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

David,

I can appreciate your points. I certainly disagree with the monks as I obviously do not accept their claims that the pope is a heretic and that the Patriarch of Constantinople is a heretic for dialoging with the Roman Catholics. We do not have to accept their premise about the West in order to be sympathetic to their situation or to state that their eviction is unnecessary.

I think that the larger question here is what is the appropriate response by the patriarch to this issue. I�m sure that Fr. Mark is correct in that the monks have the canons of Orthodoxy to support their claim of independence, even if their opinions are incorrect. I do not think that evicting the monks will solve anything and will simply raise them to a sort of martyr status among the traditionalist Orthodox. If they are unwilling to dialogue with the patriarch then they are also wrong. I think that pastoral response is to leave them there and begin a regular, personal dialogue with them. It may take 100 years but I still think it is the better route.

Admin

In the Old Rite we say 'i v dukha svyatago gospoda istinnago' - and with the Holy Spirit, the Lord true... so the 'true has to go in a different place to avoid the filioque.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Then let me ask this.

When does the level of error rise high enough that it is correct for a bishop or patriarch to close a monastery?

No wonder we have no monasteries here in the States. I can sort of understand the fear of them that it seems our bishops and priests have.

David

In Orthodox it's often the opposite - the monks fear bishops. Throughout history the latter have been the originators of heresy and persecutors of monastics.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear David,

Now we see where you are coming from!!

Go get 'em, Big Guy!

(Just me being silly to say how much you are appreciated and loved!)

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Yes, it is very true that bishops don't have a good track record when it comes to orthodoxy . . .

And it is amazing how much the Church has allowed itself to be taught by Monks over the ages.

Perhaps this is why, in an effort to develop greater orthodoxy among the Bishops, the Church made it a rule to consecrate only Monks as Bishops?

At one point, I believe the Patriarchs of Constantinople and those around them had subscribed to several dozen heresies.

This COULD also be why Constantiople was more forgiving of hierarchs having fallen into heresy.

And this COULD explain why the East has Pope St Liberius in its calendar and why the West doesn't, having never forgiven him to sign a heretical document, albeit under duress.

Alex

David,

An excellent question and I do not think there is an easy answer. Currently it is perfectly acceptable within Orthodoxy to consider the pope to be a heretic so the monks are not wrong in that regard. [It�s also acceptable for an Orthodox to consider the pope merely in schism, as many do.] We are also operating under the understanding that the patriarch has immediate jurisdiction over these monks and I think that this understanding is incomplete as the Athonite monks have a tradition of being very independent. I would have to research the actual hierarchical structure before offering comment. Maybe Fr. Mark can enlighten us with an account of the �reporting structure� of the Holy Mountain in general and this monastery in particular?

I think the test is that these monks would have to be adamant in some heresy to justify their eviction from Esphigmenou. The current situation doe not, IMHO, rise to that level. If the patriarch had no clear authority over these monks then they cannot be accused of disobedience.

I will also go out on a limb and state that I do not think that the fear of our bishops to support the development of monasteries is because they believe that the monks might reject their authority. Byzantine Catholic monasticism has failed in its current form because the hieromonks have been raided from the monasteries to fill the parishes. This has provided priests to serve our parishes but has destroyed monasticism in our Church. I think that our bishops need to realize this mistake of their predecessors and wholeheartedly support the development of monastic communities in our Church with a promise not to raid them for priests since it will only repeat the process. Because we have not had monastics for so long we simply do not know how unhealthy we are without them because we have gotten used to their absence. I also understand and respect that religious orders (like the Basilians, Franciscans and Carmelites) are not the traditional Eastern forms of monasticism. I think, however, that those called to these forms of monasticism should be allowed to serve so long as the �diocesan monastery� is allowed to grow and be healthy. There is room for all kinds of monastics in our Church.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

You mean that Hieromonks have been extracted from their monastic environments and the good of monasteries is being sacrificed for the good of parishes - rather than pursuing the married priesthood for that purpose?

Hmmmm . . .

I was going to suggest getting monks from "da old country" but, in Orangeville's case at least, they sometimes up and go home.

We definitely have a Latin trend among our bishops.

I saw the pictures of our bishops at Bp Rusnak's funeral, the beardless wonders, including our Bishop Cornie.

I was told that when a married priest came to one bishop to ask him not to move him to another parish as his children couldn't move mid-term from their school, this monastic bishop coldly replied, "Well, you shouldn't have gotten married then."

Just what one would expect from a pastor of Christ's Holy Church, eh?

Alex

Sort of. The damage to our monasteries was done over the past 70 years and none of it by our current hierarchs. And I don�t necessarily condemn the past hierarchs, either, because I was not there to understand their decisions. I suspect that they did not know the damage they were doing to monasticism in our Church.

I do hope that our bishops embrace both the restoration of a married priesthood and the development of monasticism. Without married priests, local monasteries and a deacon in every parish we will remain a very unhealthy Church.

If Mother Theresa�s Sisters of the Missionaries of Charity came and asked to form a Byzantine monastery I would welcome them just as I would welcome a new Franciscan house or any of the other orders. I would turn no one away.

Esteemed Administrator,

I must disagree with you somewhat.

Byzantine Catholic monasticism has failed in its current form because there is no Byzantine Catholic monasticism.

What we have had is nothing more then hybrid latin monasticism.

I think our bishops do fear monasticism. As they do not really know what it is or how it will fit. What they do know about it is that there will be holy men, most of who are not priests, sitting out there that they could use in parishes.

As for this monastery on Mt Athos, I find it hard to throw my support behind any group that is being disobedient to it's hierarchs, which granted as I do not know much of what is going on this may not be such a case.

But.... I also can not support any group that says the church I belong to is in heresy.

David

Dear Administrator,

How interesting!

A real return to "Orthodoxy in communion with Rome" is precisely as you have laid it out - married priests in the parishes, monks in the monastery and generous laity everywhere . . .

May it be so!

Alex

David,

I respect your difference of opinion.

I think that if the monasteries that did exist were not raided for priests for our parishes then they would have been fairly healthy with possibilities for future growth. Yes, they would have been severely latinized (as were our parishes) but even this could have been corrected given ample time and education. We can look at some of our parishes as wonderful examples of this. Without actual monks, of course, nothing can happen.

I do not know if our current bishops fear monasticism or not. I do know that even if they do fear monasticism they should embrace it and support its development in our Church. The first thing a new bishop should do is to create a monastery that will pray for the eparchy and celebrate the fullness of the liturgical cycle.

Regarding the Esphigmenou monks I can appreciate your position. But they are not part of our jurisdiction and it is fair to expect them to resolve disputes according to the ecclesial structures they are bound to. As I stated earlier, I do not know the level of authority the Ecumenical Patriarch has over them. The fact that they consider us to be heretics does not enter into the matter.

Admin

This has been edited to add the following comment

Brian, yes, there is Holy Ressurection Monastery. I have am not including this monastery in my discussion for 2 reasons.

1) It is a true Byzantine Catholic Monastery following the byzantine monastic ideals, mostly

2) It is, both, a new institution and a small institution. Do they have any more than a handful of monks yet?

End of Edit

Admin, I have a few comments that I want to discuss with you, and others if they wish to jump in.

Thank you, as I respect your difference of opinion also, how else can we modifiy our opinions if we do not discuss them?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I only know of 2 monasteries within our Church with only one of them being a true monastery.

Those would be the benedictines (Holy Trinity Monastery) in Butler, PA, and the franciscans (Holy Dormition Friary) in Sybertsville, PA.

Now, I do know of the Ukrainian Redemptorists in Canada and the Brasilians, but I believe that both of those orders are Apostolic in nature, so it is correct that they staff parishes.

As for the benedictines and franciscans, only the benedictines are truly monastics. Franciscans are friars so I do believe it is also correct for them to work in parishes.

The monks at Holy Trinity, as far as I know have not been "raided", at least not recently as most the monks are not priests.

Sybertsville may be a great place but it is not byzantine any longer, as any candidates for them must enter through the Assumption Province of the Blessed Virgin Mary franciscan province in Pulaski, Wisconsin. Formation is totally latin until the seminary, when they may send them to our seminary, but they may not.

Yes this is needed, but have they done so? I do believe that at least one of our bishops was approached to do just this and he has declined by not providing any direction to those that approached him for such direction.

It does enter into the matter because it is being discussed here, with people stating that they support them in their actions.

Those that support them, especially those that say they feel the monks are in the right, really are, IMHO, calling us heretics.

David

You forget Holy Resurrection Monastery in Newberry Springs, Calif under Hegumen Nicholas which is thriving and VERY Orthodox in praxis. It is a beacon in the Byzantine Catholic Carpatho-Rusyn Church in the US

http://www.hrmonline.org/

I would like to point out again something often overlooked. In the Orthodox tradition, to be a proper heretic one needs to:

(a) teach an incorrect doctrine

(b) be warned of its incorrectness by competent authority of the Church

(c) lead a schism based upon said doctrine

The Holy Father, Pope of Rome cannot now be an heretic in the eyes of any Orthodox Catholic Christian because he is not in communion with us, or better said, he's not in our Church. The one who caused the schism is a heretic, not his successors.

Would we call a Hindu a heretic? If an Orthodox Christian taught Hindu beliefs to the faithful, then he would be a heretic, but not the Hindu who formulated those beliefs.

So the local councils mentioned taught that the Roman Church was heretical in 879 and 1341; that it fit a,b, and c above. But now, things have changed since then. There are clearly two non-communing churhes, Additional dogmas have been added that clearly prohibit an easy reunion.

So really, the monks are casting stones at their own Patriarch, but what has he taught that is heretical? One may argue the merits and value of talks with heterodox groups, but is it heretical to speak with them while continuing to teach the true faith?

The monks do technically fall under his authority, in an autonomous way, according to the tradition. The monasteries there run their own local affairs. But if the monks want to teach to the wider Church that the Patriarch of Constantinople is holding meetings that amount to heresy, then they have taken on the role that normally the head of an autocephalous Church would take on. Protesting directly to their hierarch is inside of the tradition, but protesting beyond one's hierarch and synod is the "last straw." Are they prepared to declare a schism?

Clearly, some of the statements issued such as Balamand, have been attacked by said monks and actually been subsequently abandoned by the Patriarchate; abandoned in the sense that the Patriarchate has not repeated (as far as I know) the ealier statements such as the "two lungs" statement.

But the "two lungs" statement alone, uttered only once, should not a heresy make.

In Christ.