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

Tuesday, 28 January, 2003, 17:56 GMT

Greece's rebel monks in mountain stand-off

By Richard Galpin

BBC correspondent in Athens

More than 100 Greek Orthodox Christian monks are refusing to leave their
monastery in north-eastern Greece despite being ordered out by the
authorities after accusing the patriarch, their spiritual leader, of heresy.

The deadline for moving out expired on Tuesday.

The rebel monks are based at the Esphigmenou Monastery on Mount Athos, known
as the Holy Mountain.

They say their communications and food supplies have already been cut off,
but they have managed to stop the eviction order being enforced by appealing
to the supreme court.

The monks say the reason given for evicting them does not have any legal
basis.

Their spiritual leader, Patriarch Bartholomew, accuses them of creating a
schism within the Greek Orthodox church by refusing to recognise his
authority.

He says therefore they are a forbidden brotherhood.

It is a dispute which dates back more than 30 years, to a meeting between
the patriarch and the Pope.

Over the past decade, there have been further meetings between the Greek
Orthodox spiritual leader and the Roman Catholic church.

The rebel monks say the contact has gone too far and is tantamount to
heresy.

They say it undermines the very basis of the Orthodox faith which was
created almost 1,000 years ago in the "Great Schism" which split
Christianity into Eastern and Western branches.

'Orthodoxy or death'

The monks are determined to stay in their monastery and say they have enough
supplies to last for several years.

Their motto is Orthodoxy or death.

The head of the monastery, Abbot Methodios, told the BBC it was a joy to be
persecuted for what he called the true faith given to them by Jesus Christ.

The authorities in Mount Athos say there will be no violence.

They are now waiting for a final decision on the case by the supreme court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2703269.stm

You don't have to agree with the ideology of the monks to still admire them. How many Christians are still willing to suffer for their faith? Few, for sure.

But for the grit and determination of monks of this sort, who fought tenaciously against both the Turkish and
Crusader barbarians,--and set an example for millions of Orthodox Christians-- Greece and the rest of the Balkans would have been lost to Christianity.

Many can disagree with their ideology. But their spirit of elan is so rare among contemporary Christians, that it is inspiring.

Abdur

Slava Jesu Kristu,

Concirning this situation, I was informed recently that the good Monks are using the Holy Canons of the 8th (879AD) and 9th (1341,47, & 51 AD) Orthodox Eucumenical Councils. These Councils were all Orthodox and basically proclaimed the Roman Catholic Church heretical. Now, that being said, it appears that according to Orthodox tradition, when a Bishop (Pope) is proclaimed heretical, the remaining Bishops should set-up a parallel See to counter it. This never happened in the West.
Does anyone know what other Canons came out of these Councils? We often discuss on this Board the effect of the Roman Councils on Eastern CAtholics. However, theoretically, the Byzantine Churches now in union with Rome would have been part of these earlier Orthodox meetings. How does this affect us if at all as we return to our heritage?

Dmitri

Dear Dmitri,

Orthodoxy does not recognize those two councils as Ecumenical yet. There are those who do, but they are in the minority.

In any event, they would have no impact on us as Eastern Catholics because they are not recognized as Ecumenical.

Only the Seven Councils of the first thousand years are recognized as Ecumenical and binding on the Five Patriarchates of the Western Church (Rome/Byzantium = the "Roum").

By generally accepted principle, when a Church establishes communion with Rome, all canons and saints which were "Anti-Roman" are dropped. And when the Ethiopian Catholic Church came into being, "St Pontius Pilate" was dropped from its calendar - Rome was horrified at the thought!

Alex

Slava Jesu Kristu,

Well, then what is the difference being their extra councils and that of the Romans? Those aren't considered Ecumenical either as they did not include the Orthodox, right?

Dmitri

Dear Dmitri,

You are right.

The other local Roman Councils don't really have anything to do with us either.

Except of course Vatican II and its document on the Eastern Churches - that was termed by the Orthodox a "Latin document on the Eastern Churches."

But the fact remains that the bulk of the Eastern Churches were not at those Councils, even though hierarchs in union with Rome were at various times.

It's the "Big Seven" for all of us, unless you are Oriental Orthodox when it is the "Big Three."

Alex

Alex, I'm sure volumes could be written in response to this question, but could you summarize the ramifications for Byzantine Catholics of your statement that "it's the Big 7 for all of us" ?

Does this mean that the pronouncements of the various western councils up through Vatican II are somehow less binding upon us? Or do we just say that we have all the same essential beliefs but they are couched in different terminology?

BTW, I always understand best when given examples!

Thanks,
Robert

Dear Robert,

Well, could you give an example of one thing proclaimed by any of the later local Roman Councils that would be binding on Eastern Catholics?

Or a proclamation of a dogma that we either a) don't already believe in or b)believe in through the prism of our own theological and ecclesiological paradigms?

The Immaculate Conception - that is an entirely Roman affair, we ALWAYS accepted that the Mother of God was completely sanctified by the Spirit from her conception. The feast of the Conception of St Ann comes from the East and the ONLY WAY it could be legitimately celebrated liturgically is if we already believed the Mother of God was a saint at her conception - which we do so believe.

The Assumption - again our liturgical tradition has always celebrated that, that's no news to us.

Papal Primacy - the Eastern Church has always believed the Pope to be First among Equals who shares in the government of the Churches with the Patriarchs in a determinate way. The Patriarch or the Primate of the local Eastern Church is always the main administrator but one may always refer to Rome to settle disputes.

Vatican II's document on the Eastern Churches was more of an eye-opener for Roman Catholics, basically telling the Latins about who we are and about our rights and rites etc.

So there has never been ONE STATEMENT that came out of any of the later 14 Roman Councils that taught us anything we didn't know, believe or practice before.

And our witness to this fact is, I believe, of great ecumenical consequence in contemporary times.

Alex

Yes, that is how I have understood it: that the East already has these things woven into its theological fabric long before Rome technically articulated them, and that so far, there really has not been any contradiction.

The only thing that came to mind is the dogma of Papal Infallibility, which seems to cause so much controversy. While the east - if I have understood correctly - always recognized Rome as the court of last appeal, I don't get the impression that it is completely comfortable with the proclamation of Vatican I, even among BCs.

When the pope exhorts the eastern churches to return to their traditions, does this include not concerning ourselves with any dogmas and conciliar pronouncements articulated later than the "Big 7?"

Robert,

You�ve asked a very good question. I liken it to a Greek cook using a Greek cookbook to prepare food for his or her Greek family. This Greek cook may greatly admire the Latin cookbook that the Latins have prepared for themselves but sees no need to throw away a perfectly good Greek cookbook and use a Latin cookbook written from a perspective that is much different that the family Greek cookbook.

If we apply this to the General Councils in the West (those 14 Councils after the �Big 7�), we see them as providing theological recipes with detailed directions. In the East we are happy with recipes that state �a pinch of salt�, �just enough yeast� or �two handfuls of flour�. The Western approach to writing recipes, however, is much more likely to stipulate �exactly one-half teaspoon of salt�, �one level tablespoon of yeast� and �one cup of flour�. They are very nice and if you follow them you�ll cook delicious food but that�s simply not the way we in the East prepare our food.

Compare the later General Councils in the West to a council of Roman chefs. Imagine that in Italy there was a dispute as to how much basil was to be used in making spaghetti sauce. The southerners liked to use lots of basil and the northerners liked to use less basil. After a huge argument developed the chief chef in Rome called a council of chefs to discuss the matter and issue a standard recipe. Eventually this Council of Chefs produces a standardized recipe for making spaghetti sauce and the recipe of this council is accepted and pronounced as valid by the Chief Chef of Rome. Now five hundred miles away in Athens a Greek chef sees an account of this Consiglio di Chefs di Roma in his daily newspaper and reads the recipe with great interest. Upon review of the recipe he decides that the recipe for spaghetti sauce issued by the Consiglio di Chefs di Roma is a very good recipe. This Greek chef, however, feels no need to abandon the recipe he has used to make spaghetti sauce since it has been in his family for a thousand years. He respects the recipe but since he has a perfectly good recipe that no one has ever questioned he sees no reason to adopt the recipe issued by the Council de la Chefs de Roma.

Are the pronouncements of these later Councils less binding upon us? Yes and no. Yes, because we acknowledge them as true and good, even though some of them just don�t fit in with our way of doing theology. No, because we do not throw away our perfectly good Byzantine theological cookbook to replace it with a Latin cookbook.

Admin

Dear Prodigal Son,

Yes, our living tradition as Particular Churches is based on the 7 (or 3) Councils, the Fathers and even the local Eastern councils etc.

Anything that is an expression of our Eastern Orthodox-Catholic spiritual patrimony is grist for our theological mill.

As for Vatican I, Papal Jurisdiction, as Rome readily concedes, is tempered by the fact of our Particular Church administration via the Patriarchs/Primates of our Churches.

For me, the most enlightened Latin acknowledgement of this fact occurred when Pope John Paul II recognized as complete the local ordinary process in Ukraine investigating the lives of the New Martyrs. He simply said, "Fine, if you say they are Martyrs, I acknowledge that and will beatify them when I come over."

The next step, as I see it, is for the Eastern Churches to go ahead and glorify their own local saints and simply inform Rome and the world "urbi et orbi" of the fact.

Papal infallibility has to do with the teaching of Tradition.

Since our Churches are rooted in Tradition, there is nothing ever that Rome can tell us about it.

Of course, our ecclesial traditions place Papal infallibility within a more collegial and church-wide context. Rome is thinking more along these lines as well.

The problem here is not with us, as I see it, but with Rome's own evolving understanding of its own primacy within a more vibrant Patristic context.

What is truly significant is that every time our Churches take a step forward in realizing their ancient identity and traditions, the entire Church, including Rome, benefits and moves forward toward the realization of Christ's prayer that all may be one!

Alex

Dear Administrator,

To put a Ukrainian spin on what you've said, it is always important for us to "feel good in our own sauce."



Alex

Thank you both so much for your thoughts, and if I may extend the administrator's metaphor, I have to admit that I would like to think that "the kitchen is still open."

I think it may be a negative that - if I understand correctly - the east does not feel it can gather a council and speak authoritatively on anything: i.e, it has all been said in the seven councils, and nothing more needs to be said, until the return of Christ.

In other words, it is an extended version of the protestant "sola scriptura:" Orthodoxy has "sola scriptura + the big 7." Finito?

Rome, on the other hand, seems to assert that God continues to speak through his living oracle, the magisterium and councils of the Roman Catholic church, and to safeguard the doctrinal purity of Christianity through Peter's successor, the Pope.

I am no doubt over-simplifying the matter, but if a new heresy or other calamity arose that the church needed to put to rest, to whom would we look for that authoritative voice? Or is that kind of leadership a luxury to be enjoyed only by the church of the first millenium?

Anticipating your graciously instructive replies,
Robert

Dear Robert,

I don't know how gracious my replies are . . .

The Ecumenical Councils should be seen as an "ultimate" in terms of why they were called.

In each case, it was to respond to a crisis in the Church created by a heresy, a false teaching that was breaking up the unity of the Church.

At the time of the First Ecumenical Council that put pay to Arianism, about two-thirds of the Church had become Arian!

In the days of St Maximos the Confessor, the ENTIRE Church, Pope and Patriarchs all, accepted Monothelitism!

So the Council defines what the Church ALREADY believes and proclaims in its liturgy every day.

Sometimes clearer dogmatic definitions are required to dispel doctrinal deviations.

But the dynamics of the Faith of the Church are always being celebrated liturgically.

The emphasis on dogmatic definition is a Western preoccupation - something that is in itself foreign to the East with her Patristic theology and beautiful liturgy.

Alex

Robert,

Your presentation of the Eastern approach is not correct. The East has definitely NOT stated that there is nothing more to be said. There have been local councils in the East since the Seventh Ecumenical Council to deal with issues. [A minor example of a local Eastern Council that still affects us each year is the Council of Constantinople in 1166, which established the 40 day fast prior to the celebrations of Christmas and Theophany.] The Holy Spirit does continue to guide the Orthodox Church. The East has simply not seen an issue grave enough to justify calling an ecumenical council. I�m not sure how you could jump to a conclusion that the lack of equivalent number of councils somehow makes the doctrinal purity Orthodox theology somehow questionable.

If a new calamity arose within the East the East can call a new council to deal with it. As Alex has noted, Councils can only restate what the Church has always believed and taught. The idea that every theological question needs a answer is uniquely Western. Easterners are content with leaving mysteries as mysteries.

Admin