Pope Francis and His Admirers

Pope Francis and His Admirers

By Protopresbyter Fr. Thomas Vamvinis

It is very beautiful to speak of love, but it is more beautiful to connect it with truth, not the vague and indefinite truth, but with the truth that is the God-man Christ, the one ascended to the Throne of the Father, the Head of the Church, One of the Holy Trinity.

The autonomy of love from the truth/Christ and its use to dramatize heresy and generally error in faith or life, is an anti-ecclesiastical, anti-spiritual act.

The death of Pope Francis has exposed such divisions of love from the underlying truth. It has given rise to the expression of many subjective opinions, which show either unjustified ignorance of basic elements of Orthodox theology and ecclesiology, or (worse) a deliberate and knowing choice of heresy and justification in a climate of emotional love, vague and unsupported, of ecclesiological deviation.

The praise of the simplicity, “progressiveness” and goodness of Pope Francis became the pretext for the manifestation of anger by some, for the doctrinal purity of the Orthodox, for the exclusivity in the truth of the faith, for the rejection of the erroneous dogmas of the papacy, for the fight on the part of the Orthodox against papal primacy, infallibility and all the evils it has sown, consolidating the alienation from the Church of the peoples of the West subject to papal authority.

One is surprised when one sees in a text by an Orthodox Cleric (“Pope Francis...And Us..." by Father Theodosios Martzouchos, on Romfea.gr) an inexplicable absolution, not to mention an acceptance of the feudal structure and the theological deviations of the Vatican, while indeed there is an attempt to substantiate this through hagiographical references.

In reality, the author accepts and repeats the entire justification of the primacy and authority of the Pope, as we see it in the articles of the First Vatican Council of 1868, with the theological premises of the filioque, the actus purus and the created energies of God. This constitutes complete ignorance of both Orthodox and Scholastic theology.

And after the aforementioned columnist states that the Apostle Peter “was anointed by Christ as the foundation of the Church,” misinterpreting the relevant passage, and that he is the rock on which He founded His Church, and that the pope at that time, “as bishop of Rome, was the holder-successor of the position of Peter, and had authority and power of appeal and the right of veto over the undivided Church,” and “in the absence of the bishop of Rome and without his agreement, any ecclesiastical decision was in rebellion,” he then recalls the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, about which he claims that “the Church awaited the Tome of Leo [Pope of Rome] to describe in words its faith in the person of Christ and the characteristics of His two natures.”

He then presents the prelates of Rome as protectors of the persecuted Orthodox of the East; “the great Maximus was protected by the Pope [Martin] with his authority, and during Iconoclasm the Roman Church was a refuge for the persecuted.”

After these he takes up the brow, “the western brow” in the expression of Photios the Great, and with Pope Francis as an ally he becomes the censor of all divided Christians. He writes:

“And the devil entered among the brethren, and the schisms began, along with the incomprehensibility and the superficial appeals to divisions that had previously existed, but were concealed by love. At that time, the ill-tempered 'observances' unveiled these divisions.”

The way the article is written, foreign to our ecclesiastical ethos and scientific seriousness, manifests an unholy and unscientific audacity, which raises questions about its origin.

The sensitivity of the Holy Fathers for the correct faith, the Orthodox dogma, is characterized as "ill-tempered observances". And one wonders: then, when love (according to the article writer) covered the things that separated the Easterners from the Westerners, why did it not also cover the heresies of the heretics of the East? Why were Macedonius and Nestorius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, condemned?

Why was the "observance" of the Holy Fathers limited only to the clergy and theologians of the East, and in the Synods that were held, even the Patriarchs of New Rome-Constantinople were condemned, who since the Second Ecumenical Synod had the same honor as the Bishop of Old Rome? The truth is, of course, that a Pope has also been condemned as a heretic, Pope Honorius I, a fact that created many difficulties in the First Vatican Council, which dogmatized the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra.

Such statements by an Orthodox Clergyman show a deliberate ignorance of basic elements of ecclesiastical history, an unknowable deviation from the faith, but also a palpable darkness of ignorance about what the Church is.

In order to avoid generalizations, we briefly note certain fundamental aspects regarding those who are adversely affected by this Orthodox Cleric, the admirer of the kindness of Pope Francis.

1. It has never been accepted by the unified tradition of the Church that the Apostle Peter is the foundation of the Church. The foundation of the Church is the faith that Peter confessed: that Christ is the Son of God, that He is the God-man. Saint John Chrysostom, centuries before the schism, writes on the words of Christ ‘And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church’ the following: "That is, on the faith of confession.” The Church is built on the faith of Peter's confession. He highlights Peter as the shepherd of the Church, because he confessed the faith on which the Church is founded.

Saint Theophylact of Ochrid writes in this regard: “For since Peter confessed him to be the Son of God, let it be known that this confession which you have confessed will be the foundation of those who believe, so that every man who will build the house of faith will base this confession on it. For if we build with a thousand virtues, but do not have the foundation of the correct confession, we build in vain” (PG 123, 320 B).

The episcopal throne of Rome does not have any divinely bestowed power that would make its Bishop a universal shepherd, like the Apostle Peter or the Apostle Paul and the other Apostles. These are idolatrous views, worse than the abolished formal provisions of the Mosaic Law.

The shepherd of the Church is he who is convinced “by grace of the heart,” by the illumination of God, that Christ is the Son of the living God, perfect God and perfect man. He is the one who has empirical knowledge of God by participating in the uncreated illuminating and deifying energy of God, which Roman Catholicism does not accept as existing. And this is certainly not an "ill-tempered observance".

2. The Fourth Ecumenical Synod did not wait for Leo of Rome to decide on the two natures in the one hypostasis of the Word. The Tome (letter to Flavian of Constantinople) that Saint Leo sent to the Synod with his representatives (the Synod was held regularly without his presence) was finally accepted, after discussions in which serious objections were expressed, since it was interpreted on the basis of the theology of Saint Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. The criterion of the Synod and the Tome was the theology of Saint Cyril. It is characteristic that the Synod considered it unnecessary to include in the decree (its final decision) what was set forth in Leo's letter. There were distinctive further proclamations from the bishops: "The letter of Archbishop Leo has been confirmed by the decree, as we believe, thus believes the decree; let the decree be signed, for the decree holds all things; the decree holds the faith. Leo stated the matters of Cyril, Celestinus confirmed the matters of Cyril, and Xystus confirmed Cyril's matters." (Mansi VII, 104; see also Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulous of Athens, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, p. 349).

3. Pope Martin, a Saint of our Church, did not have the power to protect Saint Maximus. In fact, because of the Lateran Council, in which the theology of the simple monk Saint Maximus the Confessor prevailed, Pope Martin was arrested, tried and condemned by the Senate by order of the Emperor of Constantinople and exiled to Cherson, where he died in exile.

4. The wording is horrible: “And the devil entered among the brethren, and the schisms began, along with the incomprehensibility and the superficial appeals to divisions that had previously existed, but were concealed by love.”

However, Saint Gregory Palamas does not say that the devil entered among the brethren, but that he speaks through the Latins. “This, then, is the intelligible and therefore more accursed serpent, the first, the middle, and the final evil... not at all having been forgotten in its own malice through the submissive Latins, introduces new voices concerning God." Beyond these, we have from the Holy Fathers "incomprehensibility and superficial invocations to... separations"?

It is possible that the Cleric in his article does not realize that what he writes constitutes a slander against the Holy Fathers. That is why, going even deeper into the lore, he writes:

"One believes that the other will certainly go to hell. The common Christ does not 'manage' to contain the excess of the theological nonsense of exclusivity."

Perhaps he does not realize that he is attributing to God-seeking saints “the excess of the theological nonsense of exclusivity.” He thinks he is saving himself from this accusation by writing: “Some who are truly 'sharers' of the Holy Spirit are not listened to, and are rather viewed with suspicion as traitors.”

However, he does not cite any examples. He goes straight to Saint Silouan the Athonite and thinks that the Saint with his compassionate love neutralizes in the struggles for the right faith.

The struggles for the right faith stem from true love, crucifixional, unadulterated by mortal emotions. An example from the contemporary Saint Paisios the Athonite is very characteristic:

“Once two Catholics visited him, one a journalist and the other a secretary at the Vatican, and asked him to say the 'Our Father' together.

'In order to say the Our Father together,' he replied, 'we must also agree on the doctrine, but between us and you there is a great gulf.'

'So,' one said to him, 'only the Orthodox will be saved? God is with the whole world.'

'Yes, God is with the whole world,' the Saint replied, 'but can you tell me how many people are with God?'

'To show love,' they told him later.

'And sin has become fashionable,' said the Saint.

'And this is within love,' they answered him.

'Today everyone talks about love, peace and harmony,' he told them at the end, 'but they are all divided both with themselves and with others; that is why they are preparing ever bigger bombs.'

However, when the Saint saw that a heterodox was in a good disposition seeking the truth, he treated him with special love and understanding; he did not pressure him to become Orthodox, but rather caused him the 'good concern' that he was in error and aroused his interest in Orthodoxy, as he opened his rich treasury and revealed to him some of the treasures that the Orthodox faith and life had bestowed upon him.

Thus the good God provided that many heterodox people, with the help of Father Paisios, would be led to the true faith and baptized Orthodox” (Saint Paisios the Athonite, Holy Monastery of the Evangelist John the Theologian, Vasilika Thessaloniki, 2015, pp. 479-480).

Therefore, Saint Paisios, who did not say the “Our Father” with heterodox people, according to the columnist, had no love?!

Love, independent of the inherent truth, Christ, serves the mentality of the world, in the climate of which evil is more attractive than good. We quote as a conclusion to what we mentioned previously excerpts from texts by Saint Justin Popovich, who wrote:

“The mystery of evil and the mystery of good are at war in the world, especially in man. If the loving Lord did not maintain balance, the world would have fallen into chaos long ago. The mystery of evil is artfully attractive; it charms man to the point of love, and man enthusiastically offers himself to his great and terrible love as a burnt offering. But the mystery of good is humble and meek, reviled and spit on upon the earth; for this reason there are fewer lovers of the mystery of good, and more lovers of the mystery of evil” (Man and the God-Man, p. 133).

Saint Justin notes: “All European humanisms, from the most primitive to the most subtle, from the fetishistic to the papal, are based on faith in man, as he is in his given psychophysical empirical situation and historicity... Man is the supreme value, the all-important value; man is the highest criterion, the all-important criterion: ‘man is the measure of all things’” (ibid., p. 149).

However, if we want to have the right faith, we cannot have man as the measure of all things, especially in his present fallen “psychophysical, empirical state and historicity”, but rather the God-nan Christ. “Only in the God-Man and through the God-Man can every human existence become a true man, a perfect man, a complete man... In the God-man Christ 'dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily', so that each of us in the Church and through the Church can be filled with this fullness of the Godhead (Col. 2:9-10). And this is possible for each of us to achieve only 'with all the saints,' through the holy mysteries and the holy virtues, preceded by holy faith and holy love (Eph. 3:17-20)” (ibid. p. 147).

“In the history of the human race there are three main falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, that of the pope. The essence of the fall into sin is always the same: wanting to be good for oneself; wanting to be perfect for oneself; wanting to be god for oneself. But in this way man unconsciously equates himself with the devil” (ibid. p. 152).

We do not think that the above is the fruit of “ill-tempered observances”, it is the fruitful fruit of genuine love for God and man; a love that “does not seek its own”.

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.