Heresies, Ecumenism: The Ecumenist Dialogues Unmasked
by protopresbyter fr. George D. Metallinos, Dean of the Athens University School of Theology
Source: "Orthodox Press" newspaper
Ecumenism is the “instrument” developed by the anti-Ecclesiastic, Enlightenment policy of the New World Order. Examine the facts,
bared and fetid, as they truly are....and be prepared for a new era of CATACOMBS, for the Christians who will remain faithful to the
Truth, albeit perhaps betrayed by the majority of the Church’s leadership. Will you be among the persistent faithful, or will you continue
to prefer this worldly situation?
It
is
a
common
ascertainment,
that
the
Dialogues
–
both
inter-Christian
and
inter-faith
–
are
taking
place
even
more
frequently
in
our
time.
Whereas
the
Ecumenical
Patriarchate
continues
to
intensify
its
related
policies
of
the
past,
the
Church
of
Greece
however
has
shown
itself
to
be
a
serious
competitor,
by
focusing
all
its
efforts
chiefly
in
two
directions:
its
contacts
with
the
Vatican
and
Papism
on
the
one
hand,
but
also
the
inter-faith
meetings
on
the
other.
And
whereas
the
Ecumenical
Patriarchate
continues
to
follow
the
course
that
was
set
by
the
late
Patriarch
Athenagoras
(†1972),
unable
to
apply
self-criticism
and
self-control
any
longer,
the
Church
of
Greece
on
the
other
hand,
at
its
administrative
levels
and
despite
the
reactions
of
the
majority
of
the
Clergy
and
the
pious
Laity,
is
nearing
on
surpassing
the
Patriarchal
Centre
in
initiatives,
with
its
constantly
accelerating
rhythms
that
justifiably
cause
concern
because
they
are
scandalously
violating
the
once-customary
policy
of
prudent
self-control
that
our
Archbishops
used
to
enforce,
from
the
late
Chrysostom
II
(†1968),
up
to
and
including the late Seraphim (†1998). And the question posed is merciless: WHY?
1.
In
ecumenical
matters,
the
Patriarch
Athenagoras
had
inaugurated
a
course
-
a
constantly
accelerating
one
–
which
is
now
impossible
to
be
revised
or
reined
in
by
his
successors;
the
Church
of
Greece
has
also
become
entangled
in
this
“trap”,
and
with
its
current
Leadership,
despite
a
seeming
competition
with
the
Head
of
Fanarion
(Constantinople),
She
has
been
implementing
the
same
ecumenistic
and
inter-faith
policies.
The
Patriarch
Athenagoras
had
been
unabashedly
instrumental
in
the
promotion
of
the
objectives
of
the
2
nd
Vatican
Synod
(1962-1965),
which
was
none
other
than
the
subjection
of
Orthodoxy
to
Papism,
in
the
guise
of
a
union.
The
commencement
of
Unia
which
had
been
activated
during
the
Synod
of
Ferrara-Florence
(1438-39),
had
been
inadmittedly
accepted
by
Hellenic-speaking
Orthodoxy,
under
the
illusion
that
a
dialogue
“on
equal
terms”
was
taking
place,
for
the
purpose
of
uniting
“in
the
truth”,
whereas
in
fact
we
ended
up
with
a
Uniate
recognition
of
Papism
–
the
most
humungous
and
radical
“alteration
of
the
very
core
of
ecclesiastic
truth”,
with
the
production
of
“a
different
kind
of
Christianity,
entirely
opposite
to
the
evangelical
way
of
life
and
salvation
of
mankind”
(Chr.
Yannaras).
From
the
Patriarch
Athenagoras
–
a
convinced
preacher
of
this
course
–
with
the
Pan-Orthodox
conferences
of
Rhodes
(1961
and
1963)
as
well
as
a
series
of
personal
initiatives
(such
as
the
famous
meeting
with
the
pope
Paul
VI
in
Jerusalem,
1964)
and
despite
the
reactions
chiefly
of
Chrysostom
II
of
Athens,
the
predetermined
plan
(in
collaboration
with
the
Vatican)
was
promoted
and
imposed,
thus leading to the situation that we have today.
From
the
“Dialogue
of
Love”
–
a
deceptive
invention
of
the
2
nd
Vatican
synod,
whose
greatest
propagandist
was
Athenagoras
–
we
were
ushered
forcefully
into
the
Theological
Dialogue,
however
without
the
prior
fulfilment
of
Orthodoxy’s
basic
condition:
the
waiving
of
the
Papist
primacy
and
infallibility,
given
that
the
Papacy
constitutes
the
most
tragic
alteration
of
Christ’s
Gospel
and
the
most
significant
obstacle
for
a
meeting
of
Roman
Catholicism
and
Orthodoxy
“in
the
truth”.
But
the
enforced
“policy”
of
misguiding
and
entrapment
is
also
verified
by
the
decision
that
during
a
Theological
Dialogue,
the
“divisive”
issues
must
not
be
discussed
(a
permanent
and
inviolable
principle
of
Ecumenical
Synods),
but
instead,
only
the
“unifying”
issues,
thus
creating
an
illusion
of
unity
and
kinship
through
the
promoting
of
the
tactics
of
Unia.
This
explains
the
Vatican’s
persistence
in
saving
the
institution
of
Unia
at
all
costs,
while
at
the
same
time,
the
spirit
of
“mutual
recognition”
was
being
cultivated
(culminating
in
the
meeting
of
Balamand
in
1993
and
the
nondescript
text
regarding
Unia,
which
was
co-signed
by
nine
Orthodox
Churches,
the
first
being
the
Ecumenical
Patriarchate).
When
the
reposed
fr.
John
Romanides
remonstrated
about
all
of
these
things
-
and
especially
about
the
acceptance
of
the
method
of
Unia
-
he
was
admonished
by
means
of
letters
filled
with
rage
(the
letters
have
been
preserved...)
and
he
was
threatened
indirectly with defrocking. (He refused to compromise with this stance – a fact that led him to his grave much sooner....)
2.
We
spoke
of
a
pre-decided
and
pursued
“course”
previously;
so
now,
to
allay
any
doubts
whatsoever,
we
shall
present
an
indisputable
“document”,
which
reveals
the
basis
of
this
“course”,
as
set
down
by
the
Patriarch
Athenagoras.
In
August
of
1971,
a
group
of
Greek
Clergymen
(twenty
from
America
and
ten
from
West
Gemany),
along
with
their
wives
and
other
persons,
visited
the
Ecumenical
Patriarchate.
Athenagoras’
greeting
was
tape-recorded
by
many
who
were
present,
and
these
tapes
are
still
available,
to
this
very
day.
The
transcribed
text
was
published
in
the
13/1/1979
edition
of
the
newspaper
“Orthodox
Press”.
When
seeking
to
interpret
the
current
phenomena
and
their
development,
the
aforementioned
transcript
came
to
mind,
which
definitely
had
the
semblance
of
a
program.
It
did
not
only
express
the
ideological
world
of
the
former
Patriarch
and
the
spiritual
setting
of
his
ecumenist
actions,
but
also
the
trusts
that
he
was
so
opportunely
or
inopportunely
leaving
to
those
who
supported
him
–
trusts
that
proved
to
be
programmatic
and
unchangeable.
Athenagoras’ address
«...
In
this
place,
on
the
15
th
of
July
of
the
year
1054,
a
certain
cardinal
Umberto
deposited
on
the
Holy
Altar
of
the
Haghia
Sophia
(that
you
will
visit
tomorrow),
a
libel
against
the
Patriarch
Michael
Kerularios.
Upon
which,
Kerulariosgave
his
response
–and
I
am
not
sure
if
he
acted
wisely
in
responding–
but
anyway,
he
gave
a
response.
And
these
two
libels,
these
two
letters,
were
referred
to
as
“schism”.
A
Schism
was
never
proclaimed,
either
by
Rome,
or
by
the
East,
nevertheless,
we
experienced
it
for
900
years.
With
many
consequences,
with
much
destruction.
We
lived
through
it,
a
whole
900
years!
Without
having
a
brother
to
tell
him
how
much
you
love
him!
Then
suddenly
one
December
day,
in
1963,
I
announced
to
the
Press
that
the
Pope
had
decided
to
come
to
Jerusalem,
and,
while
officiating
in
a
neighboring
church
here,
I
announced
that
I
would
ask
to
meet
with
him.
I
came
here,
and
I
issued
an
announcement
through
the
Associated
Press
that
we
should
meet.
The
Vatican’s
station
responded,
and
on
the
5
th
of
January
1964
we
met
in
Jerusalem,
at
9
in
the
evening,
at
the
Pope’s
residence.
And
when
we
saw
each
other,
our
embraces
opened
up
automatically.
The
one
threw
himself
into
the
arms
of
the
other.
When
we
were
asked:
How
did
you
kiss,
brothers,
after
900
years?
You
ask
how?
We
both
went
hand
in
hand
into
his
quarters,
and
we
had
a
secret
conversation
between
us.
What
did
we
say?
Who
knows
what
two
souls
say
when
they
converse!
Who
knows
what
two
hearts
say
when
they
exchange
feelings!
What
did
we
say?
We
formed
a
common
program,
with
an
absolute
equality,
not
difference.
Then
we
invited
our
entourages,
we
read
an
excerpt
from
the
Gospel,
and
we
recited
the
Lord’s
Prayer,
and
I
made
the
first
address.
And
we
said
that
we
are
already
on
the
way
to
Emmaus,
and
are
going
to
meet
with
the
Lord
in
the
common
Chalice.
In
his
response,
the
Pope
offered
me
a
holy
Chalice.
He
did
not
know
that
I
was
going
to
mention
a
Holy
Chalice,
nor
did
I
know
that
he
was
to
offer
me
a
Holy
Chalice!
What
was
this?
A
symbolism
of
the
future.
In
1965
we
lifted
the
Schism,
in
Rome
and
here,
with
our
representatives
there
and
those
representatives
here.
And
in
July
of
1967
the
Pope
came
here.
It
would
have
been
easier
to
move
a
mountain
from
Italy,
for
example
the
Appenines,
and
bring
them
here,
rather
than
the
Pope
to
come
here.
For
the
first
time
in
History.
Popes
had
come
at
other
times,
but
as
captives.
Rituals
were
performed
in
the
Patriarchal temple; I received him in my office, which you will see, and there we had another conversation and
we agreed to one day meet, at that place where we
had diverged.
»
Up
until
1054
we
had
many
differences
between
us.
In
this
thing,
in
that
thing.
The
Filioque.
It
was
inserted
into
the
Creed
in
the
6
th
century
and
we
had
accepted
it,
for
6
whole
centuries.
And
there
are
so
many
other
differences.
But
we
love
each
other.
And
when
people
love
one
another,
there
are
no
differences.
But
in
1054,
when
we
ceased
loving
each
other,
all
the
differences
befell
us.
We
loved
each
other,
and
we
had
the
same
sacrament;
the
same
baptism,
the
same
sacraments
and
particularly
the
Holy
Chalice.
Now
that
we
have
returned
to
’54,
why
don’t
we
also
return
to
the
Holy
Chalice?
There
are
two
paths:
The
theological
dialogue;
and
we
have
the
theologians
on
both
sides,
who
are
studying
the
matter
of
returning
to
olden
times.
And
because
I
do
not
hinge
my
hopes
on
the
theological
dialogue
–
I
really
do
not,
and
may
the
theologians
here
(who
are
quite
a
few)
forgive
me
–
that
is
why
I
prefer
the
dialogue
of
love.
We
should
love
one
another!
And
what
is
happening
today?
A
spirit
of
love
is
spreading
above
the
Christians
of
East
and
West.
We
already
love
one
another.
The
Pope
said
so:
I
acquired
a
brother,
and
I
let
him
know
him
that
I
love
him!
I
also
said
so:
I
have
acquired
a
brother
and
I
told
him
that
I
love
him!
When
will
this
thing
come?
The
Lord
knows.
We
do
not
know.
What
I
do
know,
is
that
it
will
come.
I
believe
that
it
will
come.
Because
it
is
not
possible
for
it
not
to
come,
as
it
is
already
coming.
Because
already
in
America,
you
are
giving
communion
to
many
people
from
the
Holy
Chalice,
and
it
is
a
good
thing
that
you
are
doing!
The
same
is
done
here,
when
Catholics
or
Protestants
come
and
ask
for
Communion,
I
offer
them
the
Holy
Chalice!
And
the
same
thing
is
done
in
Rome,
and
England,
and
France.
It
is
already
coming,
by
itself.
But
it
must
not
come
from
the
laity
and
the
clergy.
It
must
also
be
in
accordance
with
the
hierarchy
and
Theology.
That
is
therefore
why
we
strive
to
also
have
theologians
with
us,
so
that
this
major
event
of
Pan-
Christianity
might
come
to
be.
And
along
with
this
major
event,
our
dream
of
Pan-Humanity
might
also
come
to
be.
I
have
lived
through
seven
wars.
And
I
have
seen
much
destruction,
much
blood
being
shed.
And
all
wars
are
civil
wars;
they
are
wars
between
brothers…
And
your
arrival
here
has
reinforced
that
faith,
that
the
grand
and
illustrious
day
of
the
Lord,
that
meeting in the same Holy Chalice, will come…”
3.
If
we
wanted
to
analyze
this
text
in
detail,
it
would
require
a
tremendous
amount
of
space.
That
is
why
we
shall
confine
ourselves
to
certain
basic
observations.
The
interpretation
of
the
Schism
of
1054
most
assuredly
will
not
stand
up
to
serious
criticism,
and
it
displays
an
ignorance
or
a
distortion
of
History.
Besides,
the
reposed
Patriarch
–
as
we
can
see
from
the
text
–
was
not…very
fond
of
theologians;
as
for
the
dogmas,
well,
they
can
be
stored
(as
he
frequently
proclaimed)
in
the
“treasury”
or
even
the
“museum”.
I
will
completely
bypass
the
nondescript
sentimentality
of
the
text,
with
regard
to
the
descriptions
of
his
meeting
with
the
Pope.
In
fact,
I
wonder
why
Athenagoras’
circles
at
times
even
bothered
to
condemn
organizational
pietism…
Judging
by
the
words
of
the
Patriarch,
it
becomes
more
than
obvious
that
“agreements”
had
been
reached
for
the
thenceforth-mutual
course
of
Constantinople
and
Rome.
Besides,
sentimentalisms
were
more
than
enough
for
the
coverage
of
the
first
few
moments
of
their
encounter….
Needless,
also,
for
one
expound
what
was
said
about
the
addition
to
the
Creed
(the
Filioque).
It
is
no
wonder,
therefore,
that
even
before
its
commencement,
the
theological
dialogue
–
or
dialogue
of
faith
–
was
subjected
by
the
Patriarch
to
the
dialogue
of
love;
in
other
words,
to
amiable
relations
and
sentimentalities.
This
is
the
form
of
“dialogue”
on
which
the
Patriarch
also
founds
the
“common
Chalice”,
the
sacramental
inter-communion
which,
according
to
his
admission,
had
already
become
a
status
quo
in
1971.
We
therefore
wonder
why
the
surprise,
when
the
Immaculate
Sacraments
were
offered
to
Papists
in
Ravenna
recently,
or
in
churches
in
Athens
–
as
revealed
by
the
letters
recently
published
by
the
newspaper
“Orthodox
Press”.
It
is
said,
of
course,
that
in
Ravenna,
a
relative
reminder
was
given
to
the
Roman
Catholics
who
were
present.
The
question
is,
why
the
respective
reminders
by
us
humble
priests
were
“observed”
in
Germany,
whereas
in
Ravenna,
they
were
not
as
effective!
But,
the
reason
is
something
else.
After
the
agreement
in
Balamand
(1993),
everyone
in
the
West
came
to
believe
that
the
union
is
a
fact,
and
that consequently, sacramental inter-communion is absolutely natural.
Besides,
according
to
the
article
published
in
the
Press
(see
newspaper
“Kathimerini”,
edition
of
16/06/02),
His
Holiness
had
linked
Christian
unity
to
the
progress
of
European
unity:
“The
co-existence
in
the
same
political-economic
sphere
of
the
European
peoples”,
he
said,
“who
belong
to
the
two
Churches,
will
most
assuredly
contribute
towards
a
closer
rapprochement
between
them
and
will
assist
in
the
restitution
of
the
unity
that
existed
before
the
Schism.”
Just
that
simply!
Secular
elements
are
being
employed,
to
eliminate
the
internal, and purely ecclesiastic, prerequisite.
4.
Athenagoras’
spirit
and
his
“course”
has
fenced
in
everyone,
and
even
if
they
now
wanted
to,
they
would
not
dare
circumvent
it
or
at
least
amend
it,
because
of
our
progressively
blunted
criteria
and
the
relativizing
and
ideologizing
of
the
Faith
according
to
political
models;
the
Faith,
which
has
been
rendered
(by
us)
a
mere
sum
of
theoretical
truths
that
permits
compromises,
and
not
seen
as
a
demarcation
of
the
event
of
“existence
in
Christ”.
From
the
albeit
limited
experience
that
we
have
of
the
inter-Christian
dialogues,
we
are,
nevertheless,
aware
of
the
method
implemented
by
the
heterodox
for
decades
now:
the
cultivation
of
personal
relations
and
a
climate
of
(secular)
friendship
amongst
theologians,
through
all
the
means
available,
but
also
the
provision
of
financial
support
(in
fact,
several
of
our
metropolitans
believe
they
should
take
pride
in
recording
their
gratitude
towards
the
World
Council
of
Churches
or
the
Vatican
for
the
financial
support
given
to
their
Institutions),
for
the
purpose
of
blunting
and
weakening
every
disposition
for
witness
and
confession.
This has been going on for decades now. A complete predominance of secular and political practices.
It
is
along
the
same
spirit
that
the
Leadership
of
the
Church
of
Greece
has
been
moving;
in
fact,
it
has
even
been
using
the
same
pretext:
“We
are
holding
a
dialogue”,
they
claim,
“we
are
not
changing
our
faith”!
And
certainly
the
dialogue
as
a
“loving
outlet”
towards
the
other
(as
the
ecumenists
say
in
their
language)
is
a
blessed
thing,
however,
in
this
case,
the
dialogue
has
long
since
been
understood
as
a
“mutual
recognition”
and
not
a
genuine
meeting
in
the
Truth,
i.e.,
in
the
one
Christ,
as
delivered
to
us
in
the
words
and
the
lives
of
our
Saints.
This
here
constitutes
“Uniatism”.
This
“Uniatizing”
stance
is
one
that
even
accommodates
our
own
attitudes,
inasmuch
as
a
recognition
of
non-Christianity
as
Christianity
(and
of
Papism
-for
example-
as
a
Church)
would
be
a
pretext
and
an
illusion
on
our
part
of
the
continuance
of
our
Tradition,
given
that,
formally
and
externally,
we
would
not
actually
be
denying
our
Faith
and
our
Tradition.
The
problem
however,
is,
if
we
were
to
attribute
Christianity
and
Orthodoxy
to
any
fallacy
whatsoever,
will
our
Truth
be
preserved?
“What
communion can there be,
between light and darkness?”
(Cor.II, 6:14)
As
an
excuse
for
this
stance
(of
ours),
they
are
projecting
a
supposed
concern
for
the
preservation
of
Christianity
in
Europe,
since
the
anti-Christian
politics
of
the
powers
that
be
in
the
European
Union
is
increasing
dangerously
and
threateningly
and
the
European
Constitution
that
is
being
drafted
contains
no
mention
whatsoever
of
Europe’s
Christian
legacy.
And
up
to
this
point,
things
seem
feasible.
The
question,
however,
is:
By
allying
with
Papism
and
supporting
it
as
a
Church,
which
Christianity
would
we
be
preserving?
Are
we
to
sacrifice
Orthodoxy,
in
order
to
preserve
Papism?
God
forbid!
What
use
would
Europe
have
of
this
kind
of
“Christianity”?
Isn’t
Europe’s
(and
not
only!)
overall
historical
wretchedness
(ideological,
social
and
political)
rooted
in
the
distortion
that
Christianity
was
subjected
to,
with
the
development
and
the
establishment
of
the
Papal
edifice?
If
Papism
doesn’t
“die”,
with
its
repentance
in
Christ
and
its
return
to
the
one
Church
of
Christ
–
in
other
words,
if
Papism
doesn’t
become
a
Church
-
it
will
only
be
offering
an
adulterated
Christianity
to
Europe
and
the
world.
Then,
instead
of
preaching
the
Orthodoxy
of
our
Fathers
to
a
spiritually
half-dead
Europe,
we
will
end
up
being
pathetic
crutches,
of
Papism
and
of
the
State
of
Vatican,
thus
repeating
the
crime
that
our
“Byzantine”
fathers
had
committed
in
1438.
We
had
then
been
invited
by
the
anti-papist
Roman
Catholics
to
the
Synod
of
Basle
(1431
–
1437/8),
in
their
attempts
to
overthrow
the
oppressive
papist
yoke.
We,
instead,
had
preferred
to
accept
Pope
Eugene
IV’s
invitation
(1431-1447),
who,
with
the
Ferrara-Florence
synod,
was
trying
to
salvage
his
authority.
And
we
chose
to
side
with
the
Pope,
thus
supporting
Papism,
and
woe
betide
us,
if
we
hadn’t
been
rescued
(from
most
assuredly
becoming
Franks
ourselves)
by
saint
Mark
and
the
“obstinate”
monks
and
clerics
of
“Byzantium”.
Thus,
instead
of
projecting
the
Orthodoxy
of
our
Fathers
in
Europe,
our
stance
will
only
be
strengthening
a
Papism
that
has
begun
to
crumble
in
the
conscience
of
Europeans,
by
acknowledging
it
as
Christian
and
as
a
Church.
It
appears
that
the
Babylonian
captivity
that
Athenagoras’ course has led us into, is insurmountable.
5.
However,
whatever
is
going
on
in
the
inter-Christian
dialogue,
also
applies
to
our
inter-faith
policy.
And
here,
the
“course”
is
long
since
a
given
fact,
and
a
pre-determined
one.
In
the
above
homily
addressed
to
the
orthodox
priests
of
emigrant
Hellenes,
the
Patriarch
Athenagoras
expressed
his
conviction
that
“with
the
union
of
the
Churches,
we
shall
be
moving
towards
a
pan-humankind.”
This
was
made
even
more
clear
in
1972
(newspaper
“BEMA”,
22/8/1972
edition),
by
the
former
Archbishop
of
America
Iakovos,
who
had
also
co-presided
over
the
World
Council
of
Churches:
“
..the
W.C.C.
is
moving
towards
the
realization
of
its
goal,
through
the
merging
of
cultures,
religions
and
peoples.”
Furthermore,
in
an
interview
of
his
for
the
magazine
“NEMESIS”
(November
1999
issue),
he
actually
expressed
his
disappointment,
because
that
objective
of
the
W.C.C.
was
taking
far
too
long
to
accomplish.
The
reason
for
the
existence
of
the
W.C.C.
was
none
other,
finally,
than
the
New
Age’s
Pan-Religion
–
a
purpose
that
has
now
been
fully
clarified
in
our
time.
We
would
like
to
ask
all
those
“high-flying
love-mongers
and
lyrically
idealizing
(to
quote
fr.
John
Romanides)
colleagues”:
Can
this
self-inflicted
subjugation
of
Orthodoxy
to
a
multi-membered
and
polyonymous
deception
really
be
considered
a
‘love
outlet’
towards
others?
Naturally,
it
is
not
the
Orthodoxy
of
our
Fathers
that
is
being
subjugated;
it
is
our
own
cacodoxy
-simulating-Orthodoxy,
which is already subjugated to our passions (our interests etc.).
But
even
here,
we
are
faithfully
following
the
“course”
of
the
2
nd
Vatican
Synod,
which
Athenagoras
had
also
followed
faithfully.
This
Synod
had
proclaimed
that
the
three
large
monotheist
religions
(faiths)
all
believe
in
the
same
God,
thus
facilitating
the
dialogue
and
the
course
towards
the
union
and
the
inter-faith
realm.
I
ask
to
be
forgiven
for
repeating
something
that
I
have
already
said
in
another
circumstance:
When,
in
1969,
I
had
gone
to
(then
West)
Germany
and
in
fact
in
Bonne,
I
found
myself
in
an
environment
where
the
decisions
and
the
positions
of
the
2
nd
Vatican
Synod
prevailed.
The
Protestant
world
(my
contacts
were
with
Lutherans),
despite
any
opposition
to
Papism
that
it
had,
was
nevertheless
in
accord
with
this
opening
towards
the
major
religions,
because
that
was
exactly
what
the
underlying
pan-religious
movement
was
promoting.
In
a
seminar
on
Patrology
(in
a
Lutheran
environment),
a
discussion
on
the
various
religions’
belief
in
the
same
God
came
up.
At
that
moment,
I
became
conscious
of
my
Hellenic
element,
so
I
resorted
to
Socrates’
method
and
asked
them:
“How
many
suns
are
there
in
our
world?”
With
a
smile
of
condescendence,
they
replied:
“One,
of
course.”
“No,”
I
continued,
“because,
how
is
it
possible
for
me
to
look
directly
at
the
Sun
here
in
Germany,
whereas
in
Greece,
if
I
look
directly
at
it,
I
will
be
blinded?”
So,
I
concluded,
that
the
Sun
is
indeed
one,
but
it
differs,
depending
on
the
manner
and
the
circumstances
that
we
view
it.
The
same
applies
to
God.
He
is
One,
but
every
religion,
just
as
every
Christian
group,
views
Him
in
its
own
manner.
Thus,
depending
on
the
manner
that
God
is
viewed
(this
is
called
theology),
we
have
a
different
God
in
each
group.
Patristic
Orthodoxy,
however,
is
the
coinciding
of
our
knowledge
of
God,
with
God’s
self-
revelation
in
History.
The
objective
of
“faith”
–
God’s
self-revelation
in
His
Saints
(the
“believed
faith”)
–
must
coincide
with
our
view
and
acceptance
of
God
(the
“believing
faith”).
This
is the point where Orthodoxy mainly differs from any heresy and fallacy.
6.
The
inter-faith
meetings
and
common
prayers
had
commenced
officially
in
1986,
in
Assisi
of
Italy;
therefore,
they
are
not
just
scientific
conventions
of
a
religious
content;
they
are
actually
congregations
for
the
confession
of
a
unity,
on
the
basis
of
the
One
God,
and
are
convened
around
the
Pope,
with
him
at
the
center
and
as
spiritual
leader
of
this
union
-
in
effect,
of
all
the
world.
This
is
why
the
Pope
was
called
“World
Ruler
No.2”.
It
must
be
stated,
that
head
of
our
patriarchal
delegation
in
1986
was
the
Rev.
Metropolitan
Methodios
(Fouyias)
of
Pisidia
(today),
while
in
Assisi
in
1994,
it
was
His
Beatitude
Archbishop
Anastasios
(Yannoulatos)
of
Albania.
A
new,
pan-(inter-)faith
meeting
took
place
under
the
Pope
this
year
(2002),
once
again
in
Assisi,
with
the
participation
of
250
personalities
representing
12
religions.
Of
course
the
Orthodox
were
not
absent,
who
were
under
the
same
Ecumenical Patriarch.
As
it
has
very
aptly
been
observed,
“the
inter-faith
dialogues
appear
to
be
fully
compliant
to
the
views
and
the
practices
with
which
syndicated
members,
politicians
and
ideologies
converse
nowadays.”
(Chr.
Yannaras).
Moreover,
after
the
11
th
of
September
2001
and
whatever
that
date
signifies
for
our
world,
it
became
more
than
evident
that
those
dialogues
are
conducted
“under
orders”
and
in
fact,
in
defense
-and
for
the
propagandizing-
of
official
and
legal
terrorism,
versus
the
unofficial
and
“rebel”
one.
Thus,
our
era
makes
a
mockery
even
of
the
religious
dialogues,
which
are
working
together
for
the
policing
of
the
world
according
to
the
interests
and
the
dispositions
of
the
powerful
ones
of
the
Earth.
And
we,
obedient
to
the
instructions
and
to
the
“set
course”
participate
and
convert
Orthodoxy
into
an
instrument
and
a
rear
guard.
Thus,
we
ourselves
are
gagging
Orthodoxy,
which,
instead
of
being
the
“judgment”
and
the
“checking”
of
iniquity,
is
transformed,
in
our
person,
into
its
supporter
and
maintainer.
And
of
course
here,
there
is
the
easy
excuse:
So
that
we
are
not
characterized
as
reactionaries,
and
so
that
our
European
(and
New
Order)
profile
be
enhanced!
Thus,
the
search
for
religious
tolerance,
wherever
it
may
have
slackened
or
vanished,
as
“an
essential
component
of
monotheist
beliefs”
(A.D.Papayannides,
“BEMA”
newspaper,
9.6.02
edition)
would
have
been
a
blessing,
if
it
wasn’t
in
fact
for
meetings
taking
place
“under
orders”.
The
upcoming
but
postponed
Athens
inter-faith
meeting
(it
was
preceded,
by
another
one,
in
Cyprus)
will
prove
just
how
much
it
is
going
to
be
“a
deposition
of
our
witness”
and
Orthodoxy
being
proposed
as
the
only
solution
to
the
ordeals
of
the
world,
and
not
a
levelling
of
Orthodoxy
within
the
pan-religious
(and
hence
syncretistic)
pulp.
The
Head
of
the
Bureau
of
our
Church
has
already
announced
that
our
endeavor
is
“to
prepare
the
people,
to
educate
them,
so
that
they
do
not
react
(to
the
dialogues,
that
is);
to
shape
(in
other
words,
to
manipulate
–
G.D.M.)
the
conscience
of
the
people.”
Therefore,
even
here,
a
certain
“set
course”
is
being
followed;
but
who
is
designating
it?
And
yet,
the
admonitory
“Memorandum
on
Ecumenism”
by
a
pleiad
of
Clergymen,
Priors,
Spiritual
Fathers
and
noted
Orthodox
theologians
that
was
submitted
to
Archbishop
Christodoulos
was
not
accepted.
In it, we read the following:
“Inter-faith
Ecumenism
is
rampant.
It
is
not
confined
to
the
limits
of
a
philosophical
or
social
dialogue
(author’s
note:
i.e.,
the
dialogue
is
not
rejected
as
a
“love
outlet”
etc.).
It
is
moving
on
to
a
theological
level,
and
is
trying
to
find
common
points
of
faith
between
Orthodox
and
heterodox.
It
is
not
taking
into
consideration
the
basic
differences.
It
is
proclaiming
that
salvation
can
also
be
found
in
the
other
religions,
and
in
fact
in
the
monotheistic
ones.
It
is
thus
overthrowing
the
fundamental
Christian
belief
that
“salvation
is
not
found
within
anything
else…”.
Inter-faith
syncretism
is
relativizing
the
truth
of
the
Gospel.
It
is
even
going
as
far
as
the
level
of
worship.
Orthodox
Hierarchs
or
even
Head
Hierarchs
are
participating
in
pan-religious
events
like
the
one
in
Assisi,
or
in
common
prayers
and
glorifications
with
heterodox
and
other
faiths,
and
specifically
with
Jews
and
Moslems.
One
can
only
wonder:
which
God
are
they
glorifying?
The
Holy
Apostles
preached
in
the
Synagogues,
but
they
preached
“Jesus
Christ
and
Him
crucified,
which
is
why
persecutions,
imprisonments, torture and death ensued...”.
We,
on
the
contrary,
by
levelling
Christ
in
practice,
with
all
sorts
of
deities,
are
reaping
honors
and
praise,
enjoying
distinctions
and
awards.
That
alone
shows
that
“something
is
not
right”
with
us.
The
world
“loves
its
own”
(John
15,
19)
and
we
are
also
identifying
with
the
powers
of
the
world,
when
we
love
“rather
the
glory
of
people,
above
the
gloy
of
God”
(John
12, 43).
In
the
inter-faith
dialogues,
we
encounter
the
same
haste,
the
same
mentality
and
the
same
methods
that
are
also
observed
in
the
conducting
of
the
inter-Christian
dialogues.
Because,
finally,
it
is
all
about
the
same
objective.
The
inter-embracing
of
these
two
forms
of
the
one,
same-in-essence
dialogue
became
evident
in
Canberra,
Australia
(Ζ΄
Γ.
W.C.C.
Convention),
where
the
Christians
had
invited
even
idolaters
into
common
prayer.
This,
obviously,
is
not
a
case
of
religious
tolerance
and
a
“love
outlet”
etc.,
but
a
relativizing
of
faith,
as
connoted
by
the
statement
of
the
person
responsible
for
these
dialogues,
the
Rev.
Metropolitan
Damascenos
of
Switzerland:
“This
approach”,
he
writes,
“causes
us
to
suddenly
acquire
an
awareness
of
the
fact
that,
deep
down,
one
Church
or
one
Mosque…aspire
to
the
same
spiritual
awarding
of
Man.”
Isn’t
this
an
automatic
dismissal
of
salvation
in
Christ
and
the
task
of
the
Holy
Spirit?
If
there
is,
indeed,
a
possibility
of
salvation
“in
something
else”,
then
why
the
revelation
in
Christ,
as
non-incarnate
in
the
Old
Testament
and
incarnate
in
the
New
Testament?
Why
the
Incarnation,
the
Pentecost,
the
Church
as
the
Body
of
Christ
and
the
community
of
Saints?
Our
actions
constitute
a
rejection
of
Christianity
-
despite
our
misleading fancy talk – that can no longer fool anyone.
7.
Given
that
one’s
word
is
always
a
“course”,
we
must
not
forget
that
in
1970
in
Geneva,
where
the
“oracle”
of
every
anti-Christian,
anti-Orthodox
contrivance
is
situated,
during
the
second
convention
of
the
American
Foundation
with
the
title
“Temple
of
Understanding,
Inc.”
–
in
other
words,
an
“Association
of
United
Religions”
–
the
Secretary
General
of
the
W.C.C.
Eugene
Blake
invited
the
leaders
of
all
religions
(April
2
nd
)
and
a
supra-confessional
liturgy
and
prayer
took
place
in
the
Cathedral
of
Saint
Peter,
during
which,
each
one
prayed
in
his
own
language
and
in
accordance
with
the
rite
of
his
own
religion.
However,
all
of
them
were
urged
to
thus
co-exist
in
the
worship
of
the
same
God.
But
this
is
clearly
a
faithful
implementation
of
the
Masonic
method
of
transcending
every
ideology
and
faith
in
order
to
attain
union,
and
in
fact
under
the
master
of
this
world.
According
to
the
existing
advertising
material
of
these
congregations,
also
present
were
Orthodox
representatives;
the
Rev.
Metropolitan
Emilianos
of
Silyvria
of
the
Ecumenical
Patriarchate
–
currently
inactive
and
residing in Aegion – is a member of the “International Committee of the Temple”.
And
yet,
all
of
these
things
have
been
replied
to,
in
the
Holy
Gospel,
which
refutes
all
our
pretenses.
When
the
ecumenists
reject
us
as
“fanatics”
and
“fundamentalists”,
they
are
simultaneously
rejecting
our
Saints
(whose
stance
we
humbly
emulate),
but
also
the
Lord
Himself,
Who,
not
desirous
of
gathering
followers
by
sacrificing
the
Truth
whenever
His
word
was
regarded
as
“harsh”
and
was
abandoned
by
many,
had
turned
to
the
terrified
“twelve”
and
asked
them:
“Do
you
perhaps
also
want
to
leave?”
(John
6:48
etc).
This,
dear
“love-
mongers” and idealizers, is our “set course”, and not the “course” of those who have capitulated with the potentates of this world, and those who are not our genuine Pastors.
8.
It
must,
however,
be
regarded
as
certain
that
the
deviation
by
our
Leaders
from
the
“set
course”
of
Orthodoxy
–
the
“little
flock”
(Luke
12
,32
)
–
will
not
be
tolerated
for
very
long
by
the powers of the World, inside and outside the Church (see Acts 20, 29, etc.)
The
theory
of
Propaganda
teaches
that
the
method
pursued
in
these
cases
is
firstly
to
mock
all
those
who
have
a
contrary
opinion
(all
of
us
are
already
looked
upon
as
“picturesque”),
and
then
to
morally
demote
and
humiliate
them,
to
be
followed
afterwards
–if
so
decided-
by
their
physical
annihilation.
The
principles
governing
the
indictment
against
reactionaries
are
already
being
compiled.
Very
recently,
the
American
Congress
prohibited
all
characterisms
of
other
ideologies,
and
especially
of
other
religious
groups
as
“heretics”
or
such
like.
Albeit
in
somewhat
gentler
fashion,
the
Orthodox
(through
the
Press
and
literary
criticism)
are
censured
if
they
dare
to
characterize
“others”
(based
on
their
faith),
on
the
basis
of
the
implied and not concealed factor that all religions constitute a path towards the knowledge of God, in a different way. This is what noted ecclesiastic Leaders have proclaimed.
It
is
not
broadly
known,
of
course,
that
some
time
ago,
the
authors
of
the
Religious
Studies
book
for
1
st
year
high
school
students
(I.Ch.Gotsis,
fr.
G.Metallinos
and
G.Filias)
were
served
with
an
extrajudicial
warning
from
“Jehovah’s
Witnesses”
and
“Scientologists”
for
the
related
chapters
of
that
book,
which,
naturally,
view
those
areas
from
an
Orthodox
perspective.
The
warning
was
sent
to
the
Ministry
of
National
Education
and
Religions
as
well
as
the
Pedagogical
Institute.
We
of
course
responded,
but
we
are
unaware
of
the
outcome.
However,
the
adventure
related
to
the
chapter
on
Masonry
is
a
more
familiar
one.
Given
that
the
lot
fell
to
the
undersigned
to
author
that
chapter,
I
experienced
in
detail
every
move
and
method,
but
also
all
the
pressures
that
were
employed
for
the
removal
of
that
chapter,
so
that
I
had
to
re-compose
it
three
times
and
finally
suggest
that
a
self-description
of
Masonry
be
first
submitted,
and
then
be
accompanied
by
a
parallel,
Orthodox
view
of
it.
What
was
even
more
comically
tragic,
however,
was
that
those
chapters
were
provided
by
the
Analytical
Program
of
the
Ministry
(the
Pedagogical
Institute)
itself,
which
(Analytical
Program)
even
designated
the
lines
that
we
had
to
go
along.
Thus,
the
question
is:
Who,
finally,
rules this land? Of course we already know the answer, in great detail; however, it is up to the Ministry to elucidate whether we as a Nation can withstand these applied pressures.
With
our
(willing
and
enthusiastic)
transformation
into
a
“prefecture”
and
not
a
“province”
of
the
European
Union
-
the
latter
being
the
assignee
and
a
“special
branch”
of
the
New
World
Order
and
its
leadership
–
it
is
becoming
evident,
more
and
more
ostentatiously
and
openly,
that
it
is
defining
our
lives
and
behaviors
through
various
channels,
by
transfusing
into
them its own mentalities, by thousands of means.
Recently,
our
Department
(of
Theology)
received
a
document
(to
be
precise,
an
unsigned
one),
originating
from
the
University
personnel
responsible
for
the
European
programs,
in
which,
although
we
were
commended
for
our
successful
response
to
a
program
that
was
suggested
to
us,
titled
“Orthodoxy
and
Globalization”,
our
Program
was
nonetheless
judged
as
“inadequate”,
because,
among
other
things,
“it
was
observed
that
the
program
in
general
was
of
a
confessional
and
mostly
of
an
applied
nature,
without
aligning
itself
with
the
broader
program
of
studies
on
religious
phenomena
and
of
Religion
as
a
pan-human
phenomenon
and
reality.”
And
this,
despite
the
fact
that
the
scientific
perspective
of
Religion
was
not
missing
from
our
Program
(a
special
professor
teaches
it).
But
the
purpose
was
to
project
the
“confessional”
character
of
our
Department
and
our
Theological
Schools
in
general.
This
means
that
in
a
few
years’
time,
our
Theological
Schools
(if
they
manage
to
survive
in
the
University)
will
be
turned
into
scientific
courses.
That
is
why
attempts
are
being
made
to
render
the
Schools
of
Theology
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Church’s
Administration.
When
I
refer
to
our
“sovietizing”
within
the
European
Union,
I
mean
this:
Whatever
the
other
Orthodox had lived through, during their soviet-communist period, we Hellenes also risk living through, in the European Union and the New World Order.
This is the course that is being designated. Our freedom is being dangerously confined and we are instructed to act and move “in obeisance to their laws” and on the basis of the
“course” that was carved out decades ago. Differently, we shall be deprived of a “European persona” and there will be no room for us as free co-partners within Europe. Is our
Ecclesiastic Leadership prepared to resist, and choose «the scorn of Christ, towards the treasures in Europe» (Hebr.11:26), especially when it comes to realistic treasures, in the guise
of European funds? Is our Church willing and prepared -if necessary- to choose the catacombs? I pray that she will be! Although this will soon become apparent. But if she is not
willing, then it will mean She is severing Herself from the pious flock that has remained faithful to the tradition of its Saints, and is betraying it.
We have become accustomed to regarding obedience as a supreme virtue of a practicing Orthodox; and it is, indeed, a standard practice of our Saints. If, however, “obedience” had
always pertained “to those in which the commandment of God is not obstructed” –according to Basil the Great (P.G. 31,860)—nowadays, only disobedience saves!
Copyright 2012 © Orthodox Faith. All rights reserved.
