www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Greece's rebel monks in stand-off

An excellent reply, administrator.

Robert's conclusions also fail to take into account that the Orthodox Church is a family of local Churches united in faith and practice. It is a not a giant monolithic structure like the Roman Catholic Church - and I mean no insult here.
The Orthodox Church manifested in the national Churches can speak through the local councils at which the bishops, clergy and people of that local Church meet to discuss the crises and matters which require a conciliar voice.

Such a council was called by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1551 - the Council of the Hundred Chapters. Equally, a council was called by the Russian State Church in the shadow of the revolution in 1917-1918 . The matters which each of them discussed were dictated by the needs and situation of the local people. As has been pointed out, the work of such councils is within the doctrinal and historical context of the preceding centuries and the canons of the Oecumenical councils.

There is no fossilisation in the Orthodox Church, simply because we have had only seven Oecumenical councils.

The issue is also shaped by the pneumatology of the Orthodox Church. Since it is the Church and not a patriarch which is infallible we don't need great universal councils presided over by sovereign-pontiffs. The Holy Spirit can speak through the local councils also and the infallible voice of the Church can speak through the lips of the most ragged, unwashed and unlettered ascetic, whilst false councils teach lies and heresy.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Administrator,

You is right!

One problem with having successive councils discuss the same issues is that you get into the situation where the Church seems to be "changing" its views in later councils i.e. the papacy and the developments before and since.

The truly wonderful thing about Orthodoxy is its liturgical development and how the faith of the Apostles and the Fathers is woven into the fabric of the worship itself (ultimately, as you know better than I, the meaning of "Orthodoxy" as right worship indicating the right faith).

Sometimes the West brought in new devotions to counter heretical trends and ideas.

The paraliturgical devotion to the Blessed Eucharist is a good illustration, even though Vatican II tried to restore the focus back on the Mass for the people's chief emphasis regarding Eucharistic adoration and Communion.

And the papal doctrines were brought in to counteract certain trends that questioned the Pope's authority over national churches, ie. that whole debate over ultramontanism etc.

The fact is that the West never saw a similar liturgical development as obtained in the East and felt the vacuum with respect to faith had to be filled in with doctrinal definitions - a reflection of the West's more rational approach to religion versus the East's mystical approach.

And if one is going to rely on overt doctrinal definitions rather than on Patristics as contained in liturgical prayer, then it was "natural" to want to empower the office of the Pope to be able to make more such definitions even outside Councils, notwithstanding that the Roman Church has had more great councils than any other Church in Christendom to date.

Alex

Brothers,

What an amazing privilege it is to sit at your feet and listen. What would this kind of education cost me at a seminary? What ecclesial organization could put such a panel of experts at the disposal of such a poor student as myself? Thank you for your corrections: I know just enough history and theology to be dangerous:)

Administrator,
In no way did I mean to imply that there is doctrinal impurity in the orthodox churches. All I intended was to paraphrase what the Roman church asserts in regard to itself.

So in essence, after the Big 7, all councils -eastern and western - have been "local," and if it's to ever become the "Big 8," the assembling body will have to include both lungs.

Thank you all for accommodating my digression. Back to the topic of this thread: Do the monks' actions at all parallel those of the past eastern faithful who were presented with conciliation with Rome as a fait accompli, and rejected it?

In other words, if a revolt of the non-hierarchs was sufficient to nix the re-unification measures agreed to in the past, are these monks just continuing a revered tradition?

Dear Prodigal Son,

Well, you ask such excellent questions that they are an education in and of themselves!

(I'd prepare more than one fatted calf for a prodigal like you ! )

Clearly, you are right - the monks do see that what they are doing is like what St Maximus did in opposing the pope and patriarchs in his day with respect to monothelitism and like what the 26 Athonite Martyrs of Zographou did when they opposed, to the death, the Emperor himself over union with Rome (also the Old Believers of Russia).

In all those previous cases, the quarrelling factions within the Church were locked in mortal combat.

It was only after years had elapsed that people could return to an examination of the events as they transpired and recast them in a more irenic and sympathetic light.

The Orthodox Church wound up canonizing the Martyrs of Zographou and declaring them to have been in the right, Emperor and Patriarch notwithstanding.

St Maximos became a great saint in both East and West.

And the Old Believers are held in great sympathy while their many martyrs are being honoured and the Moscow Patriarch scratching his head and wondering how he can get them to reunite with him. The Old Believers can tell him how . . .

Are those monks in the right? The Church in the future will pronounce on that.

At least the church authorities won't burn them at the stake . . .

Alex

Esphigmenou has already provided martyrs who refused to follow the Patriarch John Bekkos (1275/6 - 1282) who tried to implement the Union of Lyons.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

You is right too!

I noticed how well you and the Administrator get along . . .

I sent him a copy of the "Son of the Church" FYI.

I'm sure he'll have the two-fingered Sign of the Cross down pat in no time at all!!

Alex

Alas, Alex, you are so quick with a word of knowledge and encouragement that I don't have time to edit my posts before you have responded to them!

At an emotional level, I find it a little unsettling that we will need to wait for the judgment of the saints in the future to determine whether right now we should be supporting the Patriarch or the monks in regard to this issue. Aren't there some basic principles of Orthodoxy that come in to play in this dispute?

If we interpret the charter of the Holy Mountain using the Rudder - the book of canons - then we do not have to wait for a pronouncement. The monks are innocent and Orthodox.

Now I've lit the touchpaper I'm running for cover.

Spasi Khistos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Well, apparently the 8th and 9th Orhtodox Councils are the only frameworks we seem to have. I have an idea these are playing a larger role in this struggle than the media will recognize.

Dmitri

Dear Prodigal Son,

We don't necessarily have to wait for the Parousia but this is a matter of interpretation.

Traditionalists, like our Old Believer Hierodeacon and Venerable Mentor, Father Mark, would side with the Esphig-monastics or at least defend their Orthodoxy.

Others would term them "schismatics" for their disobedience to the EP and support their ejection.

Fr. John Hardon relates a similar case that occurred in Roman Catholic Italy in the 19th century.

A bishop there was against the devotion to the Sacred Heart and suppressed it in his Diocese.

Well, the good Italian people simply rose up in one accord and removed the bishop.

Rome came in immediately to see what was happening.

After assessing the situation, Rome said the people were right, the bishop was wrong.

Unfortunately, there is no higher arbiter in Orthodoxy to referree this situation.

Alex

Robert,

Yes, I think it is safe to consider the various Eastern and Western Councils since the 7th Council to be local. I�d only note that the term �ecumenical� means �general� and can apply at many different levels. Look at it from the perspective of good housekeeping.

While there will be some within Orthodoxy who would condemn the monks for their actions I highly doubt that most Orthodox will venture to issue an opinion on the matter. There are also many Orthodox who will respect the monks� position even though they might consider it to be wrong. The article does not provide all the details and I am sure we don�t have all the facts but I think that the eviction of these monks is unwarranted and not the best pastoral move for them. But then, of course, I�m just second-guessing and maybe the patriarch has already tried this since the dispute is now 30 years old. [Fr. Mark, which section of The Rudder are you referring to? If the edition you have is an old blue hardcover weighing about 5 pounds then it might even be the same edition.]

Not really. The reunion at Florence was a forced union and it was right that it failed. The various unions that created the Byzantine Catholic Churches were entered into willingly, even if we can now conclude that such unions were a mistake since such they should have been accomplished by the entire Orthodox Church as a whole.

I think it is worthwhile to compare the different historical events East and West each lived through. As Fr. Mark pointed out, the Roman Catholic Church has become a monolithic structure. I�d also add into this that, compare to the Orthodox East, the Roman Catholics have had much more freedom to grow into such structures. It is highly possible that there had been no rise of Islam then the Orthodox East under Constantinople may have had a similar development. The fact that Christians in the East have been greatly persecuted has affected the ecclesial life of Orthodoxy. Many in Orthodoxy condemn Patriarch Bartholomew for wanting to consolidate authority after the style of Rome (i.e., an Orthodox pope). While I think that the East can use a good dose of the organizational skills of the Latin Church to help her better witness Christ to the world what the good patriarch is attempting to do is alien to the traditional (small �t�) spirit of Orthodox ecclesiology.

Yes. If one looks at the declarations of a Council these declarations need to be embraced by the Church before they are considered to be binding. And monks are certainly part of the Church. I think that it would be wrong of the monks to wall themselves off from the rest of the Church since they have a responsibility to witness their position and work to a resolution of the problems. Fasting, prayer, dialogue and patience are all called for, I think.

Admin

First let me test my understanding.

The Patriarch wants these monks removed for, I can only assume many complex issues, but one of them is the fact that they have stopped commemorating him.

The monks have stopped commemorating him because they say he is in heresy becuase he has entered dialogue with the Pope, who they call a hereitic and, do they not, equate the Catholic Church with the whore of babylon and call the Pope the devil?

Now...

and.....

For us to agree with the monks do we not have to say that their underlying premise, that the Catholic Church is in Heresy, the Pope is a hereitic, the Patriarch is a hereitic, and worse yet, the Pope is diabolical, is indeed correct?

Sorry, there is no way I can support these monks over my own Church.

David

Dear David,

I'm sure the Esphig-monastics will be sorry to hear that!

Alex

Alex,
Its sad to say but I highly doubt that, after all, I am a heretic, or at least I follow a heretical church.

David

Dear Administrator,

Well, I see the bureaucratic organizational genius of Rome as an outgrowth of its spirituality - and this especially accounts for the lack of such bureaucracy in Orthodoxy.

For example, in Latin calendars, one gets very, very precise information about the life of a martyr, sometimes the street name he died on is given!

As for the imposed union part, Florence was truly imposed by the Emperor for political purposes. But he told the bishops to protect Orthodoxy and not to compromise it.

Only St Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus had the spittle to take that to the limit and he refused to sign in the face of Roman unwillingness to do what he considered to be a minimum required for unity - remove the Filioque from the universal Creed.

Florence was later imposed on others, even though the bishops who signed it slowly withdrew when their flocks bitterly criticized them.

The Union of Brest was actually conducted in a similar way.

The bishops of the Orthodox Kyivan Church, largely appointees by the Catholic Polish King, signed the Union without even so much as informing the aristocratic class - thereby alienating it and having it turn against them.

The Union of Brest was later truly imposed, village by village, via the gendarmes.

They especially listened to see if the Filioque was being recited during the Sunday Liturgy.

To avoid a beating, our people simply added the word "Istynno" (truly) where "I Syna" (Filioque) was to be.

I don't know about the Old Believer practice, but their Creed has this word in it as well - again I don't know if this is from the Uniate conflict or not.

St Athanasius of Brest actually went to the Polish Parliament and warned the government that God would punish Poland if it continued to impose the Unia by secular force.

Alex