Panagioti Antoniou Andriopoulou, theologian
March 21, 2011
Amen.gr
In our days "anti-ecumenists" have a common reference point: the recently proclaimed saint in the Serbian Church, Father Justin Popovich. They use this saint to "brandish" the heads of "heretical ecumenists".
As has been written repeatedly and demonstrated de facto, the Emeritus Professor of Theology at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Father Theodoros Zisis has played a leading role in the "anti-ecumenist struggle" and is revered by "anti-ecumenists".
If someone researches Volume 9, No. II of the magazine Klironomia (Publication of the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Thessaloniki, July 1977) they will find a very interesting and topical article (p. 433-460) of the lecturer of the University of Thessaloniki Theodoros N. Zisis, titled:
THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE AND ARCHIMANDRITE JUSTIN POPOVICH (A Positive Response)
Fr. Theodoros Zisis answers the criticisms of Fr. Justin Popovich concerning the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in preparation for the Great Council of Orthodoxy, which he had delivered as a relevant memorandum to the hierarchy of the Serbian Church. Fr. Theodoros refutes the objections of Father Justin, making a brief review of the history and contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate during the Turkish period. Attacking the Autocephaly of Greece he refers to the deduction of theology in Greece, and stresses that "Orthodoxy was protected by the Ecumenical Patriarchate also in the precincts of the ancient Patriarchates of the East under hardship, where foreign propaganda strongly clouded through proselytism."
Fr. Theodoros considers as "unfounded" the criticisms of Fr. Justin Popovich against the Ecumenical Patriarchate and bases the "unfair criticism" of Fr. Justin on a misunderstanding of his attitude towards Orthodox monasticism and "incomplete and incorrect information" by Fr. Justin.
Father Theodoros Zisis emerges in the pages of the article as a great champion of the entire "political" (ecclesiastical, that is) stance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Patriarch Athenagoras, who was "anathematized" by the "anti-ecumenists" then and now, is, according to Fr. Theodoros, a personality "who is written about with golden letters in the pages of Orthodox history." The Ecumenical Patriarchate during Patriarch Demetrios also "treaded on this road of genuine observance of Orthodoxy." And to make it clear, Fr. Theodoros refers to a speech of Bartholomew of Philadelphia (now Ecumenical Patriarch) on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in 1976, to an interview with Damascene of Tranoupolis (later of Switzerland and now Adrianople) in an Italian magazine, and, finally, to a sermon of the late Meliton of Chalcedon, who explains the distinction between eastern and western piety.
In this article, Fr. Theodoros describes Moscow as "neopapist"! He writes: "And today Moscow is the only example of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church, which does not comply with the Orthodox stance, but treads according to a neopapist way considering itself correct."
In the Epilogue to the article, Fr. Theodoros summarizes his argument:
Fr. Justin had the right and duty to express his views on the "Great Council" and the actions of people working for its preparation. He was wrong however to place on the bench of the accused the Church of Constantinople. All decisions are received democratically and synodically, established jointly by the entire Orthodox Church. He ought by this to grind his teeth towards all directions, and even towards his Church, whose representatives participate always in relevant meetings, and not load everything on the shoulders of the Church of Constantinople, since the hard-hearted sees nothing good. Certainly he does not want to bend the knees of this historic center of Orthodoxy. This will prove a very heavy blow, since the collapse of this pillar will weaken the other foundations, the other institutions.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate, loaded with the experience of centuries, proved the ability to maintain the unity of Orthodoxy through the multiplicity of national idiosyncrasies and to develop Orthodox culture, the essence of which is exactly plurality, diversity, and the democratic. What other Orthodox Church could fight to overcome this role without the danger of division, not only by its lack of historical experience, but also through the innovation of this change as well as the possibility of exalting ethno-phylatistic trends?
We will return to this timeless article by Fr. Theodoros Zisis.
Translated by John Sanidopoulos
I respectfully disagree. It seems that "official" Orthodox theologians are not altogether immune to the blindness and madness, not to mention the cruelty, that have infected the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate for decades.
ReplyDeleteI have personally met and spoken with Fr. Theodoros within the last few years and his current stance does not seem to fit with what he wrote over 30 years ago. I would be curious to see if he still agrees with the comments he made so long ago.
ReplyDeleteI hope I'm not held to the comments I made 12 years ago when I was a lapsed Catholic, nor 7 years ago when I was a traditional Anglican, nor even views I held in my first few years as an Orthodox Christian. Thank God people are able to change and grow in the grace of God, or I for one, never would have found that grace and become Orthodox. God help me if people drag up the things I said or did 30 years ago and tried to apply them to my views and beliefs today simply because I had expressed them and believed them at the time.
ReplyDeleteImagine all the Saints who initially opposed the decisions of Ecumenical Synods or the Orthodox position on the Person of Christ, on the Holy Icons, on Monothelitism, or any other number of things. If they were not able to be enlightened and change their views in light of new information, new situations, more experience, guidance by others, and most importantly the direction of the Holy Spirit in their lives, then they would have been cut off from the Church as have the various heretics of each century.
Instead God, in his love for mankind, has given us the ability to change, to grow, and most importantly, to repent and to prove that repentance and change of heart in our subsequent deeds.
If one is to judge a person based on their earlier views, one should be pretty careful to also trace the development of that thought in order to due justice to it - whether it was a development in the person that led towards God or a falling away from him. Any less than that is poor scholarship at the very least, and possibly slanderous.
We all want truth; we all want to draw nearer to Christ who is Truth. But we cannot do that by surface arguments, surface investigations, and judging a person simply for holding different views now than they once did.
If one disagrees with Fr. Theodore Zisis, then refute him based on the weakness of his current views and arguments, not based simply on the fact that he has changed his views.
Change, when it is for the good and the truth, is always to be desired and sought after.
Ultimately, isn't that our prayer for all people - that we change our erroneous views, that we change our mistaken actions? This is repentance.
What one should be asking is whether the changes in Fr. Theodore Zisis' views are justified, and not simply pointing out that they have changed.
May God grant clear sight to all of us, so that in humility we may approach Him in Truth, and not at the expense of it.
A profitable Great Lent to all.
matthew
Well it appears that my suspicions were correct. Fr. Theodoros Zisis has asked for forgiveness in those statements he made so long ago and has made strong statements supporting St. Justin's positions. Unfortunately all the articles are in Greek and I do not have the time to translate.
ReplyDelete