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.