Bishops express the teaching of the Prophets, the Apostles and the Fathers, as well as the consciousness of the devout people, Clergy, monks and laypeople.
Indicatively, the decision of the Hierarchy mentions the sacred Canons, the 6th of the Second Ecumenical Council and the 14th and 15th of the First-Second Council, which ensure the unity of the Church, the common ecclesiastical conscience and the application of justice. There can be no Council of Bishops without the people of God, nor a flock without canonical shepherds.
It is significant that the rapporteur to the Hierarchy, His Eminence Metropolitan Germanos of Elia, proposed the corrected wording with the following rationale:
Because it is possible that this text may be misinterpreted by some people and that the Holy and Great Council may be thought to accept that infallibility in the Orthodox Church is expressed by the Bishops in Council, without taking into account the whole Orthodox Clergy and the people.
At the same time, in making this proposal he referred to a relevant book: “See also Archbishop Stylianos (Charkianakis) of Australia, ‘On the infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology’, 2nd ed. Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece, Athens 2014.”
Eventually the proposal of the Church of Greece for the deletion of the word “only” was not accepted, and from the proposal to add specific Canons only the 6th Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council remained, and not the 14th and 15th of the First-Second Council.
Also the last sentence was not deleted, as proposed by the Church of Greece, but was modified with the phrase that the conciliar system has always been in the Church “the highest authority on matters of faith issues and canonical decrees”, that is to say, “canonical decrees” were added to matters of faith.
5. The Unia and Inter-Confessional Competition
In paragraph 23 the text of the Primates referred to inter-Christian theological dialogue “eschewing every provocative act of inter-confessional competition”
The Hierarchy added the word “Unia” in brackets to this text.
The text continues as follows:
In this spirit, the Orthodox Church deems it important for all Christians, inspired by the common fundamental principles of our faith, to attempt to offer with eagerness and solidarity a response to the thorny problems with which the contemporary world challenges us, based on the ideal prototype of the new man in Christ.
In this paragraph the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece made three corrections. Instead of “the principles of faith” it put “the principles of the Gospel”. It corrected the phrase “attempt to offer with eagerness and solidarity a response to the thorny problems with which the contemporary world challenges us” with the phrase “attempt to offer with eagerness and solidarity a response to the thorny problems of the contemporary world.” And it deleted the word “ideal” before the word “prototype”.
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
The existing theological dialogue between different Christian Confessions and Communities must take place with theological and ecclesiastical criteria and preconditions. It is a dialogue of love in truth, and a dialogue of truth in love, on the basis of the Gospel and its true interpretation by the ecclesiastical, patristic tradition. The existence of the Unia is an obstacle to true dialogue, because it is an insidious system of union, that is to say, a false way of union with the retention of all the theological differences and an external ostensible union, thus it is a pseudo-union without theological and ecclesiological criteria. The specification of theological differences, and the return of those who have turned aside from it to the authentic tradition of the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers is the true way to union.
Also, the resolution of all contemporary problems is based on the teaching of the Gospel, as it is preserved in the Church and interpreted by it, as well as on the prototype of the human being in Christ, that is, the saint, and this is not an ideal human being but the God-man Jesus Christ, as He is revealed to the saints and as He lives in them, according to the words of the Apostle Paul: “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20).
The proposal to change the expression “by the common fundamental principles of our faith” to “by the common principles of the Gospel” was accepted.
The correction of the phrase “with which the contemporary world challenges us” to read “problems of the contemporary world”, was accepted, but it is only a correction of wording.
The deletion of the word “ideal” was accepted.
The addition to the text of the word “Unia” in brackets in the phrase of the original text “eschewing every provocative act of inter-confessional competition” was accepted as follows: “eschewing every act of proselytism, Unia, or other provocative act of inter-confessional competition.”
This means that on this point some corrections of wording were accepted, as well as the issue of the Unia, without condemning it explicitly. It is simply emphasised that inter-Christian theological dialogue must “always be accompanied by witness to the world through acts expressing mutual understanding and love, which express the ‘ineffable joy’ of the Gospel (1 Pet. 1:8), eschewing every act of proselytism, Unia, or other provocative act of inter-confessional competition.”
Therefore the Unia is not explicitly condemned as a particular Christian construct, but it was decided to eschew, to condemn, acts of proselytism and competition, both by the Unia and by all other Confessions.
6. The Orthodox Church and the Division of the Christian world
Paragraph 24 said that “The continued witness of the Orthodox Church to the divided Christian world on the basis of the apostolic tradition and faith is imperative.”
The Hierarchy of the Church of Greece added the words “rest of the”, between “divided” and “Christian world”: “the divided rest of the Christian world.”
This was repeated in paragraphs 4 and 5.
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
The Orthodox Church prays in all her services for the union of all and struggles in many ways for this end, but at the same time considers that the rest of the Christian world, in other words, that part which is outside it, has been divided.
The Orthodox Church does not include itself in the divided world, but calls all into its unity. The unity of the Orthodox Church, as the true Body of Christ having Christ as its head, is a given fact. There are neither many heads nor many bodies.
“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” (Eph. 1:22-23).
This proposal by the Church was not accepted and the words “rest of the” were not added to the text. The text remained as it was: “in the divided Christian world.”
7. One Flock and Gathering the Heterodox into It
In the last, unnumbered paragraph of the text was written:
We pray that all Christians may work together so that the day may soon come when the Lord will fulfil the hope of the Orthodox Churches and there will be ‘one flock and one shepherd’ (John 10:16).
Instead of this, the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece decided to propose the following wording:
We pray that all Christians may work together so that the day may soon come when the Lord will fulfill the hope of the Orthodox Church that she may gather within her all those who are scattered and there will be ‘one flock and one shepherd’ (John 10:16).
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
The one Shepherd unites the one flock, according to the words of Christ: “I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in as well, and they will listen to my voice. Then there will be one flock and one shepherd (John 10:16).”
This passage refers to human beings created by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, who are outside the sheepfold and so must be brought in by Christ and listen to His voice, so that there will be one flock, ruled by one Shepherd.
St Basil the Great, interpreting this saying of Christ’s, writes: “By referring to those from the Gentiles destined for salvation, He indicates a separate sheepfold besides that of the Jews.” Consequently, this saying of Christ’s identifies the Jewish synagogue as a sheepfold. The “other sheep” are the Gentiles, who by divine revelation will accept Christ. Both will unite and will be one flock, “from the Jews and the Gentiles”, according to blessed Zygavinos. This came about at Pentecost and after.
By analogy, this passage can also apply to the Church of Christ. Christ’s sheep are the people created by Him. The sheepfold is the Orthodox Church, which preserves the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition and is the one Flock under one Shepherd. The Christians, called by all kinds of different names, who are “outside it” must return to the faith, tradition and life of the one Flock of Christ. This action is called gathering them into the true Flock, which comes about by the action of God, with the cooperation of their own will.
This proposal was made to rule out the branch theory, according to which the unity among Christians has been lost and therefore Christians, including the Orthodox, are the individual branches of the tree struggling for their unity. The proposal of the Church of Greece was rejected and was not included in the text.
All this clearly shows that the basic proposal of the Church of Greece was that Christian groups who are active in the East and West can be called Christian Communities and Confessions, but not Churches. There was a great debate on this issue, so the Delegation of the Church of Greece, urged by the Ecumenical Patriarch, proposed, by majority vote, a new wording, which was accepted and included in the text.
After this, the subsequent proposed corrections were not supported adequately, and the core interventions decided by the Hierarchy somehow collapsed, except for a few drafting corrections.
Therefore, in the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world” the following decisions of the Hierarchy were not accepted:
- para. 6
- “The Orthodox Church is aware of the historical existence of other Christian Confessions and Communities not in communion with her.”
- (And the new proposal submitted is problematic from an ecclesiological point of view.)
- para. 20
- “with the other Christian Confessions and Communities”
- “according to the sacred canons of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Local Councils recognised by them,”
- “such as Canons 46, 47 and 50 of the Holy Apostles, 8 and 19 of the First Ecumenical Council, 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council, 95 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, and 7 and 8 of Laodicea.”
- “It is clarified that, when applying economy by admitting the heterodox by Libel and Holy Chrism, this is not to imply that the Orthodox Church recognises the validity of their Baptism or their other Sacraments.”
- para. 22
- “the preservation of the true Orthodox faith is ensured (only) through the conciliar system”
- “(Canons … and 14 and 15 of the First-Second Council)”
- “which has always represented the competent final judge in the Church on matters of faith.” (Amended accordingly)
- para. 24 (and para. 4 and 5)
- “divided rest of the Christian world”
- Epilogue
- “the hope of the Orthodox Church that she may gather within her all those who are scattered”
IV. The Encyclical of the “Holy and Great Council”
The Standing Holy Synod at its meeting in June 2016, after the relevant debate that took place in the Hierarchy in May, decided to adopt my proposal to include in the Encyclical of the “Holy and Great Council,” that the whole life of the Church is a continuous Council and when in the first and second millennium Local and Ecumenical Councils took place, they expressed the experience and the confession of Pentecost.
In this context mention should be made of the Great Councils in the time of St Photios the Great and in the time St Gregory Palamas, which have been widely characterised as Ecumenical Councils.
It should be noted that the Council in the time of St Photios the Great was described as the 8th Ecumenical Council in the Decision of the Patriarchs of the East in 1848, and the decisions of the Council of 1351 in the time of St Gregory Palamas have been included in the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”, which is read on the first Sunday of Lent, the Sunday of Orthodoxy.
His Eminence Metropolitan Athenagoras of Ilion, Petroupolis and Acharnai, who represented the Church of Greece on the Commission drawing up the Encyclical of the “Holy and Great Council”, and with whom I was continuously in contact by telephone, put this proposal to the Commission, and thus the following paragraph was drafted in that Encyclical:
3. The Orthodox Church, in her unity and catholicity, is the Church of Councils, from the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:5-29) to the present day. The Church in herself is a Council, established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, in accord with the apostolic words: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). Through the Ecumenical and Local councils, the Church has proclaimed and continues to proclaim the mystery of the Holy Trinity, revealed through the incarnation of the Son and Word of God. The Conciliar work continues uninterrupted in history through the later councils of universal authority, such as, for example, the Great Council (879-880) convened at the time of St Photios the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople, and also the Great Councils convened at the time of St Gregory Palamas (1341, 1351, 1368), through which the same truth of faith was confirmed, most especially as concerns the procession of the Holy Spirit and as concerns the participation of human beings in the uncreated divine energies, and furthermore through the Holy and Great Councils convened in Constantinople, in 1484 to refute the unionist Council of Florence (1438-1439), in 1638, 1642, 1672 and 1691 to refute Protestant beliefs, and in 1872 to condemn ethno-phyletism as an ecclesiological heresy.
I think that on this issue our Church had a considerable success, which should be recognised. However, I do not you know why the Council of 1347, which, among other things, elected St Gregory Palamas as Archbishop of Thessaloniki, was not included in the Councils in the time of St Gregory Palamas.
V. Conclusions
The proposals of the Hierarchy to the “Holy and Great Council” were made with the prospect that they would be discussed and accepted by the other Churches as well. One cannot take an absolute view in these matters and ask that one’s proposals be definitely accepted during the discussions. In any case, other Churches also submitted proposals, some of which were accepted and others rejected.
However, the problem with regard to the Church of Greece is that in the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world”, it submitted a new proposal, different from the proposal of the Hierarchy, which, in my opinion, is also problematic. This had implications for other proposals that the Church of Greece had submitted.
From what has been recorded earlier, the following conclusions can be drawn.
- The Delegation of the Church of Greece succeeded in including the views of the Hierarchy in the first text on the ontology of the human person. Although the word “person” remained in the text along with “human being” for further discussion, everything was deleted that related to the ontology of person in connection with the Triune God, namely, that the human being is a bearer of the image of the personal God, and that the communion of persons reflects by grace, through the unity of humankind, the life and communion of the divine persons in the Holy Trinity.
This means that all the modern theology about the communion of the divine Persons, about the human being as a bearer the image of the personal God and not as created in the image and likeness of God, and about the community of persons who reflect the grace of the Triune God, which constitutes modern personalism, was not accepted by the “Holy and Great Council”.
- In the text relating to the issue of autonomy, the Church of Greece received the assurance of the Ecumenical Patriarch that the existing arrangements for the New Lands will continue to apply, that is to say, that these Metropolises belong canonically to the Ecumenical Patriarchate but were put under the guardianship of the Autocephalous Church of Greece for their administration, that the status quo will remain and that autonomy will not be granted to these regions and other areas for which a Tomos or Act has been issued.
- In the most fundamental text referring to the relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world, after the change of the decision of the Hierarchy on the main point, and the submission of a new proposal by majority vote by the Delegation of the Church of Greece, without authorisation from the Hierarchy, the other basic proposals concerning the validity or otherwise of the Baptism of other Christians and prayer for their return to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church were not adequately supported.
Thus, the final text is diplomatic. It is distinguished by its “creative ambiguity”, as has been written. It contains arguments that can be received by all sides. I think that it displeases both the Orthodox and the heterodox. It is imbued with baptismal theology and, indirectly but clearly, with the branch theory, as was also demonstrated during the discussions, and it also moved slightly, but consciously, away from the principle of exclusivity and towards the principle of inclusiveness.
As it is well known, the principle of exclusivity states that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, whereas the principle of inclusiveness states that there are many Churches, in which valid Baptism is recognised as a key point, and there are dialogues to achieve complete unity. In other words, according to the principle of inclusiveness the canonical and sacramental boundaries of the Church are not identical, as is clearly the case according to the principle of exclusivity.
It made an impression, however, that elderly Hierarchs holding important positions in the Church supported anti-Orthodox positions on the grounds that this was what they had been taught by their professors in the first half of the 20th century, even though in the meantime important research has been done on patristic sources, such as St Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, St Maximus the Confessor, St Gregory Palamas etc., and this research has overturned those views.
In any case, until the 19th century there was the same terminology with regard to the Orthodox Church and the heterodox, with a few exceptions. This was reversed in the early 20th century with the Message of the Ecumenical Patriarchate “To the Churches of Christ Everywhere” in 1920, after various events that had preceded that Message.
The paradox is that these Hierarchs invoked their professors, who, as clearly demonstrated by academic research, were influenced by scholastic and Protestant theology, and did not themselves proceed to further patristic research, although they were the successors of the professors referred to. And in any case, it is strange for a Hierarch to invoke former professors and not the Prophets, the Apostles and the Church Fathers, which is what he confessed at his ordination as Bishop.
His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios (also Ierotheos) serves the Metropolis of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios in the Church of Greece. He has been Metropolitan of Nafpaktos since 1995.
For what it’s worth, I’ve waited a long time to write something about the Cretan Robber Council. I know some of you have asked (off-line) why this was so. Basically, as a layman I’m out of my depth in plumbing its depths. That’s why I’ve waited for an ordained bishop who was actually there to give his assessment.
As for myself, all I had was a sneaking suspicion that there was “something wrong in the state of Denmark.” Little did I know how deep the rot ran. Right now, the thing that entrances me about it is the startling change in anthropology that is being promulgated. How thanks to the New Anthropology, there are two kinds of men: ordinary men and homosexuals. That’s the only conclusion that can be surmised by the idea that a man’s passions drives his identity.
I never realized it until His Grace pointed it out.
Bishop Maxim of the Serbian Diocese of Western America (my bishop) also participated in the Conference and has published in both Serbian and English (http://westserbdio.org/en/sebastian-press/item/391-diary-of-the-council) his diary of the event. He provides a response to many of Metropolitan Hierotheos’s concerns in it and it sounds like the conversation among the bishops makes it very clear that there is no effort to embrace a branch theory or smuggle in gender identity through the use of person (unless you are going to hold up Met. Kallistos Ware as a proponent of that, given that he was the most forceful participant for the use of “person” because of connotations in the English language…in other words, his concern was pastoral). I recommend that people read Bishop Maxim’s account. Also, it would be helpful for useful discourse to not refer to the Council as a “Cretan Robber Council.” To do so simply plays into stereotypes about bloggers and, importantly, enflames passions when it would be more useful to do a little more investigation. Thanks!
The blatant ecumenist statements that came out of this so-called council, and the non participation of 4 Large Orthodox churches, and the legitimate criticism of Fr. Peter Heers as to the many irregularities of this gathering lends itself naturally to the name robber council. I cannot and will not accept the council’s ecumenist agenda, and it’s stealth ability to reunite Rome. This council has a long way to go to even remotely be valid. I wish it the best of luck. It will need it. Desperately.
Peter A. Papoutsis
“The elephant in the room” here, as always, including the just concluded Assembly of American Bishops in Detroit is THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH AND PATRIARCHATE. That elephant charges and stomps and tramples any WHISPER of the word “abortion.” When the elephant is backed into a corner it will trumpet something hazily in favor of “Life.” That’s IT! Go ahead and READ the concluding statement of that Assembly and the Cretan great and holyAshram! Tell the world and the American public what the Orthodox Church Hierarchy stands for and is willing to die defending!
Yes, your Grace. It is mind boggling to see the Patriarch of Constantinople push relentlessly for eco-justice……and never say a word about the murder of the most innocent lives in the womb. It is scandalous.
An what’s worse, if there is a worse, is their approach is to demonizing women. I had a bishop tell me that women are 100% responsible for abortion. I asked what was being done within the Church to relay to men, in a tangible way, that if they have unprotected sex, within or outside their marriages, that they are equally responsible if that child is aborted, except in those extreme cases where brave men actually go to court to stop it. I have seen women receive penances for up to a year for aborting a baby, for ANY reason (rape, their health, etc.), but do not see the same thing with the men who got them pregnant. No man has ever told me he has received a penance, but many women have . . . EXTREME penances. I suspect men don’t even bother to confess it. Until the Church shuts down its own “baby daddy” machines, we have no business “banning” anything in the secular world. With these new, non-invasive paternity test while in utero, this will change, because you can BET women won’t be walking out; they will be coming forward, in groves, demanding that the men in our Church be corrected. If a woman brings a baby to term and does not want to care for it (because she was rapped, for example) or cannot care for it, that baby should be put in the arms of the father. Men seem to have forgotten that God gave Adam the keys to the garden, not Eve. They have responsibilities. They can’t just look the other way and pretend it didn’t happen and our Hierarchs better start getting on board, because women are going to start making a lot of noise, when they can prove paternity. They shouldn’t have to. Our Church has let women down. – That same bishop got upset because I posted on his timeline a picture of a man in uniform saying, “If more fathers did what they were supposed to do, there would be half the number of criminals on the street.” I also posted a very tender piece of a father singing to his infant daughter, as she was smiling and cooing, and said, “If more men paid this kind of attention to their daughters, their daughters would grow up to be stronger women who would make better choices.” – THESE he objected to while endorsing “banning abortion, (as if he could) and supported some nasty comments about the women who walked out of the Church, basically called whores. A few sheepish men followed because even THEY could stand seeing an Orthodox woman called a whore. This bishop needs to go back to “bishop school” and take a remedial class on the “birds and the bee,” because he clearly doesn’t understand it take two to tango, men are stronger, and 1 out of 4 woman are raped. (It’s actually much higher, because women don’t report it.) Some are raped by their husbands, pressured into abortions they don’t want. There is a special kind of hell for men who do this to women. I suspect it’s worse for the Hierarchs who fail to address the problem within the Church, while making the news in secular newspapers and calling an orthodox woman a whore.
Gail, there are many times I am embarrassed to be a man. Your story is one if them. The fact that many powerful men in the secular world are just like Donald Trump is another.
Even Christian men in male only groups tend to get real earthy, real quickly. There are exceptions thank God.
You are right, unless men step up and act as men should act, it will only get worse. It is not easy, but why should it be.
Lord have mercy on me a sinner.
Gail, I agree with you. Keep up the good fight!
Thank you, Gail. Men are the (largely) unseen actors in the abortion saga and need to take responsibility both pre-conception and, if needed, post-birth.
Thank you again.
My good Bishop why do you disparage the EP with the issue of Abortion when you won’t even go or support a March for Life event against Abortion? When I pushed you on this issue last time you basically said the Orthodox Church here in America had NO witness to give to America against Abortion so as to end Abortion and you thought our witness through the March for Life was just silly. I think you need to get your self in Order before you criticize the EP, or Russia, or America.
God Bless.
Peter
Peter, those marches ARE ineffective and a waste of time—-surrogate activity! They’re like the Russian Church showily collecting a little over $500,000 to “combat” abortion while blessing ostentatiously their president who shows no interest whatsoever in the topic! However, the EP doesn’t utter a PEEP against abortion, while generously praising (green?) life! Please, Peter, repeat the words you impute to me: “the Orthodox Church here in America HAD NO WITNESS TO GIVE to America against abortion so as (sic!) to end abortion.” Never said that. I can repeat “Abortion is murder” until I am blue in the face, but if the Bishops’ Assembly or the EP would say it, this would be a meaningful witness to the world and our members.And Peter, my getting myself in order has nothing to do with the value of what I say—to claim it does is plain, garden variety illogical fallacy, called ‘argumentum ad hominem.
Here is a direct quotation from a July 20, 1990, article, “SF Shows Off Its Ecumenical Spirit,” in the San Francisco Chronicle. Metropolitan Bartholomais of Chalcedon is the current Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.
Asked the Orthodox church’s position on abortion, Bartholomais described a stand more liberal than that of the Roman Catholic Church, which condemns abortion in all cases and whose clergy have, in some cities, excommunicated leading pro-choice Catholics.
“Although the Orthodox church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of pregnancy,” Bartholomais said, the church also ”respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples.”
”We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he said. ”We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.”
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch
The EP respects the liberty and freedom of Orthodox couples choose to terminate their pregnancies. How much MORE clear can his stance (or lack thereof) be and yet the rest of the Church holds the bar too high. Preventing a pregnancy makes so much MORE sense than abortion.
Thanks very much, Gale!
i’m afraid that attitude is the common, but not unanimous, attitude of GOA clergy today! A senior GOA priest once lectured me: “It’s not so simple Your Grace!” Then he told me of how a Greek woman came to him and confessed that she had become pregnant by a man not her husband. The Priest continued by saying, “If she had not gone through with the abortion, her husband who had had a vasectomy would find out about her adultery, and this would destroy that family! She had four children already!” I said, “Father, that’s between you and your bishop, but you blessed a murder.” I think that Priest has probably fallen asleep by now, but Bartholomew has not.
That priest did bless an Abortion, and assisted in the sin of Adultery. I hope God dealt mercifully with him. Unfortunately the good bishop is right about such attitudes in the GOAA clergy and among the OCA clergy as well. I don’t know about Antioch or ROCOR, but I wouldn’t be surprised if such an attitude was there as well. May God have mercy on our Church.
Peter
Here’s the thing about abortion and why it is such a slippery issue.
Children, in the modern world that we live in, are expensive and take time.
That’s pretty much it. If the fertilized egg could be raised by someone else and there were a way of replanting it efficiently, en masse, there would be no discussion and no problem.
Modern human beings have very little faith in tomorrow or the world to come. It all seems futile. Thus, so does child bearing. It interferes with having fun and freedom. It sucks up money. It’s inconvenient and a ball and chain of responsibility.
So it must be bad.
It’s not any more complicated than that really. So until people gain faith in tomorrow and the world to come, the issue will be with us. People will sin in this way – abortion. Better to use birth control. Better still to let nature take its course and make lots and lots of little souls, created in the image and likeness of God.
But that requires a whole lotta faith.
Well, Gail, a bell comes to mind… Before Vladyka Tikhon was castigated for his comments, I too was excoriated for suggesting that we have absolutely no moral voice – in the US, in Russia, or the world – and trick ourselves with a yearly march into believing we have actually taken action. Thank you for validating this point, albeit in a truly shocking, truly lamentable demonstration of the shepherd betraying the sheep.
Finally, it seems to important to ask because of the entrėe to this question, in reading Vladyka Tikhon’s commentary – with which I heartily concur – should the ordained clergy, and in particular the God-chosen & God-anointed Hierarchs, preach against, even take to task those issues with which they might personally struggle or even personally fail to conquer in their own personal lives? Certainly they should and certainly they must, and if you do not know why, I refer you to Sts. Chrysostom & Ignatius Branchianinov to figure it out. St. Paul said the ordained clergy must be “upright,” not “sinless,” and the commentary on this site frequently crosses a line that, I suspect, offends the angels.
A March for Life that is not followed up with action at the grassroots level, our priests having the courage to stand in the breach and proclaim the prophetic voice of the Church loudly, and excommunication Orthodox politicians who aRe pro-choice is VERY INEFFECTIVE.
So yes a march just to march is ineffective. I agree. I know the sins of the GOAA in not excommunicating Greek American Pro-choice politicians. They supported heritage over the Gospel of Christ, and they will have to answet for it. I agree with you on that as well. My question is why were you and the other Holy Synods of Bishops complicit?
Why didn’t you/they excommunicate those Pro-choice Orthodox politicians here in America? What is your excuse? I know and agree with you that the GOAA was and is wrong in not excommunicating them, so correct the problem by the OCA, Antioch and/or ROCOR excommunicating those Orthodox pro-choice politicians. Make a statement instead of just typing away on a blog that cost you nothing? You are a bishop after all. Say and do something. You and the other bishops had years upon years UPON YEARS to say and do something concrete, but you didn’t. So I ask again what was your excuse? I think we would all like to know. Complicity is just as bad as allowing.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Fr. Daniel,
I am not going to purchase the $15 “diary” of the council, but I did read the review. Bishop Maxim repeats the tired refrain that the criticisms aimed at the council are all ideological while the council itself and it’s work are “existential” and of course the work of the Holy Spirit. Bishop Maxim is wrong – not all the criticisms are “ideological”. For example, much of the Church’s unease with the “relations” document is that it is simply repetition of the current ecumenical status quo, which of course the EP and his allies are 110% invested in (indeed one could say they are “existentially” attached to the status quo and have been for a 100 years or so).
Right now, the Church does not seem to have a “way out” or a “way up” because even those bishops who know in the hearts the status quo can not continue, can not see a way out/up/over the current trap of “dialogue in love – no matter the consequences” – in other words they are trapped in an ideology that no one as of yet has a way to step out of.
The next REAL council (whenever that is and which will deserve the title of “Holy and Great”) will be given this gift from God. It will also tackle REAL ecclesiological issues like the dissolution of the EP (who by that time will have less than his current 2000 or so souls – maybe even 0)…
Heterosexuality is the prevailing problem in almost every society when it is associated with personhood outside of marriage relations. That’s where we get adultery, divorce, abortions, prostitution, etc. Yes we believe that salvation can be achieved in marriage, but most of the saints are monks or virgin martyrs.
Sarcasm Mr. Lipper?
A notable in the Church of Greece sent me this almost the minute it came out. I have mixed reactions to it.
First, yes, the ecclesiology of the Church of Constantinople which is set forth in the Relations document is erroneous. In fact, it is heretical, as I pointed out vociferously during the Council itself. Moreover, the metropolitan refers to some of the intrigues which I pointed out at the time. It was an effort by the Phanar towards Unia.
Secondly, the whole thing about the “person” is related to sexual orientation; i.e., the change in the language that the Phanar is proposing regarding referring to the “human person” is a way to smuggle in the whole gender identity nonsense, and probably other things as well.
Third, the fullness of the apostasy is breathtaking. In one fell swoop, the Phanar invited the Church to embrace not only the Anglican Branch Theory to the extent that it would reconcile Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism, but also Protestant baptismal theology to reconcile the liberal Protestant world with this newly minted Borg. That’s audacity.
Fourth, my reply to this notable was very simple and direct. I am grateful that the metropolitan took the time to make the case in detailed, explicit terms, in the spirit of truth, and with patient forbearance. However, I prefer Fr. Longin’s response when Pat. Kirill engaged in similar, though not “official”, error in his personal dealings with the Roman pontiff. Fr. Longin simply said, in so many words, that this is heresy and that with all due respect to his brother Kirill, he can no longer commemorate him.
That pretty much says what needed to be said. A shot across the bow announcing that a break of communion is imminent unless he cleans up his act.
I realize that this is a little off topic, but given the “Green Patriarch’s” propensity to all things environmental, the godfather of the entire Green Religion just poured a whole lotta cold water on the entire brouhaha:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/01/james-lovelock-godfather-green-climate-change-religion-totally-unscientific/
I guess we can file this under “Oops! My bad!”
Fr. Harry Linsinbigler,
[off topic from the overstuffed thread “Who’s Minding the Store”]
Your response to my question regarding the Canon with the wording “and let them not bring their children to baptism,” was very informative and impressed upon me the importance of historical context. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and taking the time to do so. It seems that the discussion on Baptism [thread: Who’s Minding the Store] was turning into a proxy skirmish for the issue of militant homosexuals working their way into the Church. If I may beg your forbearance, I have to ask you the big question directly. Do you oppose the acceptance of same-sex couples (who reject that their sexual relations are sinful, and therefore do not repent of their physical behavior) into the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, with the same standing as married heterosexual couples?
With respect,
Thomas
I don’t think I’d dignify that with a response if I were an Orthodox priest.
Just saying.
I’m going to bet Fr. Harry does me one better.
Anonymous,
You must realize that there are Orthodox laymen and clergy who take nontraditional stands on many controversial issues. The UOC of the USA is a jurisdiction of less than 100 parishes. I’ve never met a member of the UOC of the USA. Have you? I have no idea how traditional or modern they are. Of course Fr. Harry is free to pass on my question. But he has courage – that’s why he’s not anonymous.
He clearly stated in his posts the churches teaching on baptism. There was nothing in his post that reflected any nuanced or modified version of Orthodoxy.
But rather than taking an objective approach on the substance of his post on baptism, you asked him if he was nuanced towards homosexual marriage and now you are attacking me for anonymity. Your question to him had nothing to do with baptism at all.
Looks like you are more interested in personalities than teachings.
Get it now?
It is a friendly rebuke sir. And I am not nuanced toward homosexual marriage. I’m not a huge fan of it, for the record.
Anonymous,
If you don’t think it is “nuanced” or “modified” that two sodomite men can prance into an Orthodox Church with baby in hand, and that the priest be required to perform the Mystery of Holy Baptism because it’s all about the baby, then your notion of traditional Orthodoxy is irreconcilable with mine. But Fr. Harry has declared “case closed” on the issue. One would hope that he’ll take a traditional stand on marriage. I’m waiting with bated breath and whispering humbleness. Ain’t you, bub? Glad to hear you’re “not a huge fan” of gay marriage, but that’s a rather insipid stance.
It is ugly. Two gay men carrying a babe into the church. Nothing great about it. Ugly.
As for insipid, the whole world does not believe as I do and that is a good thing.
If all of you were Muslim and wanted Sharia, I’d be against you fully.
Now, Anonymous! “If all of you were Muslim and wanted Sharia, I’d be against you fully?” What if you were an Egyptian or Assyrian Christian at the time of the Islamic jihad” weren’t they and most of the non-Greek denizens of the Chalcedonian Empire rather happy to accept the Islamic covenant (dhimma) offered them and escape the tyranny and taxation of Constantinople? If the educated and Christian Middle Eastern public of the time welcomed shariah and the covenant (dhimma) offered them would you still be against them fully?
Sometimes it seems there is no INTELLIGENT opposition to Islam any more!
I think you missed the greater point good Bishop. That is, to explain to these fellows that if we want religion to drive our governments; they best be careful because it might be a religion they don’t want.
And you sort of reaffirm this with your comment as well, don’t you think?
Thomas Barker! Do you have, perhaps, a video clip of the homosexuals “prancing” into a Church? If they had “strode” into the Church would that be more Orthodox? And didn’t the sponsor carry the infant, rather than the two “prancers?”
Sometimes it seems there is no INTELLIGENT opposition to homosexuality any more!
Your Grace,
The word “strode” does not appear in my prior comments. It is not immediately clear to me why Your Grace did not select the correct past participle “stridden” as “had” precedes it. It does have a folksy ring to it, though, similar to “… and he had rode his horse to town many a time.”
The words sashay and mince were considered, but I thought prance evokes the image of energetic post-Stonewall fruits, high-stepping with great elan as victorious culture warriors. (The sponsor was not there as it was the unnatural couple’s initial visit.)
And finally, in the interest of symmetry…
Sometimes it seems there is no RIGHTEOUS opposition to homosexuality by those to whom we turn for salvific wisdom!
Now Thomas Barker!! You must KNOW and RECOGNIZE, that the use of the verb to prance to characterize the assumed walking into the Church by two homosexual men was highly dishonest and prejudicial overkill—–even false witness, and my reference to this or that correct or incorrect form of the equally weighted verb to stride, was a polite and appropriate exposure of that overkill! Of course, I am not a stranger to the way homosexuals would try to dramatise an anecdote by just that kind of lingo. A “flaming queen” would, like you, characterise a homosexual couple archly as “prancing” hither or thither! I was born in Detroit, and I served in the U.S. Army as an enlisted man and in the U.S. Air Force as an officer. There’s very little of American vice or folly in action or word which I have not witnessed! I did learn, as Rector of a large Russian Orthodox parish, a couple new things: one, that Greek married men during the Great Fast might “sneak’ over to a non=Greek parish in order to confess to their having surrendered to “irresistible” homosexual temptations, and two, that sometimes a pregnant mother, fleeing advancing Soviet armed forces with her little children, might feel she could not continue over the mountain range unless she had an abortion, and thus arrived safely with her kids in friendly territory! So, it is “RIGHTEOUS” to mock sinners! Who knew? Is that better than throwing stones, I wonder?
Your Grace,
With all due respect, the word prance used above is not dishonest at all. The nancy of the new generation enjoys a respectable place in society and feels free to display his girlie walk and girlie talk with an abandon unthinkable during Your Grace’s military career. Rock Hudson wouldn’t need a closet today. Most people recognize the phrase “light in the loafers” instantly because the friends of Dorothy tend to ambulate with a notably heteroclite gait. So we can call it prance, shimmy or bobble without charges of dishonesty. The aberrant comportment of the poof has a wondrous variety of names. Wouldn’t Your Grace agree?
Thomas Barker! Thanks for reminding me that “prance” in the given context was TYPICAL FLAMING QUEEN lingo. A queen wouldn’t care HOW masculine a homosexual’s pace was: the queen would (archly, like the Protodeacon) call it prancing! You referred to “an abandon unthinkable during Your Grace’s military career” Not only thinkable, but seen in the Army in various places and on occasion! Rock Hudson’s walk was carefully scripted. Again, “friends of Dorothy” is typical “queen-talk!”
Fr. Harry obfuscated on the issue of baptism, pretending, contrary to reason, that Canon 8 of the 7th Ecumenical Council is not relevant when it plainly is. The canon forbids baptism of the children of parents who reject the Christian faith and only want their children baptized to obtain benefits for themselves. That is the case with this poor child born by a surrogate mother for a militantly gay man. So we are indeed left to wonder what Fr. Harry’s position is on gay couples.
Indeed, very well said. The canon you cite I’d file under the “God is not mocked” category.
Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell –One could say that the canon may apply to non-Jews, but you made a flat-out statement that it applies in this instance. In so doing, you have blatantly misrepresented the canon. Here is the canon:
“Inasmuch as some persons who have been misled by their inferences from the religion of the Jews have seen fit to sneer at Christ our God, while pretending to be Christians, but secretly and clandestinely keeping the Sabbath and doing other Jewish acts, we decree that these persons shall not be admitted to communion, nor to prayer, nor to church, but shall be Jews openly in accordance with their religion; and that neither shall their children be baptized, nor shall they buy or acquire a slave. But if any one of them should be converted as a matter of sincere faith, and confess with all his heart, triumphantly repudiating their customs and affairs, with a view to censure and correction of others, we decree that he shall be accepted and his children shall be baptized, and that the latter shall be persuaded to hold themselves aloof from Jewish peculiarities. If, on the other hand, the case is not thus, they are not to be accepted under any other circumstances whatever.”
Carl, Fr. Harry insists “it’s all about the baby.” Canon 8 of the 7th EC says no, it’s not all about the baby, it’s also about the parents and their faith and their motivations. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has recently affirmed that principle in its statement on surrogacy. Why would you limit the principle only to Jews?
Fr Harry did not obfuscate but you have. Here is the canon:
” Inasmuch as some persons who have been misled by their inferences from the religion of the Jews have seen fit to sneer at Christ our God, while pretending to be Christians, but secretly and clandestinely keeping the Sabbath and doing other Jewish acts, we decree that these persons shall not be admitted to communion, nor to prayer, nor to church, but shall be Jews openly in accordance with their religion; and that neither shall their children be baptized, nor shall they buy or acquire a slave. But if any one of them should be converted as a matter of sincere faith, and confess with all his heart, triumphantly repudiating their customs and affairs, with a view to censure and correction of others, we decree that he shall be accepted and his children shall be baptized, and that the latter shall be persuaded to hold themselves aloof from Jewish peculiarities. If, on the other hand, the case is not thus, they are not to be accepted under any other circumstances whatever.”
Nope, Fr. Harry did not “obfuscate” – he merely pointed out the obvious historical basis of the Canon, and the obvious problematics with the theological and spiritual application of said canon to our now current (and obviously different) historical context (in the context of this discussion – a child of homosexualist “parents” who nonetheless has “real” {i.e. right believing} Orthodox sponsors – an exceedingly rare scenario but nonetheless one that has apparently come up). He explicitly stated that a “real” Orthodox baptism has a “real” sponsor.
Protodeacon Brian, I am a bit surprised at your use of this particular “life boat” spiritual/canon application scenario and your willingness to expand upon it to accuse (you have gone well past speculation) Fr. Harry of having a “position” on “gay couples” that is not in accordance of to the Faith. Perhaps you should re-read your own work on politics and how it corrupts language and relation.
As a student in the seminary where Fr. Harry teaches, I can assure you that Fr. Harry’s Orthodoxy is sound and his “position” on “gay couples” is fully inside the normative moral Tradition.
Yes, our little “jurisdiction” (http://www.uocofusa.org/) has a handful of folks who want to blasphemy the Holy Spirit and “update” the normative anthropological Tradition (as if that were possible) to fit it into modernist categories and has even more (In my estimation at least half) who are simply confused and ill-catechized about the whole situation. However, this is true in any jurisdiction (I have been part of 4 different “jurisdictions” in my 20 years in NA Orthodoxy) and we don’t have the depth of problems in this area as say, the OCA or GOA (though I am only one man and don’t have the perspective/experience of say, a NA bishop).
Obviously, that thread/discussion got a bit emotional (this includes some of Fr. Harry’s responses) – perhaps it is best if accusations of bland apostasy be retracted and a more faithful attempt at what is actually said made…
Christopher,
You are letting your own emotions get in the way of reading what others have written. If you calm down and re-read what I have written you will see that I have not accused Fr. Harry of having any position on gay couples. No one has accused Fr. Harry of having a position on that subject. No one has accused him of apostasy or even heresy.
Thomas Barker asked Fr. Harry a simple question: Does he oppose accepting same-sex couples into the UOC-USA on the same basis as normal couples? Fr. Harry has not answered, and others have objected that Mr. Barker’s question is inappropriate. I have defended Mr. Barker by saying merely that we have reason to wonder about Fr. Harry’s position’s on gay couples given his dodgy comments on Canon 8 and silence on the statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church.
Fr. Harry did indeed obfuscate on the issue of baptism by raising irrelevant historical details so as to obscure the principle in question while declining to address the Holy Synod’s recent affirmation of the principle. Maybe he did so just to avoid admitting that he was wrong. But maybe he did so because he does indeed believe that same-sex couples should be treated just like normal couples. I hope that that is not so, especially since Fr. Harry is not just a priest but a seminary professor. But I don’t know that it’s not so and do have reason to wonder.
Pdn Brian Patrick,
Sorry I have been traveling and have not been able to reply. I would suggest it is your emotions (or is it simple pride?) getting in the way here. Fr. Harry does the very opposite (on the other thread and this one) of what you allege: rather than obfuscate he explicates in detail. You simply disagree with his particular take on the cannon (historical) and its application to the current question (centering around homosexualism). That’s ok, you can disagree but you should not falsely accuse and manipulate language (your “wondering”) in your attempt to win an argument. You have lost this argument IMO, in that Fr. Harry has the better of it (the cannon has real historical basis and is not THE “solution” to the current predicament).
The important thing is to move on and in a sense keep arguing – this question is too important and needs a full answer (and many answers), and I suspect the (ancient) canons are not going to be our savior as it were in the sense that can not provide a simplistic answer…
What is happening here is that this question has been asked and answered ad nauseum, and in my mind, Pdn. Mitchell has summed it up in a conclusion I could have predicted 20-responses ago. How? Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell is a classic homophobe of the Colson, Dobson, Christian Right, Nickolosi, NARTH, Exodus, Fr. Hans variety, who will promote and support any charlatan, huckster, liar, thief, theory, position, paper, essay, or document that express any sort of dismissal, dislike, distaste, disregard, disagreement, dispute, hatred, anti-anything in regard to homosexuality, no matter how foolish, no matter whether understood or not. The more you demonstrate Pdn. Mitchell is wrong, the more he is arrogantly & defiantly motivated to prove otherwise – the overwhelming complexity of the topic e.g. human genetics or human medicine, far beyond his level of education and expertise – notwithstanding, to Google he runs. Does he EVER, in the end, concede and admit he is/was wrong? An ordained Proto-Deacon of the Orthodox Church? If I were still holding my breath…
And so to his conclusion: the question of baptizing this child was more than adequately asked & answered pursuant to the Patristic and Canonical Tradition of the Church, and only a homophobe would believe there was something to be gained by homosexual parents. Most importantly, The Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church in America made a decision that this child would be baptized – decided because he believed the Patristic/Canonical Tradition, he was satisfied by the responses of the parties involved, or by economy – and he alone is answerable to God for this decision, not a single one of us, and certainly not – as warns any supposed and pretentious usurper by both St. Paul & St. Chrysostom – Pdn. Mitchell. So when Pdn. Michell hangs meat before what he presumes to be hungry dogs, “So we are indeed left to wonder what Fr. Harry’s position is on gay couples,” my response is, “I for one, do not share the content of your sick homophobic need to prolong this filth.” Only by pursuing what a Bishop of the Church has rightfully resolved – which no man may then question – is “God mocked,” Mr. Michalopulos.
Dr Stankovich, I’d like to ask a general question that has long vexed me. It has to do with those organizations that try to help homosexuals escape their lifestyle. Assuming that such therapy is possible, why are so many gay activists adamantly against curing homosexuality.
I ask this in good faith because for years –decades–we were constantly told that “why would anyone want to choose this lifestyle?” This assumes that homosexuality is a dysfunction. Isn’t it the purpose of the medical arts to cure disease and/or arrest dysfunction?
Now of course, I’m not naive. I now see that the gay activists were never arguing in good faith in this and on so many other issues (like gay “marriage”.) It was all a sham. Nothing but Alinskyite tactics to beat down the opposition.
Anyway, I’m just curious as to why you castigate groups like NARTH, etc who take seriously the self-proclaimed propaganda of the previous decade (i.e. that no one would “choose” homosexuality as a lifestyle.)
George, NARTH may take that seriously:”no one would “choose” homosexuality as a lifestyle.” However, that should be followed by the caveat: “unless, of course, one is in prison, when just about everyone discovers the pleasure of EXPERIENCING that lifestyle without being specially trained trained for it—almost “instinctively!”
Mr. Michalopulos,
Having had extended essays posted for years on my own site, and having addressed this issue numerous times on this site with Fr. Hans & Pdn. Mitchell over their support of these charlatan heterodox, I don’t know whether it is worth the effort. Nevertheless, these homophobic pseudo-scholars continue to infiltrate the Orthodox discussion, and are even supported and propped up by those on the Orthodox Right who are homophobic and ignorant. While it is a complex issue, your question can be addressed in two points: homophobes demand homosexuals must “change,” and there is a fundamental lack of evidence to support that anything or nothing is helpful in producing change.
First, let me clarify several points before I say anything: I have been accused of believing that sexual orientation is fixed, absolute, and unchangeable. This is absolutely false. The corollary to this accusation is that I believe “reparitive therapies” or sexual orientation change efforts [SOCE} are ineffective or pointless is also absolutely false. I personally know of people who have successfully “re-oriented” themselves, I have read about people who have been successfully “re-oriented,” and my response can only be, blessed is God who has delivered them by whatever means He utilized to accomplish this miracle. The limited, scant, reliable research currently available – and note the emphasis – however, clearly suggests the ineffectiveness of SOCE. Likewise, I maintain homosexuality is not of our humanity as it was “in the beginning,” but exists only in this fallen world, reflective of our fallen humanity, and will not be in the Kingdom which is to come.
The approach of these SOCE groups like NARTH & Exodus, from their beginning have insisted that there is a single entity, homosexuality, and that, as has been argued here again recently, is the result not of “orientation,” but of traumatic external circumstance: sexual abuse, poor same-gender modeling, and as the co-founder of NARTH, Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., author of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach and Shame and Attachment Loss: The Practical Work of Reparative Therapy – foundational texts of the movement – has repeated stated, “After almost 30 years of work, I can say to you that I’ve never met a single homosexual who’s had a loving and respectful relationship with his father.” As the articles that passed through here recently clearly indicate, there is insufficient research to definitively support any such conclusions, and the available – and again note the emphasis – does not support such claims in the least. Secondly, they relied on the windfall of a research study by none other than their nemesis, the respected psychiatrist who edited the DSM-II and actively lobbied for the removal of Homosexuality from the list of Mental Disorders, Robert Spitzer, MD, who published a landmark paper, Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? which appeared to prove it indeed possible. Later, however, when the methodology and outcomes were seriously questioned by independent researchers – and Spitzer took to the scientific community and even the NY Times in 2012 to retract his findings – NARTH, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, and other Christian Right groups who had been quoting him for a decade were asked to cease using his findings, Spitzer was ignored, In fact, a Federal Appeals Court judge castigated a U. of Texas faculty member for citing him in 2015.
Most importantly, however, SOCE turns out to be anything but news, and little more than a neo-Freudian psychodynamic of “transference” and Bowleby’s attachment theory:
In other words, by “loaning his healthy ego” unconsciously to the damaged individual seeking to “re-orient” himself as heterosexual, Nicolosi and NARTH (among those who carefully did not reveal their religious beliefs) and Exodus and others (who did reveal their religious beliefs) claimed “complete re-orientation” for anyone who completed a 2-year structured program. It is absolute fraud, and this leads to my last objection. When Spitzer was involved, NARTH claimed “30% were successfully re-oriented,” which Spitzer indicated was “preposterous,” and at a conference in London in 2009, Nicolsi claimed “complete re-orientation in approximately 75%.”
The basis of providing medical care – including psychological – to humans is based on the principle of “do no harm,” and is accomplished in principled, ethical, empirical research; first to establish a risk-to-benefit ratio, and then to establish a benefit-to-nothing ratio (i.e. providing this form of treatment must be substantially safer than exposing a human being to the risks, and secondly, the benefits must be substantially better than doing nothing at all). Research is carefully designed, and when human subjects are involved, necessitating an Independent Review Board who is responsible to monitor and guarantee patient safety, blah, blah, blah. It is a very open and transparent process. Likewise, the publication process is “refereed” blind to reviewers and authors with research data for examination, etc., re-submitted for revision, again, blah, blah, blah. Anyone can look at Retraction Watch for the numbers of studies that are caught for mistakes and unscrupulous science. Check the National Library of Medicine for legitimate scientific studies, and Google Scholar for the “h-index” of authors and publications, and index of the influence measured by how often they are cited by their peers. If, in fact, the practitioners of NARTH, JONAH, Exodus, Joseph Nicolosi, and the rest of the “scholars” with them were “re-orienting” homosexuals at a rate of 30%, “complete re-orientation in approximately 75%,” or “complete re-orientation after 2-years,” they would be prominent in all three places. Look for yourselves. They are charlatans, liars, and thieves. One of the main reasons they are unpublished in mainstream journals is that – while claiming phenomenal success in SOCE – they refuse examination of their research data. Thus, they have established their own journals and press. Already twice in 2016, Nicolosi has been refused as an expert witness in CA appeals courts attempting to testify to overturn the ban forbidding any therapeutic interventions with sexual minority adolescents under the age of 18. Anecdotes abound about how helpful and life-changing NARTH and the rest have been for some individuals, and anecdotes abound of the psychological horror they have inflicted, driving some to the brink of suicide. As I have said a million times, what is the answer to anecdote? Research. What have the APA’s (psychiatry/psychology), NASW, family therapist, and generally all mental health bodies forbidden as unethical? Research. By what evidence. None.
Are all homosexuals the same? Seems highly unlikely. Is it nature or nurture? It seems likely both. Is it genetic? If you mean are people “born this way?” There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the case. Is it “epigenetic?” This means is it possible that external factors impact genetic expressions (how a cell adapts to its changing environment) but not the underlying genetic code (e.g. an imposed famine in the Netherlands by the Nazis appears to have taken a single generation to impact obesity) to influence homosexuality? It seems possible in some (e.g. can childhood trauma produce an epigenetic effect in vulnerable individuals?). Fraud and charlatans hinder continuing research that may bring insight.
I still don’t get it Dr S. If homosexuality is a pathology, then why shouldn’t therapies be explored? After all, not all therapies that exist at present for many psychiatric conditions are efficacious. Think of ADHD, OCD, etc. yet we still are on the lookout for different modalities to treat them.
Mr. Michalopulos,
The ban on research – even preventing research with voluntary adult subjects – is the result of legislation brought about by effective lobbying. There is no evidence that SOCE is helpful or harmful other than by anecdote. We are, for example, bombarded by rhetoric regarding the epidemic rate of attempted & completed suicide among adolescent sexual minorities, yet I have posted to this site two major studies that demonstrate there is no evidence to support this conclusion. North Carolina is losing countless revenue over their “bathroom” exception decision, where adolescent suicide prevention was a key factor in the argument of the opposition. No university is willing to jeopardize its funding, nor researchers their licensing or credentialing to defy the bans imposed by professional organizations and – at least in CA – licensing boards. I believe that the issue, like everything else in this world, will wend its way to the SCOTUS for resolution and hopefully change.
Goes back to the do no harm George.
You believe homosexuality is harmful, but many homosexuals are completely content with their homosexuality, or at least have convinced themselves so. And if so, then treatment programs would be like forced interventions, tearing homosexuals away from trusted partners. Think of it, tearing apart friends. Good luck.
You have to follow through sometimes on what you wish for to realize the outcomes will probably not be as desirable as you think. You would tear these people apart for the greater social good, or some feeling that they will be able to be normal by destroying their friendships.
It’s anecdotal, but I saw a guy on television that had the therapies you discuss and he said he was happy as a straight man, but still had feelings he had to avoid. So, was he cured? No. He had made a decision to alter his behavior, but was not cured.
If you believe he was cured, then, tell us about your homosexual desires. Of course, you can’t, because they don’t exist like they did for him.
Treating homosexuality as a curable disease is really an impossible dream.
Dr. S will answer better.
Since we don’t yet have a very clear idea of the etiology of homosexuality, it would be inappropriate to invoke any sort of therapy. We would be treating the symptoms instead of the cause(s) of the pathology, and possibly doing more harm than good.
At this point in time, perhaps it’s best for us to regard inclinations toward homosexual eroticism as temptations to sin, on their own level not much different from inclinations toward heterosexual eroticism apart from the marital embrace of legitimate spouses.
Michael Stankovich, your argument on baptism has only two points. The first is an appeal to authority: The ruling bishop has said it’s OK, and therefore it’s OK. End of thought. The second is a denial of the obvious: Gay parents have nothing to gain, you say, by getting their children baptized into the Church. The obvious fact is that gays use many means to demand and obtain acceptance, and this is one of them, according to those who know the man.
Everything else you say is shere ad hominem — passionate, hateful, irrational, and childish.
Actually, Pdn. Mitchell, my argument was founded in the words of St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory the Theologian, and the Fifteen Canons of the Regional Synod Held in Neo-Caesarea of Cappadocia, which you chose to ignore. Further, the decision of the ruling bishop is not simply, “OK,” it is reflective of the words of St. Paul, “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the [οἰκονομίαν] management of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,” (Col.1:25), which you blandly juxtaposed against the “demand [to] obtain acceptance” by the homosexuals. And my reference to you as a homophobe is ad hominem? “Your speech betrays you.” (Matt. 26:73)
Try not to proof text the Scriptures or the Fathers.
Proof Text
Noun
A passage of the Bible to which appeal is made in support of an argument or position in theology.
Further, yes, the term “homophobe” is ad hominem, and no, proof texting Matthew 26:37 does not change this fact.
Proof text:
“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us.” (Acts 15:28)
“Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice: this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles: by this we all stand: thus we all believe.” Fifth Session of the Great and Holy Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)
“PROOF TEXT” by Fr Hans. Would that be like “It was ‘Adam and Eve’: not Adam and Steve?”
RE: “Does he EVER, in the end, concede and admit he is/was wrong?”
Dr. S, you posted that question–in the midst of a long, lamentable diatribe–at 5:24 pm. So I must conclude that you did so when you were alert and in full possession of your faculties.
You have somehow deemed it suitable to excoriate as “homophobic,” on this public forum for all to see and cringe, Fr. Hans Jacobse, a senior priest in the Antiochian Archdiocese, and Protodeacon Patrick Mitchell of ROCOR. Your exceedingly mean-spirited and uncharitable resort to an epithet that is, of course, a term of art propagated by radical leftists and those who reject traditional Christian moral teaching on human sexuality and marriage much more akin to Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” slander than anything noble in the Orthodox Tradition.
I urge you to practice here what you preach: admit that your ad hominem use of “homophobic” to attack the character of two Orthodox clergymen was inexcusable and pledge that it will not be repeated in this forum.
Fr. Alexander,
Let me again reiterate the fact that I choose my words carefully, cautiously, and succinctly, and I object to your inference that I am engaging in some cheap “schoolyard” character assassination by employing the term homophobia. You seem to be both lacking in the history and application of the term, so, if you will allow, I will turn my cap from the USS Nimitz around backwards in order to type, and I will instruct you.
Generally speaking, this was a term derived from Freud’s Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality where he spoke of “homosexual masochism” – exactly as it sounds – believing one is abnormal, pathological, or arrested in development, which later was termed “internalized homophobia.” As far as Freud was concerned, homophobia was an incomplete resolution of the Oedipus Complex of child development:
Therefore, if one accepts Freud, the “phobic” aspect is the “reaction formation” (i.e. displacement of internal “warring feelings”) onto the object of ones desire. Meaning? In the classic sense, those who lash out the loudest and most vehemently against homosexuals do so because they unconsciously battle their own urges. Voila! As one researcher commented,
Personally, I find the research to be limited, unimpressive, and inconsistent to conclude anything more that it cannot be dismissed outright. So how do I interpret the term?
I had the honour several years ago of joining several colleagues at McGill University in Montreal in an investigational study of patterns and clustering of defense mechanism that might characterize certain pathological states for purposes of diagnosis. Using the above example, when someone is continuously employing a pattern of defensiveness that includes intimidation, blaming, hostility, dismissiveness, and so on, it is for a psychiatric reason. One author offered this perspective:
I agree it is a puzzle, but I also believe it is unacceptable. I have continuously written that the hatred and homophobia is rampant and unacknowledged, and rather than even address the issue, Fr. Alexander, you accuse my of “epithet” and character assassination. Who in their right mind – save for my champion, Gregory Manning – would come forward to the outstretched hand of Jesus Christ the Physician and Healer in such a climate? And why would anyone who privately and anonymously lives their life in repentance, singlemindedness, abstinence, and piety make themselves known as examples of the healing power of the Church? They would have to be out of their minds. I end by saying:
there is nothing very pretty about it, but preventing Baptism for the sins of the parents is far more disturbing than allowing it
and, of course, a simple pastoral question would be all it took to validate whether the parents were planning to bring the child up in Orthodox traditions, including marriage
What difference does it make? One can take a child anywhere and have him baptized and, in practice, that will not disqualify the child from being Orthodox. S/he can later be Chrismated down the road; no problem.
See how backwards it is to accept the baptism of other confessions? We won’t baptize them, but we’ll make them Orthodox.
I think any child, with proper Godparents, should be baptized within the Church, because it is not THEIR fault they have same sex parents. The baptism may give them the grace they need to withstand the parenting.
To me it’s not punishment for the parents’ sins, but a recognition that the child will not be raised in an Orthodox environment, so there are real dangers for the child either way.
In a (licit) mixed marriage, the non-Orthodox spouse must agree to raise the children in the Church, or there will be no marriage. (I know priests who simply won’t perform mixed marriages at all, after seeing so many issues over the years.)
So it may be reasonable to not baptize the children of unrepentant homosexuals. And why would two unrepentant gay men want their child baptized anyway?
“But the godparents can see to the child being raised in the Church!”
Yeah, good luck with that. Speaking as a godfather myself, there is no real authority to see that anything is done right. The godparents can pray and little else. I’m not denying the power of prayer, but children can’t be raised on prayer alone.
The adage is sadly true: it’s more important to remain orthodox than to become orthodox. If not, why don’t we sneak into hospitals and baptize all the babies secretly? There has to be a level of commitment by those who are responsible for raising the child.
(This should go for Orthodox families too, for that matter. I’m sure the clergy here could tell us about families in which the babies are baptized and don’t appear in church again until they’re 5, 6, 7, 8 years old.)
RE: “Yeah, good luck with that. Speaking as a godfather myself, there is no real authority to see that anything is done right. The godparents can pray and little else. I’m not denying the power of prayer, but children can’t be raised on prayer alone.”
What you say is ALSO true of parents.
Every child will have his or her own path, regardless of parenting. My mother would not step foot in a church, but a neighbor family took me to Church every Sunday (also Saturday, so I could be confirmed). They arranged my wedding and the baptism of my children and approved my decision to be Orthodox. The debt I owe this family is immeasurable. God arranged it and it had nothing to do with my parents or Godparents. We have to be careful not to make our rules so rigorous that it ties God’s hands.
Thomas Barker wrote: “Your response to my question regarding the Canon with the wording “and let them not bring their children to baptism,” was very informative and impressed upon me the importance of historical context. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and taking the time to do so. It seems that the discussion on Baptism [thread: Who’s Minding the Store] was turning into a proxy skirmish for the issue of militant homosexuals working their way into the Church. If I may beg your forbearance, I have to ask you the big question directly. Do you oppose the acceptance of same-sex couples (who reject that their sexual relations are sinful, and therefore do not repent of their physical behavior) into the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, with the same standing as married heterosexual couples?”
Thomas, fair question. As you were probably able to discern from what I already wrote (that we need to stop these people who are trying to re-define Christianity, that they should not be given communion, that a priest could exclude them even from presence at the baptism, etc.), you probably already know my position, but want me to express it more clearly. Obviously others missed (or misunderstood) what I thought I said clearly, but you saw it, and want further clarity. I respect you, and will give this clarity.
So yes, I am very disturbed at those seeking to normalize homosexuality in the Church. It makes me sick. I do not commune anyone who is openly living in sin (and yes, grievous sin). I can’t stand the anti-Patristic and un-Orthodox position that “all sins are equal” (easily falsifiable, BTW), which has led to this horrible situation we are in. Not all sins are equal. Some are abominations. This is clear not only from 1 John 5 but also from the canonical tradition. If a priest knowingly gives communion to those whom he knows (btw, people lie to the priest, so this is part of the equation) to be engaged in grievous (or as St. John and St. Nikodemos call it, moral) sin and are not struggling against it, he is contributing to their destruction.
Some try to use St. Basil to argue for a more protestant view of sin (all sins are equal). But an easy perusal of St. Basil shows this not to be the case. For example, his canon 90 on simony: “For the one who wanted to buy because of his lack is to be judged more lightly than one who wants to sell the gift of God.”
Canons 1 and 2 of St. Gregory of Nyssa is most clear, however, on the subject matter. There are clearly different levels of sin that have different levels of separation of communion with God, the most pronounced statement being: “These matters having, therefore, been discerned in the said manner, all sins that are attached to the ratiocinative faculty of the soul have been judged more harshly by the Fathers, and meriting greater and longer and more painfully laborious efforts to return”. And lest anyone blame all of the modern “all sins are equal” (choke, gasp) movement upon the neo-patristic movement, Fr. Schmemann clearly distinguished between “ordinary” sins that go along with life for which Liturgy itself is part of the epitimia (penance–spiritual exercises of repentance), and those that completely separate one from the life if Christ in the Church and require epitimia/penance and reconciliation through confession.
My position is that priests who approve of the homosexual lifestyle and openly commune them be ordered to repent by the hierarch, and otherwise be defrocked.
As for the UOC of the USA, it has always held the traditional stand of Orthodox Christianity–that Priests must repent or face serious consequences, that laity must abide by the statutes of the Church, and that Communion must not be administered to anyone who is not repentant and continues in a sinful lifestyle not compatible with the life of the Church, including homosexual parings. This, also is the official position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. If one can find instances where this is not practiced, it does not have the approval of the Synod of Constantinople.
BTW, I am not for withholding the chalice because of “rules”, but I am for withholding it in such circumstances because they eat and drink condemnation unto themselves, and I will not kill someone spiritually whom I love. If we are to love our enemies, we are to love those who are deluded by the passions to which they have made themselves slaves unto death. I will not hasten their spiritual death by giving them Communion but rather pray for their repentance. But I am still for baptizing infants if they have real Godparents (Orthodox Christians in good standing who understand that sin is the ruin of the soul), as I already said.
Should have read “mortal”, not “moral”… just for clarity’s sake
Fr. Harry, you bring up a good point about people lying to the priest to take communion, AND to get their babies baptized NOT for the salvation of the baby, but for the ruination of the Church. LGBT militants are just that Militants. They will use our faith and traditon against us to come in and infiltrate the Church in ALL aspects. This occurred by the KGB in the Russian Church.in the past and we saw what havoc they did on the Russian Church. It is still felt to this day.
So you are not wrong Fr. Harry, you are don’t know what the enemy is capable of. Thus, vigilance is needed today.
Further so you know this point is moot. This tactic by the LGBT community has already occurred. In the GOAA there have been many godparents that have baptized babies have been and continue to be Practicing Gays and yet there they are taking their God child for comunion, and taking communion themselves, involved in joy, goya, vacation church camp, etc., so your position won, and when gay marriage passed back in June of 2015 many, MANY Greek Orthodox Christians in the Chicagoland area were PRAISING the decision.
So we baptized the babies and destroyed the Ark of their salvation in the long run. Further, this practice didn’t bring down the faith, but it sure helped the apostasy along.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Father Harry,
After reading your edifying and generously articulated response to my question, I am taking a moment in the wee hours here in California to express my gratitude to you for conveying your thoughts on same-sex couples, the inequality of sins and more. Your words have led me to reflect on my own need for repentance as well. I hope that you continue to post on various topics here when your schedule allows, even if at times it resembles an all out brawl. Please pray for me.
With Thanks,
Thomas
RE: “real Godparents (Orthodox Christians in good standing who understand that sin is the ruin of the soul)”
Protodeacon Patrick Mitchell has described the scenario that sparked the current debate here as follows: “a priest at the OCA cathedral in DC has baptized the artificially conceived and surrogate-born son of a militantly homosexual Russian man, despite warnings from people who know the man.” Fr. Harry, taking your stipulated criteria for “real” godparents at face value, I would put to you two propositions: (1) that the Orthodox “godparents” of the baby “artificially conceived” and born of a “surrogate” mother could not possibly approve of such biological legerdemain in good conscience, and (2) that they would thereby forfeit their privilege to serve as “real” Orthodox godparents if they were willing to participate in the baptism of a child conceived through such bizarre, contra-naturam means and fated to be raised by, in Protodeacon Patrick’s description, “a militantly homosexual man” whose manifest “values” and behavior are an gave affront to Orthodox moral tradition. Without at least one “real” Orthodox godparent able to serve in that capacity in the scenario under consideration—that is, witnessing to and affirming the baptism on behalf of the Orthodox faithful–a baptism of the infant could not take place.
Fr. Alexander,
Your need to bail out Pdn. Brian deserves at least a “C” for consistency, and a bit more appreciation that he ever seems to acknowledge. Nevertheless, it continues to follow the pattern of him and his random, scurrilous ventures of offensive, self-righteous “malignment” (“OCGay cathedral”), and in this case, describing a situation he “heard about from people,” specifically condoned by the Chief Hierarch of the Orthodox Church in America. Everything he argues – and by the same token, everything you argue – is dependent upon Pdn. Brian’s accurate and indisputable knowledge and interpretation of both the content and motivation of the “parents” in question as both malevolent and solely motivated to harm the Church and promote homosexuality. Better, to employ the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, the Lifespring & Fountain of Immortality, to a militant homosexual “advantage,” that being the acceptance of homosexuality in the Church, and as a sign to the world. Pardon me, Fr. Alexander, homophobia hits the fan. This is lunacy, about as far-fetched as I’ve ever read, but it was predictable 10-posts in the making. Given Pdn. Brian’s long history on this site and others of misinformation and disinformation for no other reason than to avoid admitting his own error(s) and voluminous biases and prejudices, he persists until, apparently, you or Fr. Hans, or others reach a point of anxiety and feel a need to bail him out. And as I have noted before, I believe he has come to trust that you, or someone, will do it. I certainly am fascinated.
Fr. Alexander,
I appreciate your comments, but I cannot agree with your conclusion (your point #2). In point #1 you give the premise that potential Godparents could not possibly approve of “such biological legerdemain in good conscience.” So far, so good. But it does not follow that they would “thereby forfeit their privilege to serve” as Godparent if they are willing to participate in the baptism of a child conceived in this way. Is the child non-human? Is it a non-human animal? Can the child never be baptized?
The Godparents can completely disagree with para-natural conception, militant homosexuality, the openly and unrepentant lifestyle of the parents, and still stand as Godparent, requiring, in advance, access to the child for its moral and religious upbringing and making clear that this will be in accord with the Orthodox tradition.
I do not know the circumstances of the Godparents in this case. All I know is that an Orthodox Metropolitan has reviewed the case, talked with the people involved including the Godparents, and made a decision that the Baptism meets the criteria to go forward.
I respect the statement of the Russian Orthodox Church on surrogates as a pastoral response of a Local Orthodox Church on a difficult subject. While it is an Orthodox response, it is not the only Orthodox response it could have made, as is the case with many difficult pastoral matters.
At this point many are thinking that I am naive in my approach to militant homosexuality. I am not naive. I think that if the child is made a pawn in a war with the Church, that it is the Church’s responsibility to remove it as a pawn, and that we must rescue it from the grasp of the wrong people in the only way we can–shrouding the child in sacramental grace to protect him or her from the evil intentions of its captors, that the grace given (it is real grace, of itself, given directly to the child in the font) will guide the child in time to adhere to the Holy Faith and Church into which it was Baptized, Chrismated, and Communed.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would want the child to have no sacramental grace and instead of giving it a supernatural means of escape from its captors, to instead let the wolves devour it. We should wall the child off from the demons that will be attacking it throughout its childhood. That is my firm position on the matter.
I want to also state that the Church is on offense, but many act like we are on defense. We don’t need to “protect” the Church from sinners. The Church already has a Savior and Protector. The Church is on offense–“the Gates of Hell (Hades) shall not prevail against it” is a statement of offense. Gates don’t attack the Church, the Church is attacking the gates, and the gates won’t prevail against the Church that plunders what the gates are there to protect (the way of self-indulgence, sin and death). I think we ought to stop being afraid of homosexual militants, of the sinful actions of worldly powers and governments, and start acting like the Body of the One Who harrows the domain of sin and death.
The Soviet Union with all its attempts could not destroy the Church. Indeed, some of those very people who were baptized in order to hedge spies within and raised by militant atheist KGB, later became some of our greatest Faithful and defenders of the Faith.
The Devil thought that he had finally captured and conquered Christ when Christ died and was buried and went to Hades. But, as the Fathers tell us, this was the “hook” whereby the devil was caught and captured. This is the same with sinful people with bad intentions who think that they “get their way” by getting their child baptized (a personal death and resurrection), but instead, it is the “hook” whereby the devil is foiled by shrouding the child in grace, and making it a child of Light and of the Day.
Thank you again for your posts on this subject matter.
Father Harry the Church is on offense as long as the Church remains the Church. You will not have that when you bring people into the church, via a baby’s baptism, that want to change and destroy the faith. I am sorry but on this point I am firm. A baby cannot be used as a pawn by the enemies of the Church, which by the way are STILL in the Russian Church to this day, so they can wreck havoc.
I, like you, want that baby baptized not just because Baptism confers Grace on that baby, which it does most assuredly, but so that baby can be raised in the Church according to the Gospel and to accept Christ and His Gospel as the central and all encompassing part of their lives. If their parents come into the Church with a Homosexual agenda to change the Church that will most likely than not, NOT happen.
Like I said before this point is now moot as the damage has already been done. If you don’t or can’t see the damage then we have nothing more to discuss. Like I said previously, we baptize babies but destroy the Ark of their salvation in the long run. This practice didn’t bring down the faith, but it sure helped the apostasy along.
Btw please take a good hard look around you the Church because of the massive apostasy and apathy within its very walls is NOT on any offensive. If the Church was the Church it would be on the offensive, but from where I sand in the GOAA and what I see in the OCA, minus the DOS, there is NO offense or defense but a complete surrender. I am surprised you do not see that. If you truly do not see that I can send you scores of Facebook posts from Orthodox Christian Lay people and some Orthodox Clergy Praising last June’s Gay Marriage ruling and Orthodox lay people and even some Orthodox Clergy openly supporting Homosexuality in general. Heck Archbishop Demetrios of the GOAA went to both Republican and Democratic parties and said NOTHING about the moral decay both parties are supporting and exporting on the American people.
However, let’s not worry too much about this because we are Baptizing the babies of heretics that want to cause havoc in God’s Church. I wonder though are we baptizing them into authentic Christianity or some form of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism? We should ask the Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants how that went for for them and if they are still on the offensive. Crickets!
Peter A. Papoutsis
Peter Papoutsis and others, including Protodeacon Brian, who claim to be inveterate enemies of abortion RUSH to forbid the REAL re-Birth of an infant in Holy Baptism! They want to ABORT THAT BABY! Perhaps they think re-birth is really magic?
No, BT, we want to give children the opportunity for a live birth rather than see them still born.
Glory be to God! Thank you Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos! This was the most concise and truthful summary I have seen yet. It is a great blessing that we have this holy bishop to teach us the truth in love!
Ps…..Dear Fr. Daniel…..it is not wrong to call this council by the name that history will remember it by…..”The Cretan Robber Council.” I think the result of this robber council will lead to schism. However, perhaps it is more beneficial that the uniate-minded jurisdictions are exposed in the open. This way, it will allow for the patristically minded Orthodox Christians to gravitate to the jurisdictions which stay true to the patristic teachings. If you want to talk about “enflaming the passions”……..let’s talk about the insults that are being hurled at those who do not accept this abomination. Archbishop Demetrios has referred to us as “Prophets of doom.” And Metropolitan John of Pergamon has labeled us as “Orthodox Taliban.”
St. Mark of Ephesus Pray for us!
Mikhail, what I am trying to communicate is that some of the language (“robber council,” “unite-minded jurisdictions,” “exposed,” “abomination” in your post here) are emotive and contribute neither to understanding nor healing. In pointing out Bishop Maxim’s “Diary of the Council,” I am trying to encourage people to read a journal of one who participated in the Council so that one can get a sense of how some of the polemic questions were received in the Council…the report is with generosity and magnanimity and that the conversation in the Council was received by participants as marked by the presence of the Holy Spirit. I think you would probably not put the Serbian Orthodox Church in the category of “uniate-minded jurisdictions”? We should all be watchful that we not fall into ideological oppositions to what one (and by report many other) bishops experienced as a gathering wherein the Holy Spirit’s presence was palpable. There very well may be an appropriate time and place for criticism, but it should proceed only after there is understanding and without language that wounds.
Fr. Daniel,
I assure you, the Holy Spirit did not inspire that council. If you believe otherwise, you have been deluded by the evil one.
Father Daniel,
I do not expect the Serbians to accept this robber council when all is said and done. I expect they will remain with the patristically-minded Orthodox. The holy fathers of the early Councils were of one mind. They were in a state of Illumination or Glorification.
The Cretan Robber Council was a fiasco which continues to divide. That is a sign that the Holy Spirit was not present. My adjectives may be a bit harsh….but not false. I am certain this council will be rejected.
I suppose I am just another prophet of doom from the Orthodox Taliban.
Mikail, if I may add my perspective? While I may be judged for calling this a “robber council” isn’t it strange that nobody can find anything positive to say about it? From even before its convocation, there was this particular “vibe” surrounding it that was disquieting don’t you think? (And let’s not forget that it was a Serb –St Justin Popovich–who predicted long ago that this would be a robber council.)
I mean, let’s go back to the heady days of Ligonier. Has anything wonderful happened in the interim? What can we point to with pride? The only thing I see is the resurgence of Orthodoxy in Russia. Anything else? The Episcopal Assembly process? They seem to have gone from zero to SCOBA in half the time it took for SCOBA to become moribund.
You make excellent and valid points, George. From the beginning, it was evident that this event had major problems. For a “council” that was supposed to bring Orthodox unity, it has reaped nothing but discord and acrimony….for good reason. The propaganda began early. Dr. Archdeacon John Chryssavgis wrote a booklet that was distributed to all priests in the GOAA which “justified” the Robber Council before it began. It was filled with many insults targeting the Russian Orthodox Church. And it fondly referenced the work of the Roman Catholic second Vatican Council. Can you imagine!!!!???
George, your question is like saying “why can’t I call this guy a murderer if no one has anything good to say about him?” Accusation of “Robber Council” is a serious accusation, and a grievous sin if the council did not espouse dogmatic heresy (a very specific definition). Please defend your serious accusation by pointing to any dogmatic heresy that it espoused. If you cannot, you need to recant, for our Lord’s sake. This is just as bad as those who have espoused homo-erotic mixture here, if not worse, since St. Gregory of Nyssa states that public espousal of schism (stating what you have is an act of schism, or even worse, since stating that something is a matter of heresy that is not is re-defining the faith) is sin of the highest caliber.
I believe Fr Peter Heers’ critcisms of this council promoting the pan heresy of Ecumenism is spot on. I suggest you talk to Fr. Heers.
Peter
Postulating that there is any Church other than the Orthodox Church (the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church) is heresy. It violates the description of the Church in the Creed. As does the Anglican Branch Theory and Protestant Baptismal Theology. I would not even dignify Crete as a Robber Council. There is nothing that would qualify it as a Council of the Church in any case. All bishops were not invited. Many refused to attend on principle. The consensus statements of the council were coerced by a dishonest process aimed at forming a Unia. It was all despicable and beneath contempt. Bartholomew is a heresiarch. The problem is simply that he has not been condemned as such by the wider Church. That seems to be the road that Met. Hierotheos is going down very, very slowly and carefully so as not to be accused of extremism.
But there is no middle ground or nice way to say this that will leave everyone feeling warm and fuzzy. The Phanar has chosen evil over good. It will drag as much of the rest of the Church to perdition as it can unless the rest of the Church cuts ties. It is no less complicated, nor more complicated, than that.
Time to just wake up and choose.
Fr Harry, please forgive me for not getting back to you sooner but your question deserved a thoughtful and reasoned response which required some contemplation on my part.
The question of a “dogmatic heresy” is one of great gravity. For my part, I sensed no Triadological and/or Christological errors being promulgated today in the Church of Christ –for that we can be thankful. Having said that, I sensed two fundamental errors being promoted by this Council:
1. A new anthropology (for that is where the normalization of homosexuality will inevitably take us), and
2. A new, Orthodox-tinged papalism.
Let me explain briefly: the idea that a person is identified by his passions means that these passions must be excused and cannot not considered sin. This creates a two-tiered understanding of humans: same-sex lust in persons are identifiers of said persons but other-sex lusts of heterosexuals are sinful. The homosexual thus cannot sin when the object of his/her desire is another person of the same sex but the heterosexual always sins when he/she desires another person. Not only is that illogical but it makes the homosexual a superior being. (Thus we come back to Plato and even Gnosticism since heterosexuality recreates the world which is thus intrinsically evil.)
As for the new ecclesiology explicated by Crete it is nothing less than a new, insidious Papalism. First of all, it solidifies the idea that one bishop (in this case the Patriarch of Constantinople) can call a Council. Secondly, and even more perniciously, it degrades the role of bishops in that no one bishop had a vote at all; all had at best was a chance to voice a concern about his particular church’s final vote. A type of muted veto if you will. Thirdly, only a select few bishops were allowed to attend –not invited. Because the entire college of bishops were not invited then it implies that they are not equal and hence not real bishops.
If Crete is allowed to stand, then we will see (among other things) the episcopate as a whole devolve into a type of managerial class of regional managers who are transferred from place to place. While this has been the experience in the Americas that is because the Church here is not an organic phenomenon but the result of a diaspora mentality.
George, there is no new anthropology in this council. There has always been a tension of anthropological viewpoints. I do not sense that most here even on a basic level understand the theological issues involved. Neither position leads to a sympathetic view of homoeroticism. Btw the English “human being” is a terrible translation of anthropos since it does not reflect the Palamite distinction of being and of kinds of being. Also, a single bishop can and has called councils. St. Eutychios called the 5th council and St Tarasios called the 7th, both as Patriarchs of Constantinople.
“Btw the English “human being” is a terrible translation of anthropos since it does not reflect the Palamite distinction of being and of kinds of being. ”
Which is why I don’t understand why Met. Hierotheos appears (again, a translation issue?) to be pushing this because he of all people would understand this.
“Fr Harry” It is the Emperor that calls Ecumenical Councils, or blesses a hierarch to do so. No Ecumenical Council was ever convened w/o the AUTHORIZATION of the state (emperor).
Just only as an observation my couple cents I found interesting:
“It should be emphasised that throughout the document the two terms, ‘human being’ and ‘human person’, are used interchangeably.”
“Interchangeably”? Like “either one or the other”? Isn’t that then also “arbitrarily”?
EP Bartholomew only gives for his reasoning to retain “human person”:
“…that the theological, productive discussion be continued between fine and prolific theologians,” …. “We appreciate them, we admire how they produce those books one after the other, which are translated into foreign languages.”
One after the other. Lots of books. Lets keep the “discussion” going. I don’t know, maybe this is something of an intellectual exercise then. Have they figured out when to use the one term or the other in all these books? Apparently not or otherwise the document should not have this apparent random “interchangeability” of two terms or introduction of a term which appears not to be well defined enough to have a specific, independent meaning and can therefore be substituted arbitrarily. This is “Theology” and instead it looks like you got some kind of Mickey Mouse going on here.
Just say “a human” or “humans” (or “man”: “men” as Archbishop Dmitri always chose to do in his translations of the Services) without the redundant addition of “being” or “person.”
It is interesting to note how much “creative ambiguity” there was in the crafting of the Symbols of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, e.g., there is no mention of Christ dying (only “suffered and was buried”), and the Holy Spirit is not mentioned as being homoousios with the Father and the Son (that term is reserved for the union of Father and Son alone in the text). Not embracing such “creative ambiguity” at Chalcedon – at Rome’s demand – led to the schism with the bulk of the Church of Alexandria and others, which schism most Orthodox (even many Traditionalists) see as being based on mere terminology and politics.
123,
Wonderful insight, 123. Perhaps the best in this entire thread, where I’m still wondering how a non-binding, preliminary council that was the first attempt in centuries to discuss issues not corporately discussed in centuries is “robbery?” This was not a trial, nor a Council. It was a council and discussion. Is this how we determine heresy, stop commemorating and excommunicate entire jurisdictions of world Orthodoxy? Terminology and politics? Thank you for a bit of reality, 123.
123,
That “creative ambiguity” you refer to in the text of the Symbol has always seemed odd to me. Thanks for pointing this out. You wrote:
Can you cite any patristic or academic sources that elaborate on this controversy and Rome’s part in it?
Mile Myers,the Fathers were loathe to be characterized as creative AT ALL. “homoousios” had a terrible time because it was perceived as “creative.” The separations of “dyophysites” and “monophysites”, dyothelites and monothelites, etc. from one another resulted from FAILURES at being “creatively ambiguous”
There’s nothing ambiguous about the difference between homoousios and homoiousios. It wasn’t a neologism in the 4th century, just a way, a word, with which our faith is better expressed. The possibility that some people weren’t swift enough then or now to understand the difference is not a commentary on the word itself.
Yes, that is certainly true. Creative, or particularly coherent often.
Monk James ignored the subject of creativity. Traditionalists of the day complained that homoousios had been specially created for a situation and was not found in the written tradition of the Church.
Fr. Daniel says:
“…it would be helpful for useful discourse to not refer to the Council as a “Cretan Robber Council.” ”
While I am sympathetic to this point Fr. Daniel, the council’s self description of “Holy and Great” is as much a rhetorical-over-the-top ploy as “Cretan Robber Council” (which is why I suspect Met. Hierotheos Vlachos consistently puts “Holy and Great Council” in quotes). You do realize you are asking lay bloggers/commentators to show more maturity/Christian virtue than the Phanar don’t you?
Misha (and others) say:
“Secondly, the whole thing about the “person” is related to sexual orientation; i.e., the change in the language that the Phanar is proposing regarding referring to the “human person” is a way to smuggle in the whole gender identity nonsense, and probably other things as well.”
Actually, this is not correct. There are a number of “theologies” surrounding the ontology of the human being/person (anthropos) within the Church, both ancient and modern. For example there is the Origen, Nyssa, Isaac line that leads directly to a somewhat negative view of human sexuality/marriage, an exalted view of monasticism, and even universalism. Then there is Maximus and his very subtle distinctions around person, free will/Grace, and our “materiality”. There are others (St. Basil and St. John Chrystom could be grouped more or less together as long as you recognize important differences).
In the modern world, there are very important (and somewhat technical) differences between Met. Hierotheos, Met. John Zizioulas, etc.. Yes, these theological technicalities do have implications for the more modern anthropological “issues” (e.g. women’s ordination in a somewhat misnamed “restoration” of the deaconess, our sexuality and understanding of the ascetic “status” of marriage, reproductive technologies, etc.) but to say they are really about an underhanded way to sneak in homosexualism as a valid anthropology is to misunderstand the debates.
Now, language is very important and Met. Hierotheos has a point – though IMO he pushes too far even if the Church spoke only Greek and was mostly concerned with European “personalisms” of Sarte, etc. However, the world does not speak only Greek and there are actually other “personalisms” that are more influential depending on geography. Besides, the Fathers often have very intricate theology(s) of how a human being becomes a “Person” (in the Likeness and Image) and so Met. Hierotheos is I believe incorrect to arbitrarily limit the terms of the discussion to “human being” (which I assume is “anthropos” in Greek – I have not seen the original text).
To sum up: Yes, this debate is very important is about THE issue of the age: the question “What is Man?” Yes, it has implications for homosexualism and the like, but it is not centrally about that and is in no way an underhanded attempt to “legitimize” some modern anthropology that recognizes homosexualism as a moral good and as “Orthodox”. Yes, that colossal genius and half Anglican/half Orthodox Bishop (Ware) would no doubt like to find a way to legitimize women’s ordination (he has said as much) but he is right to point out the way “Person” (both God and Man) is significant in English and even Greek…
” . . . but to say they are really about an underhanded way to sneak in homosexualism as a valid anthropology is to misunderstand the debates.”
No Christopher, you’re wrong. You assume good will on the side of Zizioulas and his ilk. This is misplaced faith. They have constructed their pseudo-theologies to “sneak” in heterodoxy. That is what this whole controversy is about. The Phanar is promoting heresy. Can’t be stated and restated enough.
You have a lot to catch up on.
No Misha, people don’t “construct pseudo-theologies” for extraneous purposes – they BELIEVE them. Trojan Horses are actually quite hard to build and most would not put in such an effort. Whatever Zizioulas errors are around this particular debate (theological anthropology), they are sincere and on my reading actually deserve a consideration. Met. Hierotheos certainly spends quite a bit of time quoting with approval Zizioulas’ “Being and Communion” in his own “The Person in the Orthodox Tradition” – but perhaps you believe he is a sneaky heretic also… 😉
Christopher,
You miss my point. Zizioulas and others have contructed pseudo-theologies. They don’t really believe in any God greater than a projection of their own idea of the Good. Thus they “do theology”.
The other side in this little disagreement is not actually arguing in good faith. By and large, deep down, when it comes to a truly existing God as described in the Old and New Testaments and witnessed by the Fathers, these people are athiests. They simply do not believe that any such being can or does exist, thus they have the freedom to construct and project what they will. Since there is no objective reality to God, they feel they have nothing to fear.
That is their gamble. Ours on the traditionalist side is quite otherwise. A number of us have personal experiences with this Being that the modernists do not believe can possibly exist. Thus, we can be absolutely certain.
A fascinating little difference of opinion – – not to be resolved too quickly.
Misha: “By and large, deep down…these people (“Zizioulas”, etc.) are atheists.
Luke 16:15: “God knows your hearts”.
Apparently Misha knows people’s hearts as well!
It is not rocket science, but rather obvious from what they write that they have no faith in God, His morality or His plans for and promises to the faithful. They would not write or behave as they do if they had a mustard seed of faith.
A tree is known by its fruit.
Misha: “A tree is known by its fruit”.
That it is, Misha, that it is.
Nor were the hearts of the scribes and Pharisees hard to read. Christ Himself produced some thoroughly condemnatory (but tasty) fruit when the time was right. And we should all, of course, follow in His footsteps.
Yes, it’s not all about homosexuality. There are other issues and other problems with the various personalisms put forth today.
But it’s wrong to say, “the Fathers often have very intricate theology(s) of how a human being becomes a ‘Person’ (in the Likeness and Image).” Some do have rather “intricate” anthropologies dividing human nature into various parts, but they are rather vague and inconsistent on what constitutes the image and likeness. Maybe you meant to say that some Fathers have intricate theologies explaining how a Person of the Trinity becomes a human being? That’s the way it happens.
The notion that any human being “becomes a person” after creation is entirely modern. Scripture says that we are made in the image and likeness (Gen. 1:26, 5:1). Some Fathers distinguish between being made in the image and becoming the likeness, but what Father denies that there was likeness already in Adam? And what Father distinguishes between human persons and human non-persons?
As the word “person” is commonly understood, all men are persons, no matter how they relate to other men. All thus deserve love and respect. Why unsettle that common understanding with novel uses of “person” that are fraught with difficulties and tend often toward error?
“But it’s wrong to say, “the Fathers often have very intricate theology(s) of how a human being becomes a ‘Person’ (in the Likeness and Image).” Some do have rather “intricate” anthropologies dividing human nature into various parts, but they are rather vague and inconsistent on what constitutes the image and likeness. ”
Well, I would quibble a bit perhaps of just how “vague”, though I see your point about inconsistency and take your point over all.
“The notion that any human being “becomes a person” after creation is entirely modern”
Actually, I think this is an integral aspect of what is generally called “Origenism” and leads directly to universalism (in the modern sense of D.B. Hart and his followers). If I am right that the Origen/Nyssa/Isaac (modernly sometimes *seemingly* adhered to by Elder Sophrony – though I am not convinced of this fully) line has a (essentially neoplatonic) “process of becoming” at the core of its anthropology then this goes way back. However, yes most “personalisms” (of the sort Met. Hierotheos is concerned about) of the modern variety have this aspect.
Cy says:
“One after the other. Lots of books. Lets keep the “discussion” going. I don’t know, maybe this is something of an intellectual exercise then…..This is “Theology” and instead it looks like you got some kind of Mickey Mouse going on here.”
This inconsistency, this “diversity” of “theologies” of anthropos, Person (God & Man), and how our salvation is accomplished goes way way back. Indeed, I have asked myself if it does not in fact represent a crack in the very heart of the Church. One can not reconcile those who follow Origen (such as St. Gregory of Nyssa, D.B. Hart, etc.) with those who don’t (such as St. Maximus, anyone who prays (non-hypocritically) with the Church on the Sunday of the Last Judgement, etc.). It would be nice to reduce all this to some sort of pernicious modern/secular influence and attempt to sneak in homosexualism or womens ordination (or fill_in_the_blank) but that would not be honest at all – not intellectually and certainly not spiritually…
Yes, it is intellectually honest, as well a spiritually honest, to call lying heretics “lying heretics”. That is what, in so many words, Met. Hierotheos is doing, as am I.
Lead, follow or get out of the way.
“Lead, follow or get out of the way.”
Misha, you are at war and in this context attempting to co-opt something unrelated {and thus innocent} into your plans. Tell me, what is the first casualty of war?
” . . . attempting to co-opt something unrelated {and thus innocent} into your plans.”
No doubt I am at war – spiritual warfare we are all born into and hopefully eventually take up voluntary on the side of angels. And spiritual warfare does not necessarily exclude material warfare either. Nevsky’s wars were, for example, both spiritual and material.
I’m not co-opting anything unrelated. Bartholomew is interested in helping to forge a Greater Christianity under the Pope composed of the RCC, OC and as many Protestants as will sign on. That is evident from his proposals at the Crete debacle. Anglican Branch Theory and Protestant Baptismal Theology – he was quite willing and eager to go all the way but just couldn’t seal the deal.
Messing around with the word “person/personality” as if it were somehow sacrosanct is a way to validate psychoses/neoroses as human rights, as aspects of a human being’s existence which are their personal property and which should be protected as private, though they certainly have public effects. This goes beyond homosexuality, it is true. It is a way to put an imprimatur on relativism of various shades. But Truth is more important than anyone’s feelings or erroneous beliefs.
Peace is the first casualty of war, not Truth. But this war began long ago when an angel of light got too big for his wings . . .
Misha,
Sorry have been traveling and just now responding:
“Messing around with the word “person/personality” as if it were somehow sacrosanct is a way to validate psychoses/neoroses as human rights, as aspects of a human being’s existence which are their personal property and which should be protected as private, though they certainly have public effects. ”
This is simply not an accurate assessment of the intra-Orthodox debates and “theologizing” around *personhood* going on now (and reaching way way back at least to Origen). Met. Hierotheos & Zizioulas and others are not “messing around”. This might upset you (frankly, it does me), but the truth is that the “dogma” around this simply does not exist – you have real and irreconcilable differences among the big boys (e.g. St. Maximos vs. St. Isaac) and no real “ecumenical council” has spoken.
I have my modernism/relativism detector tuned very very high – it is a sensitive and finely tuned instrument. Nope, the core of this debate is Orthodox and in no way brings in the modern relativistic “personalisms” of the kind you (and Met. Hierotheos) are rightly worried about. You will note that Met. Hierotheos himself is not worried about it in the same way you are. Yes, he want’s to clean up the language and focus the debate, but he is not warning of “an imprimatur on relativism”.
Now, I agree with you in a sense on the “relations” document – the Phanar and its allies do not understand the depth of nominalism they have picked up in the acceptance of the idea of “dialogue” and its place in ecclesiology. Heck, even Moscow does not understand this. This is the central tragedy of the “ecumenical idea” of the last 100 years but even here God is doing OK because what are the actual fruits of this idea? Two main ones: 1) intra-Orthodox schism and tension and 2) manifest failure on the level of the “ecumenical idea” itself (e.g. what actual reconciliation has the WCC or any of the “theological consultations” actually effected? none).
Yes, Truth is important and to be fought for but Truth is not opposed to the Truth – the House of God is not divided. There is no reason to see “relativism” where there is none because it already has a large enough domain as it is. I would encourage you to pick up Met. Hierotheos book “The Person in the Orthodox Tradition” if you want to really understand what the debate is about…
The problem with “person” was already a problem when it was applied to members of the Holy Trinity because the word derives etymologically from the same Indo-European root as Latin “prosopon”, as Fr John Meyendirff was wont to point out! Prosopon means MASK.
Etymological fallacy.
I agree.
RE: “Because recently there has been concern, largely justified, among many members of the Clergy, monks and laypeople, about the texts to be discussed by the Holy and Great Council, we recommend that everyone should remain calm, because we Hierarchs were the first to make our confession of faith at our ordination, promising to keep safe the Apostolic and Patristic heritage which we received, and we remain vigilant for our flock, to the glory of God and the praise of the Church.”
It is reassuring to read this. Praise be to God.
The problem occurred when the EP presented the Council’s “agenda” as a fait accompli. When some of the jurisdictions tried to interject/object, they were summarily dismissed; in essence told they might as well not exist, where the Council is concerned. No wonder we all (certainly me) freaked out! I don’t know what remedy they have to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future, but it was irresponsible, almost to the point of being criminal (were such a thing possible in the Church), for the EP to have moved forward with that agenda, KNOWING that it had not been agreed to or even fully reviewed. I BELIEVED him; I believed the Hierarchs had sold out the Church. It is beyond excuse. I’ve witnessed a lot of interesting things in the Church, but this is, by far, the most egregious. I cannot begin to explain the anxiety and confusion it created within me at the deepest level. To say I’m over it, would be a bold face lie. It should never have happened and the fact that it played out in front of the entire world is horrifying. How are we supposed to explain something like that to Inquirers? The Church is supposed to be the bedrock of sanctity in an uncertain world and we looked like anything but. Who knows what the ramifications are and will continue to be because of one human being. How is it possible that he should remain in such a visible position where he openly professes to speak for the Church? WE know he doesn’t; but the rest of the world doesn’t. It is impossible to believe that his errors have not been pointed out to him multiple times, by multiple Hierarchs, yet he continues to say and do the things that led to a cataclysmic upheaval within the Church; within our very hearts. I’m surprised it didn’t register on the Richter scale. To me, it was THAT bad. – How can he be allowed to continue in his present capacity?
Very much appreciate the insights which you bring up. It is nothing less than scandalous for us in the Church to try and explain away the Mickey-Mouse verbiage attached to this Council to inquirers. I for one don’t have the mental acuity to pull off such a feat.
More to the point, I’d like to point out one of Vlachos’ criticisms: at an episcopal ordination, the candidate vows to rely on the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers of the Church, not one’s favorite professor at seminary or the latest public opinion survey.
Yes George! You have pegged it! The Prophets, Apostles and Fathers of the Church were all in the state of Glorification. They spoke with one mind and one voice. Why is it that I, as an Orthodox Christian, cannot interpret Scriptures by myself like the protestants? It is because I am not in the state of Illumination or Glorification! If I was in the state of Illumination or Glorification, I would understand the Scriptures completely and clearly in the exact same way as the Prophets, Apostles, and Fathers of the Church. This is why I must rely on the interpretations of those who were in the state of Glorification. So now I ask a very important question. Would the Holy Fathers of the early Councils have approved of the Cretan event?
I don’t know why it should be a problem for the vast majority of inquirers. Most will not even be aware as most parishioners are not aware. Even if they are aware it is a perfect example of the ability of the Church to allow human freedom; and the fact that these sorts of things have actually been normative in the life of the Church. However, unlike Protestants and Catholics who are ruled by men, the Holy Spirit continues to guide us.
Pray, fast, give alms with a merciful heart, worship giving thanks for all things, repent and forgive. That is the context for knowing the truth.
If any one preaches progress they are in error. If any one preaches salvation without repentance they are in error. If anyone denies the Cross they are in error. If any one denies the Incarnation they are in error.
The temptation of this age us to embrace death as if it is life, destruction as if it is progress. We worship the created thing rather than the Creator. That includes our own wisdom, our own bodies and our passions.
All human efforts toward a descriptive theology that is even remotely adequate fail in the Light and presence of our Lord.
“Fear Not, for I have overcome the world.”
If it be of God it will last, if not it will fail.
As a new Orthodox (baptized less than one year) who was a catechumen for one year before that, my reaction to the gathering on Crete by high-ranking members of Orthodoxy is one of sadness.
I say “sadness” and to that add “disappointment” because this gathering fell far short of a universal conclave of Orthodox bishops, as described of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, and was riven with disagreement and what seemed to be pettifoggery, just like normal politics.
I joined Orthodoxy partly because of the music (I’m a singer) and partly because there is no filioque. I also hoped to elevate my own thinking and understanding of life on earth and life hereafter. Although decisions by human beings are very UNlikely to be perfect, if the Holy Spirit is present, there is every reason to hope for enlightenment, perhaps even perfection in some small way.
This gathering on Crete did nothing, so far as I’ve learned, to assist in the elevation of one’s thoughts or understanding of life–whether on earth or hereafter–or to bring the faith closer to perfection.
Very sad.
There doesn’t seem to have been an equivalent to St. Mark of Ephesus, either; perhaps he was among those who had been “invited” but declined to attend?
Perhaps Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos will be another St Mark of Ephesus!
Gail,
The only problem is that some in the Church continue to assume good faith on the part of the Phanar, Zizioulas, etc. There is no good faith there. They are Uniates. They have made a firm commitment and that is the only thing that explains their actions satisfactorily and rationally. They are behaving quite rationally if they are soulless sellouts who have little faith in any God and simply want to create as big and prosperous a “Church” as possible.
That’s the sad, ugly truth behind their antics. Met. Hierotheos is being extraordinarily polite and reserved in his analysis. I commend him for this. But the real work to be done is in ceasing commemoration and forcing either repentance or a break in communion.
I would say, “Wake me when it’s over.” but alas I suppose I will continue to comment on it from time to time. I’m not surprised at the modernists. What is disappointing is that the traditionalists are taking so long to get their act together.
There is a disturbing lack of courage on the traditionalist side. I hope they realize their souls are at stake.
RE: “It is clarified that, when applying economy by admitting the heterodox by Libel and Holy Chrism, this is not to imply that the Orthodox Church recognizes the validity of their Baptism or their other Sacraments.”
How does this statement line up with actual practice? It doesn’t; however, it should.
Baptism continues to be denied to those entering the Church in the name of economia in some jurisdictions.
Economia is intended to be discretionary and is used in circumstances where a given practice within the Church is impossible and some other measure must be employed to fulfill the spirit of the required action.
However, the use of economia in all instances, where no discretion is required/requested, results in replacing the teachings of the Church.
For example, saying “we’re not going to allow converts to be baptized, because those who weren’t baptized might feel badly or less Orthodox” is backwards. It’s the “feeling badly” population that need a remedy; not those who are ready, willing and able to come into the Church the prescribed way. Baptize those who weren’t given the opportunity and give a pass to those who disagree, don’t care or don’t want to because it’s after the fact. Give the jurisdictions a year to get it done and STOP using economia for all new converts.
The cafeteria approach (the picking and choosing of which teaching to follow) should be a punishable offense in spiritual court.
We say we’re one Church, but our practices tell a different story.
My experience with baptism was radically different from the one described in @Gail Sheppard’s post.
I clearly remember being baptized at 6 years old in a Missouri Synod Lutheran church in Wyoming. I don’t have a baptismal certificate, but my Orthodox priest took my word for it.
However, he then continued–almost in the next breath–to insist that I be baptized to become Orthodox.
I resisted, due to the statement in the Nicene Creed/Symbol of Faith that “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins….” I said that a baptism in Orthodoxy would violate this statement.
Whereupon Father “X” asked me details about the Lutheran baptism: had there been an exorcism? was there a turning away from Satan? was I immersed, simply sprinkled, or something else? Then he and I both researched the text of the MS Lutheran baptism ritual. He found, before I did, that it does not include an exorcism, much less a triple one. He suggested, and I agreed, that therefore the Lutheran baptism had been incomplete and, further, that it was thus defective.
He also told me that early Christians, people who had been baptized by St. John the Forerunner/Baptist, asked the Apostles for their baptism, since they had been baptized only by water, but the Apostles baptized with water and the Spirit. He said, “You’ll find it in Acts”–a clever way of having me read most of Acts! (It’s in Acts 19.) This knowledge was decisive.
So there’s at least one parish (and perhaps diocese, but I have no data) where Orthodox baptism is not only “not denied,” but positively required for an effective conversion.
I hope this gives you some comfort re. the practices of Orthodoxy. (BTW, my parish belongs to the OCA, if that makes any difference either way.)
Thanks, Vesta. The Antiochian jurisdiction, however, will not allow any convert who was previously baptized be “re-baptized.” It is my hope. Metropolitan Joseph will address this. My baptism in the OCA was nothing like the sprinkling of water done by the Episcopal Church, in whom I no longer see any grace. I had to go outside my jurisdiction to do what I felt was right and I have no regrets. It’s too much to ask of a catechumin to make such a decision. Our hierarchs should make these decisions for us and they should be universal.
Somewhat off topic, see this apparently well researched video, very sad
https://youtu.be/fum2-w7QlEY
Orion, exactly why I have grave doubts about folks looking for a “Spiritual Father”. To much chance for fakes.
George, A minor criticism of what you wrote: I don’t believe Metropolitan Hierotheos (or “Vlachos”, if you will) made the criticism you attribute to him: “at an episcopal ordination, the candidate vows to rely on the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers of the Church…”
A Bishop-elect, in his 3rd Confession of Faith, promises to observe the Canons of the Holy Apostles, of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the traditions of the Church, and the decrees, orders, and regulations of the Holy Fathers. The Apostles as such and the Prophets are not cited,
What council?
I have read this entire document, scouring every word. I sincerely want to thank His Eminence Met. Hierotheos Vlachos for providing this level of detail and explanation. This document has gone A LONG way toward helping me to understand that our Hierarchs DO take their obligations seriously and I do not need to be alarmed when I see and hear things that are amiss. They are standing watch and they are worthy.
I will probably always be that sheep that starts bleating when she sees, hears or smells anything resembling a wolf or worse, hears the voice of the wrong shepherd beckoning to the flock. But I guess that’s OK. That’s what sheep do, right?!