Articles for tag: Ecumenism, New York Port Authority, Pantheon, St. Nicholas Shrine, syncretism

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%
american-pantheon saint nicholas shrine ny

Rebuilding St. Nicholas into an American Pantheon

Rev. John Romas, pastor of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in Lower Manhattan for 30 years, died of pancreatic cancer on Jan. 24, 2016. Had he not died of cancer, he would have died today of a heart attack, seeing his beloved church eclipsed by the erection of the new St. Nicholas, a glitzy new edifice, bearing no resemblance to his humble church, except for the name.

Rev. John Romas was the pastor of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church on 155 Cedar Street in Lower Manhattan for 30 years. His small church was completely destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001 when the South Tower collapsed. “I was crying like a baby,” Father Romas is quoted to have said at the time.

Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese would disagree: “It is in a state of transition but not eclipse,” he has said of St. Nicholas. This “creative” expression of his reflects a sad reality: the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church has indeed given way to the new St. Nicholas National Shrine. Please, read it again: the old St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church has given way to the new St. Nicholas National Shrine. Like it or not, the Church gave way to a Shrine. Gone is the “Greek Orthodox Church.” All there is left is a non-descript St. Nicholas Shrine.

Come to think of it, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has been most generous to agree to keep the name of St. Nicholas. The media has also quoted Archbishop Demetrios as having said that “he envisions not just a rebuilt parochial church on its old 22-by-55-foot site but something greater: a memorial shrine open to all visitors.”1 “There is the exciting possibility of having something additional,” he added, “enhancing and enlarging the function from a purely Orthodox liturgical church to one offering counseling, support and interreligious meetings.”

I think he was forced to say all these things to save face. Still, these statements of his are truly troubling. Here is another of his statements: “With the grace of God…it will soon rise like a glorious phoenix as a National Shrine and a place of pilgrimage for our Nation. It will be a place of faith, a place of peace and a place of solace and hope.” 2 How wonderful! Now, not just Orthodox Christians, but Christians of every denomination, and in fact people of almost every religion can flock to do their devotions, being Moslems, Bahá’í, Buddists, Hindu or Taoists. Even Shamanists, Satanists and atheists would be welcome.

The desire of the Greek Orthodox Church is to create a space in which all visitors will feel welcome. A spokesman for the archdiocese, the Rev. Mark Arey, stated:

If I may quote Jesus, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” It will be open to everyone: the believer, the unbeliever, the Orthodox Christian, the atheist. Whoever you are, this is a space that you can come into and find some meditative solace.3

I find Fr. Arey’s understanding of the words of the Lord (as reported by the Evangelist) to be a distortion and a misapplication. The evangelist (Mark 11:1) was quoting prophet Isaiah (56:7), who was looking forward to a time when not just the Jews, but people from all nations who had accepted the true God and had joined themselves to the Lord, would be gathered together in His holy mountain to offer acceptable offerings and sacrifices.

The Church continues to invite and call “others to Him besides those already gathered” (Is. 56:8, cf. also Ez. 34:6.12), just as Her Founder did (see John 10:16), who wants to bring into the fold of His Church all the scattered sheep. But they must be receptive to “listen to His voice” (John 10:4) and follow Him, so that they may become one. “The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), is composed of the faithful, who have accepted Christ, and have become members of His Body. In such an assembly what room is there for “unbelievers” and “atheists”?

On holy Epiphany this year (Jan. 5, 2016) the Archbishop spoke about the millions upon millions of people expected to visit the Memorial at Ground Zero, many of whom would also visit the Shrine. It would offer, he said, a great opportunity to our Orthodox Church to witness our faith to the world. But is this going to be the case? I’m afraid not, and I pray with all my heart that I’ll be proven wrong.

Going back to the words of Fr. Arey (which reflect those of the Archbishop), is “meditative solace” what our Orthodox Church wants to provide to people? Is this what this pantheistic or rather humanistic temple is being built for? Are we competing with yoga and Oriental religions? Are we now in the self-help business of alleviating stress, bringing peacefulness to our lives, finding our inner self, seeking experiences and sensations, and the like? If we are, it would be better if this temple were never completed, because it would have no resemblance to the Church, and would lead people astray instead of leading them to Christ, Who is the Truth.

Hagia Sophia, the Church of the Holy Wisdom, present day, surrounded by minarets.

One more thing: the design of the exterior of the Church only vaguely resembles the celebrated temple of Hagia Sophia, constructed by Emperor Justinian in Constantinople (present-day Istanbul, Turkey; actually). Actually, it resembles more the great Church as it presently stands, because the four massive surrounding pylons resemble the minarets of a mosque.

A few more questions are raised: Will the cupola be adorned with a miniscule cross, as it is shown in the model, which is almost invisible? As far as the interior is concerned, I have not seen any plan, other than what was shown in a BBC short video, but I have serious doubts it will be modeled after the spectacular mosaics and frescos of the real Hagia Sophia and the Church of the Holy Savior in Chora (again, I hope I’ll be proven wrong).

The Orthodox people who are sending their donations believe their money goes to the erection of an Orthodox church, not an ecumenistic and syncretistic temple. The name shown on the Philoptochos website (above the big DONATE button) reads: “Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church and National Shrine at the World Trade Center.” 4 The same name appears twice underneath it. I find the name, St. Nicholas National Shrine, to be a betrayal of their trust.

In its April, 2014 issue, the Orthodox Observer ran an article entitled, “Our American ‘Parthenon’.” I have a more appropriate name for it: “Our American Pantheon.”

  1. www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-church-from-the-rubble-icons-of-disaster-and-faith.html
  2. www.goarch.org/news/st%20nicholas%20groundblessing-10102014
  3. www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/nyregion/church-rising-at-trade-center-site-will-glow-where-darkness-fell.html?_r=0

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%
ecumenist bishop

What Should we do when our Bishop is an Ecumenist?


Fr. Emmanuel,

Bless!

What is your opinion on the Orthodox ecclesiological statements that Patriarch Bartholomew makes when speaking to Orthodox audiences? Which Patriarch Bartholomew should we trust? The one who speaks like an Orthodox bishop on Mt. Athos or the one who concelebrates with the heterodox? What should traditional Orthodox do when our first hierarch is tending towards Uniatism?

Maximus
[from a comment to this post]


Dear Maximus,

What a glorious name you bear! As long as you remain anchored unto this luminary of Orthodoxy you too will shine with the truth (as you do).

Thank you for asking this vexing question. It has been in my mind for many years. I have come to a solution that works for me—uneasily, I should add.

Admittedly it is painfully true that the ecumenical (read ecumenist) Patriarch speaks from both sides of his mouth, depending upon who his audience is: Orthodox in his statements for internal consumption; ecumenist when addressing his non-Orthodox “brethren.”

So, dear Maximus, with justification you raise the question, what should we do when we witness the acknowledged first-in-honor bishop of the Orthodox Church flagrantly violating the canons of the Church with common prayers and with statements that compromise the uniqueness of the Church?

What better authority to turn to in order to obtain a reliable, Orthodox answer to your question than the luminary of the true faith and life, the one you chose to be named after—the Confessor himself!

St. Maximos the Confessor would not receive holy communion from the hands of those he considered to be heretics because this supreme act of inter-communion was tied to their erroneous confession of faith, and it would be viewed as a public admission that he shared in their heresy.

More importantly, let us not forget that the Lateran council convened in 649 under pope Martin, in which St. Maximos was present, condemned and deposed the Patriarchs and bishops of the East who had embraced Monothelitism. Therefore St. Maximos had every justification to break communion with them.

Our situation is different. While our Patriarch and most of our bishops, whether openly or tacitly, are ecumenists, they don’t make holy communion a test, neither have they been officially condemned by a Church synod.

For us who are unequivocally non-ecumenists, the faith of the Patriarch, as that of his two predecessors, is a personal matter. They are not the Church. Those who faithfully follow the Fathers and keep the true faith are the Church.1

As long as things remain the way they are, we’ll continue to keep our Orthodox faith, while openly condemning ecumenism as a heresy, exactly as St. Maximos did—and accept the consequences.

However, if our bishop happens to be an ecumenist who will equate reception of holy communion to acceptance of his erroneous faith, then we too will stop receiving it from his hands, and we’ll look for an Orthodox bishop to follow.2

Old Calendarists will retort that they feel fully justified breaking communion with the New Calendarists based on the 31st of the Holy Apostles and especially on the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod and, according to which Christians wall themselves off heretical or schismatic bishops.3

We are not ready to follow them and their uncanonical bishops. We will suffer where we are and we will continue to give witness to the true faith from within, praying that soon the truth will shine.

It just happens that recently (Nov. 27, 2014) the Metropolis of Piraeus, Greece, organized a seminar, in which three Orthodox theologians, including the Metropolitan of Piraeus Seraphim himself, addressed the aforementioned Canon and the question “when is it allowed to wall ourselves off from communion with our bishop”?4

The seminar expanded and explained the Canon stating that a priest or bishop may break communion with his superior if he publicly preaches a heresy even though it has not yet been condemned by a synod, but is acknowledged by the Fathers to be a heresy.

A couple of observations: First, breakage is not mandatory. It is a right, not an obligation. Second, we follow the holy Fathers, not our impulses. Even though many Fathers have written against ecumenism, calling it a heresy, even a pan-heresy, they fought against it from within, suffering the consequences.

We are not going to behave as supreme keepers and judges of the faith. There are others more knowledgeable and more pious than we are. Let us bear patiently in longsuffering if our bishop happens to be an ecumenist. We have as examples the recently declared Saints Justin Popović, Paisios the Hagiorite, Philotheos Zervakos, Sophrony Zaharov, and many other contemporary elders.

I praise and glorify God who gave me the answer to your question through the lips of the newest Saint of the Church, St. Paisios the New, who writes:

In our times we see that many faithful children of our Church, monastics and laymen, have unfortunately seceded from her, on account of the philo-uniates. I am of the opinion that it is no good at all to separate from the Church every time the Patriarch is at fault. Instead, from within, near our Mother Church, everyone has the duty and obligation to struggle in his own way. To discontinue the Patriarch’s commemoration, to secede and form one’s own Church, and to continue to speak insulting the Patriarch—this, I think, is illogical. If we separate ourselves at the first and second detour of our Patriarchs from our own churches – God forbid! – we’ll surpass even the Protestants.5

We should add, however, that later on, and for three years (1970-1973), the Saint together with other Hagiorite Fathers and a few Metropolitans interrupted the commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras. At the same time we should note that they did not impose the cessation of the commemoration to other hierarchs, neither did they condemn as heretics those who continued to commemorate him, but maintained the ecclesiastical communion with the patriarchate and the Church of Greece.

Metropolitan of Gortynos Jeremiah included the above quotation from St. Paisios in his homily for the feast of St. Gregory the Theologian (Jan. 25, 2015), as an example to follow. Let us do that, while praying that soon a synod will specifically and directly condemn ecumenism and those bishops who follow it, praying and hoping that they will repent and will once more “teach the word of truth correctly” (2 Tim. 2:15).

  1. This is what Saint Paisios the New says: “Our Orthodox Church lacks nothing. She only lacks serious hierarchs and pastors with patristic principles. The chosen are few. Yet it is not disheartening. The Church is the Church of Christ. He is the One who governs her.” (Orthodoxos Typos, Feb. 20, 2015)
  2. Fr. Thomas Hopko gave a podcast on the subject (Resisting Like St. Maximus).
  3.  Pedalion, pp. 46-48 and pp. 470-71.
  4. See Orthodoxos Typos, Dec. 12, 2015.
  5. Letter of Elder (now Saint) Paisios of Jan. 23, 1969 (Orthodoxos Typos, Feb. 20, 2015-my translation).

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%
reunification of orthodox catholic churches

Is Reunification of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches Imminent?

Papa ante portas Novae Romae

Orthodoxy resisted recapitulation to the pope of Rome in the council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-45) rejecting this synod, even though, as a result, Constantinople fell under the hordes of the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The Great Schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Roman-Catholicism, dated from 1054, has remained to this day. Attempts to reunite the two Churches have intensified recently. Is reunification of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches possible almost a millennium later? Not only it is possible; it is imminent.

In an interview with the Austrian newspaper “Couriers” given on Nov. 13, 2014 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew stated: “Reunification of the Churches constitutes a duty of our time.” “The first steps were initiated in this direction 50 years ago by Pope Paul the Sixth and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras,” he added. He then called the theological differences between the Churches “misunderstandings and differences of opinion,” which “the official theological dialogue helped to eliminate.” 1

The Ecumenical Patriarch is ready to accept the pope’s primacy and universal supremacy. The other divisive doctrinal issues (Filioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, etc.) are handled as “local traditions.” Everything is sacrificed in order to achieve unity. While many Orthodox people may consider this to be good news, others view such statements as a betrayal of their faith and a capitulation to Roman papacy. Few, however, dare to raise their voices openly. One of them is Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus.

On November 14, 2014 Metropolitan Seraphim issued a communiqué commenting on a statement by Pope Francis made on Nov. 5, according to which those Churches whose faithful and clergy are not visibly united with their bishops “and with the pope, in the One, Unique Church, which is ours, the hierarchal Holy Mother Church, are sick.”2 Since the pope is traveling to Istanbul on Nov. 28-30, for the patronal feast of the Church of Constantinople, the Metropolitan perceived the statement as a message addressed specifically to that Church, and was obviously offended by the term “sick” applied to the Orthodox Church.

The Ecumenical Patriarch should repudiate the conceited statement made by “the pope of peace” and should remind him of the Orthodox principle of primus inter pares, that is, that all bishops are equal, and any preeminence among them is honorific. But it won’t happen, because the Ecumenical Patriarch claims for himself an absolute primacy among the Orthodox bishops, as has been made clear in many recent pronouncements by him and others under him.

The sad truth is that ecumenism, a movement that has been fully embraced by the ecumenical patriarchate, has divided Orthodoxy. Soon the division will be in the open. It is feared that Patriarch Bartholomew may take an unwarranted step and declare the de facto union with the Roman Catholic Church without asking for a recantation of its errors (heresies) and without bothering to consult with the autocephalous sister Orthodox Churches. Let us stand well!

  1. www.greeknation.blogspot.com
  2. www.agioritikovima.gr
Item added to cart.
0 items - 0,00 $