http://www.ekklisiastikos.com/2010/09/i ... os-of.html
Interview of His Grace Bishop Photios of Marathon regarding the dialogue between the Synod in Resistance (SiR) and the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece
(May 25/June 7, 2010)
Your Grace, we would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to interview you about the dialogue which took place between the community in Resistance and the Church of Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece.
+Bishop Photios: I would like to express my delight, because this dialogue with those in Resistance was the reason for the spiritual awakening of our youth. I am also glad to see these young people being so interested in theology; especially about ecclesiology. I could say that this is, in effect, one of the fruits of the dialogue.
1. How did the rapprochement with the Synod in Resistance (SiR) take place?
+BP.: The rapprochement with the SiR began with the illness of their Elder, Cyprian. This was the cause of some private visits from our bishops. I personally visited him in the hospital as other bishops did.
Later on, His Beatitude visited Cyprian at the Monastery of Saint Cyprian. Possibly that visit was unexpected. Soon after, the fathers of the Monastery of Saint Cyprian returned the visit. They went to the Monastery of the All-Immaculate Virgin (Παναχράντου) in Megara to thank His Beatitude. During that visit, for which I was not present, I was informed that the fathers of Saint Cyprian's Monastery said that they came as servants of reconciliation and they expressed their desire to start a dialogue whose purpose would be to stop the existing separation of the SiR from the Church of the GOC of Greece.
2. Some questions as to how that dialogue was carried out: (meetings, committees, minutes, forming of the agenda.)
+BP.: Yes, the proceedings. During our first meeting in February 2008 at the Monastery of All-Immaculate Virgin in Megara, the agenda was set. First of all, it was decided that we should discuss the rupture of 1986 historically and later on theologically i.e. ecclesiastically. From then on, we would continue with the discussion with secondary practical issues. Committees were appointed from both sides consisting of three members each. From our side we had his Eminence Metropolitan Maximos of Thessaloniki and Demetrias, his Eminence Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boiotia and I. His Eminence Metropolitan Maximos was replaced in a few meetings by his Eminence Metropolitan Gerontios of Piraeus.
Unfortunately, we disagreed over procedural matters. After our second meeting, we asked to make these meetings more formal. We asked to keep common minutes or at least to have a document of common conclusions, i.e. to record on paper the points of our agreements and disagreements. The best solution of course would be to have common minutes. But for that first phase we could at least have common conclusions. Unfortunately, that was not accepted. So we had no common minutes. Each side kept its own. Possibly, the minutes that each side kept differed from those of the other side, because, after the meetings, there was no reading aloud and verification of the minutes. Usually, not all the information is on the minutes that are kept in various meetings, but the final minutes are the result of whatever the one who keeps the minutes considers important. Thus, we have subjective minutes.
So we went on with the agenda, as we formed it during our first meeting, to discuss that is, what happened historically during the 1985-1986 rupture. Generally in the historic approach of the events that happened then, (ordinations of 1979, unions and separations until 1986) there were not so many differences. But, when we reached the ecclesiological matters, we found that the issue at hand was great. Because of the importance of this issue we asked to break the issue into smaller questions. We proposed that we analyze the greatest ecclesiological issue in its various aspects starting with the questions of what is church. How could we go on with the ecclesiological issues if we did not agree on what is the Church? Unfortunately, the side of the SiR did not agree at that time (it was June 2008) because, as they declared, they did not want a substantial dialogue, but simply “brotherly discussions in Christ”, so that they could decide whether the conditions exist to develop a substantial and formal dialogue that, according to them, could take place later on.
3. The committee of the SiR proceeded to compose eight (8) non published informational reports, as is mentioned in their declaration for the cessation of dialogue which they wrote in order to inform their own hierarchs. Is there anything equivalent on the part of the committee of Church of the GOC of Greece?
+BP: We did not compose written documents to send to the Bishops, because the members of our hierarchy are all Greeks and they live (apart from one) in Greece. There was no need for us to send any written documents, translated to their language, to the non-Greek members of our Synod, who live abroad. We informed the bishops of the Synod orally, during the meetings of our Holy Synod- based on informal minutes that our side kept- and they were documented in the formal minutes of our Synod meetings.
4. In their epistle of Dec. 4/17, 2008 the SiR mentions that in your 7th meeting they proceeded “to point out in writing the fundamental and essential issues on which it had become clear that both committees concurred”. What are these points? Is that document available?
+BP: The specific document is not available. But in the above-mentioned epistle those in Resistance mention 6 points of agreement which they also number. These points were valued by the SiR as points of agreement and they were enough for our union. However, it is not accurate that we agreed on them. Once we heard those points, we disagreed because they were very generically expressed. For example, in the first point they made, we had to confine ourselves to the generic expression that we are both “Orthodox, belonging to one family and together constitute the Orthodox anti-ecumenists in Greece”. Firstly, before this statement was made, we insisted on agreeing on the ecclesiological issue. Besides, the term “Anti-Ecumenists” does not express us as a whole. We have always considered ourselves as Genuine Christian Orthodox. Anti- Ecumenists also exist in the realm of the State Church. Those belonging to the Church of Christ never spoke of themselves negatively, as opposed to something, but positively: as Christians not as Anti-Jews, or Anti- Idolaters; as Orthodox, not as Anti-Arians, Anti-Nestorians and generally as Anti- Heretics. Since we did not agree then, how were these points of agreement?
They suggested that they were points of agreement, but they were not. Generally they wanted us to proceed to union despite our ascertained disagreements, which their side characterized as “non- essential”. But, if they were non essential, then why did they maintain their disagreement with us on issues which they considered non essential but we considered essential? This is something to think about…
5. The SiR severed ecclesiastical communion with us for reasons of “Faith and Justice” characterizing our Bishops then as “wolves in sheep’s clothing” and “ship-wrecked in the Faith”. During the dialogue they asked us to renounce our alleged and never proved “blameworthy heresy”. If not (given the fact that our Bishops have not changed this Faith) why did they seek union? Did they desire union with cacodox? (!)
+BP: Indeed, when the severance of ecclesiastical communion took place, some harsh words were used. Perhaps the passage of time helped the discussions to take place in a lighter emotional atmosphere. Nevertheless, during our conversations, neither the SiR repeated such characterizations, nor did we and of course we were not asked to renounce any supposed cacodoxy.
6. How did the ten (10) non – negotiable points emerge?
+BP.: On our side, we considered it necessary to remove the greatest obstacle that separated us since 1986; i.e. the deposition from the priesthood that was imposed at that time on the leadership of the SiR; i.e. on Metropolitan Cyprian, Metropolitan John and those ordained by them. Based on the deposition of 1986, these ten points were also formed, allowing us to revoke this action and to further our substantial rapprochement.
7. Why did the Church of the GOC of Greece characterize the ten (10) points as “non negotiable”? The SiR asked that the “weighty agendum be done away with in order to open the way for the unity we desire”. By any chance did this request stall the dialogue?
+BP: We characterized them as such, because in our judgment we needed to agree upon the points in order to lift the deposition, so as to make the next step. If they had accepted them all then, even with certain conditions or explanatory remarks, then we would continue the conversation for full agreement. Their acceptance was necessary for the beginning of a procedure and not the end. If we discussed them thoroughly one by one, they may have persuaded us that we shouldn’t insist on some of them. But they did not want to discuss them in this manner, i.e. one by one. But before we reached that point they had rejected the procedure of a formal dialogue, over the issue of the ecclesiological problem, something which was absolutely necessary. This was not “a loaded agenda” as it was characterized, but issues which we believed to be important. If we had agreed upon that point, i.e. in ecclesiology, we could have moved on further.
I would also like to note that while the dialogue lasted, first the side of the SiR had published an announcement on the internet which was a point of friction. Because, since they had not agreed to our proposal of common announcements after the discussions, why would they proceed with publications about which we were informed via the internet? Anyway, in October 2008, while we were still in discussions, they published a statement in which they claimed that they could make concessions “only to the extent that their basic ecclesiological principles remain unsullied” and from which they were not willing to make concessions. So they also had their non negotiable points.
8. Why was it requested of the SiR as a non-negotiable point, that they refer to us as the Holy Synod of the GOC Greece? Wasn’t that obvious? Was the acceptance of such a request typical or essential?
+BP: No, it was not obvious. The SiR preferred the term Ecclesiastical Community, which we did not accept; since we identify ourselves as the continuity of the Church of Christ in Greece at least. So we agreed to have the dialogue between the Church of the G.O.C of Greece and the Orthodox Community of those in Resistance, a term which the SiR prefers to call itself. What, in substance, the SiR believed was not, and is not clear to us. It would not be proper to try to give an answer as to what others think. It is preferable for them to give the answer themselves.
9. According to the SiR there was an agreement upon seven (7) out of ten (10) non negotiable points of the Church of GOC. What is your opinion of that? Did you expect them to disagree on those three *?
+BP.: No, the truth is, that personally I did not expect them to disagree on these particular three points. However, even with the points that we agreed upon the degree of agreement is not the same; on some points we agreed absolutely; on some others to a greater or lesser degree. For example on the tenth point, they admit that the genuine successors of the Apostles can condemn any heresy which arises. Up to this point they agree. Later on, they mention that they cannot understand the tendency of some to condemn Ecumenism and all heresies hastily “until such Apostolic Successors come into existence”. Until then every Orthodox Christian condemns every heresy “potentially, if not verbally”. On our side, we consider that the Bishops of GOC are the Genuine Successors of the Apostles and they have such a right. So this belief of theirs nullifies our previous agreements and essentially makes this a point of disagreement. Nonetheless, our agreement, where we agreed, has brought us closer then we were before the beginning of this dialogue. This is one of the positive results of this dialogue.
10. So, do they doubt the Apostolicity and Canonicity of our Church?
+BP.: I would like to believe that it is a matter of an unsuccessful wording of the idea they wanted to express and I wait for their answers to the questions you have posed to them for clarification. But, if this remains unclear, I think that we need to interpret it as a dispute over the genuineness of the apostolic succession of the GOC. We had already confirmed the same thing over the annotation of the final responses of the SiR in the May- June 2009 issue of “The Voice of Orthodoxy” pg.13. If someone were to take it to its logical conclusion, they could be led to the conclusion that in the wording of their answer to the 10th point, they denounce the essence of apostolic succession itself. Because if we pose somewhere in the future the possibility of the condemnation of heretics, when there would be “such successors of the Holy Apostles”, i.e. “those who have absolutely truthfully become their successors, full of Grace and power”, that means that now there are no such successors of the Holy Apostles. So, according to them, the continuity of the apostolic succession has been interrupted and we should wait in the future in some unknown and inconceivable manner for its restoration in the future. But since I consider that it is impossible that they mean such a thing, I believe that they erred in their wording.
11. Allow us to repeat the three (3) questions that the SiR poses in their announcement, without addressing it to a specific recipient.
Code: Select all
a) If our informal dialogue, as a preliminary process, led to certain basic conclusions, why, one might wonder, has it not advanced to a formal dialogue, so as to bring the ministry of reconciliation to its fulfillment?
b) If it emerged that a “sameness of Faith” was lacking, is there perhaps some reason why a formal dialogue is not being inaugurated for the purpose of removing our differences and achieving such a sameness of Faith?+BP:[/b][/color] These questions that you just read were included in one announcement that they published on their website after the termination of the dialogue and after our tardy announcement. As you correctly say, this question is addressed vaguely and not to a particular recipient. But we wanted the formal dialogue since June 2008 and they refused it. They finally suggested union despite our ecclesiological differences and that in due course we could reach the resolution to the differences. We wanted, prior to all this, to have a thorough conversation of the ecclesiastical differences, of the ecclesiological issue that is, to agree upon this, and then to further the union. But even now, if they are willing to discuss it, we would gladly do so. We are ready for a formal dialogue, after we agree on the procedures of such dialogue. Nevertheless, they never suggested this to us, nor during our conversations nor in their last answer to the Holy Synod, again they did not make any suggestion for continuing the dialogue.
Code: Select all
[color=#BF0000][b] c) When, indeed, did the One Church declare “by a common universal resolution” that the three putatively firm “points” of difference between us constitute rudiments of the “unadulterated correct Faith of the Church” and are consequently necessary presuppositions for Eucharistic unity?[/b][/color]+BP: The three points of dispute reflect the different ecclesiological attestation of each side, and the ecclesiological issues are issues of faith. But, according to the beloved SiR, if these three points are not that important, as we consider them, why they do not concede to them and move on? At least, let us have a conversation over them and persuade us that they are indeed not that important, so that we cease demanding them from them. But for us to unite disagreeing over them- since we consider them important- this would violate our conscience and the union would not be according to God.
12. What is the difference between Informal and Formal Dialogue?
+BP: There is an issue here. There is a difference as to what each side considers informal dialogue. According to the SiR the informal dialogue is non- binding. According to us, no dialogue between committees is binding. The committees report to those who appointed them and they are not bound by the agreements of the committees. They can reject an agreement that the committees have reached. We consider a formal dialogue, a dialogue that happens based on a particular agenda that has been decided on and with common minutes. Or at least common conclusions, that both sides countersign so that we do not end up having each side with subjective conclusions from the discussions, nor do they create different impressions from the fruit of the dialogue. This is, according to us, a formal dialogue. To return to the questions that they vaguely address; that is why we should not proceed to a formal dialogue and complete the diaconate of conciliation, I assume that it is they who they need to answer this question.
13. Why according to your opinion was the dialogue derailed?
+BP: The dead-end, in my opinion, is due to the denial of those in Resistance to have a serious and substantial dialogue. We did not even agree on the characteristics that constitute a formal dialogue. Since we did not agree on the procedure, how could we agree in essence?
Your Grace, we thank you for your time and your direct and lucid answers that we believe give a whole and clear picture of the dialogue that took place.
b The above mentioned ten points were:[/b]
The document must be addressed to the Holy Synod of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece and must contain:
an acknowledgement that the walling-off [of the SiR] in 1984 and the subsequent formation, through Consecrations, of a new Synod was a hasty act;
an unequivocal condemnation of ecumenism as a heresy;
a rejection of the idea of New Calendarism as the “mother Church”;
an acknowledgement that members of the New Calendarist-Ecumenist “Church” must not commune of the Immaculate Mysteries before being incorporated into true Orthodoxy;
the acceptance through Chrismation of those coming from New Calendarism/Ecumenism;
the acceptance through Baptism of all who do not bear even the form of Orthodox Baptism;
a retraction of the expression “ailing members of the Church” in the case of heretics;
an avowal of the validity of the condemnation of Ecumenism by the Russian Church Abroad and by the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece; and
an avowal that those competent to condemn heresies have always been the Bishops who abide in Orthodoxy, whatever their number or whether or not Patriarchs are among them. Today it is the Bishops of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians who have the right to condemn Ecumenism and every heresy.
The answers to Nos. 6, 7 & 9 were negative. The answer to point 10 was de facto negative