By Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis of Australia
Part I
1. Introductory Remarks
Following the totally unexpected escalation in provocations from the Vatican, under BENEDICT XVI, towards other Christians (especially the Orthodox, as we shall see below!), it is as plain as the sun that we are unfortunately entering a period of complete uncertainty, to mention nothing of strange ‘obscurity’.
The medieval audacity of ‘Papism’, which we all believed was a thing of the past – in spite of the highly controversial dogmatism of the ‘doctrine of papal infallibility’ at Vatican Council I (1870) – is making a surprising return, and indeed in a manner that is completely incompatible with the deeper cultivation of persons, and the sincere efforts towards ‘purification’ which the Western Christian world in general has presented during the past two centuries.
Therefore, given the general tendency of the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ on the one hand towards revitalization and reconstitution, coupled with the official decision of the Roman Church expressed through Vatican Council II concerning a substantial purification of ‘institutions’, ‘functions’ and ‘persons’ on the basis of the genuine sources of the common first Christian millennium, the terrible impression may be given that all these things are not only doubted, but in fact ridiculed.
We should then say bluntly: that it appears that the approach of the hard-line cardinals of the Roman Curia has prevailed, which establishes ‘Papism’ (not as the ‘Primacy of one Bishop’, but as an unbearably totalitarian ‘ideology’) as the truly INSURMOUNTABLE OBSTACLE, firstly for the ‘reunification’ of divided Christians, but also simply for peaceful ‘unity’ among themselves. Not to mention with non-Christians and ‘atheists’.
For this reason we are obliged today to make several brief comments and observations in simplified language (as much as this is possible, for the benefit mainly of the everyday Christians of East and West), in relation to the very recent revival of Papal Primacy and Infallibility, under the most unexpected circumstances, and at the expense of Christianity as a whole.
The observations presented here become even more urgent in order to prevent possibly greater problems between the Christian Churches and Denominations, but also in terms of the Churches’ imperative creative relations with the rest of the world, which finds itself before enormous impasses, and for which Christianity still claims to ‘maintain’ unchanged the only saving truth of Revelation for all.
2. Brief overview of the historical evolution of Papism in the Church
Whoever has happened to study Church history seriously, i.e. without prejudices, would no doubt have observed (sometimes with astonishment, but on most occasions with justifiable indignation) an almost incredible fact: Before the Roman Emperors’ frightful persecutions of Christians had ceased on an institutional level (312-313AD), their Bishops – who were considered to be the immediate Successors of the Apostles – began to show signs of an unhealthy ‘ambition’ which was incompatible with the teaching of Christ.
What was initially a reserved rivalry between them for ‘Primacy’, ‘Seniority’ and ‘Presidency’, very soon developed almost into a war of ‘fratricide’, when Christianity became under Constantine the Great the ‘legal’, and later the ‘official’ religion of the State.
The insatiable thirst of the Bishops was for Primacy and Seniority, in cases where their ‘Sees’ were in large cities and therefore acquired secular prestige and glory. First in this regard, and without compare for a considerable time, was Rome.
Just as the pagan Roman Emperor of the day was called Augustus (‘worthy of respect’, an epithet of the gods!), and Ancient Rome was characterized as Roma aeterna (‘the eternal city’!), so it happened that the Bishop of Rome did not delay to gradually claim, first for his local Church and then for his person, analogously impious titles, and indeed to a superlative degree.
The Vicarius Christi (‘representative of Christ’) we could say was the approximate translation, in Christian vocabulary, of Pontifex Maximus (‘Supreme Bridge-Maker’).
There is perhaps no other issue which has occupied so intensely and continually the Synods of the ancient Church (whether Regional or Ecumenical) during the common first millennium as the order of ‘Seniority’ between the Episcopal Thrones, especially of ‘Rome’ and ‘New Rome’ (Constantinople), before the formation of the well-known Pentarchy of Patriarchs (of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem).
However it must be stated that the problem is not as simple as it may at first appear to be. It did not only arise out of the practical need for the ‘First among Equals’ (Primus inter pares) to preside, according to the spirit of the 34th Apostolic Canon. There also intervened difficult historical circumstances, according to which the ‘more practical solution’ was a great temptation, with the price in terms of ‘ethical deontology’ being not only heavy, but utterly devastating.
Yet if the 34th Canon, which is relatively old and very ‘Apostolic’ in spirit (although its date is not in fact from the time of the Apostles!), was respected, it is certain that historical Christianity as a whole would have avoided many perils.
An equal number of perils, if not more, would have been avoided also by the non-Christian populations which, for centuries now, have undergone the colonial callousness and invasive exploitation by so-called Christian leaders of the West, accompanied and assisted by so-called missionaries who equally saw material aspirations and interests (look at the peoples of what we call the ‘Third World’ today!).
The concise text of the 34th Apostolic Canon must be quoted here in full, so as to make clear to all the unimaginable ‘renewal of the world’ (!) that might have been achieved over the centuries, had this golden Canon been fundamentally applied by those considered to be ’spiritual’ Fathers and Leaders of Christianity.
This astonishing text is as follows:
“It behooves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognize them as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval; but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own eparchy and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus there will be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
(“The Rudder”, by Priest-Monk Agapios and Monk Nicodemus, translated by D. Cummins, Chicago, 1957)
Already from a first glance, the careful reader of this Canon can see where its theological weight is to be found. The ‘mutuality’ of honour and confidence which is established as an inviolable ‘condition of peace’ in the Church, also safeguards a much higher good. This is the true doxology or glorification of the Trinitarian God, which can only be achieved through ‘concord’ among the Bishops.
In this way, we have vividly before us an Ecclesiology.
Part 2
Following the mystagogical vision of the “primordial Mystery of the Church”, as described with astonishing theological consistency in the 34th Apostolic Canon, it would be a terribly backward step and vain endeavour to comment here on the ‘pseudo-Clementine’ and ‘pseudo-Isidorian’ textual claims concerning primacy, which have long ago been refuted by objective historians and theologians.
These and other manipulations or casuistic interpretations were employed by Rome on more than a few occasions, so as to ‘support’ the ‘primacy’ of the Apostle Peter initially, and of the Bishop of Rome subsequently, who was considered to be the only Successor of Peter.
An exhaustive and systematic negation of what was dared by the Papists of the West was presented in our doctoral thesis (The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology, Athens, 1965), the English translation of which shall, God willing, soon be published.
We will therefore restrict ourselves to presenting concisely, and directly to the current Pope Benedict XVI, just a few fundamental questions.
These questions should – in spite of his high office – be answered by the Pope himself, as they concern him directly. At any rate, in the dialogue between Christians, and especially Bishops, avoidances are impermissible, in accordance with Christ’s command to say either ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
We consider it just for Benedict XVI to answer personally the questions we present below, for two main reasons:
Firstly, because they bear directly upon the whole of Christianity, as a single body in world history.
Secondly, because a host of the current Pope’s earlier writings, as Professor Ratzinger, had contributed greatly to the intended ‘renewal’ and ‘purification’ of the Western Church, through the Second Vatican Council.
First question:
Can he who made his mark as the Theologian Joseph Ratzinger deny that the function of the ‘First’ in the Church – regardless of whether it refers to the Apostle Peter, or to any other of the sacred group of ‘The Twelve’, or even to the Bishops who are their Successors – had from the outset an absolutely soteriological character, with the corresponding and consequent administrative implications upon the entire ecclesiastical life of the ‘Church militant’ in each local area?
Second question:
Is it possible for the soteriological character of the ‘First’, in general, to be ‘bound’ and indeed ‘predetermined’ by a particular geographic region or city?
If the continually changing underlying historical and geographical conditions, which sometimes lead to decay or disuse, were of such decisive significance for SALVATION, would not the Primacy of Jerusalem have from the very beginning prevailed upon world Christianity, since this is where the saving drama of the divine economy had unfolded historically and geographically, with Christ at the very centre?
Yet in such a case, how are we to understand the radically contrary statements of Christ to the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob? What is the meaning of those striking messages: “neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem” (John 4:21)?
Third question:
From when was it possible, and with which theological arguments, for Rome to be ‘differentiated’ so radically from the common teaching of the Christian Church of both East and West, concerning ‘Apostolic Succession’ (succesio Apostolica), making the succession of the Bishop of Rome such a weighty matter? Would it ever be possible to seriously claim that the local Bishop is the successor of only one specific Apostle (eg. Peter by the Bishop of Rome, Mark by the Bishop of Alexandria, Andrew by the Bishop of New Rome, and so on)?
If this was the meaning of Apostolic Succession, would it not follow that the number of Bishops throughout the entire Church would never be more than 12 in number? And then should not Rome, as a result, be speaking specifically about successio Petrina, rather than insisting on the more comprehensive term Apostolica?
On the contrary, the correct conviction and teaching of Scripture and Tradition concerning succession is that all Bishops succeed the eschatologically significant Group of Twelve, and this is why the Church always essentially included in the meaning of Apostolic Succession not only the Bishops, but also the Presbyters, as differing very little from them in terms of the ‘saving’ mission of the Church.
Fourth question:
Can the current Pope state responsibly as a theologian that the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church – who as all know are appointed directly by the Bishop of Rome without being elected by the Synod of their local Church – are to be considered as equal in authority to the Orthodox Bishops ‘elected’ by a canonical Synod?
Does the holy Father recall that, as the official Theological Dialogue’s Co-Chair on behalf of the Orthodox delegation for 20 years, I had personally protested to him because the Vatican had still not restored its Bishops in general to their most sacred office, just as the undivided Church [of the first millennium] knew it, and that the Orthodox justly demand it so that we may consider the election of Roman Catholic Bishops ‘valid’? Is it not then highly ‘lenient’ and ‘tolerant’ on the part of Orthodox Bishops that we still – while officially dialoguing with Roman Catholic Bishops – silently accept them as our ‘counterparts’?
Fifth question:
If the non-acceptance by Orthodox of the ‘primacy’ and ‘infallibility’ of the Bishop of Rome constitutes for Pope Benedict XVI a “deficit of Orthodoxy”, in order to be considered by Rome a complete and true Church, then what was the point of the axiomatic common statement concerning the official Theological Dialogue, that it is being conducted “on equal terms”?
Sixth question:
The characterization of the Church militant as a “perfect society” (societas perfecta), which became prevalent among Roman Catholics through the influence of Augustine (civitas Dei) was justly and most correctly replaced in the texts of the Second Vatican Council by the terms “People of God” (populus Dei), to express as a journey of pilgrimage (peregrinatio) the dynamic and evolving character of all categories of faithful (Clergy, Monks, Lay) in the present world. No theologian who has studied the Second Vatican Council can ignore that the Professor of Dogmatic Theology Joseph Ratzinger had also contributed in no small measure to the formulation of the mentioned renewed texts.
How is it that today the same Dogmatic Theologian, now as Pope, proclaims indirectly the reviled theory of societas perfecta which, even if unwittingly, competes with the most secular forms of narcissism in modern globalization?
Seventh question:
In closing with the symbolic number of seven (7) questions arising from today’s ‘isolation’ of Pope benedict XVI (both from his deeper self, as well as from his most sincere friends and admirers which he had acquired by his tranquil and ever-modest presence), we would wish to know the position the theologizing Pope takes at this time on two of his better known works, which also showed the broadest horizons that the name Ratzinger represented for many decades.
We refer to the following enthusiastic and enthusing studies:
The Influence of the Order of Beggars in the Middle Ages upon the Development of the Worldwide Primacy of the Pope (Munich, 1957). Therein it is admitted that, in spite of the invoked spirituality of the ascetic Bonaventura, artificial means were employed to achieve the purely strategic goal of Rome.
In Christian Brotherhood, which was originally delivered as a lecture in Vienna in 1958 and soon became the first book of the young Professor Ratzinger (which was also translated into Greek with a special prologue written by the author), it is emphasized that, in contrast to the various modern groupings which constitute ‘closed societies’, i.e. ‘exclusive’ clubs, Christian Brotherhood remains ‘open’ so as to include all.
Today, unfortunately, it sounds like a tragic irony to hear the praise offered by the Archdiocese of Freiburg, on the occasion of the new edition of that book, and in particular the assertion that “according precisely to this spirit the current Pope still acts and wishes to be understood”!
If only that were the case; nothing indicates that it is.
Source: July and August 2007 issues of the newspaper "VOICE OF ORTHODOXY"
Part I
1. Introductory Remarks
Following the totally unexpected escalation in provocations from the Vatican, under BENEDICT XVI, towards other Christians (especially the Orthodox, as we shall see below!), it is as plain as the sun that we are unfortunately entering a period of complete uncertainty, to mention nothing of strange ‘obscurity’.
The medieval audacity of ‘Papism’, which we all believed was a thing of the past – in spite of the highly controversial dogmatism of the ‘doctrine of papal infallibility’ at Vatican Council I (1870) – is making a surprising return, and indeed in a manner that is completely incompatible with the deeper cultivation of persons, and the sincere efforts towards ‘purification’ which the Western Christian world in general has presented during the past two centuries.
Therefore, given the general tendency of the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ on the one hand towards revitalization and reconstitution, coupled with the official decision of the Roman Church expressed through Vatican Council II concerning a substantial purification of ‘institutions’, ‘functions’ and ‘persons’ on the basis of the genuine sources of the common first Christian millennium, the terrible impression may be given that all these things are not only doubted, but in fact ridiculed.
We should then say bluntly: that it appears that the approach of the hard-line cardinals of the Roman Curia has prevailed, which establishes ‘Papism’ (not as the ‘Primacy of one Bishop’, but as an unbearably totalitarian ‘ideology’) as the truly INSURMOUNTABLE OBSTACLE, firstly for the ‘reunification’ of divided Christians, but also simply for peaceful ‘unity’ among themselves. Not to mention with non-Christians and ‘atheists’.
For this reason we are obliged today to make several brief comments and observations in simplified language (as much as this is possible, for the benefit mainly of the everyday Christians of East and West), in relation to the very recent revival of Papal Primacy and Infallibility, under the most unexpected circumstances, and at the expense of Christianity as a whole.
The observations presented here become even more urgent in order to prevent possibly greater problems between the Christian Churches and Denominations, but also in terms of the Churches’ imperative creative relations with the rest of the world, which finds itself before enormous impasses, and for which Christianity still claims to ‘maintain’ unchanged the only saving truth of Revelation for all.
2. Brief overview of the historical evolution of Papism in the Church
Whoever has happened to study Church history seriously, i.e. without prejudices, would no doubt have observed (sometimes with astonishment, but on most occasions with justifiable indignation) an almost incredible fact: Before the Roman Emperors’ frightful persecutions of Christians had ceased on an institutional level (312-313AD), their Bishops – who were considered to be the immediate Successors of the Apostles – began to show signs of an unhealthy ‘ambition’ which was incompatible with the teaching of Christ.
What was initially a reserved rivalry between them for ‘Primacy’, ‘Seniority’ and ‘Presidency’, very soon developed almost into a war of ‘fratricide’, when Christianity became under Constantine the Great the ‘legal’, and later the ‘official’ religion of the State.
The insatiable thirst of the Bishops was for Primacy and Seniority, in cases where their ‘Sees’ were in large cities and therefore acquired secular prestige and glory. First in this regard, and without compare for a considerable time, was Rome.
Just as the pagan Roman Emperor of the day was called Augustus (‘worthy of respect’, an epithet of the gods!), and Ancient Rome was characterized as Roma aeterna (‘the eternal city’!), so it happened that the Bishop of Rome did not delay to gradually claim, first for his local Church and then for his person, analogously impious titles, and indeed to a superlative degree.
The Vicarius Christi (‘representative of Christ’) we could say was the approximate translation, in Christian vocabulary, of Pontifex Maximus (‘Supreme Bridge-Maker’).
There is perhaps no other issue which has occupied so intensely and continually the Synods of the ancient Church (whether Regional or Ecumenical) during the common first millennium as the order of ‘Seniority’ between the Episcopal Thrones, especially of ‘Rome’ and ‘New Rome’ (Constantinople), before the formation of the well-known Pentarchy of Patriarchs (of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem).
However it must be stated that the problem is not as simple as it may at first appear to be. It did not only arise out of the practical need for the ‘First among Equals’ (Primus inter pares) to preside, according to the spirit of the 34th Apostolic Canon. There also intervened difficult historical circumstances, according to which the ‘more practical solution’ was a great temptation, with the price in terms of ‘ethical deontology’ being not only heavy, but utterly devastating.
Yet if the 34th Canon, which is relatively old and very ‘Apostolic’ in spirit (although its date is not in fact from the time of the Apostles!), was respected, it is certain that historical Christianity as a whole would have avoided many perils.
An equal number of perils, if not more, would have been avoided also by the non-Christian populations which, for centuries now, have undergone the colonial callousness and invasive exploitation by so-called Christian leaders of the West, accompanied and assisted by so-called missionaries who equally saw material aspirations and interests (look at the peoples of what we call the ‘Third World’ today!).
The concise text of the 34th Apostolic Canon must be quoted here in full, so as to make clear to all the unimaginable ‘renewal of the world’ (!) that might have been achieved over the centuries, had this golden Canon been fundamentally applied by those considered to be ’spiritual’ Fathers and Leaders of Christianity.
This astonishing text is as follows:
“It behooves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognize them as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval; but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own eparchy and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus there will be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
(“The Rudder”, by Priest-Monk Agapios and Monk Nicodemus, translated by D. Cummins, Chicago, 1957)
Already from a first glance, the careful reader of this Canon can see where its theological weight is to be found. The ‘mutuality’ of honour and confidence which is established as an inviolable ‘condition of peace’ in the Church, also safeguards a much higher good. This is the true doxology or glorification of the Trinitarian God, which can only be achieved through ‘concord’ among the Bishops.
In this way, we have vividly before us an Ecclesiology.
Part 2
Following the mystagogical vision of the “primordial Mystery of the Church”, as described with astonishing theological consistency in the 34th Apostolic Canon, it would be a terribly backward step and vain endeavour to comment here on the ‘pseudo-Clementine’ and ‘pseudo-Isidorian’ textual claims concerning primacy, which have long ago been refuted by objective historians and theologians.
These and other manipulations or casuistic interpretations were employed by Rome on more than a few occasions, so as to ‘support’ the ‘primacy’ of the Apostle Peter initially, and of the Bishop of Rome subsequently, who was considered to be the only Successor of Peter.
An exhaustive and systematic negation of what was dared by the Papists of the West was presented in our doctoral thesis (The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology, Athens, 1965), the English translation of which shall, God willing, soon be published.
We will therefore restrict ourselves to presenting concisely, and directly to the current Pope Benedict XVI, just a few fundamental questions.
These questions should – in spite of his high office – be answered by the Pope himself, as they concern him directly. At any rate, in the dialogue between Christians, and especially Bishops, avoidances are impermissible, in accordance with Christ’s command to say either ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
We consider it just for Benedict XVI to answer personally the questions we present below, for two main reasons:
Firstly, because they bear directly upon the whole of Christianity, as a single body in world history.
Secondly, because a host of the current Pope’s earlier writings, as Professor Ratzinger, had contributed greatly to the intended ‘renewal’ and ‘purification’ of the Western Church, through the Second Vatican Council.
First question:
Can he who made his mark as the Theologian Joseph Ratzinger deny that the function of the ‘First’ in the Church – regardless of whether it refers to the Apostle Peter, or to any other of the sacred group of ‘The Twelve’, or even to the Bishops who are their Successors – had from the outset an absolutely soteriological character, with the corresponding and consequent administrative implications upon the entire ecclesiastical life of the ‘Church militant’ in each local area?
Second question:
Is it possible for the soteriological character of the ‘First’, in general, to be ‘bound’ and indeed ‘predetermined’ by a particular geographic region or city?
If the continually changing underlying historical and geographical conditions, which sometimes lead to decay or disuse, were of such decisive significance for SALVATION, would not the Primacy of Jerusalem have from the very beginning prevailed upon world Christianity, since this is where the saving drama of the divine economy had unfolded historically and geographically, with Christ at the very centre?
Yet in such a case, how are we to understand the radically contrary statements of Christ to the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob? What is the meaning of those striking messages: “neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem” (John 4:21)?
Third question:
From when was it possible, and with which theological arguments, for Rome to be ‘differentiated’ so radically from the common teaching of the Christian Church of both East and West, concerning ‘Apostolic Succession’ (succesio Apostolica), making the succession of the Bishop of Rome such a weighty matter? Would it ever be possible to seriously claim that the local Bishop is the successor of only one specific Apostle (eg. Peter by the Bishop of Rome, Mark by the Bishop of Alexandria, Andrew by the Bishop of New Rome, and so on)?
If this was the meaning of Apostolic Succession, would it not follow that the number of Bishops throughout the entire Church would never be more than 12 in number? And then should not Rome, as a result, be speaking specifically about successio Petrina, rather than insisting on the more comprehensive term Apostolica?
On the contrary, the correct conviction and teaching of Scripture and Tradition concerning succession is that all Bishops succeed the eschatologically significant Group of Twelve, and this is why the Church always essentially included in the meaning of Apostolic Succession not only the Bishops, but also the Presbyters, as differing very little from them in terms of the ‘saving’ mission of the Church.
Fourth question:
Can the current Pope state responsibly as a theologian that the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church – who as all know are appointed directly by the Bishop of Rome without being elected by the Synod of their local Church – are to be considered as equal in authority to the Orthodox Bishops ‘elected’ by a canonical Synod?
Does the holy Father recall that, as the official Theological Dialogue’s Co-Chair on behalf of the Orthodox delegation for 20 years, I had personally protested to him because the Vatican had still not restored its Bishops in general to their most sacred office, just as the undivided Church [of the first millennium] knew it, and that the Orthodox justly demand it so that we may consider the election of Roman Catholic Bishops ‘valid’? Is it not then highly ‘lenient’ and ‘tolerant’ on the part of Orthodox Bishops that we still – while officially dialoguing with Roman Catholic Bishops – silently accept them as our ‘counterparts’?
Fifth question:
If the non-acceptance by Orthodox of the ‘primacy’ and ‘infallibility’ of the Bishop of Rome constitutes for Pope Benedict XVI a “deficit of Orthodoxy”, in order to be considered by Rome a complete and true Church, then what was the point of the axiomatic common statement concerning the official Theological Dialogue, that it is being conducted “on equal terms”?
Sixth question:
The characterization of the Church militant as a “perfect society” (societas perfecta), which became prevalent among Roman Catholics through the influence of Augustine (civitas Dei) was justly and most correctly replaced in the texts of the Second Vatican Council by the terms “People of God” (populus Dei), to express as a journey of pilgrimage (peregrinatio) the dynamic and evolving character of all categories of faithful (Clergy, Monks, Lay) in the present world. No theologian who has studied the Second Vatican Council can ignore that the Professor of Dogmatic Theology Joseph Ratzinger had also contributed in no small measure to the formulation of the mentioned renewed texts.
How is it that today the same Dogmatic Theologian, now as Pope, proclaims indirectly the reviled theory of societas perfecta which, even if unwittingly, competes with the most secular forms of narcissism in modern globalization?
Seventh question:
In closing with the symbolic number of seven (7) questions arising from today’s ‘isolation’ of Pope benedict XVI (both from his deeper self, as well as from his most sincere friends and admirers which he had acquired by his tranquil and ever-modest presence), we would wish to know the position the theologizing Pope takes at this time on two of his better known works, which also showed the broadest horizons that the name Ratzinger represented for many decades.
We refer to the following enthusiastic and enthusing studies:
The Influence of the Order of Beggars in the Middle Ages upon the Development of the Worldwide Primacy of the Pope (Munich, 1957). Therein it is admitted that, in spite of the invoked spirituality of the ascetic Bonaventura, artificial means were employed to achieve the purely strategic goal of Rome.
In Christian Brotherhood, which was originally delivered as a lecture in Vienna in 1958 and soon became the first book of the young Professor Ratzinger (which was also translated into Greek with a special prologue written by the author), it is emphasized that, in contrast to the various modern groupings which constitute ‘closed societies’, i.e. ‘exclusive’ clubs, Christian Brotherhood remains ‘open’ so as to include all.
Today, unfortunately, it sounds like a tragic irony to hear the praise offered by the Archdiocese of Freiburg, on the occasion of the new edition of that book, and in particular the assertion that “according precisely to this spirit the current Pope still acts and wishes to be understood”!
If only that were the case; nothing indicates that it is.
Source: July and August 2007 issues of the newspaper "VOICE OF ORTHODOXY"
19 comments:
It's hard to avoid skepticism over His Eminence's reading of history when he makes such a fundamental mistake as saying that St. Constantine I the Great made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire, when in fact that was done by St. Theodosius I the Great. See "Constantine the Great and Historical Truth" by Protopresbyter Fr. George D. Metallinos, Professor Emeritus of the University of Athens School of Theology at http://www.oodegr.com/english/paganismos/sykofanties/kwnstantinos_ist_alithia1.htm.
God bless you and yours,
Will R. Huysman
Thanks for pointing this out. The translation is a bit misleading so I just corrected that passage to how the Archbishop wrote it in the original Greek.
It's good to see hierarchs speaking out!
This outspokeness from His Eminence is the reason why Patriarch Bartholomew has turned his back on all Orthodox faithful in Australia.
The entire Orthodox church will lose a valuable resource when Archbishop Stylianos leaves this world.
Geo
My concesrns are with the remarks of Archbishop Stylianos. I find them very fascinating considering the fact that;
1. Isn't he the one that stressed the "Ecumenical movement"? by saying "all the religions share the same god".
2.That unification is in sight, even though we can't assemble an Ecumenical synod!
3.Isn't he the one that said that there is no god! and only within the ecumenical movement is where we'll find God!
What a CLOWN!!! What a JOKE!!!
Hey! Everyone look up the Balamand Treaty!
Look at what this CLOWN did to the Orthodox with the Help of the Cardinals.
Do I need say more? Open your eyes people!!! We got Wolves in Sheep's clothing among us.
I do apologize for such Harshness, because I am Orthodox. But, I will not stand and CLOWNS like Stylianos of Australia mocking us and our faith.
It seems as though anonymous has a personal vendetta with Archbishop Stylianos.
Was there anything wrong with the above article or didn't you even bother reading it?
If you are Orthodox then you should have respect for ordained Hierarchs and not contempt.
Best you go to confession..........
To anti-Stylianos Anonymous; if you want a cure to your anti-Stylianism, come live in the US for a few years. You'll go back home and kiss the man's feet; I promise you. When he first went there, +Stylianos could have allowed the Church in Australia blindly to follow the assimilationist, inferiority-complex ridden path blazed by the Greek-Americans. But he did not. He's probably done a few suspect things in his time, I'll grant you, but overall, he's been one of the better ones we've had. And in his old age, it seems he's regaining some of his youthful zeal & clarity. Ο Θεός να σας εχει καλά, Σεβασμιώτατε!
And, to clarify, some of the "suspect things" he did back in the 1980-90s include his conflict with H.E. Augoustinos of Florina & the theologian Nikolaos Soteropoulos. They were big mistakes on his part. He made a few others too. Still, he has done a lot of good work in Australia as well, and this must not go unmentioned.
OrthoScooter, I agree the whole Soteropoulos affair was a mess and the Archbishop and Patriarch were in the wrong on that one. I was wondering however as I have not kept up to date on the subject, was the excommunication on Soteropoulos ever lifted and whatever happened to him post-1995 (when I last heard about him)?
Heresies of Archbishop Stylianos of Australia, who preaches Christ's participation in sin (who apart from an antichristians could be capable of this? - L.P.), who maintains that the notorious film by Kazantzakis and Scorcese "The Last Temptation", portraying our Lord as a debauchee, contains no blasphemy, who declares that Orthodoxy and Papism are in no way different and constitute one Church; that man has descended from an ape; and that Holy Scripture is a great fabrication!.. " [320] The tragedy which took place in June of 1993 in Balamand (Northern Lebanon, near Tripoli) officially known as the Seventh Plenary Session of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church was being prepared in all secrecy for a long time. In Balamand the "Orthodox" have for the first time officially accepted the "branch theory" and by refusing to confess the Orthodox Church as being Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, they actually repudiated the Creed [321]. I don't believe anything his "Grace has to say". P.S. I am Australian and I know of him very well!
Regarding Mr. Sotiropoulos situation, I'm not sure what ever happened.
Anonymous, Mr. Soteropoulos was the one who went after Abp. Stylianos over his flaccid response to the Kazantzakis film around 1987-8. Metr. Augoustinos of Florina also got involved. Yes, Abp. Stylianos made some big mistakes. On this point his response to the film made it look like he was saying Christ sinned, and he was never formally called to answer for this. On the contrary, the EP unjustly punished his accuser. Still, compared to the GOARCH of America, the GO Church of Australia (though it too has its issues) is much, much, much more traditional, and this has a lot to do with Abp. Stylianos. As they say in Greek, "Πρέπει να πούμε και του στραβού το δίκαιο." Though he has made BIG mistakes, there is no chance that such a document as the one posted above would ever have been produced by any other EP hierarch. It makes me wonder whether, in his old age, Abp. Stylianos does not have some serious regrets. If he does, I wish he would have the gallantry just to go visit both Metr. Augoustinos and Mr. Soteropoulos and patch it up with them.
JS, from what I have been told recently, Mr. Soteropoulos is still excommunicated. I understand his health has not been good lately. He is still writing though (saw him recently on Orthodoxos Typos), and preaching (judging from what was said by the intrepid Fr. Euthymios Trikamenas in a recent sermon). He is a heroic figure.
From what I recall, the whole Sotiropoulos affair began when Archbishop Stylianos wrote in a Christmas encyclical that Christ was born with a fallen human nature. I think the reference that he endorsed "The Last Temptation of Christ" movie is more rhetorical for that other statement he really made. And though Sotiropoulos was right in speaking out, we should also consider the fact that he really did go too far and eventually became a threat to the unity of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia. He would go there and preach in secret gatherings about the evils of Stylianos and would encourage people to go to the Old Calendarists schismatics if necessary rather than be in communion with him, which is obviously the wrong way to go. In other words, he was a major vocal threat. My own relatives would arrange secret gatherings with him here in Boston and in Montreal and a lot of it was good stuff, but he was more of a threat to the unity of the Church from what I have seen and heard in the many lectures I have of his. Excommunication may have been far reaching in trying to discredit him, but he was definately deserving of some disciplanary action, as well as Stylianos at the time. But from what I'm hearing now, he is receiving communion despite his excommunication in his hometown of Patras, which is a good thing in my opinion. Hopefully someone in that whole fiasco will humble themselves a bit and settle the whole matter.
Some interesting stuff on the whole Sotiropoulos affair (in Greek):
http://www.eleftheriadis.edu.gr/site/content/view/157/66/
This is really a walk down memory lane. I happened to be in Australia when all these things happened. The way I remember it, the whole thing started with the Scorcese movie. The reaction to it from Christians of all stripes was quite shocked, and so in classic TV style, a panel of religious leaders was called on a national current affairs show to discuss it, among whom was also Abp. Stylianos.
During the course of the conversation it came out that the inspiration behind the movie was of course Kazantzakis. At this point, it seems Stylianos got all patriotic--K. was a Cretan intellectual and man of letters, just like himself--and so instead of just denouncing it straight out and being done with it, he started getting all artsy and flaky, saying we shouldn't look to what a simple monk (that's how he described K., interestingly) thinks to find out who Christ is etc. Some of the other guests were left scratching their heads, as were a number of Greeks watching the show.
Later, some Greek media were interested in following up with the Abp., and so they had him on the ethnic Greek radio show to say a few more things about the movie. Again, the Abp. was equivocal, even presenting Kazantzakis' work as a venture against Docetism. This caused further confusion; even the radio host seemed quite stunned by the explanation he received.
The bomb really dropped, though, when the Abp. touched on the whole theme once again some time later in the official publication of the Archdiocese in Australia (Voice of Orthodoxy).
There, he wrote: "'Όποιος νομίζει ότι η ανθρώπινη φύση του Χριστού έπεσε από τόν ουρανό τέλεια καί αναμάρτητη . . . αυτός δέν θά καταλάβει ποτέ τό βαθμό της κενώσεως πού καταδέχτηκε ο Θεός Λόγος . . . Γιατί η αναντίρρητη αναμαρτησία του Κυρίου δεν ήταν βέβαια ένα δογματικό θεώρημα πού μαγικά θά έπρεπε νά αποστηθίσουν οι Χριστιανοί . . . 'Η αναμαρτησία του Κυρίου έπρεπε νά βιωθει κατά τόν πιό υπαρξιακό τρόπο από τούς πιστούς ως ηθική νίκη του Θεανθρώπου πού κατακτήθηκε βήμα πρός βήμα . . ." (my trans.: "Whoever thinks that the human nature of Christ fell from the sky perfect and sinless...such a one will never understand the degree of kenosis (self-emptying) that God the Logos deigned to endure...Because the Lord's unquestioned sinlessness was not of course a dogmatic theorem that Christians had magically to learn by rote...The sinlessness of the Lord had to be lived by the faithful in the most existential way, as a moral victory of the God-man that was won step by step.")
Now when this ridiculously written thing hit the press, a circus ensued. Mr. Soteropoulos denounced +Stylianos, calling him a heretic. There was already some prehistory between the two. Mr. Soteropoulos was an itinerant preacher who, with the permission of the hierarchy, had preached throughout Greece. He was especially effective against the Jehovah's Witnesses, and had written a number of tracts and books against them. This was his specialty, and he had managed to convert many of them back. He also was against Ecumenism. A lot of Orthodox lay-people really liked him, and a group of them in AU wanted to bring him there as well.
Anyway, he accepted the invitation and went to Australia. He arrived at the Archdiocese to get permission to preach. What happened next is not clear. He was either declined, or forced to wait a long, long time in the lobby, and so he just left, flustered.
.../2
In any case, he just started preaching without permission. Among his many sermons, just getting the people excited about their Orthodoxy, or going after the Watchtower (JWs) or the other non-Orthodox, he also started to talk about the slight he felt he'd been dealt at the Church offices, though this may have been a response to sermons of the Abp. questioning why he was preaching without permission. He may have even started denouncing ecumenism and the neo-Orthodox (see below) as well. However, I have to admit that I can't remember the exact sequence of subjects in the sermons that marked this steady escalation.
In any case, Mr. Soteropoulos and the Abp. were never going to hit it off. They were from two very different, and antagonistic camps--the one from the very conservative (and some would argue puritanical) Brotherhoods (Fr. E. Matthopoulos, Mr. P. Trembelas etc.), the other from the intellectualizing "neo-Orthodox" who wanted to repackage Orthodoxy at present it in a more culturally sophisticated way (Existentialism etc.). These included C. Giannaras, who had been involved with the Brotherhoods before turning on them.
So when the Abp.'s lackluster performance on Kazantzakis came out, accompanied by the ridiculously written piece, it was the flashpoint.
I might add, too, that this conflict provided the occasion for other players in the Australian arena to get into the mix. For example, there had been a decades-long schism in Australia between the Archdiocese and the parishes affiliated with the Greek Community (a Greek lay body) over the ownership of land titles. The schism was centered in the city of Adelaide. Abp. Stylianos did not cause this conflict--his predecessor had--but he was perceived as being a hardliner who would not give the opponents an inch.
Around this time, too, another conflict was brewing between +Stylianos and an archimandrite from Melbourne, Hierotheos Kourtesis, who wanted to give his monastery and affiliated parishes, including a fully-fledged Day School with some 900 students (with another school being planned) to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Two JP Bishops, Timotheos (then of Lydda) and Hesychios of Capitolias came to take possession.
Moreover, the aforementioned Greek Community churches were threatening to join the JP as well. This would have given the JP some ten-fifteen metochia right off the bat (some very big churches too). Needles to say, the supporters of Mr. Soteropoulos automatically aligned themselves with the JP presence, especially because it had a reputation for being anti-heretical
The EP went into a tailspin, and called a Synod that threatened the JP (which quickly backed off), and, while it was at it, excommunicated Mr. Soteropoulos. Strangely, the Abp.'s doings were never addressed. That was unusual because I lived in Greece at the time and I knew for a fact there was a number of churchmen and professors who agreed that the Abp.'s words were outrageous and worthy of denunciation. Yet nothing ever came of them.
I think it was precisely this silence throughout the affair that made Mr. Soteropoulos up the ante, even to unreasonable levels, and eventually be excommunicated. He latched on to all sorts of things on which +Stylianos had written, denouncing them too. Some of these attacks were unreasonable. The piece you linked to is not the whole story, but only one of these later aspects--over whether +Stylianos really called Scripture a "paramythi" (a tale). I think the Abp. had used the technical term "myth" somewhere, and Mr. Soteropoulos just jumped on it. He also jumped on +Stylianos' apparent acceptance of evolution elsewhere. Mr. Soteropoulos went overboard on these, only because, as I said, he was not getting any response on the more serious Kazantzakis affair. One thing, though, at that time in AU, he never once advocated going to the Old Calendarists as you say. He never liked the fact they were so split. He was not against ROCOR though.
Thanks for some clarifications. I think the whole thing just proves how complicated the issue really is.
Just a bit more context: in 1991 the 7th Assembly of the World Council of Churches was held in Canberra, the capital of Australia. Needless to say, the Orthodox hierarchy was out in force, participating in these antics, and the traditionalists (most of whom had some connection with Mr. Soteropoulos) went ballistic. These were tense times. There was much unrest in the Balkans, and war was on the horizon. A lot of Orthodox were very greatly angered by the devious role Pope JPII was playing in that, as well as in the Ukraine and elsewhere. It was a perfect storm.
I would ask that people stop talking about His Eminence without his knowledge or right of reply.
Fr Kourtesis was a trouble maker and so were many of the others that OrthoScooter mentions ... the damage that many of these very egotistical human beings has caused Australian Greek Orthodoxy can not be described. The facts are there and I grew up in amongst it all.
I still see the repurcusions of it around me today.
We always seem to know better than the primate.
His Eminence is an amazing man, a rare intellect and an exceptional theologian who knows how to sheperd his church very well and also knows what he is talking about.
Post a Comment