View Single Post
Old 12-21-2006, 01:16 PM   #4
biannaruh

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
445
Senior Member
Default
My understanding is that the source of the Esphigmenou "rebellion" was originally on the adoption of the Gregorian calendar by the Church of Greece in the 1920s (correct me if I'm wrong). While the matter of the calendar continues to be a vexed question to many Orthodox (though not to me, I have a foot in both Greek and Slavic camps), it hardly counts as a heresy. Irregularity, perhaps. Heresy, no.

Things certainly heated up in Esphigmenou in the 1960s, when Patriarch Athenagoras met with the then Pope of Rome on a number of occasions, allowing a thaw in relations between the two churches, though, as we all know, this did not, and still has not, resulted in mutual canonical recognition, nor is there any eucharistic communion between the two churches. The Esphigmenou brotherhood took it upon themselves to refuse to commemorate the Patriarch (from Athenagoras onwards, including Bartholomew), and regard themselves as the custodians of "true orthodoxy" (hmmm .... where have we heard that before? ). Dare I say it, but this unilateralist approach is utterly opposite to the collegiality of Orthodoxy, it is rather the feature of the post-Reformation churches which have led to the innumerable churches we see today in the Protestant world: "I don't agree any more with the mother church, so I'll set up my own." By contrast, how has the Orthodox Church dealt with heresies in the past? Councils, ecumenical and local, and, in the case of examination of individuals, a conference of bishops or other higher clergy. A conciliar, collegiate response, not a schismatic one. If the errant party (individual or group) refuses to be corrected, then the Church has the right to regard that party as heretic and/or schismatic.

If a priest, bishop, or higher-ranking cleric has fallen into heresy, then the people, and/or his fellow clerics have the right and duty to correct the situation. Similarly with clerics who engage in "conduct unbecoming", of moral or legal/criminal breaches, such as the recent deposing of Irenaeus of Jerusalem. St Mark of Ephesus indeed was the defender of Orthodoxy at the Council of Florence, which attempted to reunite the East with Rome, a union which would have forced unacceptable doctrinal and theological compromises on the Orthodox Church. He was vilified for his efforts, but history quickly vindicated him.

On the other hand, I would not regard the longstanding rebellion at Esphigmenou to be in any way equivalent to the doctrinal heroism of St Mark of Ephesus, or of St Athanasius (I just spotted Antonios's latest post). Rather, it seems to be the action of zealous fanatics who have openly proclaimed their disobedience to their Patriarch. I cannot vouch for the accuracy or otherwise of the reporting as posted by Antonios, but I have come across reports in the recent past which stated that even the monastic body which governs Athos's day-to-day affairs had finally turned against the Esphigmenou brotherhood, supporting the decision of the Patriarchate to bring the rebels back into the fold, or to evict them if they refuse to change their ways.
biannaruh is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:32 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity