Interview
with Bishop Akakije
31May /13 June 2012
On
Pentecost this year a question arose about the confession of faith of the
anti-ecumenist church community which separated from the ecumenist SOC, calling
itself the Eparchy of Rashka-Prizren in Exile.
Their “Creed” on the site of the
RPE in Exile was stated by the founder and leader of this community, Bishop
Artemije. Quickly afterwards, His Grace Bishop Akakije, in his article which we
have published on Serbian TO examined the ecclesiological position represented
by Bishop Artemije. Not long thereafter, on the site of the RPE in Exile there appeared
a series of various commentaries, explanations, and clarifications of Bishop
Artemije’s stance. Although Bishop Akakije has already presented his opinion on
the matter of such a confession of faith in broad strokes, calling it
“Laodicean,” we asked him to clarify his stance with more details for the
readers of the Serbian TO blog, especially now after the additional explanations
on the ERP in Exile site, in which the Serbian TOC is openly criticized in a
very negative context. In connection with all of this, our editors asked Bishop
Akakije several questions.
Serbian
TO: In a
series of Internet articles on the site of the RPE in Exile begun by the
Pentecost interview with Bishop Artemije, many clarifications followed – his
personal clarifications, those of the info-service, and those of Fr. Simeon
Vilovski – sprinkled with some poorly expressed claims that the True Orthodox
fall among “schismatic groups” and are no better than the ecumenist heretics
themselves. On the other hand, Bp. Artemije’s followers claim of themselves
that they are not a schism, but the Royal middle path of salvation. What is
this about?
Bp.
Akakije:
This is demagoguery that not only has no argumentative backing in the
canons and Church history, but even goes against a healthy mindset. The
Belgrade Patriarchate itself, during its recent conciliar session in May,
called Bp. Artemije to return to the Church from the way of schism, because he
is creating a “parasynagogue” inside the SOC, with the anti-canonical, invalid
acts of opening monasteries and places of prayer throughout the eparchies of
the SOC. The ecumenist SOC defined Bp. Artemije and his “RPE in Exile” a schism,
and as one result of such a grave judgment defrocked him and his clergy, while
his monastics were deprived of their rank, and some of their lay people were
excommunicated from the Church. Despite this, Bp. Artemije and his followers
are trying to present themselves as the middle way of non-schism.
The claim that Bp. Artemije does not
have the intention to create his own “separate Church,” but that he is an
organic part of the SOC and he will not go the way of schism insults the
intelligence of all people to whom this message is directed.
Let us employ some simple logic. If the
ecumenist Belgrade Patriarchate is the Orthodox, canonical Church which
possesses the grace of the Holy Mysteries, as Bp. Artemije and his followers explicitly
claim, how is it possible that separating from one entire Local Church (in this
case the SOC), which is again in union with the entire family of other local Churches,
not a schism? As a justification of such a stance, the “exiles” bring forward
the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople.
The canon mentioned provides for immediately ceasing communion with governing
hierarchs who preach heresy bare-headed, pending their condemnation. Accurately
understood, this canon applies in those cases in which one bishop begins to
preach heresy while being a member of a
Local Church in which the other bishops are Orthodox and therefore can be
expected to try him and condemn him. The state of the SOC - like that of all the
other churches of the World Ecumenist Orthodox - does not fit the canon
mentioned, in that all the hierarchical synods of all the local “World”
churches are heretics; even if, in this or that isolated instance, some
individual bishop is not a convinced ecumenist, he is in organic union, that
is, communion with the other, ecumenist bishops, and therefore he is indirectly
ecumenist as well. Besides, for decades now there has been no hint that the
ecumenists will try and condemn themselves because of heresy.
Besides, how is it possible that someone
would separate from his grace-bearing canonical Church, and at the same time
not fall under judgment for schism? According to his own theory about the grace of
the SOC, Bp. Artemije with his separation from it as a grace-bearing church
gives a textbook example of schism. For us True Orthodox this is not the case. We
preserve that which the Fathers left us. We are not going to be a part of the
ecumenist apostasy. We consider ecumenism the pan-heresy and treat ecumenist
heresiarchs accordingly: we will not be in communion with them for any price,
we consider the mysteries of obstinate heretics without grace, and their church
communities heretical and uncanonical. Precisely on this basis, we cannot be
proclaimed as schismatics, in that we did not separate from a canonical,
grace-bearing Church, but from a heretical assembly. In this we differ from the
“RPE in Exile.” For if we consider the SOC an Orthodox and canonical Church, it
would not occur to us to separate from her, to create a schism with our Church
through some kind of opposition or rebellion, a shape of protest which is
totally unknown in church history.
Serbian
TO: Please, Your Grace, can You comment on the
interesting but - above all - surprising stance of Bp. Artemije on the matter
of the calendar? This is a very important question for Serbs, because for
decades a quiet, but well-planned preparation for the Catholicizing of Serbs has
been conducted by means of various tactics, among which is the changing of the
calendar. It is obvious that in answering this question, the trivial argument based
on the inner divisions among the Greek Old Calendarists is considerably
exploited.
Bishop
Akakije: The
question of the calendar is very serious. Here a devious reversal is made.
Bishop Artemije says, “The calendar is not a heresy, but it is an error,” and
then says that the Old Calendarists make the question of the calendar into a
dogmatic one. I do not know of one Old Calendarist who defines the calendar
reform as a heresy, if there is a tinge of heresy. Rather, the
true reason for their opposition to the calendar change is well-known: behind the imposed calendar reform, as Bp.
Artemije himself says, is the ecumenist heresy. This ecumenist calendar reform
tore at the catholicity of the Orthodox Churches. And the catholicity of the
Church, even in this extremely simple, visible shape manifested in the full
cycle of church services, is a part
of her dogmatic teaching.
The calendar reform, in view of the
introduction of the Papist calendar to the harm of the traditional and
patristic calendar, presents a typical example of schism that also contains an
element of heresy. The New Calendar schism has, besides from dividing the
Orthodox, created a series of deformations, among which are the frequent cases
of the disappearance of the Peter and Paul Fast.
The betrayal of the traditional Orthodox
Calendar has been condemned many times in the past by previous councils. For
example, the church Sobor in 1583, composed of three Eastern Patriarchs (the
Ecumenical, Alexandrian, and Jerusalem) condemned the new Roman calendar as
inconsistent with the rules of the Orthodox Church and the designation of the
manner of calculating the dates of Holy Pascha by the First Ecumenical Council.
The aforementioned Patriarchs and their synods called upon the Orthodox to hold
to the Julian calendar and the Orthodox Paschalion firmly and unwaveringly ,
even to the shedding of their blood, and they put under anathema and
excommunication from the Church of Christ and gathering of believers those who
violate this.
The same Fathers also said that it is
just to give the old precedence over the new, because it was once decided in
the Orthodox Church not to accept any innovation and not give up anything
traditional.
Many Eastern Patriarchs over the
centuries have steadfastly opposed the Papist calendar, to the extent of laying
terrible curses on those who dared touch the Patristic calendar: “But though we, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, then
let him be anathema!” Such a one, that is, who introduces the innovations in
the calendar, whether it is a question of “priest, or layman, should be cut off
from God, damned, and upon death not to decompose but to bide in eternal
torments… May such inherit the leprosy of Gehazi or Judas’ rope, may they abide
on the Earth like Cain, groaning and trembling, may the wrath of God be on
their heads, and their portion be with the traitor Judas and the God-hating
Jews… May an Angel of God persecute them with a sword all the days of their
life, and may all the curses of the Patriarch and Councils strike them with the
eternal excommunication in the torments of the eternal fire. Amen! May it be
so!”
If only a simple error is in question,
as it is classified by the RPE “in Exile,” would the Fathers have expressed
themselves in such a way about the calendar reform?
Likewise, in 1935 and 1974, the calendar
innovation was synodically condemned as a graceless schism by the Greek bishops
who did not accept the change of the calendar.
The New Calendar schism in the beginning
was tolerated by some contemporary fathers (St. Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitans
Anthony Khrapovitsky and Chrysostomos of Florina). It was not, however,
tolerated as an over-and-done-with mistake, but as an error which had to be
corrected! When it became clear that the New Calendar schismatics had no
intention of returning to the holy Patristic calendar sanctified by
centuries-long church use, and that they added to the New Calendar schism the
heresy of ecumenism, it was totally clear that they could not be called
Orthodox any longer. Today this should be clear to any right-understanding
Orthodox Christian.
As far as the numerous divisions among
the Old Calendar Greeks, we must admit that unfortunately it is true. This in
no way means, however, that the tragic divisions among the Old Calendarists can
be put forward as a justification for the New Calendarist schismatics! If one
goes beyond merely talking about the
tragic divisions between the Old Calendarists, and truly, deeply probes them,
one will see that their state is nowhere near such a black one as the “RPE in Exile”
would like to present. The Holy Fathers said that not every peace is
praiseworthy, nor every war condemnable. The difference between the World
Ecumenist Orthodox and the True Orthodox, between the compactness of the first
and the “division” of the second, rests on the following important fact: the
official churches tolerate brazen heretics, as well as blasphemers and
reprobates who have no place in the church hierarchy. This is the peace that is
not praiseworthy, on which World Orthodoxy ostensibly preserves its unity. Meanwhile,
the True Orthodox do not make such dreadful compromises. Simply, every bishop
who gravely violates the canons, begins to preach a heresy, or is immoral, is
put on ecclesiastical trial, and if his guilt is proven he is defrocked.
Unfortunately in the majority of cases the concerned does not accept the church
judgment and he with his like-minded followers found their own lawless assembly
which he declares a church or synod. From this stems the ecumenist Orthodox
“unity” and True Orthodox “division.” Of
course, I will not deny that among many Greek Old Calendarists, giving credit
to some exceptions, there exists a spirit of fanaticism which is truly
unhealthy and dangerous; but one should not give the entire Old Calendar’s holy
struggle over to criticism and judgment because of it.
Serbian
TO: Your Grace, allow me to ask You something else
on the theme of Bishop Artemije and the calendar. To the question, “Are the Old
Calendarist churches in Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria in heresy, because to
them the calendar question is one of the most important?” Bishop Artemije
replies, “Exactly in this lies the heresy, for the calendar is not a question
of faith, as they consider it.” Does he
consider those who did not want to accept the Papist calendar heretics, while
the New Calendarists are a canonical church who allowed themselves a mistake,
about which one should not be too concerned?
Bishop
Akakije:
Bishop Artemije’s relativist stance on the question of the calendar is
clearly like the stance of the entire ecumenist SOC. I think there is no need
for additional explanation, but at your insistence I will add that church
justice is obviously on the side of the Old Calendarists, as they are
preservers of the traditions, and the ecumenists are the ones who introduced
the calendar innovation and with this committed the grave sin of schism. As
God’s confirmation of this, in Athens in 1925, a large shining cross appeared
in the sky which was clearly seen by thousands of people, exactly on the Feast
of the Exaltation of the Cross according to the Patristic Calendar. That is one
of the great modern miracles about which little is known or spoken of in the
SOC. If the calendar is not a question of faith, as Bishop Artemije declares, then
neither are the fixed form of the services, nor beards of priests, nor mantias,
nor iconostasis… This logic is horrifying! Does this mean that tomorrow any
episcopal sobor can introduce anti-Orthodox reforms with the excuse that they
are not questions of faith and declare that those who rise against them are not
just schismatics, but even heretics?! I think that this has all gone too far.
Unfortunately, the umbilical cord of the World Ecumenist Orthodox is difficult
to cut, especially if you were initiated into the episcopacy with them.
Serbian
TO: Your
Grace, it is known that You had the intention to invite representatives of Bp.
Artemije to the STOC Sobor in October at which the hierarchs of the Russian TOC
will be participating. At the Sobor essential questions will be examined for
the successful continuance of the battle for the progress of St. Sava’s Serbian
True Orthodox Church, above all on the mission of the salvation of all who can
be saved from the spiritual desolation of the Great Apostasy. With that act, it
is doubtless that a brotherly hand has been offered to the anti-ecumenist
Bishop Artemije for the sake of cooperating on that field fully or in part. Can
You tell us, did You expect that any kind of cooperation between you would take
place?
Bp.
Akakije: As it is everywhere in True Orthodoxy, so
with us as well there exists a personal distrust towards the bishops of the
World Ecumenist Orthodox. They are an especially chosen cadre, which for years has
been supervised under strict control and prepared to take high church
functions. As far as I know, there is not one case in which a bishop from World
Ecumenist Orthodoxy passed over to one of the Local True Orthodox hierarchies –
be it of the Russian Church Abroad, Russian, Greek or Romanian… Though one
should believe in some human Orthodox conscience, for even if it is educated in
Sergianist and Ecumenist circles, it cannot be completely extinguished. It was
clear to me that Bishop Artemije’s separation from the ecumenist SOC was not
connected with a confession of faith, even if to everyone it was clear that he was
characterized as an anti-ecumenist among the ranks of the SOC episcopacy
(however much possible it is to be such in the frames of World Orthodoxy). I
believed that a reversal could take place, and that the Lord was offering Bp. Artemije
the opportunity to start out truly on the confessional way of Orthodoxy by a
patristic confession of faith, and then we could meld into one front. In this
context, it was suggested to examine the idea of inviting Bp. Artemije’s
representatives to our Sobor in October. After we heard that he is negotiating
with the SOC about his return beneath her mantle, under the condition that his
eparchy would be returned, we completely gave up on the idea of inviting Bp.
Artemije’s representatives as observers at our Sobor. The May SOC Sobor has not
offered anything new on the case of “monk” Artemije, although during that time
the incident with the Ascension nuns took place. Now we have before ourselves
his confession of faith, which, besides schism, does not separate him from the
other SOC bishops, of whom perhaps some oppose ecumenism (which I doubt), but
they defend ecumenism if in no other way than remaining in communion with
ecumenists, and that for who knows what reasons. From all of this it turns out
that the essence of the conflict between Bishop Artemije and the Belgrade
Patriarch lies in the confiscation of his eparchy, and if that problem,
compromising for both sides, could be solved, then ecumenism would become a secondary
question in Bishop Artemije’s repetitive, hopeless and fruitless “war from
within.”
Serbian
TO: Fr. Simeon Vilovski presents an interesting
theory that is obviously directed against Your confessional war within True
Orthodoxy. He claims that Bp. Artemije will not create or define some kind of “personal
ecclesiology” as the Akakijites and others have. Here the very marrow of the
problem and parting of the ways is set up between two church communities in
Serbia, both anti-ecumenist and both separated from the ecumenist SOC. I think
it would be very useful for our readers for You to say a few words on the theme
of eccesiology, i.e., what is the ecclesiological difference between Yourself
and Bp. Artemije?
Bishop
Akakije: Our
ecclesiological theories are obviously different, especially on the matter of
the heresy of ecumenism and in what way in general the heresy permeates the
church. We have not thought up any kind of “personal ecclesiology,” rather, we
have firmly held to the Orthodox teaching about the Church. The Church by
dogmatic definition is an organic community of people who are joined by one
faith, hierarchy and Holy Mysteries. Thus all of her members are connected in
an organic way and form one indivisible organism. If heresy takes over one
Local Church and is not healed in time by the removal of the hierarchs and
anathematizing of the heresy, then
spiritual death spreads through the entire organism through organic mystical
communion. If the patriarch and the better part of the bishops are heretics, as
Bp. Artemije describes the state of the SOC, then they and all who are in
organic communion with them are heretics as well. Besides this level of the
local organic connection within the borders of one local church, there exists
another, higher level which relates to the organic community of the family of
Local Churches. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that not one of the SOC
bishops is an ecumenist, but that the SOC remains in communion with the other
local ecumenist churches of Constantinople, Moscow and Athens. At every Liturgy
the Serbian Patriarch commemorates the heads of the other local churches and
with that, in a mystical way, he expresses full unity with them. Furthermore,
every bishop at the Liturgy commemorates the Patriarch, and every priest
commemorates his bishop, hence an organic circle. This explanation is very
important, as the heresy of ecumenism is not only a local SOC problem, but even
more so in other local churches the heresy of ecumenism is being confessed in
an even more extreme form, especially in the Constantinople Patriarchate. In
this ecumenist family are the New Calendarist churches and the Moscow
Sergianist Patriarchate, which is not much behind that of Constantinople; then
there are the New-Paschaists – the Finnish Church, along with the Antiochian
and Alexandrian Patriarchate which are in union with the Monophysites, etc.,
etc. That ecumenist community of the World Official Orthodox is the pan-heresy of ecumenism, for what
do we care if the Protestants or Papists are ecumenists? When we’re talking
about the pan-heresy of ecumenism, we’re talking about the World Orthodox, for
heresy does not exist if there are no heresiarchs. When the Russian Church
Abroad anathematized ecumenism, She was not anathematizing the Papists and
Protestants who for so long have been outside the church, but rather the “Orthodox”
ecumenists of World Orthodoxy, whether they are heretics directly (the open ecumenists) or indirectly (the anti-ecumenists
who are in communion with ecumenists): “… and to those who are in communion
with the above mentioned heretics, or help or defend their new heresy of
ecumenism – ANATHEMA!” (from the ROCA anathema of ecumenism, 1983).
This is our so-called personal
ecclesiology which the Fathers many centuries ago confessed: Saint Basil the
Great says, “They who pretend to confess the Orthodox faith, and remain in
communion with the wicked, if after admonition do not cease, we consider them
excommunicated and even no longer call them brothers.”
Also St. John Chrysostom: “I declare
enemies of God not only heretics, but also those who remain in communion with
them.”
Serbian
TO: Thank You, Your Grace, for your considerate
replies. We hope that this will be of great help to all those Orthodox-thinking
and truth-loving souls which the official SOC and Eparchy of RP in Exile are
confusing with various forms of earth-bound thinking and demagoguery. Allow me
to conclude in the end that the Middle or “Laodicean” way, as You have called
it, the lukewarm, bland way which Bp. Artemije and those with him confess, is
not the patristic confessional way of the true fight against the heresy of
ecumenism, i.e., the path of salvation. And that True Orthodoxy today is the
only option of canonical, patristic Orthodoxy, even if in Serbia today it is in
the minority and illegal. Do You have a last message to our readers?
Bishop
Akakije: Thank God! Thank you for the
well-thought-out and clear questions. I completely agree with your conclusion,
and counsel the readers of the blog “Serbian True Orthodox” to never, under any
conditions, accept becoming Laodiceans (Rev. 3:14-19), but to be zealous in all
things, both for faith and virtue, and to stand firm in the positions of the
True Orthodox Philadelphians (Rev. 3:7-12), who, though they had little strength,
still fulfilled the word of Christ’s truth and did not renounce His name!
Нема коментара:
Постави коментар