(Pravoslavie.ru) - On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, Greek priest Archpriest Theodore Zisis announced that he was ceasing commemoration of his ruling bishop, Metropolitan Anthimos of Thessaloniki, believing that his support of last year’s Pan-Orthodox Council on Crete, which acknowledged the term “church” for other Christian confessions, constitutes a fall into the heresy of ecumenism, which denies that the Orthodox Church is the one, true Church. The next day the metropolitan suspended Fr. Theodore from his priestly duties, reports AgionOros.ru.
Fr. Theodore explained his decision by appealing to Canon 15 of the First-Second Council held in Constantinople in 861, presided over by St. Photios the Great. This canon states that if a bishop clearly preaches a heresy previously condemned by either a council or the holy fathers, then priests are allowed to cease commemorating him in the Liturgy, and are to face no canonical penalties.
The crux of the issue at hand is whether the Crete Council fell into the heresy of ecumenism in its documents, which Fr. Theodore and other prominent clergymen, including Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) believe it did, and whether such a heresy has been previously condemned. The same Canon 15 considers it schism if a priest ceases to commemorate a bishop if the heresy in question has not been previously condemned.
Some argue, therefore, that Canon 15 in fact condemns Fr. Theodore, while others note that the holy fathers’ continual fights against heresy have always been precisely for the sake of preserving the one, true Orthodox Church, and point to such documents as the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s Definition of Faith:
These things, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized.
Metropolitan Anthimos had previously instructed Fr. Theodore to cease speaking out against the Crete Council, considering his words as fomenting schism. Following his announcement of ceasing commemoration, the bishop suspended Fr. Theodore from serving or speaking publicly in any of the churches of his metropolis. He has also summoned Fr. Theodore to spiritual court, excommunicated him from the holy chalice, and stripped him of his honorary title as “Archpriest.”
For his part, Fr. Theodore has described these penalties as “unjust, hasty, and anti-canonical,” noting that such sanctions have been placed on him before the proceedings of the ecclesiastical court, and arguing that Canon 15 of the First-Second Council states that priests taking action such as him “shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians.”
Fr. Theodore urged Metropolitan Anthimos to reverse his decision and to allow him the opportunity to serve in his parish of St. Anthony the Great, without commemoration, according to his conscience.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Swift response to Fr. Theodore Zisis: immediate suspension
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I had some optimism about the Cretan Event, not so much for anything that it accomplished (nothing), but because it might be the beginning of a real pan-Orthodox conciliar process. No such luck, it seems: so far only contention has come from it.
ReplyDeleteNow we will see the heavy-handed tactics of the ecumenists who quickly silence anyone opposed to the Eastern Pope and his agenda.
ReplyDeleteFailure to commemorate a bishop, especially on the grounds of a "heretical" council (which used the word "Church" in a manner consistent with the Fathers anyhow) is quite serious. This is a perhaps overly quick response, but Crete is not heretical, however short of ideal it may have been.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome context: Fr. Theodore did not just cut commemoration "out of the blue." He has been asking for accountability from his and other hierarchs for at least two decades without "ceasing commemoration." More to the point, though, this response by Fr. Theodore has only come after being publicly rebuked by Met. Anthimos first--despite the Synod of the Church of Greece having decided not to take any action against Fr. Theodore --the Metropolitan went against the decision of his own synod in order to rebuke Fr Theodore. In response to this rebuke Fr. Theodore composed a lengthy and articulate response stating clearly his issues with the Crete gathering, the actions of Met. Anthimos in enforcing the dissemination of the decisions of the texts from Crete to the laity in his metropolis by means of their local pastors, and on what theological and canonical grounds that Fr. Theodore feels this could not be done in good conscience-- including how the texts contradict canons from previous Ecumenical councils.
ReplyDeleteBut the main thrust of the response is to ask his Metropolitan to address the charge of whether HE DOES or DOES NOT ascribe to the charges of ecclesiological and anti-canonical heresy that Fr. Theodore is concerned about and of which he articulates in his letter.
Now the simple response would be for his Metropolitan to answer: (1) "No, I do not ascribe to heresy and I believe the same things you do," or (2) "Yes, I do ascribe to these views, but do not consider them heresies for the following reasons..." But what did Met. Anthimos respond with? Nothing. Let's let that sink in. A metropolitan, Fr. Theodore's Arch-pastor, was asked a simple question: do you ascribe to heresy? And... no response (despite that he was the first one to write Fr. Theodore to rebuke him).
Simple way to have avoided this situation: Just answer him if he's in error, Met. Anthimos, and show him why. Fr. Theodore has done this for Met. Anthimos in TWO LENGTHY LETTERS (one by demand of his hierarch, the other in response to the original rebuke) in which Fr Theodore takes pains to show his thinking and why he can't reconcile the actions of his hierarch (and others) with the clear teaching in the Scriptures, Holy Fathers, and Ecumenical Councils.
AND YET, in the silence that followed from his Metropolitan--in the face of a charge of 'bare-headed' heresy (which you would think Met. Anthimos would be anxious to disabuse Fr Theodore of if he did not in fact ascribe to such views)--and when Fr. Theodore as a final response canonically cuts commemoration, THEN HE RECEIVES a very lengthy response citing pages of Scripture and the Holy Canons about how Fr. Theodore has transgressed--NOT theologically, but IN DISOBEYING HIS BISHOP; disobeying the "Because I said so" when told to stop talking on the topic. So... no answer to the charge of heresy by the Metropolitan. No answer to Fr. Theodore's use of Canon 15 of the 1st-2nd Council in which a clergyman is protected from retribution for ceasing commemoration on the grounds of public heresy by a hierarch. But, a LENGTHY RESPONSE on why priests are NOT TO DISOBEY THEIR BISHOPS.
This is equivalent to a school principal when accused by a teacher of sexual misconduct, NOT DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS AND SETTING THE STORY STRAIGHT, but just firing the teacher for being a trouble-maker. Would we stand for this side-stepping in the secular world? No, everyone from parents to teachers to administrators would be screaming for an inquiry. But with the charge of heresy, when a bishop does this same thing to a priest, we just say, “oh well, that’s the bishop’s prerogative; can’t disobey”-- even when we have a clear canonical and Patristic tradition that witnesses to the contrary.
May God illumine all involved.
Prayers for the good and courageous Father Theodore Zisis ! He has smelled the rot at the top and followed his conscience. May his courageous action inspire may others to stand up against Istanbulean/Bartholomean ecumenist agenda. Many Years and much strength to Fr. Theodore !
ReplyDeleteActually, as the canon clearly establishes the discipline is neither licit, nor canonical. Please read the relevant discussion here and on the previous post connected with this matter. The single greatest problem with this episode is that many people are commenting without the requisite knowledge of the canon and its historical interpretation and implementation.
ReplyDeleteI think the real issue is not the suspension of Fr. Theodore, but the attempts of bishops throughout the Orthodox world to shut down discussion and dissent. What made the Ecumenical Councils "ecumenical" were their reception by the faithful after much argument and discussion. It looks as if the bishops are so used to commanding obedience that they are threatened by anyone questioning their actions. But the questioning, discussing, challenging and answering of the actions taken in Crete are precisely how the Church will eventually know whether the council was great and holy or not. As it is, heavy-handed responses such as forbidding dissent is a sure way to polarize and heat up an already hot situation and perhaps provoke schism. Perhaps patient answering of objections would be better than immediate suspension and prohibition of challenge.
ReplyDeleteBut it was the priest in question who created the schism in the first place.
DeleteWhat schism?
DeleteMaybe you haven't been following closely what's going on. Ceasing commemoration is not starting a new church, or commemorating another bishop. It's a canonically sanctioned form of protest. Fr. Theodore himself has said that he had hoped his Metropolitan would abide by the canons and allow him to continue to serve at his current church (without punishment, as per the pertinent canon of the 1st-2nd Council). He's not running off and starting some "new church" as you seem to be confused about. His is the same action taken by the Holy Mountain and three metropolitans in Greece against Patriarch Athenagoras in last century. The response by the Patriarch and Church of Greece then was: No one was suspended, no one defrocked, no one excommunicated or kicked out of their churches/metroplis. They were allowed to continue in their lawful protest for the sake of conscience.
Furthermore, to suggest Fr. Theodore created the situation demonstrates that you aren't quite clear on how things actually unfolded. It was the Metropolitan that initiated this when he ignored the stance of his own synod and decided to write a formal rebuke and try to bully Fr Theodore into silence for speaking as a 40+ year Patrologist against theological and liturgical abuses that he sees taking place. Ceasing commemoration came at the end of a chain of events (and hopefully would only have been temporary, as Fr. Theodore himself had said).
So if you mean Fr Theodore created the problem because he actually preached the Orthodox faith according to the tradition that he knew and taught at the university in Thessaloniki for nearly half a century, while also holding people in authority accountable for their words & actions, then I suppose yes he did start it. Some might just consider that fulfilling the promises he made in becoming a priest though.