www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Esfigmenou Monastery et al

Good evening.

John Allen`s column in the National Catholic Reporter has a short item at the end about the monks of the Esfigmenou monastery and the order for them to vacate their monastery. The column can be found at

www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0110.htm [nationalcatholicreporter.org]

This issue`s column also has an interview with Bishiop Andraos Abouna and a story about the new Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, Bishop Brian Farrell.

Peace,

Charles

The monks' position is unfortunate. What are they afraid of? That the Orthodox Churches are going to accept Catholic doctrine? Don't they have faith in their Church? I won't pretend that I understand it.

ChristTeen287

I think the Farrell Story is the most intresting. His brother was recntly made an auxilary bishop on the east coast (USA).

Clearly he shows an openness to ecumenism along with unquestioned orthodox credentials.

Axios

The key issue for the monks of Esphigmenou is who or what constitutes the Church. In their eyes the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the 'Churches' of world Orthodoxy are NOT Orthodox. The Esphigmenou monks have faith, but in True Orthodoxy, not that which masquerades as the Church.

They have been on the receiving end of beaurocratic persecution from the Patriarchate and the Greek government for long enough to make them wary of outsiders. The treatment they have received breaks conventions on human rights and all morality. We shouldn't be surprised that they doubt the Orthodoxy of Constantinople when one considers their treatment.

We should remember that until the early 1970's virtually all of the Athonite religious houses did not commemorate the incumbent patriarch and were not in communion with the so-called 'Mother Church'. All of this was to preserve Orthodox truth against heresy.

S Bogom -
Mark, monk and sinner.

I can surely appreaciate someone with strong convictions like those monks. I can also appreciate someone else with strong convictions: His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholemew.

Pat. Bartholemew has the right by church law and by Mt. Athos law to call in the Greek police and have people removed from Mt. Athos. If those monks are not commemorating him, and he has tried numerous times to get them back (whether peacefully or through "beurocratic persecution") and finally decides they're out--they're out!

I have much more faith in Met. Cyprian and his moderate synod: "World Orthodoxy has grace but is simply making an error; we will wait out the storm."

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Anastasios -

May the All-Merciful Lord bless you.

We must remember that law allows the Patriarch legal rights whatever he does as long as he is the recognised Patriarch. However, as history has taught us, some patriarchs have been far from Orthodox. The monks of Esphigmenou, as extreme as they are, act from a theological and moral point of view. They cannot and do not accept or recognise the pronouncements of the Phanar because they cannot accept that Bartholomeus is an Orthodox patriarch. This is a demonstartion of the inherent dangers of the symphonia. This concept means that believers can be attacked and persecuted in the name of the very Orthodoxy they seek to preserve - and it means that the persecutor has the 'legal' means to do so.

The present patriarch has attacked the Holy Mountain with a very heavy hand. In the last few years he deposed elected abbots of the holy monasteries and called extraordinary meetings of the epistasia when, canonically, he had no right to do so. The depositions he made were largely anulled when the news hit the world press, but the legacy of his actions remains. The memories of the Russian monks forcibly expelled from the skit of the Holy Prophet Elia are still fresh in the memories of the Holy Mountain.

May the All-Merciful Lord bring Patriarch Bartholomeos to repentance and to True Orthodoxy.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Friends,

I believe Fr. Mark is quite correct in his assessment of the situation and of the rights of Patriarchs.

The Orthodox Church herself has glorified as sainted martyrs the Martyrs of Zographou Monastery and others who refused to submit to Emperor and Patriarch on the issue of church union with Rome.

These monks were martyred as a result - as were the Venerable Monk-Martyrs of Old Orthodoxy on Solovki.

So a precedent for what these contemporary monks are doing has most certainly been set!

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

When can we know that we are following Christ when we oppose leadership in the Church?

I'm not saying that is impossible.

I'm just wondering when that is legitimate and when it is a function of prelest.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

This is a very good question Alex - and a difficult one.

When we look at 'Orthodoxy' today we can use the writings of the Fathers and the Holy Canons as our pedalion - our rudder. However, there have clearly been times in history when things haven't been so clear-cut. When virtually the whole of the hierarchy depart from Orthodoxy it must be difficult to know who the St John Chrysostom and St Maxim the Confessor are.

How would I cope in their situation? I really don't know the answer to that. Would I be able to discern truth from error? I would hope so, but that would be through the grace of God. It's very difficult for us sinners in today's world to discern truth.

In the past there were many holy men and women, not hierarchs and clerics, but grace filled elders and eldresses. They were the voice of truth and teachers of Orthodoxy. There aren't many of them in the world today. The Holy Fathers foresaw this and told us to hold fast to Christ, turning to the writings of the Holy Fathers and treating them as OUR fathers and keep to the canons of the Holy Church. This often the best we can do.

We must ask whether the actions of hierarchs are true to Holy Tradition. Do they agree with the faith, order and Tradition of the Church or do they try to replace that which we have received with innovation or heresy? We have to be cautious and careful. At the same time we must not become self-appointed teachers and prophets. The mess of the religious landscape of Russian history shows what happens when this spirit grips people's souls.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner

I won't pretend to know as much as any of you do about religion or religious organizations. But I did read the article and it said that the monks are being evicted because they don't support dialogue with the Catholics. I have read over and over again in here that the Orthodox won't talk with the Catholics. Now we are talking and the Orthodox are taking a tough stand against the monks. Now we are bad because we took a harsh line against the monks????

In this strand and most others, it is constantly the same message from most of you. The Orthodox won't unite with Rome, the Orthodox won't do this, the Orthodox have done that wrong. What do you think our reaction is going to be? If there is going to be a meaningful dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox, there has to be a mutual respect. What I see in most of the postings is a lot of frustration at the fact that the entire Orthodox world has not tossed away its objections to Rome and converted. Folks, that is simply not going to happen. And, if it ever does happen, and I don't see it happening for a long, long time, it won't be as Orthodox accepting the Pope's authority. It will be a merger of equals.

Dear brothers and sisters,

According to the Greek Constitution (the Holy Mountain is part of the Greek Republic), which protect the autonomy and the holy character of the Monastic Republic, states that “no heterodox or schismatic can reside on permanent basis at the Holy Mountain”. This article of the Greek Constitution forbids me, for example, to found a Catholic monastic community at the Athos, and forbids members of non canonical Orthodox Churches to have communities in the Holy Mountain. According to the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church when someone breaks the ecclesiastical communion with his or her bishop he or she is to be considered schismatic. When a monastic community breaks the ecclesiastical communion with its bishop the fellowship is to be dissolved and the bishop is to appoint a new higoumenos and to create a new fraternity. That was the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain, in which take part spokesmen of the 20 monasteries, that stated that the monks of Esphigmenou were schismatic (they are not into communion with their bishop or with the other monasteries) and that they must leave the Holy Mountain. That was the Holy Community that decided that a new monastic community was to be founded with monks from other monasteries.

Yours in Christ,

Dear Francisco,

Please do not be offended, but I really think you need to show a little more spiritual insight and maturity in this question.

Under the Soviet constitution the annihilation of Orthodoxy and Byzantine Catholicism in Russia and Ukraine was LEGAL!!! Does this defend legality?

Laws and constitutions sometimes have nothing to do with morality. They are often the weapon used to bludgeon those who fall foul of states and institutions. Ask our Byzantine Catholic brothers and sisters about the 'legal' measures used against them by Tsars, 'Holy Synods' and Soviet consistories.

I am sick to the eye-teeth - AND I MEAN SICK!!! - of silly arguments used to defend bullies like the patriarchate and the Greek state.

Let's put the Esphigmenou question aside. The Patriarchate and the Greek state have persistently violated the Athonite constitution and the Treaty of Lausanne. Legality only matters when it is convenient.

Having known a Russian monk who fled from the Greek police and army and finally left the Holy Mountain in the cassock he was wearing, I find this pharasaical legalism disgusting.

In Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Father Mark,

First of all, I would like to remind you that I am not an official spokesman of the Greek Government or the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I love very much Greece and the Greeks but I do not agree with all the decisions of the Greek Government. I can say the same about my attitude towards the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Second, I consider that the Church, being both a human and a divine foundation, of which Christ is the head and all the Christian men and women, sinners that with the grace of God strive to become holy, needs, like human institutions rules that would grant its unity and historical continuity. I call what you consider a �disgusting pharisaical legalism� �ecclesiastical order�. Our Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils issued canons to grant the �ecclesiastical order�. Some of the Civil Laws have also canonical character. The Christian Church from the period of the Apostles did always show great respect to the civil authorities and civil law. Canon law and hierarchy are for me not a stupid legalism but something the Church need to keep its union and order. If we had not such laws there would be no Church, everybody would his will and will consider heretics all the other Christians. If we, the faithful, refuse to accept the authority of our bishops (the orthodox ones), we stop being members of the �Catholic� Church and we become a sect. That was this attitude that drove some of the Russian Old Ritualists (Fr Mark does not belong obviously to this category) to loose the apostolic succession, then the priesthood and finally the sacramental life.

Third, I consider that the monks of Esphigmenou monastery have violated not only the civil law, something that is not so important for me, but the �ecclesiastical order�, the canon laws, and they have broken the ecclesiastical union of the Orthodox Church (obviously Fr. Mark consider that has been the other side which has violated the �ecclesiastical order� of the Orthodox Church), and the Church has to do something to restore the �canonical order� at the Holy Mountain.

Yous in Christ

The legalism I refer to is CIVIL law, not canon law.

Please explain how the monks of Esphigmenou have broken the Holy Canons. I will read the answers with very great interest. Let's remember the spirit of the canons and not loose them blindly.

In Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.

We need to remember what Alex has said about the martyred monks of Zographou and others who were martyred because they refused to agree to union with Rome. In the eyes of officialdom they were schismatic and even heretical. Their crime was to remain steadfast in Orthodoxy.

Throughout the last century canons were used out of context. When considering the canonical situation of non-commemorating monastic houses of Athos (many small monastic houses as well as Esphigmenou) we have to aply the canons evenly and fairly. This means we must consider the canonical situation of the patriarchate which the monks oppose. Otherwise, we end up with a twisted illogical canonicty which can support or condemn anyone, depending on our application.

In Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.