Βιβλίο Μητροπολίτου Φλωρίνης π. Αυγουστίνου Καντιώτου

( he Blessed Bishop Fr. Augustine +

ORTHODOXY BEFORE ECUMENISM

CONTENTS………………………………………………………….1
Dedication…………………………………………………………….
Prologue………………………………………………………………
Instead of an introduction (1971)……………………………………

I. On the occasion of the convening of conventions……Evanston (1954)
In Rhodos (1959)………………………………………………
New Arguments (1969)…………………………………………

II. To the ecumenical patriarchs……………………………………..
Open letter to ecumenical patriarch lord Athenagoras (1962)….
Upon the enthronement of ecumenical patriarch
lord Demetrios (1972)……………………………………
Open letter to ecumenical patriarch lord Demetrios (1985)……
III. Ecclesiastical Affairs in Austrailia……………………………….
Australia (1986)………………………………………………….
Our radical difference (1986)………………………………Done
Dialogue and its consequences (1987)……………………..Done
Are we prohibited from speaking about Christ? (1987)……Done+
Charge against the archbishop of Australia lord Stylianos (1989).
IV. Appendix…………………………………………………………….
Crisis of conscience (1988)………………………………………

Year 42 – Athens – July – August 1986 – Issue No. 447

A timely article from the Greek religious periodical

“CHRISTIAN SPARK”

Editor-Publisher

AUGUSTINE N. KANTIOTES Bishop of Florina

Response to the archbishop of Australia Mr. Stylianos

OUR RADICAL DIFFERENCE

Yet again, my beloved readers, yet again the word is concerning Australia.

We are not disposed to be occupied with the internal problems of the Church of Australia, whose Archbishop is the most reverend Stylianos. As the he himself admits, there is nothing personal between us. Neither have I seen his face nor he mine. There exists however, a collision of ideas, and indeed at the most sensitive point, which is the Orthodox Faith. And in this case according to the spirit of patristic teaching it is permitted to each bishop – and bishop only? – wherever on earth he may dwell, that he raise his voice of protest, so that heresy and error might not prevail not only in his region, but in whichever other place on the planet, because all, clergy and laity, are – we must be – guardians, to whose ears the constant admonition must resound: GUARDIANS, BE VIGILANT! Error, even the incorrect dealing with the issues of the faith, which scandalously shows good will to error and heresy, engender the greatest danger, because the evil as a spark is spread from one end to the other, as the history of heresies testifies.

For this reason this writer also, despite our old age, on the occasion of certain items of news coming from Australia and other lands abroad – which deal not only with the regional church of these lands but with the whole Orthodox Church – wrote a four page issue of the “Spark” issue no. 445 entitled “AUSTRALIA”. We censured and rebuked not out of hatred, but out of love for the truth. A great many people testify to the mildness of the style. But the holy bishop of Australia Stylianos did not even appreciate the style, but on account of his personal psycho-synthesis, erupted like a volcano and from the depth of his heart he spewed forth like larva a powerful flow of insults against one who dared to write the previously mentioned article of the “SPARK”, which he characterizes as arsenic. His lengthy response was published and circulated by the thousands as a special appendix of the publishing organ of the Archdiocese of Australia “VOICE OF ORTHODOXY”.

To this special publication of the Archbishop of Australia we are obligated to respond. And we are responding.

RESPONSES TO ACCUSATIONS

1. Our canonical election and ordination.

You doubt, saint of Australia, you doubt my election as canonical bishop, calling upon the 80^th Apostolic Canon. But what relation does this Canon have with the bishop of Florina, who did not flatter any ecclesiastical or political factor in order to become bishop? On the contrary, almost all the members of the Synod of that time, because of the censure that we exercised, were inimically disposed towards us. And even the Palace was against me for the same reason (see the periodical “Christian Spark”, page no. 257/1963 and 271/1964, as well as my book “Censure”, Athens 1983, pp. 113, 146, 164). And it is not true, as you write, that only three of the Synodical members elected me. All of them elected me. As the then archbishop of Athens his holiness Ieronymos had told me, in the beginning the members of the Synod were against me, and for good reason. But then paradoxically they turned around and the archbishop wondered about their turn of sentiments on my behalf, and indeed of certain of my staunch enemies. But neither did I petition any political factor. My election, as also the election of other bishops at that time, was lawful and canonical, as much so as was the election of hundreds of elected bishops, who from the constitution of the Hellas as a free nation until then were chosen by different forms of governments of the nation, within the framework of the relations of Church and State.

Our election in this regard was judged canonical also by a special study by the professor of Canon Law of the University of Athens, Mr. Constantine Mouratides. But this writer, in defending my canonicity, responded through a special pamphlet with the title “The canonicity of my election and ordination as metropolitan of Florina, Prespon, and Eordaias” (Athens 1974), which I also send to you, your holiness of Australia, for your knowledge. But I fear that I won’t persuade you. For, as history testifies, it was always the case that those who lack valid arguments against censuring and the activity of ever-memorable fathers of the Church, whose slippers we are unworthy too loose, took refuge in the ultimate weapon, that is, that we were elected uncanonically as bishops or archbishops. Anticanonical the election of Great Basil. Uncanonical the election of Gregory the Theologian. Uncanonical the election of sacred Photios…

But you will also tell me, your holiness of Australia, that as a preacher I had preached against this manner of election and indeed circulated the motto that elections should be made according to the ancient tradition “by vote of clergy and laity”. And concerning this I wrote a book entitled “We seek a free and vibrant Church”. I don’t deny it. And today I continue to support this system as the canonically excellent one, but under certain conditions, as I set forth also in the said book. I’m sorry however, because this book is out of print and there is not even a one copy to send you. But you will be taken aback though, if I inform you that from this perspective, which I support, essentially I was elected “by vote of clergy and laity”. For this far out region of Florina during the frightful days of the occupation with my life in danger I went about to the last village, up to the Albanian borders, and preached and supported the ideals of the Faith and of the Fatherland. And the people, calling to remembrance this service of mine, in writing, by the voice of the Mayor and Societies, 1 month before the dictatorship, asked for my placement as hierarch in Florina. And, if a vote were to have been held, as there took place during those glorious years, I would have received 90%. And I would have received that percentage in other areas of Hellas, in which I served. This was proved in the unprecedented results both during my ordination in Athens and at my enthronement in Florina. My enthronement was characterized by chief journalists as an unprecedented event in the ecclesiastical chronicals. That is, how a preacher not having the sympathy of ecclesiastical and political factors was unexpectedly elected bishop. It was as if the sun rose from the west! And when during the first year of our episcopal service in Florina, for reasons of conscience, we came into conflict with the dictatorial regime and we censured it austerely and were in danger of being dethroned, the whole people, as one body, rose up and as one man expressed its will that we remain on the throne. Now a powerful factor of the dictatorship, who boasted that within three days Augustine would be dethroned, was heard saying after these things: “We rule in all of Hellas, except in Florina, where Kantiotes governs”! But even recently an Athenian newspaper performed a gallop poll for the hierarchs, in order to prove which of them is the most popular bishop of Hellas. And when it published the result, in the list of the people’s preference first came the bishop of Florina.

Are these prideful words? But you, your holiness of Australia, compelled us. And we thank you, because you gave us the occasion to inform our beloved Hellenic diaspora, that Augustine, who according to you is “bishop by means of weapons”, was elected not by force, political or eccleciastical, but by the shout of the people and is found on the throne. And at this point, allow me, your holiness of Australia, to ask you: Being completely unknown to the pious people of Australia, how were you elected? If the will of the people were to be taken into consideration, as it was taken in my case, you can be sure that the archbishop of Australia would be someone else of the popular clerics among the people, who worked with integrity in the spiritual farm of the Church of Australia. You were chosen by a few members of a Synod and without the will of the Australian people of Australia being taken into consideration. These things I say as regards the canonicity of my ordination (See also my book “To the clergy and laity”, Athens 1969, pp. 27-39).

2. How we censure.

You level the accusation against us, moreover, your holiness of Australia, that I attack everyone and do not recognize any honorable worker of the Gospel. We respond.

If you followed the articles of the “SPARK”, you would see that not a few are those persons in the clergy, of whichever rank, whose personality and work we have recognized and praised. We mention here the ever-memorable Ireneos Cassandrias, Chrysostomos II of Athens, archimandrite Joel Iannakopoulos, archimandrite Gervasios Paraskevopoulos, archimandrite Philotheos Zervakos, and even among the married parish priests of large families, one of whom for 50 years served fruitfully and approvingly in a small distant parish in the island of Donousan of Cyclades. And we are always ready to praise every noble manifestation in behalf of Orthodoxy as a rule of faith and life.

But as regards censure, your holiness of Australia, we are very careful. As a rule we are not occupied with the private and family life of ecclesiastical persons. We do not become grave-robbers. We do not dig up the graves of their parents, as a certain metropolitan (bishop) did of my ever-memorable parents, hating me mortally because of censure. We do not enter into their bedrooms so as to see and discover the things done by them secretly. And not only do we not do this, but we even deter others from such activities, without thereby supporting the hypocritical life, according to which the appearance does not agree with the reality. We do not become broadcasters, as you will see in our article published in a “SPARK” entitled “Censurers, Not Reporters” (issue no. 165/1955) and in the book “Censure” (Athens 1983, pp. 40-55). We censure only according to the word of Chrysostom, according to which “those things that are done and said and scandalize the consciences of the orthodox people must be censured.” To others belongs the task of discovering the scandals of a private nature, which are done secretly by certain ones, and who want to be judges over all, before the day of global judgment dawns, when the Lord judges not only the things done visibly, but even the things done secretly; even those secret thoughts. We do not take refuge in anonymous libels, but in bold censure, for which we also bear responsibility. From this perspective we censured also certain of your external manifestations and activities, and again, not all of them, but only those that relate to issues of Faith. Do you understand what I’m trying to say?…

3. The priest Fr. Demos Nicolas

You accuse us, your holiness of Australia, of motivating and supporting every kind of ecclesiastical rebellion in Australia, and you mention as an example the case of the reverend Demos Nicholaos, who served with us as a parish priest. You are making a big mistake, your holiness of Australia. If the letters that he wrote were to be published at an unsuspected time, just as some of my written responses, you will see that I never admonished, neither him nor some other person, to leave from Australia, which confessedly has greater need of godly and active priests. He was compelled by himself to leave, not being able to suffer your unjust persecution. He came self-called, of his own volition, and I accepted him as being under persecution, in the same manner also that sacred Chrysostom accepted the Markous brothers. I confess that I supported him and placed him in a parish of Ptolemaida, in which he worked freely and, because of his activity and unmercenary disposition, but also for his offering to the people, he erected a brilliant church, at the dedication of which we very much would have liked to invite you, so that you might see what a priest you have become deprived of on account of your absolutist authority. This priest, known to the Orthodox of Australia for his piety, already here breathes freely and glorifies God.

4. The contributions

You cast, saint of Australia, suspicion regarding “theft errands” in Australia, in your desire to portray me as an exploiter of the religious sentiment of the people. You slander us! And proof is that, when godly audiences and readers wanted to reprint my articles and to reproduce cassettes of our oral sermons, we didn’t ask from them any remuneration, but declared that without any damages they can reprint and reproduce our written and spoken word, because we desire that the gospel be preached “without charge”. As regards the “theft errands”, about which you write, we answer to you that these Macedonians of the diaspora, visiting our distant diocese, see and hear about all of the philanthropic activity of our Metropolis, and desire to send us voluntary contributions, and the names of these people we publish in a special column of the periodical “Trumpet of Orthodoxy”. And all the voluntary contributions are set aside on behalf of benevolent institutions of the sacred Metropolis. Where then is the theft? If there is a man from whom I steal, that man is Augustine Kantiotes! Do you know him? Not only I, but also my co-workers, my faithful spiritual children, dispose our individual salaries on behalf of benevolent institutions. And proof is the published list of the Economic Inspections of Florina (See our book “Apology of third four-year period”, Athens 1980, p. 98), which shows what amounts are set aside for as gifts. As you are able to see, from my annual salaries of eight years I earned from the Public Treasury the amount of 4,654,600 drachmas, and from it, for a frugal maintenance for me each year I kept some small amount, and the rest of the amount of 4,109,000 drachmas I set aside on behalf of benevolent institutions. Soon I will publish also a new table of the last years. When I close my eyes, saint of Australia, they won’t find a single drachma in my boxes. Why then does your passion make you doubt also the lack of love for money of the bishop of Florina? Allow me, however, here to ask a question: Do you have the witness of the people of Hellenism of the diaspora of Australia regarding the lack of the love for money, as the bishop of Florina has it from the people?

5. The case of Alemangos

You accuse us, your holiness of Australia, of presenting that we present bishop Chrysostomos Alemangos as a canonical bishop. This too is untrue. Proof is that in Australia during the past year members who traveled there did not go to churches to speak. And also, conducting themselves hyperbolically, in order not to create the slightest doubt of accusation, they didn’t even allow him as a spectator in Sidney! And as regards the publication of his name as bishop in the newspaper “Ecclesiaticos Agon” the necessary explanations were given in its issue no. 207/February 1985. Alemangos became your nightmare. Listen to us, your holiness of Australia: The absolutist manner, with which you govern the Hellenism of the diaspora, not allowing any objections, will give birth to other Alimangous too. You, chiefly, are the creator of Alemangos and of whomever else.

6. Our co-workers.

Not content in accusing me you extend yourself, your holiness of Australia, in accusations also against our co-workers, as, for example, Mr. Sakkos and Mr. Frangos, the general secretary of the Scientific Group for Space Study. And for whatever things you write against Mr. Sakkos, he himself will answer, and from his response you will see what is the state of affairs. A wise pre-ancestral adage says: “Never judge between two people before you hear both stories”. You, however, before hearing the other side, express yourself maliciously against him and consider him an adversary of your election as professor of the Theological School of Salonica. This is unsubstantiated. Mr. Sakkos was not a friend of the dictatorship, but neither was any other of my spiritual children. We stand above parties and political factions. As regards Apostolos Frangos, whom you satirize, we must tell you that, though he hasn’t studied theology, he became distinguished however as a most capable apologist of Christianity, as even only one of his most studied books From the Ape? (second edition) proves. This book was judged to be excellent. He refuted with indefatigable scientific proofs Darwin’s theory, which unfortunately found its way into the school books of Greece. A poor head of a family, he didn’t take into consideration the enmity of the governing party and proved that the defense of the Orthodox Faith is not a work only of theologians and bishops. Lay people, non theologians also were the ever-memorable Vrailis Armenis, Skaltsounis, Galanos, Tsirintanis, the recently departed Costakis and others, who supported the truth of the Gospel more than theologians priests and bishops. Recognition and respect of selfless and humble offerings is necessary, and not sarcasm.

7. Others flatter…

You accuse also, your holiness of Australia, our co-workers and generally all the friends of our small missionary movement as being pitiful flatterers. But from the history of our missionary Brotherhood you don’t have proofs. That is, unless you consider nobility, with which they conduct themselves towards all ecclesiastical rulers. They respect them and embrace their hands as bearers of divine grace. But whenever they see them publicly deviating from the unadulterated gospel principle, they don’t hesitate to make observations of them and to censure them, enforcing the Chrysostomian saying “Make friends for Christ, and enemies for Christ” as also the Aristotelian saying “Plato is dear but the truth is dearest.”. Others, your holiness of Australia, are those who flatter for selfish reasons. Those who went to Australia conducted themselves before you nobly and did not say a bad word against you. But you were greatly troubled, because they don’t agree with your strategy. If they had gone up on the pulpit and sung your hymn, as do certain other habit-wearing monks of mount Athos, Oh then!…But such language you will never hear from those theologians.

THE MAIN SUBJECT

These things we had to answer in brief to the jumble, the lengthy article, in which the archbishop of Australia Stylianos departed from the substance of the issue and for the most part occupied himself with other things that distract in part the attention of the readers from the main subject. But the cloud which his holiness of Australia tried to create with the accusations against me personally and my co-workers, we believe has dissipated. And now we come to the main subject. We come to our fundamental difference, on account of which we argue not out of passion, but out of love for the Truth. And our fundamental difference, your holiness of Australia, is not in minor things, but in the most important things. And the most important thing is that we differ and disagree in regard to the tactic that you follow in respect to the relations of the Orthodox Church towards ecumenism and papism. And we explain ourselves once again, since you did not want to hear our clear voice in the preceding article.

The Church is One.

According to the symbol of faith, which you also confess, ONE, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And this is the Orthodox Church, which through the centuries has preserved the Christian faith integrally and unchanged. Consequently outside this One Church, all the other ones – which are improperly called churches – are nothing but heresies and schisms. And specifically regarding about papism, for which you make mention with so much love, we have to emphasize, that papism is not simply a schism, which was uncanonically lifted by patriarch Athenagoras, as we have said elsewhere, but also a heresy, a collection of “cacodoxies”, the chief of which is the primacy and the infallibility of the pope, for which the pontifex, as another Lucifer, was raised up above every rulership and authority, above Ecumenical and Regional Synods, and is conscientiously or unawares venerated as god.

And we ask: Do you accept that papism is a heresy? We plead for a straightforward answer. Yes or no. Anything more or less than this is of the evil one. If you answer us “no” with the excuse that (Bishop Augustine) Kantiotes and those about him express personal apprehensions and judgments concerning papism, then we will tell you that you are making a mistake. It is not only Kantiotes and those about him that support this position. There is a series of superb ecclesiastical men, who worked and toiled in the Orthodox Church and witnessed the good testimony. Our opinion you may spurn, your holiness. of Australia, as an opinion of a certain insane and fanatic person, as you like to portray me; but how can you ignore and spurn the opinion of glorious and holy men, who comprise adornments of the Orthodox Church? Of the many we, here, bring to mind Mark of Ephesus, Eugenios Voulgaris, Cosmas the Aeotolian and Justin Popovitz. Behold what these ever-memorable ecclesiastical men say.

1. Mark of Ephesus (1393-1435)

“Flee therefore from them (the papists), brethren, and communion with them: “for these are false apostles, cunning workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And it is not strange: for he, Satan, transforms himself into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). So it is not unusual, if also his servants transform themselves into servants of justice, whose end is according to their works. And elsewhere he speaks concerning them “Such ones do not work for our Lord Jesus Christ, but for their own belly and by fair and flattering words deceive the hearts of the simple-minded, non-malicious ones” (Romans 16:18) But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal” (2 Tim. 2:19) And elsewhere again: “Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh” (Phil.3:2). And elsewhere again: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9). See verbally the saying “even if an angel were to come down from heaven”, so that no one may project the superiority of the pope. And the beloved disciple: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares in his wicked work.” (2 John 10:11) This was ordained for us by the holy apostles, “stand holding the traditions, which you have received” (2 Thess. 2:15), both oral and written, “lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your stability” (2 Peter 3:17).

And St. Mark Eugenikos, in answering the union-lovers, who held that through mutual compromises and retreats union may be achieved, says that such an unholy compromise of truth and falsehood according to St. Gregory the Theologian is like a baskin. A baskin is a bulky broad shoe which ancient actors used, wearing it indiscriminantly on each foot. Thus the baskin became a comic characterization of those who lack firm principles and attempt to compromise the uncompromisable. False union is a baskin! (See John Karmiris, “The dogmas and symbolic monuments” vol. 1, Athens 1952, p. 361, 359).

2. Eugenios Voulgaris (1716-1806)

In his epistle, which he addressed to Orthodox Christians, who were in danger at that time of being led astray by the organs of papal propaganda, he enumerates briefly all the innovations of the papists, and he finds them to be twenty four (24) in number; and he dissuades the Orthodox from every contact and relation with papists. From this marvelous epistle we publish the following passage.

“What are the papists trying to persuade us about by means of dialogue? We and their fathers initially and all of our fathers did not accept the faith by means of dialogue, but embraced it by revelation. They are in a rush to shake us away from the dogmas, which Christ taught, the apostles preached, the fathers expounded, all of the Church without ever adding anything, not even subtracting one iota or one dash, unchangingly dogmatized. The faith does not change with the times, they are not transformed by circumstances, it doesn’t wither, grow old, but remains always the same both old and new. Why are these theologians daring to move the unmovable? We know, that the dogmas of the Faith, the more recent they are, the more secure they are, the more old they are, the more genuine they are, just as waters, the farther they are from the wells that much more dirty and clouded they are, the closer they are to the sources, the more pure and clean they are” (See Eugenios Voulgaris, “Prophetic Epistle to Orthodox Christians”, published by “Orthodox Press”, Athens 1969, p. 17).

3. Cosmas the Aeotolian (1714 – 1779)

“My brethren, in examining and interpreting the Scriptures and the holy Gospel, we find that the prophet Elias came, and the antichrist came and killed Elias; and now we await neither the prophet Elias nor antichrist. THE ANTICHRIST IS ONE: IT IS THE POPE, and the other is he who is over our head, without saying his name; do you understand this, but it is grievous for me to tell you, because these antichrists are for perdition, insomuch as they possess it. We have chastity, they perdition; we fasting, they gluttony; we virginity, they fornication; we justice, they injustice” (See my book Kosmas Aetolos” 6^th edition, Athens 1981, pp. 286-287).

4. Justin Popovits (1894-1979)

“In the history of the human race there exist primarily three falls: of Adam, of Judas, of the pope. The essence of the fall into sin is always the same: for one to want to be perfect through his own self, for one to want to become a god through his own self. But in such a manner, man unknowingly becomes equated or equalized with the devil. For he wanted to become god through himself, to take God’s place and substitute God with his own self…

The fall of the pope lies in his wanting to substitute the God-man with man…Sincerity is the language of Truth. The dogma concerning the infallibility of the pope of the 20^th century is nothing other than the rebirth of idolatry and polytheism. It is the rebirth of idolatrous appreciation and idolatrous criteria of thought. HORRIBILE DICTU (“It is horrible to say”), but this too must be said: by the dogma concerning the infallibility of the pope idolatrous humanism was raised up to the level of dogma…”

Do you disagree?

You have heard, your holiness of Australia, how these ever-memorable men speak about papism? I do not believe you will say regarding them, too, that their words are fanatic and do injustice to the pope. And if by chance you do have an opposite opinion to their judgment, you dare not speak out. For the reverence of our Church towards these persons is catholic or universal. We the humble ones, spurned and completely degraded by your reverence, align ourselves with them and continue to think the same things, insofar as until today we do not have even the slightest indication, that papism has abandoned these fundamental “dogmas”, upon which it, also, is supported. As we have also said at another time, papism, ingeniously coiling (as a serpent), is using new phraseology, but under this phraseology its “cacodox” (errant) dogmas continue to exist. If you disagree with the opinion of these fathers, then you are innovating, you are separating your position and are in duty bound to prove that the judgments of these ever-memorable men are mistaken. And nothing else remains for you to do than to go to Rome and kiss the pope’s slipper and become by reason of your scientific cultivation and other attributes a marvelous cardinal, wearing the red hat of this papal office.

What is the relation with heretics?

If, however, to the question we directed to you, you answer sincerely that papism is a terrible heresy, then the inexorable question is set forth: What must be your relation with these heretics? The subject is of the highest importance and canonically has been solved in the Orthodox Church, which through Ecumenical and Regional Synods determined and ordained what must be the stance of the Orthodox before heretics. Shall we mention these Canons? It is not one and two, but dozens of them, which, if they were all published with the interpretations of distinguished theologians, as they are found in the collection of Ralli-Potli and indeed in the “Pedalion”/Rudder of saint Nicodemos the Hagiorite – this fanatic (!) and adversary of papism – , a special large book would have to be published. A few of these Canons we have mentioned in the previous article of “SPARK”, as we cited also to the ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios in our open letter (see no. 436/1985 page of “SPARK”). After all, you do not wait for me, saint of Australia, to remind you of them, because as a university graduate, you must remember them well and not remember only one Canon concerning the canonical election of bishops, which, as we have proved, we have not trampled upon, as you accuse us of doing. All these Canons, which speak about the relations with heretics, breathe the aroma of Orthodoxy and respond to the genuine spirit of the New Testament, which strictly forbids relations with heretics that remain unrepentant. Especially we mention the very well known word in the letter of the apostle Paul to Titus: “A heretical man, after the first and second admonition depart from, knowing that such a one has strayed and sins, being self-condemned.” (Titus 3:10).

At a certain gathering, your holiness of Australia, someone, of the faithful, reminded you of it. But you, as I heard from a recorded sermon of yours, answered that this verse refers only to lay people. To lay people only? But what are you saying, holy friend? The entire letter is addressed to bishop Titus and as you know is called pastoral, describing the main duties of clerics of all ages, and that is why it is – it should be – a subject of study, according to the ever-memorable Koraes, for all clerics, for the sake of whom he wrote in memoir form the three pastoral letters and published it in a book entitled “Synekdimos of the priest” (Athens 1893). Now the sacred canons, actually, are a detailed development of this God-inspired canon of the New Testament.

With the Canons concerning heretics what is prohibited is not merchant and social relations (see also I Cor. 5:10), but ecclesiastical relations are strictly forbidden. It is literally forbidden for heretics to enter into sacred Orthodox churches (“heretics are not to enter sacred places”). Common co-celebrations are forbidden, as are joint prayer, addresses and counter-addresses in the sacred churches. The exchange of gifts is prohibited. The entrance to synagogues or to heretical temples, as also to conventions of apostasy (See metropolitan of Corinth Panteleimon, “Key to the sacred Canons of the Eastern Orthodox Church”, Athens 1970, pp. 9-12). Which of these sacred Canons, which speak of the position of Orthodox before heretics – which did you keep and observe, holy one of Australia? Unfortunately you spurned all of them, you trampled upon all of them even at an earlier time, but also now recently, when the autocephalos Church of Greece, the autocephalos Church of Cyprus and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem for a serious reason protested and abstained from going to the common convention in Bari of Italy, but you being great in importance as president of the Orthodox commission participated and, as it was noted in the papal newspaper “Catholic” of June 10 1986, you entered into papal temples and allowed papal priests and high-priests to enter into orthodox churches, of course holding joint prayer with you and yours. Don’t excuse yourselves that you were only present bodily in the church, but your spirit was mentally praying together with saint Mark Eugenicos and the other champions of Orthodoxy, who, if they were alive today, for this action of yours, would have defrocked you and excommunicated you. Oh, these were retrogressive spirits, not able to apprehend your lofty precepts concerning ecumenism and the “super-vision of the truth”! Truly marvelous is your image, presiding in that last meeting at Bari of Orthodox and papists, which was published in newspapers. Let it be printed in thousands of prints and let it be sent to all the Orthodox Hellenes living abroad in Australia, so that they may adore their archbishop!

Towards a public dialogue.

But you will tell us: We long to enter into dialogue with the papists, with the protestants and with all the heretics. Granted then, that your intentions are pure. If, however, the good is not done well, it is no longer good. You must conform to the sacred Canons. Consequently, let your leaders of the parties involved gather not in churches but in centers and let them speak from morning till night. And even better, your holiness of Australia, you as president of the Orthodox can invite not to a closed dialogue, thereby playing a kind of pantomime, but, as did the great fathers and teachers of the Church, invite the papists to an open dialogue at a big hall in Sidney. If you do this and in this open dialogue you defeat papism, I will come to Australia to publicly kiss your feet, thereby honoring a new Athanasios, who defeated Arius in an open discussion. Now the pope, in a certain aspect, is worse than Arius. But, holy brother, because I know that the papists supercede in their theological cultivation and preparation and especially in dialoguing sophistically, I fear that in already the first round they will take you out with a “knock out” to the shame of the Orthodox. Now you enclose yourself and hold converse apart from the godly people.

Go forth, therefore, your holiness of Australia. As being distinguished for your boldness, invite a chief cardinal to a public dialogue in Sydney.

Poor Orthodoxy! Where are the great figures of the holy fathers, who in today’s generation of theologians are considered fanatical and retrogressive spirits, as obstructing the union of all heresies and religions!

We have said it from the beginning, before the initiation of the dialogue, and we say it yet again, that it is not time for such dialogues. For the papists are aligned in a singular party, while our own are divided. And, as it was written, in disagreeing with one another, they present a miserable phenomenon, provoking the laughters of the papal convention members. For the papal convention members belong to countries, which for the most part remain under liberal and democratic regimes, which do not obstruct them from setting forth their opinion. But the Orthodox? O the Orthodox, this front line of battling Christianity! They belong 9/10’s to countries with totalitarian regimes and are pressured to speak, even on ecclesiastical issues, according to the opinion and command of the red beast. (*This was written when atheist Communism was prevalent in many Orthodox countries)

Because of these serious reasons it is not time for dialogue with the papists and the other heretics. Before the dialogue proceeds with heretics, there must be a dialogue of all the regional orthodox autocephalus churches and patriarchates, in order that they may examine hanging canonical issues, and thus present themselves in a single and undivided orthodox party, which above languages and nations will declare on a global scale the lofty preaching of Orthodoxy. But how far away is that day!

For all these reasons we consider that the dialogues that began are rather traps of the dark powers, which essentially look not for the “union of churches” but for the confusion of Christianity and the breaking up of the Orthodox Church.

Recall the excommunication!

Finally, a few words concerning the pure motives of the protesting Orthodox Christians of Australia. Your holiness of Australia, you very much devalue, depreciate, insult, and persecute faithful children of the Church. And finally you condemn them to death. For excommunication is death, and more dreadful than death. Excommunication is the prohibition of the Holy Communion (See N. Milas, “Ecclesiasticon Dikaion”, Athens 1906, p. 711). A similar excommunication was enforced upon faithful Orthodox by another highpriest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate serving in America. How frightful! For excommunication not to be issued for the thousands, who publicly trample the divine and human laws and greatly scandalize the people, but only for the faithful children of the Church. This too is one of the signs of our times. Though your tongue, your holiness of Australia, drips honey, so long as you speak about dialogue, on the contrary, it drips wormwood for the faithful children of the Church. This too is the fulfillment of a certain old prophesy, according to which as a crime worthy of death will be considered one thing and one thing only, the public support for the Orthodox Faith! That’s the point we have reached, holy high-priests of ecumenism. You, who speak about love, mortally hate the few faithful children of the Church who are left. And which are these? Lay people, perhaps of few letters, poor people, as Kontoglou called them, blessed poor people, who win their daily bread with toil in foreign lands and from their savings build churches and with their offerings nourish the bishops and priests of the Hellenic diaspora; who, without praiseworthy exceptions live from the religion and not for the religion. These, the small and insignificant, in the world’s view, keep night vigils and pray and in the fear of God partake of the Spotless Mysteries. So these people have no place in expressing their judgment? But you must know, your holiness of Australia, and the rest of you high-priests, that, as a Russian theologian, Komiakhov, says: “the heresy of a wise bishop is renounced by a simple shepherd, in order that all be one in the freedom of unity of living faith, which is the manifestation of the spirit of God”. Yes, a single shepherd is able to censure and bring back to the truth a bishop who does not divide the word of truth aright!

You speak and say that our Church is the Church of Synods. Indeed she is! But you forget that Synods, which the uncorrupted conscience of the Orthodox membership denounced, were not recognized, but were condemned as being robber synods? Was not the synod of Ferrara-Florentia (1439) not of regional but of ecumenical character, which decided concerning the union of Orthodox and papists? This synod was denounced, in a manner according to which you know, by the Orthodox people of Constantinople. The high-priests who had signed would not dare to appear publicly in Constantinople. They evoked the disapproval of the people! Let the memory of those unknown heroic strugglers, men and women and even children, be eternal, who raised up their voice of protest intensely and saved Orthodoxy. If these persons were absent, the fanatical persons (!), who rose to battles on behalf of the holy Spirit of truth, today not only the Hellenic Orthodox Church would not exist, but neither would Greece exist. And you, your holiness of Australia, it is not impossible to have been a brilliant papist, bearing a Jesuit monastic cap or hat of a cardinal. Well, then, continuers of the example of those heroic anti-unionists of Constantinople are also today those who protest against affectionate embraces of Orthodox with papists and with the rest of the heretics. Their voice is a pure voice of Orthodoxy. It is the voice of God. For the sake of God, don’t spurn them. The Lord said: “See that you do not disdain a single one of these little ones. For I tell you, that their angels in heaven are always beholding the face of my father who is in heaven (Matt. 18.10). One of these “little ones” who believe and live in an orthodox manner is more honorable than a thousand lawless ones who encircle the hierarchal thrones. Behold also what the prophet Zachariah says: “for he who touches you touches the apple of his eye” (Zach. 2:12). Don’t play with fire!

Your holiness of Australia, hear the voice of an elder bishop, who today or tomorrow departs from this corrupt world. We ask you for the last time. Recall the excommunication, and do not listen to certain high-habit hagiorite monks, who on the one hand appear to be agreeing with regard to such an excommunication and other anti-canonical activities for well understood reasons, but think otherwise internally. These don’t want to displease the archbishop, so that they may circulate unobstructed in Australia, sacrificing thus the truth for the sake of self interests, even if they are spiritual self-interests.

Where are you St. Theodore the Studite, where are you Papoulakos, and ever-memorable monks, brave front-liners of the then struggling Orthodoxy? And thus, in the current absence of such men, the support of the Orthodox faith is left to the small and humble of the earth.

LOVE WITHOUT TRUTH IS DECEPTION

My beloved readers! These are the things that we had to answer in response to the tedious article of the Archbishop of Australia. We know beforehand, that we won’t persuade him, and that his volcano will erupt yet again. But we are not about to continue a graceless battle responding continuously to his oral and written speech, without a serious reason. We are not idlers to be playing with words like you, your holiness of Australia, who consumes precious time in discussions with the papists, which the archbishop of Athens Seraphim correctly called unending, cutting off dialogue with the papists.

His holiness of Australia belongs to those concerning whom the saying can be said: “You won’t convince me, even if you convince me”. Let the Lord judge between me and him. I, an elder bishop, near death, confess my imperfection and sinfulness, but as my motto I have the saying of Pentecost: “Against you only do we sin, but you only do we worship; we know not to pay homage to an alien god, nor to raise our hands, O master, to another god.”

They say of us that those who speak in this manner are people of hatred and that they, the supporters of dialogue, love people, who are only won by love. We answer them immediately: No! you don’t love them; we love them. We who with boldness censure their errors, we sincerely love them and vigorously desire for them to return to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, from which they distanced themselves. You must know that love in Christianity is inextricably bound to the truth. LOVE WITHOUT TRUTH IS A FORM OF LOVE; IT IS DECEPTION! A love devoid of truth can lead to union, as in the case of Ferrara and Florence, but be assured that such love, devoid of truth, lacks a foundation and will only open wider the chasm (between the churches) with destructive consequences for the whole Christian world, especially for Orthodox which is the only hope of humanity.

And so that we may finish, we cite an example, which Holy Chrysostom refers to often in his homilies: Just as a doctor who loves the patient, but hates the illness besetting him and fights the disease with strong medications, so also we Orthodox, without Pharisaical pride, love all the heretics as creatures of God. Though we love them truly, we must hate the errors and heresies and must utilize every canonical means for their return to the TRUTH. The truth is ORTHODOXY.

On her behalf, as the ever-memorable fathers and teachers of the Church handed down in Ecumenical and Regional Synods, we live and breathe and speak and write; and may the Lord grant, if He judge us worthy, to even shed our blood.

SPARK No.450

“I have come to bring fire upon the earth and what do I will if it has already been lit?”

DIALOGUE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

“The heretical person after the first and second admonition depart from, seeing that such a one has strayed and sins, being self-condemned” (Apostle Paul – Tit. 3:11)

“Let them simply hear and speak indifferently to all.”

(Sacred Chrysostom – P.G. Migne 53:128)

*

My beloved readers, if there exists a word, which as an expression of pan-human (“pan” in the Greek meaning “all”, as in panorama, a view in which all is seen) yearning is heard more than any other word, that word is peace. All speak concerning peace. Concerning peace the radio and television stations. Concerning peace the newspapers and the periodicals. Concerning peace the diplomats at the international conventions and especially at the U.N. Someone said, that, even if was about publishing in books all that was said concerning peace in the halls of the U.N. since the end of WW II until today, a huge library would be needed to contain the volumes concerning peace.

But we ask: What is the consequence, the result of the unending conversations in behalf of peace and unity? The answer is sorrowful! Someone would think, that, so long as the issue of peace is discussed, that much more also the dove of peace distances itself from miserable humanity. Peace on the lips, but in the depths of the heart are hidden all those passions, which provoke strife and wars. And proof is the fact that, while the leaders of the great powers come together and talk about peace, embrace one another and exchange presents, and one thinks that the time of global peace has arrived, yet their nations continually arm themselves with more murderous weapons, and caves are opened, wherein are stored thousands of atomic bombs, capable of destroying every trace of life and to even derail planet Earth from its canonical, regular orbit.

• The Peace of Christ

Unfortunately the peace, which the world seeks, is not supported on a firm and secure base. Its edifice is not built upon the rock, but upon the sand, that is, upon the human thoughts of a material-minded and idolatrous world. This peace is not the peace that Christ promised and gives. Christ, in foreseeing the tribulations, which come from the deceptive forms of peace and conciliation, made a clear distinction between his peace and the peace of the world. Christ said to his disciples: “Peace I leave with you, I give to you my peace; not as the world gives to you, I give to you” (John 14:27). According to these immortal words of Christ, the peace of the world is one thing, and the peace of Christ is another thing. On the one hand, the peace of the world is apparent, it is as some building ready to topple, which, with the first seismic vibration is crushed into ruins, under which the inhabitants are buried, who believed in its firmness. On the other hand, the peace of Christ – O the peace of Christ! – this same peace “surpasses every intellect”, as the apostle Paul says (Phil. 4,7), is firm, has depth and height, evokes the amazement of angels and men. The peace of Christ, in order to give a brief icon, a brief image, is triple: It is, first, the peace of man towards God through faith in Christ, the sincere repentance and remission of sins. Through it is opened a period of a grandiose relationship between God and man, according to which man now feels and senses God to be an affectionate father, towards whom he mystically shouts “Abba, the father” (Gal. 4:6). The peace of Christ is, second, peace towards all people through love, sincere love, which even embraces its mortal enemies. The peace of Christ is, third, peace towards our own self, which is achieved with an unceasing struggle against the various passions, which are the causes of the great internal disturbances and dramas of man, as the pens of Aeschylus and Shakespeare describe them. What can you do with external peace, when your internal world is shaken by the corrupting passions?

• The Deceptive Mottos

Unfortunately mankind doesn’t believe and doesn’t subject itself to Christ in its collective whole, so that it might taste and enjoy the sweetest fruit of peace, but it hears and accepts the deceptive mottos of a material-minded and atheist world, who promises peace, and, instead of peace, gives war and opens the chasm yet further, which it tried to bridge with technical bridges.

On account of these considerations as Christians we must be careful that we don’t entangle ourselves in traps of ideas and systems, which hide their sinister aims in regard to the peace, conciliation and unity of the world. The many, not suspecting what is hidden under these mottos, stretch forth a well-hearing ear and are dragged away and become fanatic followers and they continually are distanced from the peace in Christ, which is not supported upon the lie and the deception, but upon the truth, the only redeeming, or salvific truth, which is revealed by Christ.

People, who don’t believe in Jesus Christ and are indifferent about the dogmas of the faith, continually throw out mottos concerning peace, conciliation, unity. But we must be blunt, that behind these deceptive mottos are hidden the Zionists, masons, Marxists, atheists and heretics of all kinds and shades.

• Light and Darkness Irreconcilable

The deceptive mottos concerning peace coming from the Evil One, reconciliation and unity of the world unfortunately have their influence also in the orthodox world. While at other times our Orthodox Church would close her ears to such kinds of deceptive voices, today spiritual leaders (patriarchs, archbishops and bishops), consciously or unconsciously, are found under the influence of these deceptive mottos and continually speak of peace, unity and the ecumenical movement. And speaking thus, they become pleasant to the more broad strata of the world, deceiving and being self-deceived, that they are contributing to the pan-human conciliation and co-fraternity.

A characteristic example is patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras (1948-1972), who, robustly endeavoring for union, lifted the anathemas, and to those orthodox in spirit, who were speaking and counter-speaking he used to say: “I am concerned for love and only love. Let the theologians converse about dogmas…” One hearing Athenagoras continually speaking about love, conciliation and co-fraternity apart from the faith one thinks, he created the impression that some Zionist or mason or diplomat or one designated by some great power is speaking, who, being completely indifferent towards the Orthodox faith, preaches and acts for the conciliation and of peoples without God, completely foreign, as we have said, to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ concerning peace and unity. And this same impression is reinforced, when one keeps in view news from abroad, according to which Athenagoras was a member of a masonic lodge. A piece of news, which unfortunately Athenagoras, though offended, did not deny, as he ought to have done.

But perhaps a similar accusation has not been launched also against the now patriarch Mr. Demetrios, as well as against other high-priests of the ecumenical throne, who until today do not proceed to public denouncement of the accusation, so that our people who are in a state of unrest may calm down? From this position as bishop of the Orthodox Church, for reasons of conscience I direct a last call to the ecumenical throne, who are accused that they have relation with masonry and with masonic offsprings (as are the organizations AHEPANS, ROTARY, LIONS, as is the notorious Knightly Order of Saint Constantine), that they publicly declare, that they are not members of these organizations, as earlier on did all the high-priests of the Autocephalos Church of Greece concerning masonry in a public announcement.

There does not exist, my beloved, compromise between Church and stoa/lodge, Christianity and masonry, Christ and Beliar. Now it is worthy of special observation, that the world, being influenced by false masonic mottos concerning unity and conciliation, the faithless and atheist world, who has no relation with the orthodox faith and life, discloses its joy over the endeavored union of papism and Orthodoxy without faith. Now Athenagoras existed as a big mouthed preacher of this union, whom practically all the newspapers and periodicals of the world, judging by worldly criteria, praised and presented him as a great man! The world is of such a kind of nature; it loves those who speak, not tongue of the “Evangelio”/Gospel, but of this world. And moreover to the honor of the great “peacemaker” patriarch Athenagoras a whole volume was published entitled “The peacemakers”, in which are described all the meetings and full embracings of patriarch and pope. And while the world expresses joy for such an attempt at false-union, quite the opposite the faithful people are hated, insulted and beat up as being small-brained, retarted and “misallodox,” – (that is, to hate people of other religions/views) – by the fanatic followers of ecumenism.

 

• Dialogue to What End?

 

Now the beginning of evil is dialogue. The dialogue with the papists and with other heretics. Dialogue, for which not only we, but also others, as the famous orthodox theologian Justine Popovitch, foretold in time, that, under the conditions in which Orthodoxy remains, such a dialogue engenders great dangers for the unity of the Orthodox Church. Dialogue, I beg to ask, to what end? The Orthodox Church, being consistent and consequential to the god-inspired word of the apostle Paul, “An heretical man, after the first and second admonition, quit, seeing that such a one has gone astray and sins, being self-condemned.” (Tit. 310-11), ought to have avoided dialogue, for, as history has already proved, older and more modern, a sincere disposition of the pope does not exist to return to the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, the Church of the seven Ecumenical Synods.

The pope does not follow a straight line, but, as a serpent, slithers so that he might deceive and devour everybody, so that thereby the papal world-empire might be created. Alien to the genuine spirit of the “Evangelion”, the Gospel. This tactic of his brings to mind the evilness of the ancient serpent, the devil, who appeared with the beauty of a bird and led Eve astray into dialogue, setting under doubt the given commandment of God. And while Eve ought not to have accepted any conversation, but to strictly send the devil away, she unfortunately opened a dialogue with him, a dialogue which ended up in the fall of the first-formed (couple) Eve and Adam and their expulsion from paradise. The beginning of this indescribable disaster was Eve’s dialogue! Sacred Chrysostom, this ecumenical teacher and father of the Church, in speaking about the related passage of Genesis, sounds the alarm of danger for all the faithful, who, imitating Eve imprudently open dialogue with the heretics and are in danger of being led astray by their cunning and evil teaching. Let us hear what immortal Chrysostom says:

 

“Now Eve should not even have tolerated dialogue with him (the devil), but to converse only with him for whom she was fashioned (Adam) and to have become a sharer in his value/worth and for which she was created to help him. And when – I don’t know how she was led astray – she tolerated the dialogue with the serpent and accepted through him as through an organ the destructive words of the devil, only from what he said she apprehended the contradictory nature of the words, and that God dictates other things and this one other things, and the fact that he disagreed with the creator, it rational consequence that she should have turned away and avoided further conversation with him, and to abominate the one that dared to sharpen his tongue against the commandment that was given them. But by reason of her great carelessness not only did she not turn away, but she even reveals to him the whole commandment, and sets the pearls before the swine, and [thereby] that which Christ said is fulfilled: ‘Don’t throw’, that is, he says, ‘your pearls before the swine, perhaps they trample over you with their feet,

and turn and cut you to pieces’ (Matt. 7:6); precisely this is what happened here. For she gave to the swine, to that evil beast (the serpent), that is, to the demon that was active through him, the divine pearls, and not only did he trample them underfoot and set himself against what was said, but he even turned and even brought down to pieces not only the obedience of her, but along with her the obedience of first-formed (Adam). Such a great evil it is for one to reveal simply and in chance fashion to everybody the divine mysteries. Let those hear who open dialogue with everybody. For Christ neither in this case speaks about a swine of sense-perception, but he refers to those among men who like swine roll in the mire of sin like animals that don’t have rational power, educating us so that we might come to know, both how to discern persons and to search out whether a consequential mode of life exists, so long as it is asked of us to reveal something of the divine words, so that we might not harm either them or own selves. For such kinds of people not only win nothing from the things that are said, but many times, also, those, who without examination set before them these good pearls, they lead them astray together with them into the same cess-pool of perdition. For this reason these must be guarded strictly, so that we might not undergo the same things as the ones here deceived (=the first-formed). For if here too woman did not want to set before the swine the divine pearls, neither would she herself have fallen over the precipice, nor would she have co-strayed man.

 

• The Strong Stance of Ever-memorable Patriarchs

 

Ever-memorable previous patriarchs, who brightened the throne of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, remembering the words of the Lord, of the god-inspired commandment of the apostle Paul and the teaching of sacred Chrysostom, avoided dialogue with the pope and the other heretics. Of those ever-memorable men we bring to memory, we remember here two patriarchs. First patriarch Gregory the 6^th (1868-1881). To this one in 1868 pope Pious the 9^th sent his representatives and invited him to participate in the Council convening at the Vatican. But Gregory did not accept the invitation, or the gold-bound book, which the pope had sent as a “present”, and he gave the appropriate answer. What exactly the patriarch said and what the pope’s emissaries said, these things were published in a public announcement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For the sake of our readers we republish certain extracts from this text, worthy of much attention:

 

“…Neither do we tolerate opening old wounds, and to stimulate hatreds through discussions and word-battles, which end up for the most part in breaches and despisings, while both of us today, more than ever, have need of evangelical and communal love and sympathy for the many and multi-form dangers and temptations surrounding the Church of Christ; nor is a co-understanding and conciliar conversation possible, without an existing common departure point of these principles…A convention (in Florence) convened for political reasons, reasons of earthy interest, ending up in forced conclusion for a few of your people through starvation and every form of violence and threat of the then papizing one – such a convention is not worthy even of the holy name of Council…Those fathers of the Ecumenical Synods are the superlative criterion of christian truth; they are the secure path upon which we might be able to meet in the holy kiss of dogmatic union; and everyone walking about outside that orbit will be considered by us as being off-center and not in the jurisdiction to bring together about his own self the members of the Orthodox Catholic Church. Now if by chance certain ones of the western bishops, have doubts concerning certain of their dogmas, let them come together and reconsider these things every day, if they want. We have no doubt concerning traditions coming down from the fathers and the invariable dogmas of piety…Things being such, either you too look back at History and to the Ecumenical Synods, so that historically there might be achieved by all the longed for true and Christ-selected union, or again we will suffice ourselves to our continual prayers and petitions on behalf of the peace of the whole world, the good standing of the saints of the Churches of God and the union of all…” (See J. Karmires, The Dogmatical and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, vol. II, p. 928-929).

But also when after a 25 year period another pope, Leo the 13^th, directed a new invitation to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for union, the then ecumenical patriarch Anthimos the 7^th (1895-1897) with the sacred synod about him answered with a historical document, composed by a committee of wise high-priests, through which the union was denied and which set forth the serious reasons, which rule out the union. This same answer which three years ago was published in a self-complete pamphlet with a translation in the English by the Hellenic orthodox Christian brotherhood of London “Great Athanasios”, is long. For this reason we only publish its epilogue, which is as follows:

“Now we, by the grace and pleasure of all-good God, who happen to be honorable members of the body of Christ, that is, his one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, suffice ourselves to patristic and apostolically-given piety. Let us all be careful in regard to pseudo-apostles, who coming in the form of sheep endeavor to entice the more simple among us through various and suspicious promises, all things being desirable that lead and allow for union, if only the Pope of Rome is recognized as being the supreme and infallible ruler and absolute sovereign of the Church in toto and the only representative of Christ upon the earth and the source of every grace! Now especially those who have been set by the grace and mercy of God bishops and shepherds and teachers of the saints of God of the Churches ‘let us be careful for ourselves and for the whole flock, in which the holy Spirit has set as bishops, to shepherd the Church of God, which he purchased through his own blood’ (Acts 20:28), ‘as we are to give an account’ (Acts 20: 28). Wherefore we entreat one another and edify each one the other (1 Thess. 5:11). “Now the God of every grace, who having called us unto his eternal glory in Christ Jesus – may he equip, support, empower, and establish us” (1 Peter 5:10), and may he grant that all who are found to be outside and far from the one holy, catholic, and orthodox fold of his rational sheep may be enlightened by the light of his grace and the full knowledge of the truth. Unto Him be the glory and power unto the ages of ages. Amen. (Ibid. p. 945).

• Overturning of tradition

This line, which upon the basis of the sacred Canons those ever-memorable patriarchs maintained before papism and the other heresies, more modern patriarchs unfortunately have not followed, of whom first is patriarch Meletios Metaxakis (1921-1923). He coming forth from Crete, a multi-doer and modernist, rather a politician than a religious leader, being influenced also by worldly circles, through words and through actions changed the line of sail and thenceforth the intelligible, noetic ship of the Orthodox Church of Greece began to be shaken about and to be in danger of colliding upon rocks and reefs of the stormy sea of various heresies and errors/deceptions. Meletius also influenced a great deal the Church of Greece, of which by political intervention he also became archbishop. Thus the resistance against the heresies and errors/deceptions also began in the Church of Greece to weaken, in the administration of which the state did not intervene, wanting to have the say also in even purely ecclesiastical issues. Now one of the lamentable consequences of the intervention of the state in the affairs of the Church of Greece was the change in calendar. Because this did not take place, as the ever-memorable professor Chrestos Androutsos writes, by common decision of all patriarchates and autocephalus churches, this created a crisis of conscience, and some Christians conformed to the calendar change, and others not, the membership being divided into new calendarists and old calendarists. And this to the joy of papism, seeing the Orthodox coming to blows with one another…

But the division, which then came from the change of the calendar, is a small evil in comparison to the big evil, which comes now on the occasion of dialogue, which for years is taking place in secret meetings between representatives of the Orthodox churches and respresentatives of the pope, and the constantanticanti-canonical and dangerous openings towards papism. Thus the dividing line between Orthodoxy and papism, which was clearly visible by all, already with frequent anti-canonical contacts is tending to be erased. Thus one realizes, if he opens a religious conversation with individuals, men and women, who live in lands abroad and are influenced by sermons and homilies of philo-papal clerics of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The sense-factor of Orthodoxy has been harshly blunted in these orthodox. If you admonish some one of them to remain in the Orthodox faith, you hear him answer: “What does it mean to be orthodox, catholic, protestant? All are the same…”

Victims of Ecumenistic Sermons

A certain young man particularly impressed me. He was studying at a University abroad and was found to be under the influence of such sermons. “For me,” he would say, “it doesn’t matter whether I go to the Church of the orthodox, or of the papists, or to a protestant hall…” I was at a loss to understand how a young man having been baptized in the font of the Orthodox Church could speak thus. Really, what can one say to this young man, who is a victim of ecumenistic sermons. I reflected and responded to him in allegoric language. I knew well the issues pertaining to him.

This young man, a child of a rich family, for the sake of better instruction signed up at a non-domestic university school, which he attended for many years. But there he came to know and contacted a relationship with some young woman, who belonged to papism, and, against the will of his parents who reacted against such a marriage, he nonetheless ended up deciding to marry her. From his refractory stance and persistent will a family drama ensued. Finally the poor parents gave in.. And the young man, overjoyed performed the marriage with the heterodox young woman.

So, taking the opportunity of this event, I said to him: “You decided, my fellow, to get married. Innumerable were the women who more or less looked alike with regard to the body. Why didn’t you close your eyes and take whatever woman, but instead you chose her, whom you have? What in particular, do you suppose, did this young woman have? – “She had,” he tells me, “certain characteristics, which enticed me.” – You spoke rightly,” I answered him, “because to those who are in love, even the slightest bodily detail can dominate the young man. It is said that the condition of the world would have been different had the formation of Cleopatra’s … nose been different, which Antony frenzily came to love. I, the old bishop, spoke to you about loves.” – “I am at a loss to understand,” the young man tells me, “- Yes, but I spoke to you in allegorical tongue. Orthodoxy, too, my beloved, about which you speak so disdainfully, is like a woman of extraordinary spiritual beauty with special charismata (gifts), which distinguish her from the other so-called churches.

“So, if you viewed the beauty of Orthodoxy with particular care, you would remain amazed and you wouldn’t stop looking and you would rejoice and be gladdened, because you belong to the Orthodox Church… – “And what,” he says to me, “are the particular characteristics of Orthodoxy? I don’t see anything significant.”

I then responded to him at length. I described to him as much as was within my power certain characteristic marks of Orthodoxy. The young man paid close attention and appeared to be in deep thought. Finally he says to me: “Father, you’re right. No one till today ever spoke to me with such fervent language. Abroad, where we live, they are mowing down Orthodoxy with all the dogmas.”

He asked for books in order to study more. I gave him. He thanked me and left. And I, after the departure of this young man, was taken over by a deep sorrow and was plunged into thoughts wondering how many Orthodox souls, with all the constant brain washing that is going on about union and ecumenism and pan-religionism, there are who are as if they were blind and no longer see the motionless beauty of the Orthodox Church! If they saw it as did our ever-memorable forefathers, being instructed and catechized in an orthodox manner by genuine preachers of Orthodoxy, they would be enflamed by love for the Orthodox Church, the beautiful Bride of Christ; and to the proposals of the propagandist papists and other heretics they would cry out: “We shall not deny you, beloved Orthodoxy; we will not give you lip service, O honor handed down by the fathers; In you were we born, in you we live, and if the time calls, we too shall die for you.”

O, for how many victims does our Orthodox Church wail on account of lukewarm sermons of pope-loving bishops and priests abroad who, in order to be liked by the pope and the heretics, say not a single word against them; while, quite the opposite, their tongue drips with honey whenever they speak or hold converse with heretics, ready to receive them within the churches and to even commune them from the common cup!

*

Unionists and Anti-Unionists

From the badly begun and undergoing dialogue of the Orthodox with papists, let us say it with the deepest sorrow, only papism comes out winning. Yes, papism and only papism!

Papism, craftily coiling as a serpent in the garden of Orthodoxy, succeeded in dividing the Orthodox into two groups, into unionists and anti-unionists. Do you have any doubts? Visit whatever eparchy abroad, wherein the papal-loving climate of ecumenism prevails, and you will apprehend this division. To be sure, many of the so-called Orthodox Greek christians, indifferent with respect to the faith, applaud the mottos of false-union coming from the world of the “churches.” But, glory to God, there is the laos, the people, who regardless of how small as it might appear, does not stop reacting and to protest intensely against papism and ecumenism. This people, since it is supported robustly by preachers of Orthodoxy, as the ever-memorable patriarch of Alexandria, Meletios Pegas (1590-1601) prophesies, (who wrote a greatly studied treatise on papism), this godly layman, I say, says that the pious people will always contract, but it shall never be eclipsed.

Now the word “contract” “grow small,” (“systelete”) is not ours, but of Meletios Pegas (See Dositheos of Jerusalem, Volume of joy, published by Regopoulos Thessalonica 1985, p. 478). Yes, the orthodox people will grow smaller, but as few as they might become, like the 7,000 at the time of Elias, and the three children in the fiery furnace – and even if only one remains; as another Daniel in the den of lions, with the help of God, they will continue the struggle in behalf of the Orthodox faith as the unique and sweet hope of humanity. And the papists and the ecumenist metropolitans, patriarchs and archbishops, whose center is the notorious Champenzi, whose supervising metropolitan is constantly praised and decorated by the papists, will bear the full responsibility for the contraction of Orthodoxy into very few persons.

The Persecution in Australia

But there, where all the tragedy of dialogue and the division of the upcoming openings between the pro-unionists and the antipapists, is Australia. About this division we wrote about in a previous “Spark.” We are not about to repeat the same things. This much we say here: the few Orthodox Christians there, who saw the danger of papism coming, coagulated into an orthodox brotherhood whose purpose is the support of the Orthodox faith by means of legal and canonical means, and called militant orthodox theologians from Greece, who, going abroad preached with a fiery heart in many cities and halls and projected the greatness of the Orthodox Church, and the phalanx of the militant Christians has increased significantly, and the mind-set has taken up wings. And all these people, without creating a schism, as they slander them as doing, constitute a powerful voice of protest within the bosoms of the Orthodox Church, and they live with the hope, that with the awakening of the orthodox consciences, better days shall come for the Orthodox Church.

Unfortunately, a maniacal effort was made, with the strong systematic slandering of courageous theologians and their audiences as … being heretical and agitating, to snuff out that voice. But it didn’t go out, nor shall it go out. Indeed, it was heard more powerfully during the last visit of the pope to Australia, where a habit-wearing orthodox cleric received him tenderly, while the followers of the pope received him in an insane state with the motto: “The pope is living God”! The persecution against the orthodox who are protesting has intensified. The canonically and lawfully protesting orthodox Christians were barred uncanonically and arbitrarily from receiving the Holy Communion, during which time masons and other scandalously living Christians commune without any objection. The faithful, because they protest, for this reason they are insulted, hit, punched, injured and are taken to hospitals. And this provokes amazement those who think wholesomely, not only Greeks, but foreigners too.

And these things are happening in free and democratic country, where all the voices are permitted to be heard. If the these faithful would have remained silent, as others do on account of opportunism and fear, they too would be chosen ones! But now they must be …exterminated spiritually! For, as we said another time, the arbitrary and uncanonical prohibition of the Holy Communion to the faithful, indeed enforced as a penance even by certain FATHERS OF THE HOLY MOUNTAIN – O the crime! – is worse even than bodily execution. In Australia no one else was excommunicated but the faithful, the godly and pious, who, as passengers on the intelligible Ship, are anxious and ask, where finally is the raft of the Church being led?

Unfortunately, those who according to the canons are worthy of defrockment (i.e., being unrobed) on account of their anti-canonical activities in relation to the pope and other heretics, those primarily responsible for the turmoil, remain not only unpunished, but they also brazenly insult and excommunicate from their seats the children of Orthodoxy, who are ready to even sacrifice their life in behalf of the Orthodox faith. O disasters, O lamentations. It is timely to say: “In what times have you placed us, O Lord!”

Unfortunately, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to which the pious faithful mentioned this unjust persecution, remains silent and has not intervened in order to find a radical solution to an unacceptable situation.

Behold the lamentable consequences of the dialogue and the uncanonical openings of the papal-lovers.

Up until this first phase of the struggle it appears that the one winning in the pope.

For these reasons, I, the old bishop, who is found in the western setting of my life, with tears direct my last call to all the Heirarchy of the Church of Greece, of which I constitute the least member, that henceforth they abstain from the wicked councils with the papists, not only for national reasons, as archbishop Seraphim acted rightly, prohibiting a dispatch of mission representatives to a meeting in Bari, of Orthodox and papists, but also forreligious reasons, and primarily for those reasons; for a meeting to advance chiefly their own interests and aims —-; for, Your greatnesses, and most blessedness most reverend brothers in Christ, above the fatherland is the Orthodox faith, for which we must breath, must live, and must die, as our ever-memorable fathers. To the unending dialogues STOP. Let’s not be deceived. Papism remains immovable from its errors/deceptions and heresies. There is the danger that perhaps what happened to Eve with the dialogue with the serpent will happen to us too, as we said. For this reason we remind all the god-inspired word of the chief Apostle Paul, which says: “For I am jealous over you with jealousy of God. For I have promised you to one Man, to present you a pure virgin to Christ. But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve in his craftiness, so your thoughts should be corrupted from the simplicity which is due to Christ. (II Cor. 11:2-3).

Year 43 – Athens – Sept. – October 1987 – Issue No. 455

CHRISTIAN SPARK

Is Speaking about Christ Prohibited?

“I believed, therefore I spoke” (Psalm 115:1; 2 Cor. 4:13)

“Woe unto those who don’t speak about Christ” (sacred Augustine)

Most sacred Metropolitan of Florina and Almopias, super-honorable and exarch of High Macedonia, in Holy Spirit beloved brother and concelebrant of our Mediocrity, Lord Augustine, may grace be with your Sacredness and peace from God.

The Church with sorrow observes that despite the recommendations made by her and the confirmations made by your Sacredness that you shall surely cease whatever involvement in the affairs of the Sacred Archdiocese of Australia, the situation continues by means of improper sermons made by self-called theologians, deceiving the homogenous race there of orthodox membership, and this in rebellion against the Ecclesiastical leadership through which it is guided.

The dissimilarity toward the canonical and ecclesiastical order, and for that reason this wholly unacceptable intervention in what is considered an foreign eparchy and which is also in concilliar relation with the Holy and Sacred Synod about us, by decision we order your Sacredness with the present (communication) from now on to cease every contact, according to whatever manner, with those in Australia. There exists there a canonically established, responsible Ecclesiastical Authority, having knowledge and capable of caring and doing what is appropriate in relation to the homogenous Orthodox membership, so that every destructive external involvement and action is to be ruled out.

Now may God’s grace and infinite mercy be with her.

(signed) Patriarch Demetrios July 10, 1987.

(My beloved readers, in our century the godly are persecuted, the faithful children of Church. Where are they being persecuted? In atheist totalitarian regimes, and especially in Albania, where, even if someone does his or her cross it is prohibited. They are persecuted also in Australia. In Australia? But Australia is one of the most liberal and democratic countries of the world, where every person can declare his religious convictions and develop religious activity. And yet! The faithful children of the Church are persecuted in Australia. In the fifth continent the godly are persecuted by the morose totalitarian regime, which is led by archbishop of Australia Mr. Stylianos. He, on the occasion of protests made by faithful children of the Church on account of its scandalous relations with heretics, and indeed with the papists, prohibited theologians, fervent preachers of the Gospel and of Orthodoxy, from preaching. Not only did he forbid their preaching in churches, but through his actions, against political authorities, he attempted to have preaching prohibited in every area of Australia and for these people to be expelled within 48 hours from Australia as evil-dealing elements. But the political authorities, after objection and enlightenment, remained amazed before the insolent presumptuousness of the totalitarian archbishop and they informed the theologians, that they are free to remain in their country and to continue their sermons. And the archbishop, continuing, moreover, the persecution, breathing fiercely against the protesters, prohibited, wholly arbitrarily and anticanonically, and also, unfortunately, by means of Hagiorite confessors from Holy Mount Athos, the administering of holy Communion to the protesting godly people. Priests denied the holy Communion even to infants! Finally, through the actions of the Ecumencal Patriarchate, to which he presented the affairs just as he wanted, he led astray the highest peak of Orthodoxy toward his side. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, without a more in-depth research into the matters, by means of the above document prohibits me, too, from showing an interest in the affairs in Australia. The document in question made me most sorrowful. But in respecting the Patriarchate I had decided not to answer the document publicly. But because the archbishop of Australia announced the content of the Patriarchal document over the radio, for this reason I am compelled to publish my answer to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the present issue of “Spitha” (“Spark”). And herein I publish within the framework also the document from the Patriarchate.

By means of my answer to the patriarchal document, before every faithful man is set the most vital issue for the Church of God, namely, whether the faithful have the right to speak about Christ. To speak and to work for the kingdom of Christ is the right of clerics only? In this regard we wait to hear the voice of the faithful people. For, just as Church Dogmatic teaches, a decision of a Regional or Ecumenical Synod then only can stand and be clothed with ecumenical validity if it happens to have the approval of the catholic conscience of the Church, that is, of the conscience of the faithful people, the guardian of Orthodoxy).

To the Ecumenical Patriarch Mr. Demetrios

At Constantinople

All-holy Despot,

I received your written document of July 10^th. Before I opened it, and only from the inscription on the envelope denoting the origin of the document, I tasted a feeling of joy and gladness. For I thought, that is was concerning a friendly letter announcing to me some pleasant news regarding the issue in the Church of Hellas, for the sake of which, as member of the Synodical Council immediately after the feast of Pascha, I visited the Patriarchate and in a spirit of love and understanding we discussed the subject. From all that was said a moving atmosphere of brotherhood was created, which as Aermon dew showered and refreshed both me and you. I returned to the fatherland glorifying God and expressing both orally and in writing my moving impressions from my visit to the Patriarchate. And more vividly I supported the idea of a new subjection to the Ecumenical Patriarchate not only of the Metropolia of the New Lands, but of all of the Autocephalos Church of Hellas.

But when I opened the envelope and read the content, what a painful surprise! A lightning-bolt in dream-land! Being the sentimental, emotional type, as I am, as even my enemies confess me to be, I was shaken and I teared. I said to myself: So, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, on which we set all our hopes for the better future of the Church of Hellas, is turning against us, an elder bishop, who for more than a half a century, despite his imperfections after persecutions and dangerous adventures serves Orthodoxy and the race? I will therefore go down into the tomb having as epigraph on my gravestone this condemnatory document of the Ecumenical Patriarchate? In the beginning, forcing my sentimental world, I thought to accept the strike of your All-holiness without protest. But I am not alone. A great many people, by the grace of God, follows me. And for the work of God I have need of the good testimony, which, however, by such documents, as the patriarchal one, is seriously being beaten. And ecclesiastical history bears witness, that capable and important men, who would have been able to benefit the Church, were made useless and were taken out on account of unjust decisions of ecclesiastical authorities, which, being led astray by false accusations and slanders of mortal enemies and more generally from the distortion of truth, they didn’t examine things carefully, in depth and breadth, in which case the truth would have shined forth, or, according to Basil the Great, the elusive truth, but instead hurried to condemn the ones without cause. For these reasons I am forced to answer your document. And I answer with a spirit of piety toward the Ecumencal Patriarchate, but also with a sincere tongue, with which I always speak and write. Without fear and passion I submit my testimony before you, All-holy Despot, and before all the Most Reverend Metropolitans that comprise the Synod about you.

I am accused, first, “for the improper sermons made by self-called theologians, deceiving the homogenous race there of orthodox membership, and this in rebellion against the Ecclesiastical Leadership through which it is guided”.

To this accusation I answer: The “self-called theologians” indeed are not named, but obviously these are the following.

1. Stergios Sakkos, professor of the University of Thessalonica, who over a span of thirty years preaches without pay the word of God before dense crowds in all the cities of Hellas, either within sacred churches or in halls and squares. He, having his origin from Western Macedonia, is connected with many Western-Macedonians, who have immigrated and established themselves in Australia. Now these, as societies and brotherhoods, repeatedly have invited from Hellas every once in a while scholar/scientist speakers, and they also invited professor Stergios Sakkos.

2. Nicholas Soteropoulos, a scientist theologian and philologian, a capable composer of apologetic and anti-heretical articles and books, eloquent and pay-free preacher, known not only in Hellas, but also by the homogeneity found outside of Hellas by means of his articles, books and sermons through cassettes. He too repeatedly and persistently by means of letters was invited by the homogeneity to visit Australia and to speak.

3. Panagiotes Myrou, scholar/scientist theologian and philologian, preacher and author, descended from Macedonia, by the petition of the above-mentioned accompanied them on the trip, as also Mr. Apostolos Frangos, an (orthodox) Christian scientist, a composer of apologetic articles and author of an apologetic book, by means of which the Darwinian theory regarding man’s descent from the ape is pulverized.

I don’t deny that the theologians in question are spiritually connected with the writer of these lines. But this doesn’t mean that they act like robots. They are free people, idealogues, worshipping God from their childhood days, and from zeal have studied theology, and possessing a strong yearning to preach the gospel in an Orthodox way unto the ends of the earth. I don’t deny, moreover, that they expressed to me the desire to visit the Hellenism of Australia abroad, just as they had also visited other countries of Europe and America. I ought to have said no to them? I was unable to on account of principles. But that which I especially stressed to these theologians, was that when they would reach Australia, to visit the Ecclesiastical Authority and ask for permission to preach in the churches of the archdiocese. And in their sermons to project the greatness of Orthodoxy, which is fiercely fought against by a multitude of heresies. Also, for them to respect the ecclesiastical establishment there. These things we said.

The theologians, when they reached Australia, sought to communicate with the Ecclesiastical Authority. But the archbishop, to whom their petition was given, denied receiving the theologians and prohibited them from preaching in the churches of the archdiocese. The theologians respected the will of the archdiocese and preached in no church. And even though pious priests of Australia, considering unjust and arbitrary the decision of the supervising Authority, were eager to receive the theologians in to preach in their churches, despite the fear of their being defrocked, the theologians did not want to do this. They spoke however, as free human beings in a democratic country, of whom no one is able to shut their mouth, in halls and homes of godly people. They spoke as faithful people. They spoke with the sense of individual responsibility for whatever they said exalting the greatness of Orthodoxy and censuring, according to the dictate of their conscience, every heresy and deceptive error, as well as every anti-canonical and anti-orthodox action, coming from whatever source. If they had wanted to take advantage of the most unpleasant climate, which from many and various causes were created against the archbishop, they could have entered into partnership with priests of Australia and brought other priests from Hellas and created a new ecclesiastical situation in Australia. But such a thing they did not do, despite the flood of insults and false words of the archbishop, clergy and his other people said at the expense of the theologians. They had reached the point of publicly calling the theologians fools, rogues, and heretics worse than the false-witnesses of Jehovah and the Mormons, and to say, that supposedly that the Church of Hellas prohibits them from preaching! The theologians patiently endured the strong tirade of insults, demonstrated chastity of the tongue, not pitting lies against lies and insults against insults. And if in the course of their speech a robust word came forth from the mouth of one of them, which by certain ones was considered insult, which though, in fact, had to do with exercising censure, that word is zero before the volcanic lava of false words and insults, which day and night the volcano found in the heart of the holy [archbishop] of Australia emanates. And against me the old bishop he published an article in which Christians counted 30 insults and were horrified and expressed to me their sympathy. I, however, in answering this insulting article of his, did not follow him in his insulting style, but instead of insults I utilized the truth, which is not insult but censure. Now, if in Australia it would be proved by impartial interrogations, that the theologians inflicted injustice in some way on the archbishop, they informed me, that they were eager to ask for forgiveness. However, does archbishop Mr. Stylianos have the psychical stamina to ask forgiveness from the theologians, because publicly before thousands of Christians during the vespers service of St. Nectarios in Melbourne he called the theologians fools, rogues and heretics?

These few things in relation to my responsibililty “for improper sermons of self-called theologians”, for which I am charged and condemned.

But on the occasion of homilitic, preaching activity, which the theologians developed outside of churches, in halls and homes, as well as the violent reaction against it by the archbishop of Australia, the huge questions of canonical nature is borne: Outside of sacred churches, in which for a certain layman to speak is surely demanded the permission of the familiar, ruling bishop, in other places, lay people, men and women, faithful children of the Church, is it permitted to speak of Jesus Christ, yes or no? The question is clear. This writer, studying since his childhood days the holy Scriptures, the sacred Canons and Ecclesiastical History, am of the opinion, that this is not only not forbidden, but is prescribed as a sacred duty. For, as sacred Augustine says, woe unto him, who doesn’t speak about Christ and becomes one of the many deaf and mute of this age. And because I am not of the opinion, that I possess infallibility, as the pope thinks he does, let a broad discussion be called regarding the subject among hierarchs and theologians by means religious publications and in the Synod, because the matter is of most vital importance. Those holding opposite views, let them show a single scriptural passage or a single ecclesiastical Canon, which, correctly interpreted supports their position. They won’t find it. Only one passage of an apostolic father, of St. Ignatios the God-bearer, they will find, which says, for nothing to be done without the opinion of the bishop. This passage they use to satiety those holding the opposite view. But it is necessary to say, that this passage is terribly misinterpreted, and the first, who would protest on account of such a misinterpretation of his word, would be St. Ignatios himself, if he lived upon the earth. A hierarch that has now passed on to the blessed state, George Papageorgiades of Nevrokopi, a formidable theologian and supporter of Episcopal authority, which certain ones from protestant influences wanted to minimize, in seeing the abuse of the said passage of saint Ignatios, in his spirited homilies he ridicules those who misinterpret the passage saying: Alas if for every action outside the church the permission of the bishop would have to be requested!… The life of Christians is pervaded by general terms and canons, which must be enforced by all, by bishops and the rest of the clerics and lay people. A parched bishop-rule, strangling and invalidating the freedom and initiative of lay Christians, Christ did not establish in His Church. And still even that very papism, which is so priest-ruling, opens cracks in the wall of its totalitarianism and allows the broad participation of lay people in missionary work. A Reverend hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate living abroad and not having in view the totalitarianism of certain hierarchs of the Orthodox Church, who obstruct the development of missionary activity of lay people, observes the following.

“As soon as there appear pay free strugglers, not only are they spoken against badly with adjectives, which only Greeks are capable of conceiving, but they are also set apart as infected, as outside the Church, and as fanatics. In such circumstances how can our Church be restored? The one builds, the other destroys. Or better rather to say, they don’t allow him to build. He must remain motionless, unemployed, in order for him to be considered to be a genuine Orthodox! Yesterday I was in L…The archbishop there was telling me that he is so happy, because there are operating and cooperating 34 orders of Monasteries under different names. He supports all of them, on account of the fact that they all work in behalf of Christ. There is no discrimination and partiality. Only among us the unacceptable things occur. And all these things are done by those of our own household. In an epoch, when all the powers ought to have been set in motion, luke-warmness, disbelief, and exclusion of capable lay people workers of the Gospel. May God pity us.”

These things, and still more other things, writes the reverend and wise hierarch. I don’t mention the name of the hierarch, because, if the saint of Australia learns it, he will violently attack him and a new front of dispute will be opened between hierarchs in the area of the Patriarchate, and you will be compelled to occupy yourselves with this matter. I piously ask: If this reverend and wise hierarch, having wholesome ecclesiastical apprehensions, were the archbishop of Australia, would he have forbidden the pay free warrior theologians from preaching? Not only would he have not forbidden them, but he would have expressed to them his thankfulness and gratitude for their offering to the Church, and deep tranquility would prevail in the Hellenism abroad in Australia. Who then is the cause of disturbance and disorder in the Church of Australia, but the totalitarian-like governing archbishop Mr. Stylianos in the Church in question, who, as it appears, was jealous of the glory of Diotrephes: (3^rd Catholic Epistle of John).

I am accused, second, for the “wholly unacceptable intervention in an alien eparchy”. But what, I beg to ask, is this intervention of mine into the jurisdiction of the saint of Australia? By thousands of godly Christians of the Hellenism abroad in Australia, and indeed also by the Western-macedonians and Florinians, I have often been invited to take a trip to the fifth continent. But yet even when the archbishop of Australia was the ever-memorable Ezekial, who would have received me with joy, I did not go to Australia. I had a strong longing to visit the homogenies not only of Australia, but of all of those abroad, who are established and a multitude of Westernmacedonians and other Hellenes from cities and villages of the fatherland, who knew me during my stormy life as preacher when I was visiting the places during hard times of the ethnos and they were listeners of my sermons and readers of my articles and books. The strong yearning of these, too, was to see me and hear me before I depart from this corruptible world. And yet I did not travel to Australia or to another country abroad, so that no one says, that I seek international projection. Indeed I was able to go to Australia even against the will of archbishop there. For there are sacred Canons, as the 121^st of the Carthaginian Synod and the 15^th of the First-second Synod, according to which, when a certain bishop neglects combating the heretics in his eparchy or the same (bishop) preaches bare-headed anti-orthodox apprehensions, other bishops have the right to go and preach in his eparchy, without this being considered an intervention worthy of punishment. For, from the orthodox perspective he must not only concern himself for his diocese only, but for the whole Church from one end of the earth to the other and to struggle robustly against the errors, deceptions and heresies.

How then can the accusation against me stand on intervention in an alien juristiction? But in the mind of the present archbishop of Australia, thinking and acting in totalitarian fashion, as he and his people stress, the circulation of books and cassettes with sermons, allow me to say, is irrational and insane always, but especially during our century, when, thanks to the amazing progress of technology, the barriers of places and times were broken and ideas circulate easily and freely from one end of the earth to the other, and the hearty yearning of sacred Chrysostom, who wished that there would be a way for his voice to be heard throughout the entire world, is realized. And still, if such an idea regarding intervention prevailed, the archbishop of Australia and every like-minded person would have to have at his disposal an army of people with hitlerian bracelets, in order to place them in print shops, at radio stations, at television stations, at customs and guards in all the homes, and everyone transgressing and hearing the homily or reading a periodical or book to the displeasure of the archbishop of Australia must be excommunicated on the spot and closed in jails. Thus and only thus would he be able to fully impose the government of ecclesiastical totalitarianism, and the archbishop and every like-minded person of his would be lord and master not only in the ecclesiastical but also in the geographical sphere; he would be lord and master of the seas, oceans, harbors, airports, skies, satellites and even of the stars! But perhaps someone says: Unchecked, then, will be the circulation of books, periodicals and cassettes of sermons? Does not the bishop have the right and the duty to follow up on the movement of ideas and to censure and condemn those worthy of censure and condemnation and to protect his flock from harmful spiritual food? Of course he has this right and duty. Now, all of us in speaking and writing are subject to censure. It is logically evident, therefore, that this writer, who does not claim infallibility, like the pope, accepts the censure of his oral and written teaching. With the help of God I have delivered about 10,000 sermons, have written 57 books, comprising about 20,000 pages, and I have circulated countless articles in many periodicals with a large number of copies, which reach the whole world. Piously I ask: Should not the archbishop of Australia, who criticizes my teaching as being harmful to his flock, should not he and his staff, as also the Hagiorite Fathers of Holy Mount Athos who, following the invitation by the archbishop of Australia, travel to the fifth continent, fierce accusers of me and the theologians and fervent lauders of the archbishop of Australia – I say – should not he and his staff have subjected themselves to the effort of studying my articles and books and to hear my homilies and, if somewhere they discover something antichristian and anti-orthodox, should they not lodge a complaint in this regard to my supervising authorities in order for measures to be taken and for sanctions to be taken against me, if I, it is understood, in being called to defense, would persist in my error and cacodoxy which was condemned by holy Ecumenical and Regional Councils? This they did not do. And yet they complained that my teaching is harmful. And the archbishop of Australia and Hagiorite confessors excommunicated pious Christians from the holy Communion, because they are our audiences and readers of our sermons and cassettes! And these things during which time thousands of audiences and readers with moving letters witness to the spiritual benefit that they derived from our written and spoken word. And although it is proven that orthodox Christians are condemned and are excommunicated from the Cup of Life, even infants, proven heretics and ungodly ones, masons, for example, and ahepans, enjoy the friendship of the archbishop and those about him, commune unobstructedly, and if some pious priest denies administering to them the holy Communion, he falls into the orbit of frenzy of the archbishop, is rebuked and threatened. Are these things tolerable, most holy fathers? Place your hand upon the chest and judge justly.

I am accused, third, that I violated the “confirmations” made by me, that I will not involve myself in the affairs of the archdiocese of Australia. Permit me, Most holy Despot, to say, that neither in written nor in spoken discourse did I give such confirmations. But by means of a written document to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, dated April 10, 1986, I protested in regard to all anti-orthodox and anti-canonical things occurring in the Church of Australia. Every faithful person according to Canon Law, every member of the Church, every passenger of the Noetic (Intelligible) Ship has the right to ask where the ship of the Church is being directed. But even when I came to the Patriarchate, only from a certain phrase of the saint of Philadephia, Mr. Bartholemew, I perceived that he strongly supports the saint of Australia, I judged it right to remain silent, because the purpose of my going to the Patriarchate was something else, and I heard also the advise of other members of the Synodical Committee not to open other issues. And I remained silent before your All-holiness, when you touched upon the issue of the Church of Australia in the sacred step of the sacred altar of Saint George after the divine liturgy during the feast day of the great-martyr. Perhaps this silence was taken as a “confirmation”. But so that I anticipate such a misunderstanding, having been given new opportunities I stressed to the saint of Philadelphia that, if the matter of the Church of Australia is discussed, I desire that you inform me so that I come again to Constantinople and give explanations. And I would be most delighted, if the archbishop of Australia would be present. In writing these things I’m not lying.

I am accused for the above reasons and I express deeply the complaint, because you condemned me without defense. I consider your written document a weighty condemnation. Permit me to say, that during my stormy life, whenever I was accused to the Sacred Synod of the Church of Hellas for different actions of mine, before the Sacred Synod proceeded to relative action, it informed me by means of a written accusation and called me to give explanations. And I always gave explanations. And if the explanations were deemed to be sufficiently adequate, the charge against me was placed in the archive. Otherwise, the accusation was announced against me, I offered a defense and proposed supporting witnesses. This was the usual process in our Church, except for cases, according to which the Church being governed dictatorially condemned hierarchs without calling them to defense. Wherefore she (the synod) protested then together with other hierarchs by means of a written document to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

And you, Most holy Despot together with the Council about you, so long as there have been charges repeatedly made by the archbishop of Australia against me, of which I am ignorant of their content, before every action of yours you ought to have sent to me copies of these charges, and for me to be called to give explanations to them, and not for you to record on your written document the imperative verb “we order you”, as if it pertains to a hierarch of your climate. And if the explanations were not satisfactory, you ought to have directed yourself to the Sacred Synod of the Church of Hellas, which for the present possesses according to the Constitutional Map in force the right to act against me what is demanded, as belonging administratively to the jurisdiction of the Church of Hellas. And if the Church condemned me, then, again, according to the Constitutional Map, I would have the right to appeal the decision of the Church of Hellas to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for a new judgment of the issue. And it is noteworthy to mention, that the archbishop of Australia Mr. Stylianos, knowing our ecclesiastical legislation, directed himself to the Sacred Council of the Church of Hellas charging us and the theologians. But the Sacred Synod of under the presidency of archbishop Seraphim, after discussing the matter, did not even want to ask explanations of us and the theologians, but placed the issue in the archive. Already however, the archbishop directed himself anew to us and by means of your hurried decision achieved our condemnation, and taking your written document as a banner of victory and triumph, he transmitted it through the radios of Australia and read it in the churches, in order to portray me before Hellenism abroad as some pitiful character, as a rebel and transgressor of the Sacred Canons. I didn’t expect such a stance of the Patriarchate before me, indeed after my visit to the historic Phanar. Many things are said about this hurried decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, I say nothing, and for the present I prefer to remain silent. But one thing I shout from the depth of my pained heart: All-holy Despot and Synodical Meropolitans, who encircle the Ecumenical Throne! You inflicted injustice upon me! One thing now remains to be done: after the many referrals of clergy and laity to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, by means of which for years are expressed strong complaints of the Hellenism abroad in Australia for improper behavior, totalitarian manner of governance, and serious deviations of archbishop Stylianos from the Orthodox line of navigation, for the ceasing of the tempest, intervene, appoint an interrogator, a hierarch not scandalously involved, and in every thing supporting the archbishop of Australia Stylianos and pardoning all his violations and anti-canonical actions, but a godly hierarch, unaccused, (so that he won’t fear threats), impartial, not discriminating among persons, and just, to go to Australia and conduct the prescribed interrogations, hearing the voice of the godly people, who build the sacred churches and sustains the clergy and establishments. He will hear and be horrified… The archbishop of Australia Mr. Stylianos, nurturing a high opinion of himself, is a follower of Neo-patristicism to the disparagement of the holy Fathers, whose feet we are unworthy to embrace. One of his staff, a bishop, to the question of a faithful believer, why the archdiocese in the particular instance acts contrary to the sacred Pedalion (Rudder), he laughed loudly and said of the Pedalion a horrific word, which we are embarrassed to mention verbatim. In order to avoid the most vulgar word, we say more nobley, that he characterized the sacred Pedalion as toilet paper! The interrogation will prove this, and a multitude of other horrific things, which the noble Hellenic people of Australia patiently endure, sufficing itself to intense protests. The archdiocese of Australia spurns the Sacred Canons on the highest issues of faith, as is the relations of orthodox with heretics, and it remembers the canons only, when it wants to enforce penances on godly children of the Church, because they protest on account of the deviations from the lines of Orthodoxy. It is timely to say: O lord, in what times have you placed us!

All-holy Despot and Most Reverend Metropolitans of the Ecumenical Patriarchate! We are sorry, because we are forced to speak with the harsh tongue of sincerity. We hate no one. We are not actuated by motives of self-interest. We long for the glory of Orthodoxy, and particularly of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which we want to be as a shining sun of the oikoumeni, of the inhabited world. For this reason, in concluding this referral of ours, being deeply moved, we embrace you and piously direct to you this word: Spare the approximately one million Orthodox Hellene brethren of Australia, and don’t, for the sake of badly understood fraternity spare one individual, because he has a high office and knows how to threaten…(In Florina on August 27, 1987. + Metropolitan of Florina, Prespon and Eordaias Augustine)