1980

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/athos.aspx

THE Extraordinary Joint Conference of the Sacred Community on Mount Athos, April 9/22, 1980, noting that the issue of the relations of our holy Orthodox Church with the heterodox has assumed a serious and resolute character, especially as it relates to the dialogue with Roman Catholics, has resolved publicly to state the opinion of the Athonite fathers on this subject for general consideration:

1. We believe that our holy Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, which possesses the fulness of grace and truth and, in consequence thereof, unbroken apostolic succession.

That this is correct, His Eminence, Metropolitan Maximos of Stavropolis stresses: “Orthodoxy is not one of the churches, but The Church herself. She has preserved precisely and authentically the teaching of Christ in its pristine splendor and in all its purity. Over and above a simple, unbroken histoncal continuity and consistency there exists in her a spiritual and ontological authenticity. The same Faith, the same Spirit, the same life. It is this which constitutes the distinguishing feature of Orthodoxy and which justifies her claim that she is and remains The Church” (Episkepsis, #227, March 15, 1980).

2. Dialogue with the heterodox is not reprehensible from the Orthodox point of view if its goal is to inform them of the Orthodox Faith and, thus, make it possible for them thereby to return to Orthodoxy when they receive divine enlightenment and their eyes are opened.

The Holy Mountain is grievously disturbed by the tendency of certain Orthodox hierarchs who have been invited to participate in Roman Catholic services, celebrations and processions, especially on the occasion of the return of holy relics. Conversely, we congratulate those hierarchs who have publicly expressed their alarm for the fulness of Orthodoxy.

4. We express our complete approval of what His All-Holiness. the Ecumenical Patriarch said during the visit of the Pope to Constantinople, namely that there exist various impediments between Orthodox and Roman Catholics: “First of all, we have serious theological problems which concern fundamental principles of the Christian faith” (Episkepsis, #221, Dec. 1, 1979, p. 17). These divergences in the principles of the Christian faith requires that we do not advance to participation in common liturgies and worship services before oneness of faith is attained. The mystical character of the kiss of peace during the divine Eucharist always presupposes harmony of faith: “Let us love one another that with one mind we may confess ... “ We cannot pray together, especially during the Divine Liturgy, when we do not believe in the same faith and are separated by fundamental questions of faith. Only an indifference to the faith could permit us to do so.

Moreover, the Holy Mountain cannot accept the opinion, expressed in the joint statement of the Patriarch and the Pope, concerning the “cleansing of the historical memory of our Churches” and the partial opening, by means of a dialogue of love, of the road towards “new movements in theological work and a new attitude to the past which is common to both Churches” (Episkepsis, ibid., p. 19). Actually, the heretics must cleanse their own historical memory of all their own historically acknowledged deviations in faith and practice from the true, evangelical Orthodox Faith. On the contrary, the historical memory of the Orthodox, which is based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and on the constant experience of the apostolic faith of the God-bearing Fathers, must be lived by all of us in repentance and humility, and must instruct us both in the present and in the future life if we do not wish to fall from that faith. As Orthodox we must cleanse ourselves by means of the historical memory of the Church, but not “cleanse” her with an egotistical and anthropocentric spirit, setting ourselves up as judges of the Tradition of the Church.

5. The Holy Mountain is convinced, not without great anxiety, that although the Orthodox are making many concessions and compromises to the Roman Catholics, the latter antithetically continue to adhere to their own errors which have served as the cause of their schism from the Orthodox Church and later led to the Protestant split. Thus, the Pope, during his visit to the center of Orthodoxy in the patriarchal cathedral, did not in the least hesitate to proclaim that he was coming to Constantinople as the successor of Peter, “who as the ultimate authority has the responsibility of superintending the unity of all, to guarantee the agreement of the Church of God in fidelity and in the ‘faith which was once delivered unto the saints’ (Jude 3)”(Episkepsis, ibid., p. 9). In other words, the Pope defended (papal) infallibility and primacy; and there are many other actions and manifestations which the Pope has effected on behalf of uniatism. We remember the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Greek Government and the Vatican which, even though it may justify papism, is unjust and strikes out at the Mother and Nourisher of our [Greek] nation, the Orthodox Church.

6. The Holy Mountain also expresses its anxiety over the constituency of the commission for the dialogue. Uniates comprise a portion of the Roman Catholic delegation, a fact which is a provocation for the Orthodox. The sensibilities and dignity of the Orthodox delegation demand the immediate substitution of others in place of the uniates in the membership.

No Orthodox whose manner of thinking corresponds to this faith can agree to participate in a commission which includes uniates.

Likewise, the Holy Mountain is disturbed by the great weakness and insufficiency of the Orthodox delegation. The most remarkable Orthodox theologians are not participating. The Holy Mountain is also not represented, despite the fact that it is the sole monastic center which preserves the faith and the theology of the Fathers, and which is far removed from the influence of secularism and scholastic Western theology.

7. From the Orthodox point of view there is no justification for optimism in regard to the dialogue, and for this reason no haste should be exhibited concerning it. The Roman Catholics are pressing the dialogue, hoping to strengthen themselves by annexing Orthodoxy to themselves, for they are confronted by very powerful internal disturbances and crises, as is well known. The number of former Roman Catholics who have converted to Orthodoxy also disturbs them. But Orthodoxy has no reason to hasten towards dialogue since the papists remain so obdurate and immovable as regards infallibility, uniatism, and the rest of their pernicious teachings.

Hastening the dialogue under such conditions is equivalent to spiritual suicide for the Orthodox. Many facts give the impression that the Roman Catholics are preparing a union on the pattern of a unia. Can it be that the Orthodox who are hastening to the dialogue are conscious of this?

The Holy Mountain maintains that for it there can be no question of accepting a fait accompli, that, by the grace of God, it will remain faithful, as the Lord’s Orthodox people, to the faith of the holy apostles and the holy Fathers, impelled to this also by love for the heterodox, to whom real help is given only when the Orthodox show them the vastness of their spiritual sickness and the means of its cure by maintaining a consistently Orthodox position.

The unsuccessful attempts in the past with regard to union must teach us that steadfast unity in the truth of the Church, in accordance with the will of God, presupposes a different preparation and a path distinct from that taken in the past and from that which, apparently, is now being taken.

All of the superiors and representatives of the twenty sacred and pious monasteries of the Holy Mountain of Athos at the Extraordinary Joint Conference.

Y1999

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/athonite_bartholomew.aspx

Ref.no.: F.2/7/639
Karyae, 11th/24th May 1999

His Most Reverend All-Holiness
The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos
The Phanar

Most Holy Father and Master,

To begin, we most respectfully and reverentially convey our filial regards on this, the Holy and Joyous Resurrection of our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and likewise extend the honour which is due and proper to Your Venerable All-Holiness.

We rejoice in the Lord with resurrectional joy along with the all of the Most Holy Orthodox Church, despite this joy being mixed with much sorrow over the unjust tribulations brought upon Orthodox Serbia by the Western powers as well as by the suffering borne by the Kossovo refugees. We pray that our Resurrected Lord Jesus, the God of peace and father of all supplications, grant peace to these suffering peoples.

We proceed therefore, with all due respect to express also our disquiet over certain matters which concern the holy and immaculate Orthodox Faith, and which consequently impact our salvation and the salvation of all the fathers of the Holy Mountain. 

Being deeply conscious of our responsibility as regards the rational sheep of our Lord who look up to the Athonite Republic, we are deeply saddened by the following:

A

The first concerns Your address to the Roman Catholic Delegation on the occasion of the cathedra feast day of Saint Andrew on November 30, 1998.

This is certainly not the first occasion during such cathedra feasts of Constantinople and Rome on which such words have been uttered; we would like you to know that on such occasions we have always been greatly saddened, as for example, in June of 1998 when in Rome, the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Pergamon spoke of the so-called “two lungs” with which the Universal Church of Christ breathes.

However, in Your address to the papal delegation last November, certain viewpoints were expressed which were quite unanticipated by the body of Orthodox faithful. We were greatly grieved and our conscience shaken.

Our disquiet grows ever more intense on account of the questions posed to us daily by our spiritual children and in general by the pious Christians who visit us and ask if indeed the text of your address expresses the mind-set (phronema) of our Holy Church. The matter takes on tragic proportions however, when we see the most pious of Orthodox faithful deserting for schismatic groups and in this way cause the holy body of the Church to bleed.

You are well aware, Your All-Holiness, that there is nothing more painful for a shepherd than the scattering of these, the sheep of Christ.

How should we answer then? How do we justify something which is not justifiable? How do we convince ourselves and our spiritual children that  the words of Your address are consistent with the Orthodox Faith and Tradition, when obviously they cause the Tradition of the Church to be overturned and offend the Orthodox conscience?

How can we consider the following statements consistent with Orthodox Tradition? “We are obliged from this... to reconsider our policy, to clean away the old yeast, to become new dough...” and elsewhere, “Our repentance for the past is indispensable.”

Are we obliged then, Your All-Holiness, to reconsider the Tradition of our Saints, from Photios, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, up until Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain and Athanasios of Paros, whose struggles against the heterodox teachings of Rome and whose unrelenting  persistence in the holy dogmas and ethos of Orthodoxy constitute our legacy from them? Can we ignore the words of Gregory Palamas that: “Our confession (of faith) is secure in all things and is for us a crown of pride and our hope which cannot be put to shame”? [1]

Is then our holy Tradition “old leaven” and must we now reconsider this mind-set (phronema) and adopt the “new dough” of a false union with Rome, in as much as she continues to be heterodox? And is not the same Saint Gregory’s characterisation of Western heretical dogmas still timely in our day: “These are the deep secrets of Satan, the mysteries of the Evil One”? [2]—and his words to those in the West: “We will never accept you in communion as long as you confess the Spirit to be also from the Son.”? [3]

Furthermore, how can we rectify with our conscience the following statement from your address: “Those of our forefathers from whom we inherited this separation were the unfortunate victims of the serpent who is the chief of all evils; they are already in the hands of God, the righteous judge”?

According to the Holy Fathers, the Popes of Rome and their representatives are the true cause of the West’s schism from the Universal (Katholike) Orthodox Church. Your All-Holiness, you are aware that Saint Mark says literally: “For they have given cause for the schism, having obviously carried out the addition... We had previously broken from them, or rather had cut them off and separated them from the common body of the Church, as being of an improper and impious mind-set (phronema) and for irrationally having made the addition. Therefore, we turned away from them since they were heretics and for this reason separated from them.” [4] And in our century, Saint Nectarios wrote: “Thenceforth the separation of the Churches began, which came into completion quite rightly under Photios, since the Church was in danger of going away from the One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to become a Roman Church, or rather a papist Church, professing no longer the dogmas of the holy Apostles, but those of the popes.” [5]

And these men, being the causes for the schism, are now in the hands of God, the righteous judge. 

But is it possible that the holy Fathers, who rightfully cut heretical Rome off from the body of the Church as one would amputate an incurable body part, and stitched back together the seamless tunic of Christ—is it possible that they are “unfortunate victims of the serpent, chief of all evils?” What Orthodox Christian cannot help but grieve just by hearing those words alone?

And how then can we accept the following statement from your address: “Since in as much as one Church recognises another Church to be a repository of divine grace, capable of granting salvation, ... the attempt to break believers off from the one and attach them to the other is impossible”?

Have we then ceased to believe that only the Orthodox Church constitutes the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Are we returning to the unorthodox ecclesiology of the Balamand document, which You yourself admitted to Austrian journalists, was not accepted by any Orthodox Church save the Church of Romania, and which, as you are aware, was condemned conciliarly by the Church of Greece and rejected by our Holy Community and by many bishops and theologians as being unorthodox?

How can we accept as being consistent with Orthodox ecclesiology the statement that “each local Church is not a competitor with other local Churches, but of one body with them...” when it is totally impossible to consider heterodox Rome as being one of the most holy Orthodox Local Churches and of one body with them?

Finally, how can we not but be deeply pained by the epilogue of the address: “May the Lord make us worthy to see the resurrection of unity of His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” when by this statement the impression given is that since the time of the schism with Rome, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ceased to exist, so that we must pray for her “resurrection?” In other words, were we not born into, baptised, and reared in the embrace of the One Holy Catholic Church, but are anticipating her resurrection? Is then our faith in vain? Are we dashing off into the void?

We would like to believe that You did not write this address yourself, and that it does not express Your actual sentiments. We console ourselves with the idea that the pen of some champion of ecumenical thinking put Your speech together and that on account of Your justifiably many and various duties, You were unable to appreciate its significance to the Orthodox Faith and the conscience of the pious people of the Church.

Nonetheless, it is before such people that Your tour of Greece will take place. The more pious of the clergy and the people are already aware of the contents of Your address, it having been published in a front page article in the newspaper “Ekklestiastike Aletheia” (12/15/98); it is by no means easy for them to reconcile their Orthodox conscience with the words of Your address.

We consider it imperative, Your All-Holiness, that You make certain clarifications which are necessary: to dispel the impression that these words, most likely spoken without being given the proper attention, express Your mind (phronema); to give comfort to those whose conscience has been scandalised; to give joy to the pious people, who consider their procession of the Orthodox Faith a certain assurance of salvation and the greatest of our Holy God’s gifts. It is a Faith which the Church has preserved with many sacrifices by the Holy Fathers against every heretical affront, so that it might be the path to true knowledge of God [6]. It is a Faith which they feel they are in danger of losing on account of unwise theological trends, such as that expressed in the above speech addressed to the papal delegation.

We well hope, Your All-Holiness, in the arrival of a breath of consolation as soon as possible from the hills of the Mother Great Church of Christ to the valleys of lamentation which our hearts have become, as we have said and written above, and the danger which they present to the unity of our most holy Church.

B

We are also grieved and in anguish by the occurrence of pan-religious common prayers whose syncretistic nature is obvious. From the first such common prayer which took place in Assisi (1986), these pan-religious spectacles have never ceased to be celebrated annually, reaching distressing proportions for the Orthodox during the 12th pan-religious common prayer on the 30th of August 1998 in Romania. Why must we Orthodox be dragged into such common prayers by the Roman Catholic agents who mastermind them, when their goals are to serve papal pretensions for, at   the least, spiritual leadership in Europe?

In addition, common prayers, such as are practised, stand clearly against the Holy Canons of the Church. To be sure, You have not personally participated in such common prayer, but Orthodox Hierarchs and indeed, Heads of Churches have participated. In Romania, the papal cardinal and the Patriarch together blessed a mixed congregation of Roman Catholics, Uniates, and Orthodox.

The common prayer in Romania opens the Kerkoporta [7] through which the Orthodox Church will be in danger of spiritual capture. The Most Blessed Presiding Hierarch of the Church of Romania is too weak, it would seem, to stand up to the politics of his nation’s leaders who are making provisions to open towards the West; in this context an official visit of the Pope to an Orthodox nation recently took place for the first time in history.

Are they suffering amnesia when it comes to the crimes committed by the Uniates against the Orthodox for centuries? Are we now to accept de facto the existence and activities of Uniate groups?

Besides, since there seems to be no chance that heterodox Christians will abandon their heretical dogmas and unbiblical teachings, what purpose do common prayers serve, except to blunt Orthodox sensitivity and to create a syncretistic convergence?

Finally, how can we justify common prayer with heterodox? Do the Orthodox representatives who partake in these common prayers recognise that the rest of the heterodox and those of other religions properly give praise to and worship God? Is not such a position antithetical to the holy Gospel and thus, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

We would reverently recommend to Your attention the prohibition of common prayer with heterodox and to be sure, with non-Christian religions by means of a pan-orthodox decision, in as much as this common prayer stands against the commands of the Old and New Testament as well as the Holy Canons, as they prepare the way for the pan-religion of the so-called “New Age” in denial of the uniqueness of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

C

The publication of the periodical “God & Religion,” whose contents serve pan-religious syncretism, has caused us great sorrow. Despite assurances from the periodical’s editors that its goals are not syncretism, viewpoints are nevertheless promoted which overlook the uniqueness of man’s salvation in Christ and in the Orthodox Church under the guise of a religious approach to current topics. If that were not enough, the periodical promotes depictions which are insulting and abusive to the All-holy person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

When considered from this perspective, support for such a periodical as expressed in commendatory letters written by certain ecclesiastical figures, creates the very great danger for Orthodox people to be misled into believing that this is a periodical which is of an Orthodox mind-set (phronema).

We were especially grieved by Your granting a blessing for its publication, as well as by the publication of a special interview, which was used as a strong indication that You agree with the editorial policies of the periodical.

We want You to know, Your All-holiness, that we foster the piety towards Your most reverent person and the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate which is set down by the tradition of the Orthodox Church and the history of our martyred Nation.

For this reason our grief becomes even more excessive when we see, next to Your photograph, advertisements in this periodical with pictures of semi-naked women and other scenes which are incongruous with the holiness of Your ministry and office.

It is our opinion that the editors of this periodical while feigning objectivity, aim to belittle the Orthodox Faith by placing it alongside other, false religions, as it appears in associated articles. Messages such as, for example: “Religion: sacrifice at the altar of the gods”—with the juxtaposition of various religious symbols beside the Christian Cross; “God is everywhere”—meaning, in all religions; “I don’t think, I BELIEVE”—obviously in the advertised books on Islam, Judaism, Buddhism—confirm the truth of our assertion.

In addition, the “objective” presentation of serious moral and social problems lessens the authoritative position of genuine Orthodox Christian ethical teaching. For example, the phrase which they propose: “the setting of standards would be a rational act of philanthropy”—meaning ‘euthanasia’—is tantamount, at the very least, to a subconscious message in favour of euthanasia.

In our opinion, even some of those who claim to profess an Orthodox perspective fail to express fully true Orthodox positions.

For this undermining of the holy Orthodox Faith, we not only grieve, but are also filled with righteous anger.

Your All-Holiness, it is with pain that we have composed these lines. We see that a pervasive spirit of neglectfulness predominates in the world, whose fruits are the above mentioned disturbing phenomena.

The sensitivity of the Orthodox with regards to the true Faith becomes blunted day by day, following the same path as the decline of the ethics of the Gospel and the increase in human self-love and arrogance.

What will be the outcome?

We, the Orthodox people, are in need of a spiritual awakening in view of the present adverse conditions which confront us, so that we might understand “what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” [8]

The terrible incursion of modern day barbarians against our brothers in the faith, the Serbian people, is perhaps not unrelated to these things. A Fifth Crusade is unfolding before our very eyes, the goal of which is a new conquest of the Orthodox peoples. Perhaps it is a sign for us to awaken and understand that the Lord asks us to keep ourselves pure from the outrage which is syncretism? Do we have anything more certain than the word of the Apostle: “for what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?... Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord” [9], so that the most holy Orthodox Faith can stand without innovations as a witness to them and to the nations and as a salvific call to everyone?

We filially put forward these our anxieties, believing that You will not ignore the sound of our pleas, but will bend a sympathetic ear to them and will grant consolation to our hearts and to the whole Church, which in the imagery of the Holy Book of Revelation is aptly depicted as a woman flying into the wilderness, pursued by the Dragon who seeks to drown her and make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. [10]

With these things in mind, we kiss Your Most Divine All-Holiness’ holy Right Hand and ask for Your Patriarchal and Fatherly blessings, remaining Yours with deepest respect and all due reverence.

[Signed]

—All the Representatives to the common Synaxis and Superiors of the twenty Holy Monasteries of the Holy Mountain of Athos.

y2006

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/athos_popevisit2006.aspx

Karyae, 30 December 2006.

The recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the occasion of the feast-day of Saint Andrew (30th November 2006) and thereafter the visit by His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens Christodoulos (14th December 2006) gave rise to a multitude of impressions, evaluations and reactions. We shall bypass those things that the secular Press had evaluated as positive or negative, to focus on those things that pertain to our salvation, for the sake of which we abandoned the world to live in the barrenness of the Holy Mountain.

As Monks of the Holy Mountain, we respect the Ecumenical Patriarchate, under whose jurisdiction we fall. We honor and venerate the Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and we rejoice in all that he has achieved and so diligently labored for, in his love of God, for the Church. We particularly commemorate the stolid and untiring defence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, amid the many unfavorable conditions that exist, as well as the impoverished local Orthodox Churches and the care that is taken to project the message of the Orthodox Church throughout the world. Furthermore, we the Monks of the Holy Mountain honor the Most Holy Church of Greece, from which most of us originate, and we respect His Beatitude the Primate.

However, the events that took place during the recent visits of the Pope to Fanarion and of His Beatitude the Archbishop to the Vatican brought immense sorrow to our hearts.

We desire and we struggle all of our life to safeguard the trust of the Holy Fathers, which was bequeathed to us by the holy Founders of our sacred Monasteries and the blessed reposed fathers before us. We strive to the best of our ability to live the sacrament of the Church and the unblemished Orthodox Faith, according to what we are daily taught by the divine Services, the sacred readings, and the teachings in general of the Holy Fathers which are set out in their writings and in the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods. We guard our dogmatic awareness “like the pupil of our eye”, and we reinforce it, by applying ourselves to God-pleasing labours and the meticulous study of the achievements of the holy Confessor Fathers when they confronted the miscellaneous heresies, and especially of our father among the saints, Gregory of Palamas, the Holy Martyrs of the Holy Mountain and the Holy Martyr Kosmas the First, whose sacred relics we venerate with every honor and whose sacred memory we incessantly celebrate. We are afraid to remain silent, whenever issues arise that pertain to the trust that our Fathers left us. Our responsibility, towards the most venerable fathers and brothers of the overall brotherhood of the Holy Mountain and towards the pious faithful of the Church who regard Athonite Monasticism as their non-negotiable guardian of sacred Tradition, weighs heavily upon our conscience.

As for the reception of the Pope in Fanarion, we are especially grieved by the fact that all of the Media kept repeating the same, incorrect information, that the psalms that were (unduly) sung at the time had been composed by Monks of the Holy Mountain. We take this opportunity to responsibly inform all pious Christians that their composer was not, and could never be, a monk of the Holy Mountain.

Then there is the matter of the attempt by His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens to commence relations with the Vatican on social, cultural and bio-ethical issues, as well as the objective to mutually defend the Christian roots of Europe (positions which are also found in the Common Declaration of the Pope and the Patriarch in Fanarion), both of which may seem innocuous or even positive, given that their aim is to cultivate peaceful human relations. Nevertheless, it is important that all these do not give the impression that the West and Orthodoxy continue to have the same bases, or lead one into forgetting the distance that separates the Orthodox Tradition from that which is usually presented as the “European spirit”. (Western) Europe is burdened with a series of anti-Christian institutions and acts, such as the Crusades, the “Holy” Inquisition, slave trading and colonization. It is burdened with the tragic division which took on the form of the schism of Protestantism; the devastating world wars, also the man-centered humanism and its atheist view. All of these are the consequence of Rome’s theological deviations from Orthodoxy. One after the other, the Papist and the Protestant heresies gradually removed the humble Christ of Orthodoxy and in His place, they enthroned haughty Man. The holy bishop Nicholas of Ochrid and Zitsa wrote the following from Dahau: «What, then, is Europe? The Pope and Luther.... This is what Europe is, at its core, ontologically and historically». The blessed Elder Justin Popovitch supplements the above: «The 2nd Vatican Synod comprises the rebirth of every kind of European humanism.... because the Synod persistently adhered to the dogma on the Pope’s infallibility» and he surmises: «Undoubtedly, the authorities and the powers of (western) European culture and civilization are Christ-expellers». This is why it is so important to project the humble morality of Orthodoxy and to support the truly Christian roots of the united Europe; the roots that Europe had during the first Christian centuries, during the time of the catacombs and of the seven holy Ecumenical Synods. It is advisable for Orthodoxy to not tax itself with foreign sins, and furthermore, the impression should not be given to those who became de-Christianized in reaction to the sidetracking of Western-style Christianity, that Orthodoxy is related to it, thus ceasing to testify that it is the only authentic Faith in Christ, and the only hope of the peoples of Europe.

Despite all these, we Orthodox continue the so-called traditional exchanges of visits, bestowing honors befitting an Orthodox Bishop on the Pope and totally disregarding a series of Sacred Canons which forbid common prayers, while the theological dialogue repeatedly flounders, and, after being dredged from the depths, it again sinks down.

All indications lead to the conclusion that the Vatican is not orienting itself to discard its heretical teachings, but only to “reinterpret” them—in other words, to veil them.

Roman Catholic ecclesiology varies, from one circular to the other; from the so-called “open” ecclesiology of the Encyclical «Ut Unum Sint», to the ecclesiological exclusivity of the Encyclical «Dominus Jesus». It should be noted that both of the aforementioned views are contrary to Orthodox Ecclesiology. The self-awareness of the holy Orthodox Church as the only One, Holy, Catholic (=overall) and Apostolic Church does not allow for the recognition of other, heterodox churches and confessions as “sister churches”. “Sister Churches” are only the local Orthodox Churches of the same faith. No other homonymous reference to “sister churches” other than the Orthodox one is theologically permissible.

[1] The “Filioque” is promoted by the roman catholic side as yet another legal expression of the teaching regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, and theologically equivalent to the Orthodox teaching that procession is “only from the Father”—a view that is unfortunately supported by some of our own theologians.

[2] Besides, the Pontiff is maintaining the Primacy as an inalienable privilege, as one can tell from the recent erasure of the title “Patriarch of the West” by the current Pope Benedict XVI; also from his reference to the worldwide mission of the Apostle Peter and his successors during his homily in the Patriarchal Temple, as well as from his also recent speech, which included the following: «...within the society, with the Successors of the Apostles, whose visible unity is guaranteed by the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Ukrainian Catholic Community managed to preserve the Sacred Tradition alive, in its integrity» (Catholic Newspaper, No.3046/18-4-2006).

[3] Unia[te-ism] is being reinforced and reassured in many and various ways, despite the proclamations by the Pope to the contrary. This dishonest stance is witnessed, apart from other instances, by the provocative intervention of the previous Pope, John-Paul II, which led the Orthodox-roman catholic dialogue in Baltimore into a disaster, as well as by the letter sent by the current Pope to the Cardinal Ljubomir Husar, the Uniate Archbishop of Ukraine. In this letter dated 22/2/2006, the following is emphatically stressed: «It is imperative to secure the presence of the two great carriers of the only Tradition (the Latin and the Eastern).... The mission that the Greek Catholic Church has undertaken, being in full communion with the Successor of the Apostle Peter, is two-fold: on one side, it must visibly preserve the eastern Tradition inside the Catholic Church; on the other, it must favour the merging of the two traditions, testifying that they not only can coordinate between themselves, but that they also constitute a profound union amid their variety».

Seen in this light, polite exchanges such as the visits of the Pope to Fanarion and the Archbishop of Athens to the Vatican, without the prerequisite of a unity in the Faith, may on the one hand create false impressions of unity and thus turn away the heterodox who could have looked towards Orthodoxy as being the true Church, and on the other hand, blunt the dogmatic sensor of many Orthodox. Even more, they may push some of the faithful and pious Orthodox, who are deeply concerned over what is taking place inopportunely and against the Sacred Canons, to detach themselves from the corpus of the Church and create new schisms.

Thus, out of love for our Orthodoxy, but with pain as regards the unity of the Church, and with a view to preserve the Orthodox Faith free of all innovations, we proclaim in every direction that which was proclaimed by the Extraordinary, Double, Holy Assembly of our Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain on the 9th / 22nd of April 1980:

Dialogues with the heterodox—if they are intended to inform them about the Orthodox Faith so that when they become receptive of divine enlightenment and their eyes are opened they might return to the Orthodox Faith—are not condemned.

In no way should a theological dialogue be accompanied by common prayers, participation in liturgical assemblies and worship by either side and any other activities that might give the impression that our Orthodox Church acknowledges the Roman Catholics as a complete Church and the Pope as a canonical (proper) Bishop of Rome. Such acts mislead the Orthodox as well as the Roman Catholic faithful, who are given a false impression of what Orthodoxy thinks of them....

With the Grace of God, the Holy Mountain remains faithful—as do the Orthodox people of the Lord—to the Faith of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, and also out of love for the heterodox, who are essentially helped, when the Orthodox with their steadfast Orthodox stance point out the extent of their spiritual ailment and the way they can be cured.

The failed attempts for union during the past teach us that for a permanent union, according to the will of God, within the Truth of the Church, the prerequisite is a different kind of preparation and course, than those which were followed in the past and appear to be followed to this day.».

By all of the Representatives and Superiors of the common Assembly of the twenty Sacred Monasteries of the Holy Mountain Athos.

xcxxcxxc  F ” “ This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 2004....x....  ’ “”.