A Rejoinder to Hieromonk Patapios’ “A
Reply to Patrick Barnes: The Deficient Scholarship of Monk Basil’s Comments on
the Allegedly Anti-Patristic Stand of the So-Called “Old Calendarist Zealots”
Patrick Barnes recently posted
an English translation of an essay by Monk Basil of the Holy Monastery of Saint
Gregory on Mount Athos, which made many compelling arguments against the logic
of the Old Calendarists, and presented a great deal of patristic evidence to
substantiate those arguments. It is of
course important that, no matter how compelling a case may seem, we are always careful to listen to the
response of those who disagree, because as it says in Proverbs “The first one
to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him”
(Proverbs 18:17).
I personally make no claim to
being a patristic scholar, but I do think that even Orthodox Christians such as
myself not only can but must evaluate the arguments and evidence of those who
do claim to be such. I do not have the
skills nor the resources to do independent research on the Moechian
controversy, for example, but I can tell the difference between an argument
that is supported by reason and evidence and one which isn’t.
Ad Hominem Arguments Directed at Fr.
Basil
Fr. Patapios begins his
response by making the claim that Fr. Basil’s essay is lacking in any real
scholarship, and that it engages in ad hominem personal attacks against the Old
Calendarists.
First, let me say that I do
not doubt the intelligence or academic credentials of Fr. Patapios. I have read a number of his essays over the
years, and have found them to be well worth the time spent on them. I also not only would not question Archbishop
Chrysostomos of Etna’s credentials, but would go so far as to say that I find
him to be a brilliant man. I have asked
him questions about the fathers via e-mail, and gotten back the most amazing
replies within less than an hour… complete with extensive quotations from the
fathers which more than adequately answered my question. However, there are many brilliant scholars
who have not reached the same conclusions as Archbishop Chrysostomos and Fr.
Patapios. For example, Fr. Georges
Florovsky is often quoted favorably in Etna publications… and in fact, his name
and authority are invoked in this very reply –and yet, Fr. Georges Florovsky
remained a clergyman of the Ecumenical Patriarchate until the day he reposed –
and so obviously, he did not conclude that the need for invoking Canon 15 of
the First and Second Synod had arisen.
Many other brilliant Orthodox Scholars could be mentioned who likewise
have not felt the need to well themselves off from the rest of the Church. And so we obviously must consider more than
one’s academic credentials as we attempt to discern who is right in this
discussion.
Secondly, the charge that Fr.
Basil has written a “insulting” “vociferous” “screed” that engages in personal
attacks, would seem rather to be a case of Freudian projection. After reading Fr. Patapios’ reply, I re-read
Fr. Basil’s essay, to see if I had just missed some ad hominem that Fr.
Patapios was more sensitive to… but I found nothing in Fr. Basil’s essay which
was truly an example of him engaging in ad hominem arguments… but I found
plenty in Fr. Patapios reply that were clear examples of ad hominem, which were
directed at Fr. Basil (and Patrick Barnes, as well). For example, we are told that Fr. Basil is
“naïve”, “self-serving”, “amateurish”, that he engages in “self-justification”,
in order to “argue for compromises” due to his “weakness for comfort” and
“cowardice”. In short, Fr. Patapios is
unwilling to concede that Fr. Basil might be sincerely motivated, and that he
may have actually reached the conclusions that he has because he has struggled
with these issues out of a desire to follow the path that is the most
God-pleasing, and that having studied the issues in question, he has come to
the conclusions that he has for the reasons he has stated in his essay. Since we cannot look into the souls of other
men, it is probably best that we assume a certain amount of sincerity in each
other, unless there is compelling evidence of deliberate dishonesty. Aside from that, whatever Fr. Basil’s
motivations may be, he has presented a reasoned case with supporting evidence,
and it is far more productive for us to focus on the issues, arguments, and
evidence, then to question the motives of those we disagree with. Fr. Basil not only does question the
sincerity of the Old Calendarists, but begins his essay by speaking of his
admiration “for their piety, their love of monasticism, and their struggling
spirit.” He does not question their
sincerity, but rather questions their conclusions.
The claim that Fr. Basil’s
essay is hardly worth a response rings rather hollow, given that Fr. Patapios
has written an essay that focuses on Patrick Barnes’ 2 ½ page introduction to
an 18 ½ page essay (13 pages, if one excludes the footnotes) that is 24 ½ pages
in length. It would seem to me that if
Fr. Basil’s essay was as flawed as Fr. Patapios repeatedly asserts, that it
could be dismissed without the shedding of nearly so much ink. For example, if you can establish that Joseph
Smith was a charlatan, one needn’t write a verse by verse refutation of the
Book of Mormon.
Ad Hominem Arguments Directed at Patrick
Barnes
Also, Fr. Patapios repeatedly
quotes from Patrick Barnes’ past writings in effort to give the impression that
Patrick has changed his mind. In many
cases, the impression is completely false, because Patrick would still affirm
those same words quoted, though not necessarily to mean what they are portrayed
to mean. But Patrick has made no secret
of the fact that his opinions have changed on the question of the ecclesiology
of resistance. Anyone who has watched
his web site over the past few of years knows that.
Consistency is only a virtue,
however, if one is consistent with the truth.
Consistency that is erroneous in the face of evidence to the contrary is
not something to be admired. Patrick
Barnes was a student of the Center for Traditionalists Orthodox Studies (which
an institution run by Fr. Patapios, Archbishop Chrysostomos, and Bishop
Auxentios of Etna), and so the fact that he has said things in the past that
reflect the view of CTOS is not surprising.
That he has changed his mind on some of those issues only proves that he
has not stopped thinking and struggling with these very important issues.
Throughout Fr. Patapios
reply, one encounters unnecessary personal barbs directed at Patrick
Barnes. One gets the impression that the
very personal nature of many of these barbs is the result of Patrick Barnes
having disassociated himself from Etna.
In any case, this approach does not add to the credibility of this
reply.
Ad Hominem Arguments Directed at ROCOR
The same line of ad hominem
is also used more broadly against those of us in the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia who have remained loyal to our bishops, and have welcomed the
reconciliation that took place this year.
We are accused of attempting to justify our “weakness in abandoning the
difficulties, rigors, and divisions of the resistance….” While those who have
gone into schism with ROCOR are praised for the courage and self sacrifice, and
it is asserted that they have remained faithful to the authentic legacy of
ROCOR, while ROCOR itself has “charted a new course”.
First, the claim that ROCOR
has charted a new course has been dealt with extensively, as you can see on the
Voices of
Reasons page, but to respond briefly here, as the fathers of Etna have
longed known and acknowledged in their publications, ROCOR never ceased to be
in communion with the Serbian Patriarchate – and so the claim that by being in
communion with a Church that is in turn in communion with the rest of the
Church is a new course is simply fallacious, and sounds a lot like shock
expressed by Claude Rains that their was gambling going on in Rick’s Café in
Casa Blanca. ROCOR was never an Old
Calendarist Synod, having had at one point 4 New Calendar Dioceses… before the
OCA had even a single New Calendar parish.
ROCOR is far less ecumenically inclined today than it was historically. ROCOR had observers at the WCC, and at
Vatican II. One need only take a look at
the photos posted on this
web page (http://lesolub.livejournal.com/213389.html) to see that things used to go one in ROCOR that
are no longer tolerated… such as a vested Anglican Bishop standing in the altar
for Metropolitan Vitaly’s consecration to the episcopacy.
The Moscow Patriarchate
condemned Ecumenism and Sergianism in their 2000 Sobor, and so with these two
obstacles removed we began a lengthy and considered process that lasted 7
years. The Moscow Patriarchate’s
position on these issues is certainly not less clear than that of the
And as for the claim that
those who have gone into schism have “often” done so at the cost of their
livelihoods, while those who have stayed have done so out of fear of losing
their lucrative salaries… who exactly are we talking about here? Most ROCOR clergy have no church related
salaries to begin with. Anyone who
becomes a ROCOR clergyman for the money is a fool who will soon be disappointed. Again, Fr. Patapios is completely unwilling
to concede that those in ROCOR with whom he disagrees may be acting in complete
accordance with their conscience and their sincere desire to please God.
The Moechian Controversy and Canon 15 of
the First and Second Council
Despite Fr. Patapios claim
that the “ecclesiology of resistance” which he advocates is based on the broad
consensus of the fathers, the reality is that the Moechian Controversy is
primary example that he and other advocates of this theory can point to that
involves a saint separating from his bishops for reasons other than their
advocating a council condemned heresy.
Despite Fr. Patapios’ assertions to the contrary, this episode in Church
history and Canon 15 of the First and Second Council really are the key issues
that must be examined when evaluating the correctness of the position taken by
the “Synod in Resistance”.
Fr. Patapios takes exception
to Patrick Barnes argument that St. Theodore the Studite briefly separated
himself from two patriarchs who are also saints of the Church, and so one
cannot conclude that one or the other acted rightly in this controversy merely
on the basis of what we find in the hagiography we have on these saints… and
that in fact we do not find definitive judgments in the lives of these saints
that we have. Fr. Patapios responds:
“Every instance in Church history where "there were
Saints on both sides of...[a] controversy" must ultimately be evaluated in
accordance with the yardstick of the consensus (or consensio)
Patrum. Because the Holy Spirit is made manifest through the Church, there
is no event in Her history that is without import and from which "no
conclusions can be drawn."”
Patrick was of
course not arguing that no conclusions could be reached about this event in
Church history… only that the lives of these saints do not provide us with such
conclusion in this case. One can
certainly reach conclusions about any event in Church history… for example, one
might reach the conclusion that the fact that the Greek Old Calendarists lost
their episcopacy in 1955 was a sign of God’s displeasure with them, but that
conclusion would of course be a completely subjective one. The only cases in which we can reach
conclusions about events in Church history that we can claim to be definitive
or authoritative are those in which the Church has authoritatively reached such
conclusions. And so for us to say that
St. Theodore acted rightly, and Ss. Tarasios and Nikephoros did not, we would
need from the Church which told us that this was so.
But in fact, it
is not entirely clear that Fr. Patapios has reached a definitive conclusion
about who acted wrongly in the Moechian controversy. He tells us that neither of these saints were
really at odds with St. Theodore:
“…it should be borne in mind that St.
Tarasios was, according to most Orthodox (and many Western) historical sources,
acting under duress. His attempts to have the Emperor Constantine's adulterous
marriage annulled were thwarted because the Emperor "threatened that
unless he [Patriarch Tarasios] bowed to his will, he would restore the heresy of
his imperial predecessors and once again destroy the precious and holy
Icons"…. In short, St. Tarasios'
stand with regard to the Moechian controversy does not place him in opposition
to St. Theodore the Studite. Likewise, St. Nikephoros, though by no means a man
"weak in character"… was also similarly forced by imperial authority
to reinstate the Priest who performed the illicit nuptials. This did not set
him at odds with St. Theodore, either.”
Fr. Patapios also favorably cites Father John Travis’ opinion that
"Unlike Theodore Studites, Nikephoros [and Tarasios, we might argue --
F.P.] could not afford to act with complete disregard of these
factors". But one must ask, if they
could not have acted in a way other than they did, how could breaking communion
with them have been justified?
Fr. Patapios also
seems to be unclear as to whether violations of the canons are distinct from
preaching heresy or not. On the one
hand, he distinguishes between the two:
"Since our resistance stems from a
dogmatic controversy -- namely, our opposition to ecumenism as "an
ecclesiological heresy," as you yourself have characterized it (The
Non-Orthodox, op. cit., pp. 4-5, 121) -- rather than
infractions of the Canons (which motivated the Studite resistance in the case
of the Moechian controversy), it is clear that, in perfect accord with Canon
XV, we have wholly valid and "appropriate grounds for rupturing
communion" with ecumenist Hierarchs. As you stated earlier, correctly
articulating our view as resisters, "our struggle is against Ecumenism,
which is an ecclesiological heresy, and thus a dogmatic issue."”
But on the other hand, he suggests that this distinction is
invalid:
“Having established that our resistance
unquestionably involves issues of dogmatic significance, we nonetheless would
not discount the canonical violations perpetrated by ecumenist Hierarchs as
being valid grounds for breaking communion with them. In fact, as we will note
shortly, your distinction, here, between matters doctrinal and matters
canonical is, at best, tenuous and arbitrary. As I have observed, many Canons,
even if they address certain administrative issues, are dogmatic rather than
administrative in essence.”
So in the case of
the Moechian controversy, which is it?
Where there dogmatic grounds that justified St. Theodore breaking
communion with Ss. Nikephoros and Tarasios or not? If so, then is Fr. Patapios suggesting that
Ss. Nikephoros and Tarasios were preaching heresy bareheaded in the Church? If so, why was there never a conciliar
verdict rendered against them? If not,
then we must conclude that the canons of the First and Second Council do forbid
one from breaking communion with their bishops in instances such as the
Moechian controversy.
Fr. Patapios argues
that it is only “personal sins” rather than serious canonical violations that “the
Canons of the First-Second Synod would have us turn a blind eye” to. However, when we actually read the canons in
question, this seems a rather unlikely interpretation. In Canon 13, find the following:
“The All-evil One having planted the seed of heretical
tares in the Church of Christ, and seeing these being cut down to the roots
with the sword of the Spirit, took a different course of trickery by attempting
to divide the body of Christ by means of the madness of the schismatics. But, checking even this plot of his, the holy
Council has decreed that henceforth if any Presbyter or Deacon, on the alleged
ground that his own bishop has been condemned for certain crimes, before a
conciliar or synodal hearing and investigation has been made, should dare to
secede from his communion, and fail to mention his name in the sacred prayers
of the liturgical services in accordance with the custom handed down in the
Church, he shall be subject to prompt deposition from office and shall be
stripped of every prelatic honor. For anyone who has been established in
the rank of Presbyter and forestalls the Metropolitan’s judgment, and, judging
matters before a trial has been held, insofar as lies in his power, condemns
his own father and Bishop, he is not even worthy of the honor or name of
Presbyter. Those, on the other hand, who go along with him, in case any of them
should be among those in holy orders, they too shall forfeit their own rights
to honor, or, in case they should be monks or laymen, let them be utterly
excommunicated from the Church until such time as they spew upon and openly
renounce all connection with the schismatics and decide to return to their own
Bishop” (D. Cummings,
trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the
Holy Canons Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox
Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 469).
Is it likely that
this canon is referring to the kind of personal sins that are typically dealt
with in confession, or are we talking about serious canonical violations that
could result in deposition from the ranks of the clergy? To answer that question, one need only ask
what kind of crimes on the part of a bishop would warrant an investigation and
a conciliar verdict? Obviously, we are
talking about serious canonical violations here.
Now let us move
on to Canon 14:
“If any Bishop, on
the allegation that charges of crime lie against his own Metropolitan, shall
secede or apostatize from him before a conciliar or synodal verdict has been
issued against him, and shall abstain from communion with him, and fail to
mention his name, in accordance with consuetude, in the course of the divine
mystagogy (i.e., liturgical celebration of the Eucharistic mystery), the holy
Council has decreed that he shall be deposed from office, if merely by
seceding from his own Metropolitan he shall create a schism. For everyone ought
to know his own bounds, and neither ought a presbyter treat his own bishop
scornfully or contemptuously, nor ought a bishop to treat his own Metropolitan
so” (Ibid., p. 470).
Essentially, this
says that what goes for Deacons and Priests, goes for a Bishop in his dealings
with his Metropolitan too.
And then we have
Canon 15:
“The rules laid down with reference to
Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to
Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to
secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to
mention the latter’s name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in
the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and
has passed judgment against him, creates a schism, the holy Council has decreed
that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he
be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these
rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting those persons who under the
pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a
schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some
heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from
communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy
publicly, and teaching it barehead in church, such persons not only are not
subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves
off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any
conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they
shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox
Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudobishops and
pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any
schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from
schisms and divisions” (Ibid., p. 470f).
And what was said
in the previous canons about separating from Bishops and Metropolitans is all
the more applicable to one’s Patriarch. There is only one exception given here,
and that is when one separates from their Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch,
on the basis of heresy that is publicly taught “bareheaded” in the Church. The canon does not say it is justified merely
on the grounds that a bishops holds a heretical opinion. It also does not say it is justified because
such an heretical opinion might be inferred from his actions or vaguely worded
statements. It is only when it is a heresy that has been condemned by the
fathers or councils, and it is taught publicly, and “bareheadedly”.
Now if the
response to this is that the crimes in question in these canons do not refer to
violations of certain canons that have a dogmatic significance, then one must ask a few questions: Is it
being suggested here that the canons against a fourth marriage are of a
dogmatic significance? If so, do the
canons against fornication not likewise have a dogmatic significance? And if they do, which canons that address sin
do not? And again, is Fr. Patapios
arguing that Ss. Nikephoros and Tarasios were preaching heresy, or not?
I would agree with one part
of Fr. Patapios statement – ROCOR has abandoned the “divisions” of the Old
Calendarists. Many in ROCOR, including
Fr. Seraphim (Rose), were under the impression that the divisions among the
Greek Old Calendarists were due to some flaw that was unique to the Greeks, but
when we began to see division upon division in ROCOR, this woke many people up
to the dangers of the isolationist direction that had been promoted by many in
the 70’s and 80’s.