Vladimir Moss Orthodox Christianity Author

Home About Books Articles Publications Biography Contact

R C !" AR"#C$ %

AN ORTHODOX APPROACH TO ART A DIALOGUE ON ORTHODOXY TEN REASONS WHY THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE IS NOT ORTHODOX AN OPEN LETTER ON CYPRIANISM WHAT IS THE LOCAL CHURCH? OPEN LETTER TO PROTOPRESBYTER VALERY LUKIANOV

"OP &' (O)!$OA( ( BOO*%

1. 2. 3.

THE TRUE CHURCH IN THE LAST TIMES THE BATTLE FOR THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OLGA MOSS - GLIMPSES OF ANOTHER WORLD

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

NEW ZION IN BABYLON - PART 1 THE HOLY NEW MARTYRS AND CONFESSORS OF CENTRAL RUSSIA THE MYSTERY OF REDEMPTION THE LIFE OF CHRIST NEW ZION IN BABYLON - PART 5 NEW ZION IN BABYLON - PART 4

10. THE THEOLOGY OF EROS

"H C+PR#A!#" % A!( "H PO) R O, A!A"H MA

Wr !!"# $% V&'( ) r M*++

THE CYPRIANITES AND THE POWER OF ANATHEMAS

It has always seemed a strange coincidence that the Ecclesiological ntitheses! o" #etro$olitan %y$rian o" &ro$e and 'ili sho(ld ha)e a$$eared in 1984* only one year a"ter +&%&+ anathemati,ed ec(menism and the ec(menists. ltho(gh they ne)er admitted it $(-licly* this "irst "orm(lation o" the %y$rianites. distincti)ely new ecclesiology a$$eared to -e an attem$ted antithesis! to the thesis! o" +&%&+.s anathema o" the year -e"ore. /hese o-li0(e* non1e2$licit attem$ts to discredit the anathema ha)e contin(ed (nremittingly to the $resent day. /he most recent e2am$le comes "rom the $en o" rch-isho$ %hrysostomos o" Etna. 13145owe)er* there are signs that the glo)es are coming o"" and it is now considered e2$edient to attac6 the anathema o$enly. 7e see a clear e2am$le o" this in a recent inter)iew gi)en -y 8isho$ m-rose o" #ethone.2324 n e2amination o" these two assa(lts will re)eal that the %y$rianites do not only 0(estion the )alidity o" certain anathemas* -(t a$$ear to -e casting do(-t on the )ery a-ility o" hierarchs to -ind and to loose* to e2ercise their 9od1gi)en $ower o" e2comm(nication...

rch-isho$ %hrysostomos writes: ;lato tells (s that there were engra)ed at the &racle o" $ollo at <el$hi two mottos in ancient 9ree6: = Meden agan. >nothing in e2cess* or all things in moderation? and =Gnothi Seauton. >6now thysel"?. $$lied to %hristian doctrine* we are called to moderation in the a$$lication o" the tr(ths which we 6now as well as we 6now o(rsel)es: we cannot -e moderate witho(t "idelity to that which de"ines (s.

1314 /he -sol(te ;rimacy o" &rthodo2y and the E2cl(si)ity o" %hrist!* @(ne 21* 2008. 2324htt$:AAs-n1nathanael.li)eBo(rnal.comA* @(ne 27* 2008.

&ne can see* 0(ite easily* why o(r a(stere stand against the religio(s syncretism o" ec(menism does not render (s religio(s -igots* or sym$athetic with those who* (s(r$ing the $lace o" 9od* -elie)e that they ha)e the right to condemn ec(menists and ailing &rthodo2 >and (s* in o(r witness o" lo)e? as heretics o(tside the %h(rch. 7e are acting in $er"ect -alance within the d(al tr(ths o" con"essional e2actit(de and $astoral lo)e* as we sho(ld.!

very strange statement that -egins with two 0(otations "rom a $agan oracle* contin(es -y stating that we m(st -e moderate! in the a$$lication o" the tr(th o" %hristian doctrine* and ends -y saying that those who anathemati,e the ec(menist heretics are (s(r$ing the $ower o" 9odC

/he $ostle ;a(l "irmly re-(6ed and then e2orcised the girl $ossessed -y a $ythonic s$irit* altho(gh she was s$ea6ing the tr(th > cts 16?. nd the Dord "or-ade the demons to ac6nowledge 5is <i)inity* altho(gh that* too* was the tr(th. Eo why sho(ld we -e more accommodating to the <el$hic oracleF It is not eno(gh to re$ly that e)en the 5oly $ostles and 'athers sometimes 0(oted "rom $agan a(thors. It is one thing to 0(ote "rom a $agan a(thor* and another to 0(ote directly "rom a demonC

In any case* the (se that the arch-isho$ ma6es o" these gnomic (tterances is "ar "rom %hristian. Gothing in e2cess! a$$lies* $erha$s* to ascetic $ractices* -(t it certainly does not a$$ly to tr(thC 7hen it comes to tr(th* we %hristians are insatia-leC 7e want the tr(th* the whole tr(th and nothing -(t the tr(thC /here can -e no moderation in the a$$lication o" tr(th! when a$$lied to %hristian doctrine!. It is the ec(menists who want s(ch moderation. /heir heresy deri)es "rom indi""erence to tr(th. /he "(llness o" &rthodo2y is too m(ch! "or themH so nothing in e2cess! wo(ld act(ally -e a )ery a$$ro$riate -anner "or the ec(menical mo)ement as a whole. Go e2cessi)e condemnation o" other religions* $leaseI In "act* no condemnation at all wo(ld -e $re"era-leI E2ce$t* o" co(rse* the /r(e &rthodo2I

nd o" co(rse there m(st -e no sym$athy "or those who* (s(r$ing the $lace o" 9od* -elie)e that they ha)e the right to condemn ec(menists and ailing &rthodo2!. Eo: no sym$athy "rom rch-isho$ %hrysostomos "or #etro$olitan ;hilaret and the +&%&+ Eynod that condemned the ec(menists J they were (ndo(-tedly (s(r$ing the $lace o" 9od!C &" co(rse* %hrysostomos wo(ld deny that his words a$$ly to

#etro$olitan ;hilaret* whom the %y$rianites contin(e to $raise "(lsomely while (ndermining and denigrating the main achie)ement o" his li"e. 8(t there can -e no do(-t a-o(t it: e)en -e"ore the anathema o" 1983* #etro$olitan ;hilaret condemned the #oscow ;atriarchate as graceless* and a"ter it he was $er"ectly consistent in his a$$lication o" the anathema to all the ec(menists.

Det (s now t(rn to the criticisms that 8isho$ m-rose ma6es o" the 1983 anathema. 'irstly* i" yo( read the te2t o" the anathema* its de"inition o" the teaching o" ec(menism is so e2treme that almost no orthodo2 ec(menist* a$art "rom ;atriarch thenagoras* co(ld e)er -e $(t into the category o" those who were $reaching this new doctrine!.

Gow the anathema is di)ided into se)eral $arts. /he "irst is directed against those who attac6 the %h(rch o" %hrist -y teaching that %hrist.s %h(rch is di)ided into so1called =-ranches. which di""er in doctrine and way o" li"e!. In other words* the -ranch theory o" the %h(rch is anathemati,ed. 7hat is wrong or e2treme a-o(t thatF ll the ec(menists con"ess the -ranch theory. Eo they are all (nder anathema.

/he anathema contin(es: or that the %h(rch does not e2ist )isi-ly* -(t will -e "ormed in the "(t(re when all =-ranches. or sects or denominations* and e)en religions will -e (nited in one -ody.! 5ere a more e2treme "orm o" ec(menism is anathematised. Got all &rthodo2! ec(menists wo(ld "all (nder this $art o" the anathema* altho(gh many wo(ld J and not only ;atriarch thenagoras. Eo in the "irst $art o" the anathema a moderate! "orm o" ec(menism* the inter1%hristian -ranch theory* is condemned* and in the second $art a more e2treme* inter1 religio(s "orm is condemned.

/he anathema contin(es: and who do not disting(ish the $riesthood and mysteries o" the %h(rch "rom those o" the heretics* -(t say that the -a$tism and e(charist o" heretics is e""ect(al "or sal)ation!. /his is sim$ly a re1statement o" $ostolic %anon 46* so it is not e2tremism!* -(t straight"orward ch(rch doctrine. In essence* it is the -ranch theory as a$$lied to the sacraments. &" co(rse* there is a 0(estion whether the %y$rianites themsel)es "all (nder this $art o" the anathema* -eca(se they do not disting(ish the $riesthood and mysteries o" the %h(rch "rom those o" the hereticsH "or* while saying that the ec(menists are heretics* they still recogni,e that they ha)e tr(e sacramentsI

/he anathema contin(es: there"ore to those who 6nowingly ha)e comm(nion with these a"orementioned heretics or ad)ocate* disseminate* or de"end their new heresy o" Ec(menism (nder the $rete2t o" -rotherly lo)e or the s($$osed (ni"ication o" se$arated %hristians* Anathema.! 5ere not only the ec(menists themsel)es* -(t also those who remain in conscio(s comm(nion with them* are condemned. /his a$$lies $erha$s most closely to the ;atriarchate o" @er(salem* which* while o"ten e2$ressing reser)ations a-o(t ec(menism* ne)ertheless remains in comm(nion with the ec(menists.

Eo we see that the range o" a$$lication o" the anathema is )ery -road* and a$$lies to "ar more than the most e2treme ec(menists s(ch as ;atriarch thenagoras. In "act* a strict inter$retation o" the anathema wo(ld $lace the %y$rianites themsel)es (nder it* as well as those who acce$t their ecclesiology. /h(s when +&%&+ entered into comm(nion with them in 1994 and o""icially acce$ted their ecclesiology* 8isho$ 9regory >9ra--e? $ointed o(t that the %y$rianites con"ess their own and -y no means &rthodo2 teaching on the $ossi-ility o" the grace1"illed action o" the 5oly E$irit in ch(rches that ha)e clearly -ecome heretical!. #oreo)er he declared: In $assing this +esol(tion on comm(nion with the gro($ o" #etro$olitan %y$rian* o(r %o(ncil has (n"ort(nately also "orgotten a-o(t the te2t o" the +esol(tion acce$ted earlier (nder the $residency o" #etro$olitan ;hilaret* which anathemati,ed the ec(menical heresyI In "act* -y not loo6ing into the matter serio(sly and "orgetting a-o(t the anathemati,ing o" the new calendarist ec(menists that was con"irmed earlier >and $erha$s not ha)ing decided to rescind this resol(tion?* o(r %o(ncil* howe)er terri-le it may -e to admit it* has "allen (nder its own anathemaI <o we ha)e to thin6 that o(r 5ierarchical %o(ncil has entered on the $ath o" -etraying the $atristic traditions* or only that o(t o" a mis(nderstanding it has allowed a mista6e which it is not yet too late to correct at the Go)em-er session in 'ranceF! 3334

/hat mista6e was than6"(lly corrected some years later* and now* o" those $arts o" the old +&%&+ that ha)e not entered into comm(nion with the #; only the "ollowers o" 8isho$ gathangel remain in the cl(tches o" the %y$rianite ecclesiology >and not only o" their ecclesiology J their a$ostolic s(ccession also de$ends critically on the %y$rianites. legitimacy?. 8(t 8isho$ 9regory.s main $oint remains: the %y$rianite ecclesiology is incompatible with #etro$olitan ;hilaret.s anathema against ec(menism. Eo all &rthodo2 ha)e to choose the one or the other* and cannot claim to -e loyal to -oth.

3334 8isho$ 9regory >9ra--e?* /he <o(-t"(l &rthodo2y o" the 9ro($ o" #etro$olitan
%y$rian!* in r6hiereBs6iB Eo-or +;/sK 1994 goda: Istoria ;rinyatia +(ss6oB Kar(-e,hnoB /ser6o)i( Leretiches6oB E66le,iologii #itro$olita Mi$riana!* Sviataia Rus, 2003H Vernost* 98* <ecem-er* 2007.

8isho$ m-rose contin(es: Eecondly* the way that this anathema was a$$ro)ed* or rather not a$$ro)ed -y the +(ssian Eynod is altogether )ery $ec(liar. 5a)ing s$o6en to many -isho$s o" the +&%&+* most o" them claimed to ha)e -een (naware o" the e2istence o" this anathema (ntil it was $(-lished* incl(ding the late #etro$olitan Da)r* and this ma6es* at least* a c(rio(s im$ression.!

#etro$olitan Da)r is* o" co(rse* not the most relia-le witness that 8isho$ m-rose co(ld ha)e citedC It has -een re$orted that he died on the e)e o" the E(nday o" the /ri(m$h o" &rthodo2y* B(st a"ter ordering that this anathema sho(ld not -e read in the ser)ice the ne2t day. E(rely a more relia-le witness is #etro$olitan ;hilaret himsel"* who sent a co$y o" the anathema to 'r. nthony 9a)alas o" Gew Lor6 %ity* con"irming that this was now o""icial +&%&+ doctrine. Gor did #etro$olitan Nitaly deny its existence. In his %hristmas E$istle o" 1986A87 he commented on the anathema witho(t at any time hinting that it may ha)e -een a "orgery* and in 1998 his Eynod reiterated it witho(t changing its wording in any way. 7hy* i" it was a "orgery* did the +&%&+ Eynod ne)er say soF /he concl(sion can only -e: it was not a "orgery* -(t some o" the -isho$s did not li6e its clear im$licationsI

/hirdly*! contin(es 8isho$ m-rose* this anathema was act(ally written in 9ree6* and translated into English* then into +(ssian: this is e)ident "rom the synta2. 7as it the wor6 o" the +(ssian -isho$sF Go* we 6now where it originatedI /he monastery o" 8oston 1 namely Holy Transfiguration Monastery . /his led to all the 0(ali"ications that were made -y #etro$olitan Nitaly and other +&%&+ -isho$s when they said that the anathema re"ers only to the mem-ers o" their own "loc6 J we are not anathematising any-ody o(tsideI It wo(ld th(s -e a-s(rd to claim that the anathema was $roclaimed with the aim o" c(tting all ec(menists o"" "rom the %h(rch e)en i" they did $ro"ess the e2treme doctrines descri-ed in the te2t o" the anathema.!

/here is more than one non1se0(it(r in this e2tract. 'irst* so what i" the anathema was written -y 5oly /rans"ig(ration #onasteryF /he im$ortant "act is that the Eynod acce$ted the te2t and it -ecame $art o" +&%&+.s o""icial con"ession o" "aith. So what i" the anathema were originally written in 9ree6F /his wo(ld -e rele)ant only i" the o""icial +(ssian or English )ersions are inacc(rate in some way J which 8isho$ m-rose does not claim.

/hen* according to 8isho$ m-rose* the "act that the anathema was originally written in 9ree6 -y 5/# is the ca(se o" the "(rther s($$osed 0(ali"ications! o" the anathema -y #etro$olitan Nitaly and others. 8(t this doesn.t "ollow. ny inter$retation o" the anathema J whether #etro$olitan Nitaly.s or any-ody else.s J is )alid i"* and only i"* it can -e shown to ha)e a "irm -asis in the te2t o" the anathema* and for no other reason. /he "act that the anathema was originally written in 9ree6* or in 5/#* is completely irrelevant. s it is* the inter$retation that it wo(ld -e a-s(rd to claim that the anathema was $roclaimed with the aim o" c(tting all ec(menists o"" "rom the %h(rch! cannot in any way -e B(sti"ied "rom the te2t* which is a $er"ectly general anathemati,ation J i.e. e2cl(sion "rom the %h(rch J o" all those who con"ess the -ranch theory. /he attem$t to inter$ret the anathema as a$$lying only to mem-ers o" +&%&+ not only has no -asis in the te2t -(t leads to a-s(rd conse0(ences. /h(s i" this inter$retation were correct* an ec(menically1 minded -a-(sh6a in +&%&+ wo(ld "ind hersel" (nder anathema while the ;o$e o" +ome* the rch-isho$ o" %anter-(ry* ;atriarch le2is o" #oscow and ;atriarch 8artholomew o" %onstantino$le wo(ld all get o"" scot1"reeC

Immediately a"ter this 8isho$ m-rose mo)es to a-sol)e #etro$olitan ;hilaret o" all criticism* saying that we sho(ld not con"(se the (nclarities! in the anathema >which* as we ha)e seen* do not e2ist? with #etro$olitan ;hilaretOs (ncom$romising* con"essional* and a-sol(tely clear condemnation o" the ec(menist heresy which he saw ad)ancing aro(nd him* and which he e2$ressed in his =o$en letters.!. In other words* the early ;hilaret J the ;hilaret o" the &$en Detters J was good* while the late ;hilaret J the ;hilaret o" the nathema against ec(menism J was* well* not e2actly -ad* -(t (nclear! J and we can -lame this lac6 o" clarity on -ad ad)isorsI

5owe)er* i" we loo6 at #etro$olitan ;hilaret.s con"essional stand "rom the &$en Detters o" the 1960s to the nathema o" 1983* we see a )ery clear and consistent $ath. /he &$en Detters warned the heads o" the Docal %h(rches that ec(menism was a heresy* that they were -etraying the tr(th o" &rthodo2y. 5owe)er* no-ody was anathemati,ed* nor were all relations with these %h(rches -ro6en at this time. 5owe)er* when it -ecame o-)io(s that the Docal %h(rches were not going to res$ond to his warning* the metro$olitan mo)ed his Eynod to strengthen sanctions against them and in other ways to ado$t a stricter $osition:

>i?

In 1967 he led the +&%&+ Eynod o" 8isho$s to re)erse its 1964 r(ling on the $reser)ation o" comm(nion with the o""icial Eer-ian %h(rch. /he decision was mar6ed /o$ Eecret! and dated @(ne 1. Early in 1970* he anno(nced to the mem-ers o" the +&%&+ Eynod that since the Eer-ian

;atriarch 9erman had chosen to ser)e as %hairman o" the 7orld %o(ncil o" %h(rches* +&%&+ sho(ld a)oid Boint $rayer and ser)ice with him* while at the same time not ma6ing a maBor demonstration o" the "act. 4344 >ii? >iii? In 1969171 he led the +&%&+ Eynod into comm(nion with the 9ree6 &ld %alendarists* acce$ting their con"ession o" "aith. &n #arch 31* 1970 he led the +&%&+ Eynod to condemn the #;.s decision to gi)e comm(nion to +oman %atholics as contrary to the dogmatic teaching o" &rthodo2y!* an act where-y the #; itsel" -ecomes a $arta6er o" their heresy.!5354 In Ee$tem-er* 1971 the +&%&+ Eo-or reBected the )alidity o" the election o" #oscow ;atriarch ;imen* and decreed that all con)erts "rom %atholicism and ;rotestantism sho(ld now -e recei)ed -y -a$tism. In 1974* at the /hird ll1Emigration %o(ncil in @ordan)ille* #etro$olitan ;hilaret mo)ed "or an o""icial statement that the #; was graceless. ccording to the witness o" a seminarian $resent at the %o(ncil* the maBority o" -isho$s and delegates wo(ld ha)e s($$orted s(ch a motion. 5owe)er* at the last min(te the metro$olitan was $ers(aded not to $roceed with the motion on the gro(nds that it wo(ld ha)e ca(sed a schism.6364

>i)?

>)?

4344 /he metro$olitan.s co1wor6er in this matter was rch-isho$ )er6y* who on Ee$tem-er
14A27* 1967 wrote to him: 7ith regard to the 0(estion o" the Eer-ian %h(rch* whose ;atriarch 9erman is a stooge o" the comm(nist /ito* as the Eer-s themsel)es are con)inced* calling him =the red $atriarch.. 7e ha)e heard this "rom many clergy and laity who ha)e "led "rom Eer-ia. 5ow can we recogni,e* and ha)e comm(nion in $rayer with* =the red $atriarch.* who maintains the closest "riendly relations with red #oscowF %annot o(r 5ierarchical %o(ncil ma6e erroneous decisionsF <o we in the &rthodo2 %h(rch ha)e a doctrine a-o(t the infallibility of every ouncil of !ishopsF!

5[5] rch-isho$ )er6y commented on this decision: Gow* e)en i" some entertained some
sort o" do(-ts a-o(t how we sho(ld regard the contem$orary #oscow ;atriarchate* and whether we can consider it &rthodo2 a"ter its intimate (nion with the enemies o" 9od* the $ersec(tors o" the 'aith and %hrist.s %h(rch* these do(-ts m(st now -e com$letely dismissed: -y the )ery "act that it has entered into lit(rgical comm(nion with the ;a$ists* it has fallen away from "rtho#oxy and can no longer -e considered &rthodo2.! > ontemporary $ife in the $ight of the %or# of &o#' Sermons an# Speeches ()*+*,)*-./, )ol(me III* @ordan)ille* $. 216?. 6364'r. 8asil La6imo)* +e: '(ndamental P(estion!* orthodo21synodQyahoo.gro($s.com* 4 @(ne* 2003.

In the ne2t "ew years* worried -y the metro$olitan.s steady increase o" $ress(re "or a "inal -rea6 with the whole o" 7orld &rthodo2y* the li-erals in +&%&+ (nder the leadershi$ o" rch-isho$ nthony o" 9ene)a "o(ght -ac6. 5owe)er* the a$ostasy o" 7orld &rthodo2y co(ld not -e denied* and a"ter the 1983 9eneral ssem-ly o" the 7orld %o(ncil o" %h(rches* meeting in Nanco()er* %anada* reached new heights o" anti1%hristianity* the +&%&+ Eo-or* also meeting in %anada* anathemati,ed ec(menism. /his was the c(lmination and com$letely consistent clima2 o" #etro$olitan ;hilaret.s str(ggle* e)er since he -ecame metro$olitan in 1964* to draw a "irm line -etween /r(th and "alsehood* -etween the /r(e %h(rch and the "alse ch(rch J a line which the %y$rianites ha)e tried to m(ddy e)er sinceI

8isho$ m-rose contin(es with a direct attac6 on the anathemas against ec(menism la(nched -y the Eastern ;atriarchs in 1583* 1587 and 1593: /he 16th %ent(ry Eynods anathematised the introd(ction o" the new ;a$al ;aschalion -ased on the Gew* 9regorian %alendar. /hey did not howe)er s$eci"ically anathematise the $ec(liar hy-rid (sed -y the =&rthodo2. Gew1%alendarists who (se the @(lian %alendar "or cele-rating ;ascha >in order to a)oid the clear condemnations o" those who change the ;aschal calendar?* -(t the Gew %alendar "or the "i2ed "easts.!

/his is so$histry. /he se)enth $oint o" the 1583 ;an1&rthodo2 %o(ncil >which was attended -y the $leni$otentiary o" the +(ssian %h(rch? declares: /hat whosoe)er does not "ollow the c(stoms o" the %h(rch as the Ee)en 5oly Ec(menical %o(ncils decreed* and the Menologion which they well decreed that we should follow* -(t in o$$osition to all this wishes to "ollow the new ;aschalion and Menologion o" the atheist astronomers o" the ;o$e* and wishes to o)ert(rn and destroy the dogmas and c(stoms o" the %h(rch which ha)e -een handed down -y the 'athers* let him -e anathema and o(tside the %h(rch o" %hrist and the assem-ly o" the "aith"(lI! It is o-)io(s that not only the ;a$al ;aschalion* -(t also the ;a$al #enologion J that is* the new calendar "or the "i2ed "easts! J is (nder anathema. I" 8isho$ m-rose wishes to arg(e that only the combination o" both the ;a$al ;aschalion and the ;a$al #enologion is (nder anathema* and that o" these two inno)ations only the ;a$al ;aschalion is really serio(s* he has to answer the 0(estion: why did they not say thatF 7hy* on the contrary* do the Eastern ;atriarchs gi)e the clear im$ression that both inno)ations are equally anathematizedF I" only the ;aschal ;aschalion was a really serio(s inno)ation* why was it necessary "or the 9ree6 &ld %alendarists to -rea6 away "rom the new calendarists* since the new calendarists still retained the &rthodo2 ;aschalionF nd why ha)e so many &rthodo2 hierarchs (nderstood

the ;atriarchs to ha)e anathemati,ed the new #enologion i" in "act they meant something di""erentF /h(s rch-isho$ /heo$han o" ;olta)a* +ector o" the Et. ;eters-(rg /heological cademy* /(tor o" the +oyal 'amily and <e$(ty 'irst15ierarch o" +&%&+ writes: /hro(gh the la-o(rs o" this 315834 %o(ncil there a$$eared: a %onciliar tome* which deno(nced the wrongness and (nacce$ta-ility "or the &rthodo2 %h(rch o" the +oman calendar* and a canonical conciliar <ecree J the Eigillion o" Go)em-er 20* 1583. In this Eigillion all three o" the a-o)e1 mentioned ;atriarchs with their Eynods called on the &rthodo2 "irmly and (n-endingly* e)en to the shedding o" their -lood* to hold the &rthodo2 #enaion and @(lian ;aschalion* threatening the transgressors o" this with anathema* c(tting them o"" "rom the %h(rch o" %hrist and the gathering o" the "aith"(lI
In the co(rse o" the "ollowing three cent(ries: the 17 th* 18th and 19th* a whole series o" Ec(menical ;atriarchs decisi)ely e2$ressed themsel)es against the 9regorian calendar and* e)al(ating it in the s$irit o" the conciliar decree o" ;atriarch @eremiah II* co(nselled the &rthodo2 to a)oid itI

P(estion. Is the introd(ction o" the new calendar im$ortant or o" little im$ortanceF

nswer. Nery im$ortant* es$ecially in connection with the ;aschalion* and it is an e2treme disorder and ecclesiastical schism* which draws $eo$le away "rom comm(nion and (nity with the whole %h(rch o" %hrist* de$ri)es them o" the grace o" the 5oly E$irit* sha6es the dogma o" the (nity o" the %h(rch* and* li6e ri(s* tears the seamless ro-e o" %hrist* that is* e)erywhere di)ides the &rthodo2* de$ri)ing them o" oneness o" mindH -rea6s the -ond with Ecclesiastical 5oly /radition and ma6es them "all (nder conciliar condemnation "or des$ising /raditionI

P(estion. 5ow m(st the &rthodo2 relate to the new calendarist schismatics* according to the canonsF

nswer. /hey m(st ha)e no comm(nion in $rayer with them* e)en -e"ore their conciliar condemnationI

P(estion. 7hat $(nishment is "itting* according to the %h(rch canons* "or those who $ray with the new calendarist schismaticsF

nswer. /he same condemnation with themI! 7374

gain* in a letter to #etro$olitan E$i$hanios o" %y$r(s dated Ee$tem-er 20* 1975* #etro$olitan ;hilaret wrote: It is o-)io(s to all that the calendar inno)ation ca(sed a schism in the 9ree6 %h(rch in 1924* and the res$onsi-ility "or the schism weighs e2cl(si)ely on the inno)ators. /his is the concl(sion that will -e reached -y anyone st(dying the ;atriarchal /omoi >as that o" 1583?I! Eince the calendar schism o" 1924 a""ected only the #enologion* and not the ;aschalion* it is e)ident that #etro$olitan ;hilaret* "ollowing the s($$osedly e2tremist! 9ree6 &ld %alendarists and not the %y$rianites* regarded the 1583 %o(ncil as e2$elling the new calendarists "rom the %h(rchI 8isho$ m-rose contin(es his attac6 on the ;an1&rthodo2 anathemas as "ollows: /here is one last as$ect to this matter that sho(ld -e mentioned: all three Eynods a$$ear to -e saying e2actly the same thing. I" one Eynod had made a de"initi)e and -inding $rono(ncement* then why* a"ter B(st a "ew years did another synod need to -e called to ma6e the same $rono(ncementF nd why* a "ew years a"ter that* yet a thirdF lso* the te2ts that ha)e -een $reser)ed are in demotic 9ree6 J )ery demotic 9ree6 J and it is a )ery $ec(liar thing "or an Ec(menical ;atriarch to $(t o(t s(ch an im$ortant encyclical in demotic 9ree6. %oncei)a-ly there was a te2t in ch(rch 9ree6 which has -een lost.!

/his is really scra$ing the -ottom o" the -arrelI 7hy are anathemas re$eatedF 'or the same reason that we re$eat the same 9os$el cycle e)ery year* and the 8eatit(des e)ery E(nday: Because they are important!

s "or the "act that the encyclical is written in demotic 9ree6* what $ossi-le -earing can this ha)e on the )alidity o" the tho(ght contained in itF I"* as 8isho$ m-rose hints* "ollowing the "o(nder o" the new1calendarist schism* rch-isho$! %hrysostomos ;a$ado$o(los* the te2t o" the anathemas is a "orgery -y someone

7374

rch-isho$ /heo$han* Mrat6ie 6anoniches6ie s(,hdenia o letoschislenii! >Ehort canonical B(dgements on the calendar?* in N.M.* Russ0aia 1arube2hnaia Tser0ov na Ste2ia0h "tstupnichestva >/he +(ssian %h(rch -road on the way to $ostasy?* Et. ;eters-(rg* 1999* $$. 29130 R.

who wrote only demotic 9ree6* why was this not $ointed o(t -y anyone "or o)er three h(ndred yearsF 7hy* e)en as late as 1919 >that is* "i)e years -e"ore he changed the calendar?* did %hrysostomos ;a$ado$o(los himsel" declare that i" he ado$ted the new calendar he wo(ld -ecome a schismaticF /he )ital "act is that the &rthodo2 %h(rch has acce$ted the tho(ght e2$ressed in the anathemas as corres$onding to her own tho(ght J and the %h(rch has the mind o" %hrist. I" new calendarist schismatics* or their old calendar "ellow1tra)ellers* choose to cast do(-t on an e)ent or "act that the %h(rch has acce$ted "or h(ndreds o" years* this sho(ld not a""ect those who tr(st the %h(rch more than their own or others. "allen reasoning.

8isho$ m-rose contin(es* answering the 0(estion whether only the 1848 E$istle o" the Eastern ;atriarchs sho(ld -e ta6en serio(sly with regard to the new calendar: Les certainly* -(t the others can also -e ta6en serio(sly -(t with some reser)ations. /hey are not a decision o" an ec(menical co(ncil where we ha)e the original te2t and we 6now when it was done and why.! Eo according to 8isho$ m-rose only anathemas iss(ed -y Ec(menical %o(ncils* and o" which we ha)e the original te2t* can -e acce$ted wholeheartedly. /hat r(les o(t all %h(rch %o(ncils witho(t e2ce$tion since 787* the date o" the Ee)enth Ec(menical %o(ncil* incl(ding: the 1054 Docal %o(ncil that anathemati,ed the +oman %atholics* the "o(rteenth1 cent(ry %o(ncils that anathemati,ed the 8arlaamites* the si2teenth1cent(ry ;an1 &rthodo2 %o(ncils* the 1918 Docal %o(ncil that anathemati,ed the 8olshe)i6s* the 1923 Docal %o(ncil that anathemati,ed the reno)ationists* the %atacom- %h(rch %o(ncils that anathemati,ed sergianism* the decisions o" the /r(e &rthodo2 %h(rch o" 9reece in 1935* 1950* 1974 and 1991 that declared the new calendarists to -e graceless* the 1983 Docal %o(ncil that anathemati,ed ec(menism* its reiteration in 1998... It loo6s as i" the all the most im$ortant decisions o" the higher le)els o" the &rthodo2 %h(rch "or the last 1200 years m(st -e $laced (nder do(-t i" we are to acce$t the %y$rianite thesis.

;erha$s* 8isho$ m-rose concedes* some o" these decisions sho(ld -e ta6en serio(sly!: -(t only with reser)ations! J reser)ations that ena-le him to esca$e those conse0(ences that he "inds $ersonally (n$alata-le. Indeed* so reso(rce"(l are the %y$rianites in "inding e2c(ses "or not really ta6ing serio(sly the most im$ortant decisions o" the &rthodo2 %h(rch hierarchy that one -egins s(s$ect that they may ha)e a $ro-lem with the conce$t o" ecclesiastical anathemati,ation in general. 5owe)er* s(ch a drastic concl(sion is (nnecessary: it is s(""icient to $oint o(t that that the %y$rianites s$eci"ically attac6 only those anathemas J whether -y +(ssian -isho$s or 9ree6 -isho$s* whether in modern times or ancient times J that ma6e their own lo)ing! attit(de to the new calendarists and ec(menists im$ossi-le.

8(t the %y$rianite $osition does ha)e im$ortant general conse0(ences* es$ecially when one remem-ers that they ha)e reBected the right o" any other Eynod to B(dge them. /h(s they regard themsel)es as -elonging to the %h(rch o" 9reece* and yet reBect the claim not only o" the 9ree6 new calendarist hierarchy -(t also o" the 9ree6 &ld %alendarist hierarchies to B(dge them. ;erha$s they consider only +&%&+* which res(rrected the 9ree6 &ld %alendarist hierarchy in 1969* to -e their B(dgesF Go: they $re"er to stand in B(dgement over +&%&+. /h(s last year* ha)ing reBected all the >non1#;? +(ssian -isho$s who remained "aith"(l to the con"ession o" #etro$olitan ;hilaret* they chose the one -isho$ who re3ects that con"ession* gathangel o" &dessa* $roclaimed him the only tr(e +&%&+ -isho$* and then ordained "(rther (ncanonical -isho$s with himC

/his disastro(s in)asion into the a""airs o" the +(ssian %h(rch shows that the a$$arent modesty and ca(tion o" the %y$rianites when assessing the rights o" &rthodo2 -isho$s to anathemati,e heretics* or sim$ly s(mmon other &rthodo2 -isho$s to B(dgement* is distinctly one1sided. I" their sta-lemates! in the 9ree6 &ld %alendarist hierarchy call them to B(dgement* they say: /hat.s none o" yo(r -(sinessH yo( cannot B(dge (s.! I"* on the other hand* the o$$ort(nity $resents itsel" "or them to inter"ere into the a""airs o" the +(ssian %h(rch* ascri-ing to themsel)es the $owers that co(ld only -elong to the "(t(re ll1+(ssian Eo-or* they B(m$ in with -oth "eetI

It sho(ld -e noted also that in #ay* 2008 the gathangelite hierarchy* ha)ing stead"astly re"(sed to condemn the #; or +&%&+1#; >and e)en $raising #etro$olitan Da)r as a holy hierarch?* e""ecti)ely declared all the /r(e &rthodo2 +(ssian hierarchies J the Nitalyites* the E(,dalites and the /i6honites J to -e graceless schismatics. Go m(rm(r o" $rotest has so "ar -een heard "rom their %y$rianite sister1ch(rch! J in s$ite o" the %y$rianites. re"(sal to acce$t decisions o" this 6ind -y any e2ce$t Ec(menical %o(ncils. Eo we m(st ass(me that the %y$rianite1 gathangelite coalition is now committed to the $osition that the #; and +&%&+1#; >the Da)rites? ha)e grace* -(t that the /r(e &rthodo2 +(ssians are o(tside the %h(rchCI

Eo who now is (s(r$ing the $lace o" 9od!F 7ho now* in the e20(isite $hrase o" ;ro"essor1 rch-isho$ %hrysostomos* is "ailing to act in $er"ect -alance within the d(al tr(ths o" con"essional e2actit(de and $astoral lo)e!F 7hile we wait >and it may -e a long wait? "or an answer to this 0(estion* let (s recall the words o" the Dord

a-o(t him who see6s to e2tract the mote "rom his -rother.s eye while "ailing to see the -eam in his own >#atthew 7.5?I

'inally* we concl(de* contrary to the %y$rianites* that the $ower o" a co(ncil o" -isho$s to B(dge another -isho$ does not de$end on its ec(menical stat(s* nor on its locality* nor on the lang(age in which it is s$o6en* -(t on the &rthodo2y o" the -isho$s who com$ose it J and on that alone. 'or it is 9od 7ho B(dges -isho$s in the "irst $lace: 5e then ins$ires those -isho$s who are &rthodo2 to $roclaim His B(dgements to the world. Eo the $ower o" e2comm(nication and anathema held -y the hierarchs o" the %h(rch is not held inde$endently o" 9od.s B(dgement* -(t strictly in conse0(ence o" it and in o-edience to it. /hat is why heretics are $se(do1-isho$s! e)en -e"ore a synod o" -isho$s has condemned them* as the 15 th %anon o" the 'irst1and1Eecond %o(ncil o" %onstantino$le declares J "or 9od has already B(dged them. s Et. <ionysi(s the reo$agite writes: Inso"ar as the 3hierarch4 ma6es 6nown the B(dgements o" 9od* he has also the $ower o" e2comm(nication. Got indeed that the all1wise <i)inity gi)es in to his e)ery (nthin6ing im$(lse* i" I may so s$ea6 with all re)erence. 8(t the hierarch o-eys the E$irit 7ho is the so(rce o" e)ery rite and 7ho s$ea6s -y way o" his words. 5e e2comm(nicates those (nworthy $eo$le whom 9od has already B(dged. It says: =+ecei)e the 5oly E$irit. I" yo( "orgi)e the sins o" any* they are "orgi)enH i" yo( retain the sins o" any* they are retained.. nd to the one enlightened -y the sacred re)elation o" the ll15oly 'ather it is said in Ecri$t(re: =7hate)er yo( -ind on earth shall -e -o(nd in hea)en* and whate)er yo( loose on earth shall -e loosed in hea)en.. /h(s 3;eter4 himsel" and all the hierarchs li6e him ha)e had the B(dgement o" the 'ather re)ealed to them* and* -eing themsel)es men who $ro)ide re)elation and e2$lanation* they ha)e the tas6 o" admitting the "riends o" god and o" 6ee$ing away the (ngodly. /hat sacred ac6nowledgement o" 9od came to him* as Ecri$t(re shows* not on his own* not "rom a "lesh1and1-lood re)elation* -(t as something "rom the (nderstanding and (nder the in"l(ence o" the 9od 7ho initiated him into what he 6new. Eimilarly* 9od.s hierarchs m(st (se their $owers o" e2comm(nication* as well as all their other hieratic $owers* to the e2tent that they are mo)ed -y the <i)inity which is the so(rce o" e)ery rite. nd e)eryone else m(st o-ey the hierarchs when they act as s(ch* "or they are ins$ired -y 9od 5imsel". =5e who reBects yo(*. it says* =reBects #e..!8384

Vla#imir Moss. 4une )-5.6, 7668. St. 9ectan of Hartlan#.

8384 Et. <ionysi(s* "n the :cclesiastical Hierarchy, cha$ter 7* 56481564<.

,, B'-. !* A&& Ar! -&"+ S !")'/

S !" Cr"'!"( $% T0" M'r1"&&*2+ M"( ' C*)/'#%