aIntroductory index

• Comments on mailing lists, discussion groups and links
• English Bibles online
• Introductory material
• Aim
• What next?

Comments on mailing lists, discussion groups and links

In this web page we aim to give an exposition of Orthodox Christianity, which is the main stem from first Christian times that altered nothing that was given to us. Most Christian groups today admit this to a smaller or larger degree (for historically Orthodoxy is the main stem) but deviate in many ways from it.  The stuff below is not meant to be read lightly over supper but is meant to be printed if possible or bookmarked and copied for offline viewing and studied extensively with the Bible and the other references in hand, to double-check the verses given and understand what is said better through prayer to Christ. Also, please note that most of the notes found in these pages are translations or copies or adaptations of parts of theological books seen through the prism of conversations of our older mailing list (see Contact Info for an Announcement Update List), with the results being double-checked with various sources to ensure that they agree completely with the Orthodox point of view (if a view appears and is non-orthodox it is always stated or implied from the context; e.g. a question posed introducing a non-orthodox view which is critically tested against the orthodox view).

Also one can check the newsgroup alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox for various discussions (to e-mail a message to the newsgroup straight away, click here). However we strongly recommend against visiting this newsgroup.

A word of warning: do not forget that the majority of the people found in this "alternative" newsgroup are not necessarily Eastern Orthodox even if they claim to be such! Representatives of the ancient Eastern Orthodox Church, despite its name, do not moderate this newsgroup; e.g., say, by some of the representatives that have appeared in Local Continuous Synods of Orthodoxy, or something. Unfortunately, anyone can write anything they want there, which of course is fine, but the problem is that a lot of people there claim to be Orthodox without being such (there are Orthodox with Ecumenist views, Copts, Neo-Protestants and even Satanists who have appeared in this newsgroup claiming they are "orthodox" in order to confuse people and attack Orthodoxy).

Therefore only write to this newsgroup if you are certain of the beliefs of Orthodoxy and even then it is rather futile; this is not a place to seek the truth! You will only be confused more than you were before you started your quest! After all, losing one's breath in discussions that are totally unmoderated is time-consuming, fruitless and even dangerous, because a lot of false information can be sent this way. Also, a lot of blasphemous postings are placed online, with ridiculous discussions from a few people (usually kids) that simply want to wind people up and thus we do not recommend spending time there at all. It is unlikely you will help anyone or be helped much.

If you truly want to find out the belief and its analysis against the "denominations", you can start by reading these pages here, read other web pages on Orthodoxy (again: careful!), read Orthodox books, and then contact one or more of the official church links. However, ultimately, you should not seek the truth online and stop at that. What one must do is talk to an Orthodox priest of his or her choice in their vicinity (provided that the priest he talks to is knowledgeable in Orthodox doctrine enough or -- infinitely better -- be an enlightened charismatic father, and all that of course presupposes that he is first of all a true Orthodox priest: you can check if he belongs to a church that is in spiritual intercommunion with the rest of Orthodoxy by checking his parish's canonicity and finding out who ordained him (for an (incomplete) list of such Churches, go here).

Also, please note many online links (even though they are in Greek and about Orthodoxy and claim to love Orthodoxy) are not Orthodox in nature; only claim to be (independent magazines putting forward their own "Orthodox" views, in this case)! How careful one must be online! The devil has put many clever traps and the internet is a great place to place traps in!

English Bibles online

English Bibles can be found here; however, please do note that, except for the Greek Romean (Byzantine) text they do not contain the full books of the Bible as far as the Old Testament is concerned and many a time these Bibles are vague and change the meanings of verses quite considerably (including the Vulgate) from the original koine and Septuagint texts. As such, please view such Bibles only in reference to the original text, like we do; if you cannot, then we strongly suggest the first reference only, but again with extreme caution. Best idea would be to get an Orthodox study Bible or something (e.g. try orthodoxbooks.co.uk). The Bible we use is the Greek one (also availalbe through the above link).

Please note that the Bibles web page is Protestant (Betty Miller Evangelicalism) and puts forth its own Protestant agendas.

For more information on "What English Bible to use?" this article written by Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver is a must read.

You are visitor number to this introductory part. If you wish to leave some feedback you can do so here. Also note that during the various chapters below you will encounter many terms that may be unknown (theological). These need not cause trouble to you though; simply click on the highlighted term and it will lead you to an explanation of it in a relevant section. Afterwards use the Back button on your browser to return to the point where you left off before your little deviation.

Thank you for visiting and we pray the Lord be with you. Remember: read the Bible with a humble heart and trust no one, not even your own thoughts; if you reach a point you do not understand, simply ignore it and do not try to understand it for the Spirit will show it to you later on. These are the words of Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, one of the most great ascetic pearls of Athonite monasticism in the 20th century. (All elders of course agree with these words, as all Orthodox already know.)

Without doing that, you will never be able to understand the Bible, using just your logic; even if you are in Orthodoxy already and read it in a safe way (why safe? go here to find out why). Listen to your spiritual father and, through him, the other fathers of the Church!

May God help you in your quest; we hope we can provide a small help to your quest with these notes. Never forget that you must combine this act with prayer. In particular, we recommend the Noetic Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, show mercy upon me, the sinner" which is a prayer we can repeat time and again without end, thus bringing a blessing from God. Always pray to Him humbly before reading the Bible or any such notes so that He can enlighten your mind to understand a few things. Then will you be able to place the Bible within the context of the Divine Tradition, and thus in an Orthodox manner. (The Bible itself is within the One Tradition and while sometimes it will be helpful to make a distinction between the biblical and unwritten traditions, by the distinction we make we do not wish nor intend to separate the two thus impairing both the Holy Tradition and the Bible.)

We will come back to this point at a later stage of the web page, when we discuss the common fallacy that "Christians are ashamed of their religion's Jewish heritage" or, similarly, that "the Hellenic civilisation gave rise to Christianity".

The vague adjectives "Greek", "Cypriot", "Romanian", "American" etc. (which are sometimes accurately placed - Cypriot Church always corresponds to the Church of Cyprus in group (II), and often inaccurately placed - American could correspond to OCA or one of the Churches in group (IV); Greek could be either State Church of Greece under the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece or the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America under the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople) are only used to stress the locality of the particular Orthodox Church but the teachings (ethos and doctrines), i.e. the Tradition, remain unchanged and therefore do not depend on ethnic barriers but on the barriers of the Truth of the Word of God. Whoever (even Orthodox) teaches false doctrines is eventually removed from the Church's grounds. "Tradition" based upon the word paradosis exists in all non-Orthodox para-congregations, in some form or other: the Anglicans have the Book of Prayers that is still in use from the 16th century and most Protestants have Sunday schools and altar calls. (For more information please read here; or search throughout the Main Page buttons for other links to Professor Arakaki's articles.) Unwritten Writ, exists everywhere; this in case you have heard that the Orthodox are "traditionalist" and do not change at all; this is not true. The Church does not change internally, but many a time has she changed externally (for more on this look up this link).

This removal of heretics from the grounds of Orthodoxy holds both for individual people (both laity and clergy) as well as for groups of people that become heretics. Not only heresy but even schism is dangerous for the Church and schismatics are also eventually put at a distance (e.g. Old Calendarists in Greece contravening the local synod's decision on the use of the New Calendar). This apparent austerity in matters of faith is not due to some "problem" that the Orthodox have in "socialising" with other religious groups and sects or due to stubbornness, not wishing to let people "express themselves freely" due to narrow-mindedness, but due to the commands that the Lord gave us; here is but one:

"If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you"(John 14: 15-17).

So first we must try to keep His commandments (all) and then can we only hope for the Spirit to come to us. (Of course Christ understands our hearts and awards our efforts, as long as we stay on the right path; He does not expect us to be perfect but to strive towards perfection - in practice, esp. in today's world of low ethical values, He expects so much less!)  We must do as much as we can for Christ. Not as little as we can get away with (Western way of thinking, even among many Orthodox converts). In the words of a monk from Mt. Athos in Greece that we heard a while ago and impressed us deeply: "We [monks] only make suggestions; but the Lord has given us commands".

Of course God's compassion brings His Spirit to us when we pray to Him in need of Him, but the actual "church" (say e.g. the diocese of a denomination) can never receive the grace of the Spirit as long as she insists in preaching false (often blasphemous) doctrines (c.f. comparative doctrine). In other words, unless this "church" decides to proclaim the Orthodox faith in the fulness of the revealed Truth, which is Christ Himself -- and therefore wholly convert to the Orthodox faith, coming in sacramental intercommunion with the Orthodox Patriarchates and autocephalous Churches of the Orthodox Church -- she is guaranteed to have no grace in her as a congregation: Christ may work sporadic miracles to individual members, who still call upon His name, but will never bring His Grace upon their congregation because they are outside the Body of the Truth, the Orthodox Church.

Thus austerity in matters of faith is not a sign of being "backwards" or "of the olden days" but a necessity brought by the Lord's explicit commands in His Scriptures. Beliefs of pseudo-Ecumenism (e.g. Nicky Gumbel's Questions of Life, p. 148, "In one sense, ..."), namely that we can all get together because all that matters is to hold the Spirit inside us and not the teachings per se, are unacceptable in Orthodoxy, for true Christian Ecumenism presupposes unified obedience in the One Word of God and not the other way around; even just the aforementioned verses from John's gospel make this quite clear.

Aim

Our main aim is to provide a general albeit careful exposition of Orthodoxy and her beliefs. In particular, the so-called "seven sacraments" of the Church (a Medieval Roman Catholic notion - in reality the whole Church is mystical), or what we would call as "some of the major mysteries of the Church" are analysed (to see what they are; not in their nature but in their description) with references given from both the Bible and first-christian scriptures: (Nepio)baptism, Eucharist, Priesthood (Holy Orders), Chrismation, Confession, Holy Unction (Anointing by oil) and Matrimony.

The reason why references from both these sources are given is twofold:

(a) The Divine Revelation was given to us "once and for all" and the apostle says "Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus; That good thing that was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14). This way we see that the Divine Tradition of the Church is as important and within its atmosphere it is that the Bible has a unique meaning (for details see Chapter 1). However, people away from the body of Church cannot explain the Bible correctly. Therefore if we only gave references from the Bible some people would say "Well, I interpret this (or my church does) in a different way" or "anyone who believes they have the whole truth is spiritually abusive" etc. and we would get nowhere at the end of the day. Also bear in mind that all English Bibles change the text semantics often. Unfortunately, there is no Orthodox translation of the Bible in English yet.

We will be using the original koine Greek text; and the interpretation we do will always be based on the original in old Greek (koine) and it will always agree with the formal position taken by the Orthodox Church. However for purposes of presentation, translated Bibles in English commonly used by English-speaking peoples will be used partly, such as the King James (Old and New) and the Vulgate; although many times the actual verses from these translations (which as translations have many shortcomings) will be altered appropriately to cater for the correct meaning or if not an appropriate footnote will be added to explain how the translation fails and what the meaning is (the wording from the koine).

So the views put forward in these notes are not only ours but should coincide (barring errors on our part) with the formal position of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Consciousness.

Although it is highly recommended that an Orthodox study Bible is found and used in conjunction with any bible, it is even better to read Trembelas' work on the interpretation of the Scriptures (in Greek), amongst many other such widely recognised works of Orthodox theologians.

(b) In the Matthew gospel we read: "And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16: 18). In other words, nothing will move the Church from her foundations, not Hades himself. So, individual people can go into apostasy, even "shepherds" (Acts 20:29-31. Revel. 9:1) but not the Church (Matt. 16:18). As a result, by giving references from the early Christian era we establish the beliefs of the first Church and if someone turns around and says, "Well, I think they went into apostasy and I am right", we can refer back to the Bible itself to disprove them. In a sense, with these references we establish a proof out of the original conjecture.

What next?

Compare the belief systems of other churches to Orthodoxy (Pentecostal, Adventist, Mormon, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelicals etc.). Time allowing we hope one day to expand to gurus, new age and other occults.

Page is not complete, continually expanding, with many corrections and additions. So even if you have printed out a few things visit often -- which means at least once every fortnight -- as new chapters will be coming up all the time. However, we want to stress that it is infinitely more important that you begin to live the life from within than keep coming back to these notes. The internet is a dangerous place and reading is of no use if it is not combined with living the life, for then it becomes scholastic. The demons also read the Bible, and know all the theological arguments inside out. In fact they are "orthodox" in that they know that Christ is God, they know the true dogmas of the Holy Trinity and even have many virtues at times (like patience!). But they do not humble themselves before Christ despite their vast knowledge. Without humility, all the virtues in the world are meaningless; and we become enslaved to the Devil who after throwing us into heresy or other sins of the flesh, notes our prideful unrepentance and goes away without bothering us, for he knows that we belong to him already by our pride. But when a little humility slowly enters our life, we begin to become well-meaning in our approach and God Who sees this begins to plough the trenches of our soul to help us understand where His Body lives, so we can come Home to Him.

Therefore read these notes and various spiritual books under the guidance of a spiritual father you will seek who will eventually catechise you into the faith. When you are ready to enter the Church through baptism and chrismation, rejoice. Afterwards, continue your struggle for the rest of your life, having love for Christ in humility, following the life-giving mysteries of the Church and obeying her divinely wise canons.

This way you will reach Paradise and if you toil much you may even join the ranks of the Saints whose lives we read daily and marvel. They were people like you and me, not "super heroes". They had a great love for Christ. He just wants to see our good intentions and through prayer He will give us what we need to begin our battle. Thus do not despair, dear reader, and never give up for Christ's love knows no boundaries.

This love however does not mean that we forget the Truth of Christ, revealed to us and lived inside His Living Body, the Orthodox Church.

Like everything else, this revelation in our hearts, the opening of the eyes of our soul, which leads us to discover that Orthodoxy is the Body of Christ, is a gift from God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

FOOTNOTES

• Old Greek = The importance of the Greek language can be seen in many places in the Bible. First and foremost, the New Testament was originally written mainly in Greek (and the oeconomia ensured that the jewish and syro-chaldaic originals written were translated into Greek immediately by the authors). Secondly, the Old Testament's original translation saved to date is the Greek one as the Jewish one was lost (only a small percentage of the original has been found today). And God's divine oeconomia works here with the "translation of the seventy scholars" (Septuagint) that is much older than the Masoretic vowelised text. This way, no one can claim that the Greek translation of the Old Testament is not perfect (like any translation normally falls short of the original), for it was done by 72 Jewish scholars in the third century BC in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphius (285 - 247 BC) and all the translations they came up with agreed completely (this is the miracle here that the divine oeconomia of the Lord ensured for us). In fact, the part of this miraculous translation (done by the Jews themselves!) that corresponds to the Koumran scrolls of the first century AD agrees completely with them! Also, we should point out here that the Jews used to accept the Septuagint text as divinely-inspired. This can be clearly seen by Philon's Life of Moses (2,7) who calls the Seventy as "prophets" and "hierophants", whereas the Babylonian Talmud Megilla 9a confirms this. Thirdly, Christ prophesies that in the New Testament Greeks will glorify Him (John 12:20-23). So, if I were not a Christian and suddenly wanted to find out about Christianity for the first time in my life where would I go to? Reading the Bible (c.f. John 12:20-23 or the Old Testament) I would either go to a Greek or to a Hebrew. Since Hebrews in general do not believe in the New Testament and therefore did not "update" Judaism into Christianity, there is "only" the Greeks left to start with my investigation (since they are still Christians as a nation, being the descendants of the Roman Christian Empire which collapsed in 1453 and having been completely converted to Christianity from Paganism within the first three centuries after Christ). This way, a complete stranger, knowing nothing about Christianity, would be led first of all to the Roman Orthodox Church of Greece which belongs to the Orthodox Church, and therefore they would be led to the Orthodox Church: since the autocephalous (self-governing) Church of Greece is nothing exceptional by itself (we are not an ethnic conglomeration) but part of the One Orthodox Church and in full agreement of beliefs and ethos with the rest of the Eastern Orthodox world. In this sense, the Orthodox Church is the most important Church there is to start with our investigation on Christianity. Our aim here is to give evidence that this is also the last Church one need check. Finally, we must not forget that while at the "centre" of the non-Jewish "ethnic" nations were the Greeks, Christ, never denounced His Jewish heritage and roots (a Nazarene Jew that would speak in the Aramaic tongue) and God the Father appeared first to the Jews. In other words, Judaism, while ethnic, was a prerequisite, an introduction into Christianity and not meant to be abolished but extended and complemented! (Thus Judaism in its present form would not exist had the Judaizers realised that their God is the one they rejected; hence the contemporary Judaist religion is by default anti-Christian.) Indeed, the Jewish synagogue with its holies of holies becomes now the Christian temple (although the sanctuary now faces to the East and not the West), which, like the synagogue of the past, is much more than just a "building", and has the Holies of Holies too; the eastern end of the Church where only the priest is allowed to enter in. So: this is as far as the importance of the Greeks goes, at least as far as Orthodox Christianity is concerned. Orthodox Christianity is not some exotic or ethnic Church but nothing less than the full Church of Christ. All nations and peoples together that engulf Orthodoxy have Greece of "central" respect, because of the Greek language used in the Holy Tradition, a fiery tongue of the Pentecost, and due to the fact that a certain number of holy Greek men were always present, by God's oeconomia and fulfillment of prophecy (John 12:23) that helped keep the purity of Orthodoxy intact and strong. At the same time Greeks, as the Hellenic-speaking Romans that they were, remained the only protagonists of the Christian Roman Empire especially after the subjugation and annihilation of the Latin-speaking Romans of the West who were lost to the Franco-Germans by the 16th century, and even today, after the fall of the Roman Christian Empire in 1453 to the Turks, they continue to be so. However, we must hasten to add here, that this by no means places the faith within the ethnic barriers of present-day Greece due to some importance given to the Hellenic race that is somehow superior to others! That is absurd, historically incorrect, and un-Orthodox! Phyletism (whether under the cloak of Pan-Hellenism or Pan-Slavism) has been formally condemned by the Orthodox Church. After all, citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire (what is often and inaccurately called the Byzantine Empire) would consider themselves as Roman citizens and would be offended if you would call them "Greek", in those days, due to the associations of the word "Greek" (or more correctly "Hellene") with the ancient pagan rites of the dodecatheon. (Of course, the political motivations of the Franks who aimed at conquering Rome, and thus wanted to separate the historical memory of the Hellenic-speaking Romans from the Latin-speaking Romans, replaced "Roman" with "Greek", gradually yet systematically, and eventually managed to keep the name "Byzantine" for the Roman Empire, even though this term is purposefully wrong.) Even after the fall of Byzantium and of the Christian Roman Empire, and the rise of the Moslem Turks, the Christians living in Moslem territory were still called Romans. This practice continues to this very day: Constantinople is considered the New Rome, and the official address of the Patriarchate of Constantinople by the Turks is Rum Patrikhanesi, the Roman Patriarchate. Today, while Greeks are usually not offended if they are called such -- because "Greeks" is now understood only in reference to people of Hellenic descent, since after all Hellenes ethnically descended from the ancient Graeci, whereas in the past all citizens of the Roman Empire, whether Greek, Jewish or other, would be called Romans as Greeks meant pagans -- we still call ourselves as "Romans" (Romeos and Romea; the term Romean is often used to indicate Eastern Roman). (Today, a few ultra-nationalist groups have emerged in Greece promoting phyletism but these have no connection to the Orthodox Church but rather with neo-idolatric religions.) So Orthodoxy is not some Greek creation. The "importance" we have by our Hellenic descent and place in History as the successors of Byzantium is counter-balanced by our responsibilities which arise from this. The fact that we can understand the Bible a lot more easily and more succinctly or the fact that we have an important Historical memory that we need to preserve for the coming generations all over the world, more than other peoples and nations perhaps, is not something to boast about, but something to tremble over: for the Lord will ask a lot more from the Romeans in this respect than He would from non-Greeks! We should only place this importance as a gift of God to us; a gift that we must help and develop by aiding those who cannot speak Greek. From a Christian perspective, the more gifts we have, the more responsibilities we have! It is not a matter of becoming arrogant about it but a matter of becoming responsible about it. And in fact responsible in Christ. Read also and here and here .
• usually not offended = Clearly, since Graeci or Greek is our name in Latin (and the Ãñáéêïß were our ancestors) it is not offensive per se. In fact, we should point out that ancient ethnic Romans also spoke Greek, despite the attempts made by some historians to avoid showing their historically proven Hellenic tongue. At any rate, the offence comes when the term is used for propaganda. The descendants of the Frankish tribes who falsified History, being the Western Europeans, ensured to call us "Greeks" (a term that in those days meant "pagan" and that they often used and continue to use in a negative sense; e.g. in French the word grec means crook) so that people will not remember that we are also "Romeans", viz. Hellenic-speaking Romans of the East and true descendants of the Christian Roman Empire that they refused to become a part of. They also created the term "Byzantine Empire" to describe the Eastern part of the Roman Empire because they wanted to take over the Western side of the Roman Empire for themselves, by capturing Rome. For more information please read Clifton Fox's important article here. The reality is that they never merged with the Hellenic-speaking and Latin-speaking Romans of the Western part of the Roman Christian Empire but only took over and annihilated, neither respecting Orthodoxy, which they uprooted from the conscience of the people, nor their Romanity, since the Roman citizens in the West were essentially ethnically cleansed. This led them to falsify History and this was the primary reason for the loss of the Roman Orthodox mindset in the West, since the Franks also created a new theology in order to "decorate" their political motivations to conquer Rome and prove that the Roman Empire supposedly descended from them. It is certainly not random that they continue to support this lie to this day or that the first six countries who made up the initial European Economic Community (EEC), a pre-cursor to modern-day EU, were the territories under the dominion of Charlemagne, that enemy and destroyer of Romanity. It is also not random that the Macedonia issue started by the nationalist Vardarskians in FYROM has been indirectly supported by the British and the American governments. More information on this important topic that provides an essential introduction to the true reasons behind the Schism is given in this book here. For some basic historical background we refer the reader to the Romanity website.
• Creed = Originally written by the Orthodox and the Catholics before the Catholics went into schism. Thus, it coincides with the Roman Catholic, Old Catholic and Anglican Creed except for the so-called Filioque (i.e. the words "and from the Son" in latin) that was added by the Papals to the orthodox creed: the Spirit stems only from the Father not from the Son as well, for that leads to semi-Sabellianism or even polytheism (full discussion will follow in the Advanced Analysis notes when they appear online in future versions of this web page). When we talk of the Filioque we mean the addition in the other Creeds of the words "and from the Son". The Orthodox Creed has remained unchanged rejecting the Filioque.
• antichrist = anti + Christ = instead of Christ. The Pope is an antichrist in the sense that he places himself as the head of the Militant Church, and only Christ can have that place. Of course the Pope is not an antichrist in the standard sense of the word: the Orthodox Church would honour the pope, but not the place of autocracy he seeks. Please also note that the Orthodox are not Petromachs and thus whenever the word "antichrist" is used in relation to the Pope is only in this sense and not in any sense the Protestants use it. The Antichrist of the Revelation is also an antichrist as he will be loved "in place of Christ".
• honour the pope = There is a common misunderstanding in the West today (mainly due to bishop Kallistos Ware's excellent for the most part yet unfortunately seriously flawed on a number of points and "politically corrected" introductory book The Orthodox Church, particularly the 1993 edition) that if Rome became Orthodox, somehow the pope would be "first among equals". However, Constantinople now is the New Rome. Any prerogatives the papacy may have had at certain times of the History of the Church (which by no means place the pope as some "first among equals" without equally honouring not only Constantinople but also the ancient Mother Patriarchate of Jerusalem), could not really apply any more today, even if Rome became Orthodox, which of course is not something the reader should expect to happen in their lifetime. On the contrary, in the same way that Germany does not foster an army after WWII, one would expect humility from the future Orthodox popes (should a re-union happen); and certainly a "first among equals" spiritual prerogative would be unwise to be allocated to Rome so she can atone for her past crimes. Indeed, Elder Rome had been moved to New Rome because the Elder Rome had been so closely linked to the heathen idolaters. A future Orthodox-converted Rome would still be linked closely with its dark past of the unrepentant papal heresy. Yet, the reader should not expect any such union to happen in their lifetime. Neither humility nor honesty exists in the Vatican. For example, when it became obvious to some circles that Albino Luciani, later known as John Paul I, wished to remove Marcinkus from his position in the IOR, he was silenced. The fact that he lasted exactly 33 days on the papal throne before he was poisoned speaks volumes as to the intentions and dealings of the Vatican. More details can be found here.
• Petromach = We do not refer here to the Petrine Doctrine as that is usually formulated by the contemporary heretical papacy. We refer to the term in a literal sense, referring to those who are against St. Peter as a Saint and Apostle of the Church who was martyred (although not in Rome, as the Papist support). Of course, Rome's Primacy claims are baseless. In the first millennium, the East was prepared to accord some kind of primacy of honour to the Patriarch of Rome -- though not exclusively so, given the position of honour accorded to Constantinople and the Mother Church of Jerusalem. Whatever this primacy may have been in the minds of the ancient Bishops, it is now a dead letter; so, indeed, is Rome's very claim to Apostolic Succession. When it was still Orthodox in its confession of the Faith, the Roman Papacy may have played some such role, especially during the more troubled times of the Eastern Patriarchates, when the West needed to "pull together" against heresies, or when the West had to fight off barbarian attacks. However, since it lapsed into heresy, this limited spiritual prerogative -- whatever it may have been -- has become utterly null and void.
• primacy of honour = The translation "primacy of honour" of the Franco-Latins and Protestants belongs to them, not us. In Greek, this expression should have been translated as "seniority of honour". The "primacy" that had existed at times when the Pope had needed to fight off Lombard or Goth attacks for instance, should be more seen like that of modern-day Romean patriarchs who played the similar role of an Ethnarch defending their people (e.g. in Constantinople during the Ottoman rule or in Cyprus during the British occupation). It should be noted however that such situations were not ideal and certainly caused many problems, being undesirable. Therefore talk on the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synods wishing to grant an actual primacy of honour is not only historically and linguistically baseless but also a logical fallacy.
• online links = Clearly http://www.ecclesia.gr/ is a proper "Greek" link, being the official page of the Church of Greece. It is highly recommended that links in Greek or from Greek-speaking Orthodox in English are sought from this page, if unsure about the material you read. The same holds for every other Church. At the same time, we need to point out that an official website will have to be a little politically correct today. We must learn to read one thing and understand ten. For this reason the reader is advised to read other Orthodox links. Some of the best links are those that are associated with well-established Orthodox periodicals. We have added some great links in our Links section (root site). A lot of these links have English entries too, so do visit. Also, bear in mind that a lot of such links are making an effort to provide English sections to their websites. Write to them (if there is a contact e-mail) in order to encourage their work.
• in general = Of course, there are also many Hebrews who are Orthodox Christians, including some notable ex-rabbis. With the fall of Communism, thousands of Orthodox Christian Hebrews moved to Israel. Also, many Russian Orthodox hierarchs are of Hebrew origin.
• heretics= A heretic is the person that holds false doctrines and is therefore not in the Orthodox Church that is the Truth, but away from the Truth in deceit. It is possible that he is a "dying" member of the Orthodox Church, preparing to join heretical beliefs, which is terrible for he will be judged more strictly due to the fact that he has met the Truth and rejected it whereas other heretics (e.g. Anglicans in the Anglican Church who were therefore born in England or of English roots) may have not. Of course a heretic is not necessarily a conscious fanatic or (God forbid) the leader of a new heresy (a heresiarch) for it could be that he did not know he was wrong in the first place! However, if he has been baptised into the Orthodox Church and now heretises, is told time and again by the Church to correct his beliefs and he stubbornly refuses, he becomes a true heretic at heart and is removed from the (Orthodox) Church. (In case he becomes an open enemy of the Church he may even be anathematised or excommunicated, so that the Church can protect her flock). As for the heterodox (i.e. non-Orthodox) Christian that sticks to the heretical beliefs of his heterodox group unwittingly, he is still a person in search of the Truth who trusts in Christ, so Christ helps him individually, even by doing miracles for him (even though he is not yet Orthodox and his congregation has failed to show Christ to him but instead a false "Christ" that does not exist). However the heretical congregations never receive God's blessing and miracles do not happen by God to any of them in their catholicity. This happens so that people may understand that they are in heresy and return or be led to the Truth. (Similarly, loose Orthodox Christians who do not live in Orthopraxis and are in danger of losing their soul, are given other types of struggles in order to humble them and thus they lose their prideful imaginations and return to the Truth.) This way -- to bring a small example -- when Italy was eventually lost to the Franco-Latins in the 11th century, the relics of St. Nicholas the Miracle-worker stopped gushing myrrh. The Latin priests were forced to hire an Orthodox priest to conduct the Liturgy for the relics to gush myrrh. Eventually, since they could find no further use for them, it is believed that they decided to sell the relics to the Russians for a time, although the relics are now back in Italy. (Of course, when we deal with Orthodox Saints, like St. Nicholas, it is important to understand that miraculous situations may continue while in the hands of heretics. For instance, the Cross of Christ did not stop being Holy when in the hands of the Persians who had stolen it from the Holy Lands, before Emperor Heraclius brought it back, and similarly various myrrh-gushing relics of ancient Orthodox saints in the hands of the ancient heresy of the Monophysites continue to gush myrrh. However, no catholic miracle can happen in any such congregation and be from God; if it is not a trick but a real event, it is guaranteed to be from Satan. For this reason, great care is needed when dealing with miracles for many people have been deceived. We will give many examples in our Patristic section where the reader will receive some practical understanding of what we write here.) The heterodox Christian becomes a true heretic at heart after he has been told repeatedly that his beliefs are heretical and refuses to change them out of pride (stubbornness etc.); this, assuming he was approached in an orthodox way by an Orthodox Christian i.e. not in the way of "Hey you! How can you believe this nonsense?"; for in that case, the Orthodox Christian is in the wrong and responsible and will be judged even more strictly (as we read in James' epistle) for attempting to preach but in the wrong way (in the example given, with pride in his words and heart). Having said that, since we all have to "test the spirits", as we read in 1 John's, we have a responsibility to search for the truth and test it; even if we were born and raised in Orthodox Christianity (unless we have divine simplicity in which case we will easily be led to the Truth of Christ without many trials). In short, the heretic chooses to be such, whereas the heretical belief is always heretical of course. As for the Orthodox Christians who believe that they can start preaching upon the heretics to lead them to the Truth, let them first change their own way of life, by trying to become as holy as they can and shine first through their example and then through their word. Otherwise, their words may be full of pride and pompousness and the poor heretic will only be more confused and may even be led away from the Truth forever, something terrible, for which we will be held responsible for on Judgment Day. Also, words empty of life and full of scholasticism do not change people because they are fleshly and not like a tongue of Pentecost that changes lives. Yet all these gifts are given to us if we live the life each to their ability, so others learn to imitate what they see us putting to practice. An obese man will agree with us when we claim that they need to exercise and read with interest the Theory of Jogging we might recommend. But unless he sees us jogging and living a healthy life, together with the proper effects of this life, he will not be moved. If this is true in such a small thing, how much more do we need to make this a reality in issues of Life in the Spirit? So do not rush to "save the day" for most times this is just your selfishness speaking! St. Nicholas, who was mentioned in the above example, was such a holy man that many people would become Orthodox just by looking at him! This is what life in Christ leads to!
• "infallible" = The quotes are placed around the word infallible here, simply because there is only infalliblity in the strict sense of the word. If the Synods were infallible to start with, that would mean of course that they could not err and whatever was to be decided would never need to be questioned. But then, the above view is contradicted by the example of the iconoclast Synod which was re-convened and the non-iconoclast is of course the one we accept (Seventh Oecumenical Synod). Indeed, only when a contrite heart and true love for the Truth is present with humility by the present members of the Church, does the Spirit descend and enlighten us. This is the situation shown in the New Testament via the Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem, where the apostles decided "in the Spirit". In this sense and only in this sense do we use the word infallible in the Church; for infallibility falls upon only the Word of God and His Church being the Body of Christ, and that only because Christ is at the helm. So in the long run everything is sorted out, problems resolved, heresies destroyed and fallacies shown for what they are. However, since most local synods today convene and take decisions in the Spirit, and rarely do we have exceptions to this, we must not worry too much about mistakes done; for sooner or later these are resolved for God provides, for He loves His body, His Church. Of course local synods do not have the authority of an Ecumenical Synod; nevertheless, if a contrite heart and love for the Truth is present amongst all members her decisions can only reflect those of an Oecumenical Synod. Of course, local synods will also deal with issues that are sometimes of importance in the locality concerned (e.g. the problem of the EKAM IDs in Greece). However, regarding the Nine Oecumenical and the other Pan-Orthodox Synods, in retrospect we value their decisions as correct and divinely-inspired; that is we agree that the Holy Spirit had decreed and helped them come to the right conclusions and that therefore they were true to the spirit of Synod. Infallibility of an Ecumenical-in-nature Synod (i.e.of an All-Orthodox Synod where the whole Church meets together mystically) is thus a dogma of the Orthodox Church although it does not mean of course that every Synod, that takes place will "automatically" be infallible: Christianity is not magic! The decisions are infallible provided the prerequisites were taken. And what are these? In one word: humility. Thus an ancient Synod would never dream of coming to a decision if the minority of those opposing a decision was substantial; they had to continue until they all truly decided in the Spirit, and not pushing for a result as the First Vatican Council did (where the Italian bishops won despite the substantial minorities of Irish, North American, Scottish and other Roman Catholic bishops being against the dogma of Papal Infallibility). This humility needed can also be seen by the example of the first Pan-Orthodox Synod described in the Acts of the Apostles: the Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem, whose decisions were eventually obtained by all "in the Spirit" and not by the Apostles pushing for a result. In a very real sense, the inspiration of a Synod is connected to the presence of a theumen during its proceedings, as we mentioned above.
• catechise = to be taught into the faith. Many Orthodox Christians believe that the main catechism ends with our entry into the Church. That however is not the case. In the first Church, people would enter Christianity as converts from some other faith, like it also happens today in many parts of the Diaspora. They would not normally enter it as babies (like it would happen later on after Christianity's expansion when many babies would be born into Orthodox families). These initial converts would usually need to be catechised for a period of up to three years before becoming baptised. Notice however, that catechisation is not (and was not) meant to end with one's entry in the faith. The Apostles were also Disciples of the Lord, a title they kept until the end of their earthly life. The discipleship followed them to the end. This shows to us that the discipleship and therefore catechisation must follow us always and we need to strive to learn our faith as much as we can (without becoming scholastics of course). This is another purpose of these notes (though of course we aim at the very initial stages and take into account the non-Orthodox and the problems they face in their communities; in other words we concentrate more on comparative polemics through which the faith "shows up").
• Orthodox Church= The divisions which have brought about the present "fragmentation of Christendom" (the distancing of a large number of Christians from the Ecclesia by following a road of heresy; the Ecclesia of course cannot be literally fragmented!) occurred in three well-known main stages, at intervals of roughly 500 years. The first stage in the separation came in the 5th and 6th centuries, when what are known today as the Oriental Orthodox Churches became divided from the main body of Christians. These Churches fall into two groups, the Church of the East (mainly in what are today Iraq and Iran; sometimes called the "Assyrian", "Nestorian", "Chaldean" or "East Syrian" Church); and the five Non-Chalcedonian Churches (frequently termed "monophysite"): the Syrian Church of Antioch (the so-called "Jacobite" Church), the Syrian Church in India, the Coptic Church in Egypt, the Armenian Church and the Ethiopian Church. We will not be concerned here at all with these Churches, although some issues raised from their beliefs will be present indirectly in the material presented. By Orthodox Church, therefore, we shall mean here the Eastern Orthodox Church which consists of the Churches which are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Fortunately, in our day there are great hopes for a full reconciliation between these two families of Christians - the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox. The (Eastern) Orthodox Church is composed at present of the following self-governing or "autocephalous" Churches: (I) The 4 ancient Patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, (II) 9 other autocephalous Churches: Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Hellas (Greece), Poland, Albania, (III) various Churches self-governing in many respects, but which do not possess full independence and are thus termed "autonomous" but not "autocephalous": Czech Republic and Slovakia, Sinai, Finland, Japan, China, and (IV) there is in addition a large Orthodox "diaspora" in western Europe, in North and South America, and in Australia. Most of these Orthodox who have been "scattered abroad" depend jurisdictionally upon one of the Patriarchates or autocephalous Churches, but in some areas there is a move towards self-government. In particular, steps have been taken to form an autocephalous Orthodox Church in America (OCA) (about 1,000,000) but this has not yet been officially recognised by the majority of other Orthodox Churches. As a result, there were a few disagreements with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and to this day OCA has not yet obtained full autocephaly. OCA claim that they are autocephalous, but in reality only the Ecumenical Patriarchate can grant autocephaly. (Of course, OCA is in canonical intercommunion with all Orthodox jurisdictions.) The only Church of the Diaspora which had become isolated was the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), due to problems with Communism, although full union with Moscow took place in May 2007. For more information please read here. Please note that the "diaspora" includes many other countries, with smaller or larger Orthodox communities (local, monasteries etc.) scattered around (e.g. Mexico, Ethiopia, Italy, Germany et. al.). Also, the (F.Y.R.) Macedonian Orthodox Church is not Orthodox but was only recently "created" as part of the "Macedonian" propaganda machine against Greece (contrary to the historical evidence, including that of the Bible's - e.g. read here - they continue to try and persuade the world that they are Macedonian by origin (they are not even by position; less than 50% of FYROM corresponds to the ancient Macedonian land!) and of course is not in communion with any Orthodox Church. Notice there is also a large number of Orthodox Christians who are crypto-Christians i.e. they are hiding their beliefs from the authorities for fear of persecution. In Turkey for example, there are "officially" 2 million crypto-Christians appearing on the outside as Moslems. "Unofficially" the number is roughly 7 million. Taking into consideration the large number of crypto-Christians in other countries where Orthodoxy is not welcome (e.g. in China we cannot really tell the real number as a lot of Orthodox Christians are still hiding their beliefs), or those who are still persecuted (e.g. in Slovakia by Papist Uniates in recent years, in FYROM by nationalist Skopjans etc.), the overall number is clearly much larger than the estimates normally given.
• Hawaii = We have been allowed to present a few of the articles of the theologian Professor Robert Arakaki from Hawaii to the members of our list. Because many people join our List on a weekly basis we have decided to add these at the appropriate place for the perusal of all our interested visitors. You will find these articles (in Microsoft Word formats) scattered around our notes at points that we believe that they actually complement our own material. We will say something like "Please also read this article by Professor Arakaki" and send you to a link. Please note that these are all copyrighted materials and you are not allowed to quote these anywhere else without the explicit consent of Professor Arakaki and (if you receive his consent) you must always quote his name and show the material in exactly the way it is presented. If you wish more information on such issues please contact us from the Contact Info menu and leave us a note so we can be in touch with people who can contact him. A lot of the other material also present in these notes is also copyrighted and you must never quote or use anything without asking us first.
• translation = Such a translation would require a large number of truly charismatic theologians (not necessarily having many diplomas but definitely being enlightened elders through their ascetic struggles). Such a project would also require to be undertaken under Synodal blessing and approval. "English-speaking" Orthodoxy -- despite its large presence on the web -- is still "coming around" after the Great Schism. For this reason, it would be strange to expect people to abandon scholasticism, comfort or pietism so quickly, when the society around us is poisoned by these curses, at a time when the enemies of the Church rule governments, media and institutions. If and when such a translation happens it will be a great miracle from God. Naturally, we must also understand that the English tongue has many limitations both in its syntax and structure, thus making this task even harder. If modern Greek that stems from the koine has not only some linguistic shortcomings in official translations (under Synodal approval by the Holy Continuous Local Synod of the State Church of Greece that needs to be mentioned in the translated bible by protocol number) but often gives rise to serious semantic shortcomings (because all these dry academic translations, often done with the aid of the Protestant Bible Society are not God-inspired), let us not expect quick results soon. When God sees fit, He will move the heart of a Saint who will provide such a translation. In the meantime Orthodox parishioners in the Diaspora are advised to stay as close to the original as possible. Nevertheless, we need to pray for an Orthodox translation that will be as good as possible and also provide a correction to the biased views introduced by heresy. This is also an important reason why parishes in the Western Diaspora need to keep in contact with the koine text (esp. GOA, due to her Greek background). It is not however the only reason. These other reasons will not be expanded here, but we will note that they are indirectly (and not directly) related to the reason why the Orthodox Church does not allow modern Greek to substitute the original text in Greece or Cyprus. At first, this might seem to happen simply because the original must be kept alive somewhere. But there are far deeper reasons than this. The issue is non-trivial and needs to be discussed at length. Those who will approach this topic through rationalism will go astray, so let them not draw quick conclusions. This extremely important topic will be discussed in a future related article. As we shall see, keeping the Greek tongue alive is of the utmost importance not only in Greece or Cyprus, but also throughout the Western world, especially in Greek-speaking parishes (GOA) where Greek has largely been reduced these days. Those who believe that translation into modern Greek is acceptable as is, fall into a form of Neo-Barlaamism which is a heresy. Unfortunately, the coerced "decision" (?) of the Holy Synod in Greece to add a translation of the Epistle and Gospel readings does not agree with the Orthodox Consciousness (or indeed previous statements made by the former and late Archbishop Christodoulos himself on this topic) and met the collective resistance of the Greek Orthodox people, laity and clergy, including that of the entire Holy Mount Athos community of elders. Not only was there no humility in making this decision but to the trained "critical" eye it can be seen as an obvious trap of the anti-Christian forces who attack the Church hoping She will be destroyed. Even the New Age anti-Christian channel CNN announced this decision the next day after it was taken! For more information on this important topic the reader can read a series of articles in our Patristic section. One such article is already online here. We would also like to inform the reader that this "pilot" attempt made by some ecclesiastical factors in our Synod (and all those behind this), failed miserably (sorry CNN!) because most parishes never followed this regulation but only added a translated excerpt of the original in printed pamphlets for those who prefer to have them and still only recite the original inside the Liturgy. Apart from the ignorant or modernist Orthodox, the majority of the nation ignored this "pilot" introduction. Bravo to them! Some think our Orthodox Consciousness can be uprooted easily! They will have to try harder than this! Of course, there is another dimension to the issue of translation which needs to be brought to our attention relating to the quality of the existing English Bibles. Read this article here.
• some Orthodox Christians = Indeed, many people today in the Orthodox Church are either uninformed or deceived by propaganda and are not aware of the existence of the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Synods. The famous canoniologist Theodore Valsamon (second half of 11th century) considers the Synod of AD 879 as the "Eighth Ecumenical Synod". St. Mark of Ephesus (AD 1392-1444), St. Nilus of Rhodes, St. Symeon of Thessalonica and other Saints have also acknowledged this Synod as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod. The Pan-Orthodox Synods that took place in the middle of the 13th century also proclaimed the Synod of AD 879-880 as Ecumenical. The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (AD 1848) makes constant mention to this 8th Synod. The great Orthodox theologians fr. George Metallinos, fr. John Romanides and fr. George Dragas and many other respected theologians of international renown (for example, fr. Hierotheos Vlachos) consider it to be the Eighth Synod. As fr. George Metallinos mentioned in an interview given at Divine Ascent: A Journal of Orthodox Faith (Tome 1 N. 2 pp. 59-60), "Traditionally, the Holy Fathers would examine three major problems during the course of a Synod: issues dealing with the Holy Trinity, issues dealing with Christology and/or issues dealing with the Grace of God and man's salvation. Among the 9 Ecumenical Synods of the Orthodox Church, one finds that both the 8th (AD 879-880) and the 9th (AD 1341) dealt with these issues". The famous Gennadius Scholarius would support that even though this Synod appeared externally to be local, in the sense that ecumenicity was missing due to the fact that the West could not take part, notes that it was ecumenical (i.e. of Pan-Orthodox status) nonetheless for the truth it taught: "I accept with all my heart the holy and great synod that condemned the Latin-minded Beccus [viz. the Synod of Blachernae in Constantinople-New Rome, 1285] and whole-heartedly believe that it is ecumenical [in nature] since the absence of the West does not remove her ecumenical character ... Pay attention to see how the Synod of Florence differs from the one that took place in Constantinople against Beccus [AD 1285]. The latter agrees completely with the faith of the Ecumenical Synods -- including the 8th [= Synod of Constantinople, AD 879-880] and the other synods; while the one at Florence disagrees with all of them -- both with her [the 8th] and the rest [of the synods]. In Constantinople, the Patriarch of Alexandria was present, as were the other patriarchs too, who [altogether] agreed and certified the results of the proceedings as valid and legally binding" (taken from the second discourse of Gennadius on the Procession of the Holy Spirit). As regards the Ninth Synod, we need to be more precise here. We should add that the Ninth Ecumenical Synod in reality consists of a series of synods (those of AD 1341, 1347, 1351 and 1368) in which the existence of the Uncreated Energies of God was mainly discussed together with the distinction between Divine Essence and Divine Energies in order to counter the Western heretical claims. These synods, particularly of 1341 and 1351, dealt with hesychasm and the teaching of Saint Gregory Palamas and of the monks of the Holy Mountain, having long been recognised by Orthodox Christians as the "9th Ecumenical Synod". Editions that refer to these Synods as "9th Ecumenical" had been censored by the Latins in Venice as well as by Jesuit teachers in Russia. The reasons why many Orthodox today have lost the association of these two Synods with their Ecumenicity lies in many reasons; here are three fundamental ones: a) Under Ottoman rule, the publication of Orthodox liturgical books was prohibited. The only way for such material to be printed was for it to be given for printing in the West. Venice was one of the most well-established areas for this type of work. However in the West, and in Venice in particular, the Frankolatins would censor these manuscripts before these even had a chance to be printed and would remove things that was not to their liking, such as the presence of the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Synods were, as well as information pertaining to Ss. Mark the Eugenicus (of Ephesus) and Gregory Palamas. In the collection to the canons by St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite (the Rudder), the Saint found so many changes added by the Frankolatins, that he cried when he received the printed books in his hands and saw for himself the terrible distortion and falsification of the Orthodox Faith. (Of course, St. Nicodemus later on corrected the Papist additions to the Rudder); b) Under the Western-minded politics of the not-so-great Peter of Russia and his successors, the Jesuits took over the education system in Russia and removed everything not to the liking of the Papist religion, in the manner of the Papists who had censored the material that St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite had wished to print; and c) a few Orthodox Christians, hoping in a future reconciliation with the Vatican, have avoided the enumeration of Ecumenical Synods after the Seventh. Yet they do this while fully accepting of the teachings of the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Synods. What is particularly amusing is that the so-called "Catholic Encyclopedia" (published in 1907) openly admits that this Synod (which is condemned by them of course) was fully accepted at the time by the Orthodox as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod! More specifically, we read: "This [synod of AD 879-880] is the Pseudosynodus Photiana [the pseudo-synod of Photios], which the Orthodox count as the Eighth Ecumenical Council"! For more information read here. Still, after the first Nine Ecumenical Synods and the other Pan-Orthodox Synods that followed, it has been quite some time now that we have not had a new Pan-Orthodox Synod convened. Some people will wonder why this is the case. The reason is related to the above propaganda: there are many enemies within and outside the Church who want us first to "unite" with the Papists (illegally) and then to call up a Synod that also includes "Elder Rome". However, this noble idea would only make sense if Papism had truly repented and rejected its blasphemies. This however is not the case. So various pseudo-ecumenist "Orthodox" and Papists are working hard to bring about a false union first. Because if a new Pan-Orthodox Synod convenes now and stays true to its name (i.e. is truly Orthodox), it must first of all recognise officially the aforementioned Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Synods as such, and therefore immediately reject the Western confessions as heretical and the Papists as heretics. All these "ecumenist" dialogues (on which the Vatican has spent a lot of money), monetary aid etc., will have proven fruitless and the heretical pseudo-ecumenists will not be in a position to cloud matters further. Furthermore, these events would cause a lot of problems in the propagation of the pan-religious "dialogue" that paves the way for the Antichrist's Pan-Religion (Mra). So due to great pressures, we have not been able to call up a new Pan-Orthodox Synod in recent times; one that would keep true to its name, that is! For the past 40-45 years we have been "attempting" to do so, but we keep stalling. Of course, these discussions include meetings, dinners, travels etc. so they do take a long time to bring fruit; but 40 years is a very long time. Let us bring an example so the reader can appreciate some of the things going on behind the scenes. We shall refrain from using names even though we know when these events took place and who was there and there are living witnesses to these events. Not too long ago, we had a professor at the Chalki Seminary, who was also head secretary of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. At the time, he, together with others, was involved in a discussion with the Old Catholics. At some point it was decided that there are few things which keep us separated and that union is imminent (the usual ecumenist rhetoric). As soon as this blessed man heard this he got up and told the assembly: "Hey guys, how are we going to do such a thing? We're going to lose the travels, we're going to lose the dinners, we're going to lose tourism ...". Do you understand, dear reader? He was a patriarchal secretary; he could not speak openly. He basically told them: we go to these discussions for fun and tourism and not to talk seriously with the fear of God. Many such blessed people defend the faith behind the scenes today. They participate in these ecumenist symposia in order that the enemies do not take over. So let us make this as clear as possible: if a Pan-Orthodox Synod is convened today, dear readers, you will know what it truly is from its decisions a few years later; you will be able to judge it by its "fruits". If you see CNN advertising it as something noble and great and you see "union" being the theme of the day, you will know that the participants left the true faith and are not truly Orthodox but in heresy while this Synod would only be a blasphemous travesty. Of course, if it is a true Synod and Papism is thus condemned as heresy, know also that we will have no more place in the New Order capitalist post-Christian secularised religion of "democracy" (in truth, constitutional dictatorship) of the so-called "enlightened" countries of which Hellas is also an integral part now as a "proud" EU member. Propaganda mocks only for a time. When that time passes, open persecution begins.
• Theumen = From Theos = God meaning glorified one. The word theosis or glorification relates to this word and indicates one who has reached such high levels of holiness being a "pious saintly Orthodox theologian" in more contemporary terminology although we introduce here another abuse of terminology with the word theologian. Strictly speaking, the Orthodox Church only accepts three Theologians, all other saintly ones bearing this title by dispensation (economy). The contemporary academic "theologian" is a linguistic abuse of the term theologos (literally the one who speaks about God) and under no way necessarily implies that he is actually a true theologian (there exist "theologians" who are even ... atheists!). Only the Church can assign this title for him to be truly that, and this has been the case for only three of her Saints.
• Roman = We should also note here, for the benefit of Roman Catholic readers, that the Ecumenical Patriarch is only a title given in terms of love, not of authority. Hence, the Ecumenical Patriarch's views, while respected with piety by all Orthodox Christians, do not necessarily reflect those of the whole of the Church and may at times go against it, depending on what person the Patriarch happens to be. In other words, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and New Rome is not considered, and never has been considered in the History of the Church, infallible ex-cathedra -- at least on the outset (not that some of them did not try at times). As such, he is not some form of "Orthodox Pope", in today's sense of the word "Pope". Neither he, nor any of the ancient Popes have any connection whatsoever with any of the post-Schism claims of infallible exousia granted to the Pope of Rome after the West fell into heresy.
• On the dispute between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece = The following material shows a recent friction between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece. This friction has now been resolved and we only include it here for historical purposes in order to draw some conclusions in the end.

  1- Following the victorious Balkan Wars (1912-1913) the provinces of Epirus, Macedonia, and Thrace were incorporated in the Greek State. At the same time, negotiations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate began to the purpose of the respective incorporation, in the Church of Greece, of the Metropolises of these lands, which, from an ecclesiastical point of view, belonged to the Patriarchate until then. This incorporation had previously been applied in the cases of the Metropolises of the Ionian Islands and of Thessaly, as soon as these areas were incorporated in the Greek state.

  2- In the case of the New Lands, the Patriarchate showed a delay in satisfying the reasonable request of Greece (i.e. the Government and the Church) and as a result, in 1928, the Government (under Eleftherios Venizelos) issued a law (no. 3615), according to which these Metropolises were incorporated in the Church of Greece.

  3- Subsequently, it was the Patriarchate which issued the Patriarchal and Synodal Act of September 4, 1928, by which It stated that It ceded the administration of these Metropolises to the Church of Greece by way of trusteeship, and set Its terms, one of which was Its prior approval of the Catalogue of candidates for the Hierarchy of the Metropolises of the New Lands and another regarded Its right to propose candidates for inclusion in this Catalogue.

  4- As soon as the Church of Greece received the aforementioned Act, it issued Its Act of 20-11-1928, in which It accepted the incorporation of the Metropolises in It, but expressed objections to certain terms and particularly to the term providing for the approval of the Catalogue, and invoked the legislation in effect at that time. There followed an exchange of letters between the two Churches, and as a result the Patriarchate accepted the amendments proposed by the Church of Greece and, in relation to the Catalogue, accepted the right of the Patriarchate only to propose names of candidates for inclusion in the Catalogue. The amendments of the Act of 1928, which were agreed upon in 1928, have been in effect since, in other words, for 75 years up to now.

  5- In July 2003, after the departure of the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki from life, the Patriarch Bartholomaios asked the Church of Greece in writing, for the first time, to submit to him the Catalogue of candidates for his approval, invoking the original text of the Act of 1928 and ignoring the amendments which had been made to it in 1929 by common consent. It is worth noting that these amendments were finally adopted by Greek legislation and particularly by the Law no. 590/77 "Of the Statutory Charter of the Church of Greece".

  6- Naturally, the Church of Greece refused to accept the submission of the Catalogue for approval, invoking both the subsequent amendments of 1929 to the relevant provision and the Law 590/77, and stating that It was obliged to observe the laws of the Greek state as well as the Holy Canons. Even so, It sent the Catalogue to the Patriarch so that he may exercise his lawful rights, namely to suggest names of eventual candidates, which, however, should be enrolled after the legal procedure provided by the Statutory Charter (law 590/77). Otherwise, any enrollment effected against the law would be invalid, according to the explicit provision of the law.

  7- After successive letters were exchanged between Constantinople and Athens, the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece was convoked extraordinarily in November 4-6, 2003, specifically for this issue, and decided, by an overwhelming majority, to state to the Patriarchate:

  a. that It respected the Patriarchal Act of 1928 as this applies, namely with the effected amendments and according to the legal procedures;

  b. that It would send the Catalogue of candidates to the Patriarchate, so that the latter may exercise Its rights as these ensued from the Statutory Charter.

  8- In a new letter of December 1, 2003, the Patriarchate insisted on not recognising the rule of law in Greece, namely the Statutory Charter, and asked to approve the Catalogue, against the law, and to enroll in it, as of sovereign right, names of candidates to Its own liking without further procedure, that is definitively ¯ something which was also against the law and the agreements. To this document the Church of Greece has not replied yet, in order not to exacerbate the situation any further, but opted for the path of negotiations in search of a solution by mutual agreement.

  9- Within the framework of the aforementioned procedure, about 14 delegations were sent from Athens to Constantinople with concrete proposals. They stumbled upon a wall of intransigence. Thence the decision under item no. 7(a) above of the extraordinary session of the Hierarchy.

  10- Finally, in February 2004 the Patriarchate presented Its own text to the delegates of the Church of Greece, asking that it be accepted by our Church. This document was accepted by the Standing Holy Synod with a minor modification also accepted by the Patriarchate, and was finally sent to It by the Synodal document of March 8, 2004. The text reads as follows: "The Church of Greece, confirming that the administration of the Holy Metropolises of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Northern Greece and in the Islands (the so-called New Lands) has been assigned to the Church of Greece by way of trusteeship, by virtue of the Patriarchal and Synodal Act of September 4, 1928, and has been exercised by our Church in conformity with the Holy Canons and the rules of law in effect, sends the Catalogue of the candidates eligible for Hierarchy to You, in view of the filling of those of the aforementioned Holy Metropolises which remain vacant, namely the Holy Metropolises of Thessaloniki, of Eleftheroupolis and of Servia and Kozani, so that You may exercise the rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate". At the same time and by the same dispatch the Church of Greece sent the Catalogue again, so that the Patriarch may exercise his rights in accordance with the rules of law in effect, while It also announced that It intended to proceed to the filling of the vacant Holy Metropolises either by election or by transfer, precisely as is provided by the Statutory Charter and as has always been the case.

  11- The Patriarchate replied by Its document of March 31, 2004, by which It made known to the Church of Greece that It approved the Catalogue (something which It had not been asked to do by the Church of Greece), that It awaited the Church's answer to his Letter of December 1, 2003, that It asked the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy, which was to be convoked, to ratify the decision of March 1, 2004, made by the Standing Holy Synod (the so-called small Synod), and that It approved the filling only of the Holy Metropolis of Thessaloniki by transfer (which It had not benn asked to do, either). That document gave one every reason to believe that the ordeal of our two Churches, which had lasted for 10 months, was finally over. That is why it was decided that the Hierarchy be convoked to ratify the decision of the Standing Holy Synod and to fill the vacant Holy Metropolises. But, on April 20, 2004, a new letter of the Patriarch arrived, by which he asked that the answer to the Patriarchal letter of December 1, 2004 be sent to him before the election and that the decision of November 2003 of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy be annulled (see item 7 above). This was not accepted by the Standing Holy Synod, which referred the whole issue to the Hierarchy. The latter convened on April 24, 2004, with the following items on Its agenda: 1. Ratification of the decision of the Standing Holy Synod of March 1, 2004 (see item 10 above), and 2. Filling of the vacant Holy Metropolises of Thessaloniki, of Eleftheroupolis, of Servia and Kozani, and of Mesogaia and Lavreotiki.

  
  THE POSITIONS OF THE CHURCH OF GREECE

  1- In order to appease any concern of the Patriarchate, the Church of Greece has stated officially that It does not seek the reversal of the ecclesiastic regime of the New Lands. (See the relevant decision of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy under item no. [7a] above.) On the contrary, the Church of Greece asks that the regime which has been in effect for 75 years remain and be respected in the exact form in which it has been in effect.

  2- The Church of Greece is obliged to observe the laws of the Greek state and indeed the Statutory Charter. Any deviation from it constitutes a breach of the law, leading to invalidation subsequent to appeals to the Supreme Administrative Court of the State.

  3- The Church of Greece has made concessions to the Patriarch, but without breaking the law. Thus, beside the decision referred to under no (B.)1 above, It stated that It respects and observes the Act of 1928 as this latter applies to this day, and also accepted that the Patriarch's name be commemorated in the Divine Liturgy by the Metropolitans of the New Lands, not as the Statutory Charter (article 28) provides but as the Patriarch insisted. Finally, It accepted that the Catalogue be sent to the Patriarchate, so that it be made easier for the Patriarch to suggest names of candidates for inclusion in it.

  4- The Church of Greece does not consent to transgress against the agreements concluded as early as 1929 and observed to this day. In accordance with these, the Patriarch may not (a) enroll on his own in the Catalogue whomever he wishes without the mediation of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, (b) approve transfers from one Metropolis to another.

  5- Eventual acceptance of these new claims of the Patriarch would not constitute only a breach of law or a transgression against the agreements, but would essentially undermine the Autocephalous nature of the Church of Greece. The Church of Greece has stood and still stands by the Patriarchate, assigning today about 150 of Its clergymen for the manning of an equal number of parish priests in the Greek Diaspora, and systematically supporting every canonical proposal of the Patriarchate. But this does not mean that the Church of Greece will be laid bare of the self-government which It enjoys by virtue of Its being Autocephalous.

  6- The Greek government will protect the rule of law in the country.

  7- The Church of Greece has made every effort and has done everything in Its power to settle the issue by common assent. The Patriarchate returns to Its original position, despite Its agreement upon a text of common acceptance. This is how we had been led to a deadlock. (Transl. by Dr. Nikolaos C. Petropoulos)

  The above anomaly even while it lasted was of course inconsequential in matters of faith and it is to be noted that the two Churches have always stayed in full spiritual intercommunion. (Please note that the above position may not necessarily represent the truth of the situation and that the Patriarchate of Constantinople might also have its own valid points on the matter). It is however mentioned here in order to show to people the Orthodox Consciousness, which does not treat - or has ever treated - the Ecumenical Patriarch as anything but first among equals, in love and in Christ. Also, it is noteworthy that Orthodox Christianity is the one in canonical jurisdiction with the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the assumption that the Patriarchate of course stays Orthodox. The same holds for every Church of the Orthodox world, including the Church of Greece. We repeat once again that the Ecumenical Patriarch is not really "ecumenical" in nature (e.g. the Moscow Patriarchate is not under his jurisdiction) and it is certainly not "infallible" or necessarily even "truly representative" of Orthodox Consciousness. Of course the Patriarchate has stayed Orthodox to this date in its totality, even if certain hierarchs in the past went astray in their duty as shepherds of the flock. But individual failings and deviations of Ecumenical or other Patriarchs are inconsequential because they do not "govern" the Patriarchate but are first among equals. A good recent example is the former Patriarch of Jerusalem Irineos who went astray and began to sell Orthodox land to some Jewish businessmen in Israel. Through her Synod, the Orthodox Church deposed the Patriarch under the wishes of Her Head, Jesus Christ. We feel sorry for the deviation of this leader of our flock and hope that he will eventually repent and return to the Church. We also pray that the Lord gives many years to protect and guide our Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos and keep him in the Orthodox path.