Today is the first Sunday of Lent and a very special day in the Orthodox Calendar of worship. It is called the Sunday of Orthodoxy or the Triumph of Orthodoxy. On this day we commemorate the struggles of our forefathers in upholding & protecting the Orthodox Faith from those who sought to alter or destroy it with false teachings, and we honour them for preserving it pure to be handed down to us.
This feast came about because in the 700s a movement arose in the Church (called iconoclasm) where people (called iconoclasts) started to think that icons were idols.Out of their mistaken zeal, they tried to destroy all of the icons in the churches. After struggle that lasted half-a-century, the Empress St Theodora convened a council (now known as the 7th Ecumenical Council) at which the bishops proclaimed the official teaching of the Orthodox Faith – that icons are not idols because we do not worship them, rather we simply venerate them (ie, show them honour). When we honour an icon, we are showing honour to the saint shown in the icon (and in turn to the One Who made them a Saint – ie God). This council decreed that the icons were to be restored to the Churches, and they have remained there to this day. To honour this event, the Empress established the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy which included a procession of icons around the church.
Although icons were the main issue at that time, the service also reinforced the truth of the Orthodox Faith by denouncing many of the errors and heresies against which the Orthodox Church had fought through the ages. For example, the first denouncement is: “To those who deny the existence of God, and assert that the world is self-existing, and that all things in it occur by chance, and not by the providence of God, Anathema!” Many of these denouncements very relevant today. You can read more about this service here.
This year’s Sunday of Orthodoxy was extra special for the Orthodox Church here in Adelaide because one of our home-grown young men was ordained to the diaconate by His Grace Bishop Nikandros at the Parish of Prophet Elias, Norwood. We congratulate Fr Deacon Michael Psaromatis on his ordination and we pray that God will give him strength for the divine vocation to which he has been called. AXIOS!
In the below article from Neos Kosmos Newspaper, journalist Kostas Nikopoulos takes issue once again with Mr Prokopios Kanavas’ false claims.
As a reminder to all, on the 31st of January 2012, Mr Nikolopoulos had the following to say about Mr Kanavas:
Adelaide priest, the Reverend Prokopios Kanavas, has been asked by the Greek Orthodox Community of South Australia to give evidence over claims he posted on his Facebook wall.
Reverend Prokopios, from St Nicholas Parish in Thebarton, South Australia, claimed that he has completed a degree in Theology and International Law at Israel’s Hebrew University of Jerusalem, represented the Patriarchate of Jerusalem at conferences, and restored a monastery at his own expense.
However, the university has stated that they have no record of him studying there, and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem has denied these claims in a letter sent to Bishop Nikandros, the head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in SA.
The chairman of the Federation of Greek Communities in Australia, property developer Theo Maras, told Adelaide Now he was “concerned” about the allegations. He called on the council to “deal with this quickly and ensure that the communities’ concerns are allayed”.
The letter sent by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem made serious allegations about the priest – which can’t be stated due to legal reasons – that subsequently led to his defrocking in 2008. It said Reverend Prokopios, who represents himself in Adelaide as an Archimandrite, was ordained and served within the Jerusalem patriarchate as a deacon and that the Synod of the patriarchate deliberated on July 24, 2008, and defrocked him, at which time he reverted back to a lay person.
He then joined the Greek Army, later joining another faction of the church, was again ordained and made his way to Adelaide in 2010.
As yet Mr Kanavas has not provided any evidence to the GOCSA Council, or the Sunday Mail and Neos Kosmos News Papers, who are eagerly awaiting a response from him about his false credentials. Personally Mr Nikopoulos is also awaiting an apology from Prokopios which he believes he owes to all those who came across his fake biographical information online. Furthermore he believes this apology will be for his own redemption and wellbeing.
The only response that we have had so far from Mr Kanavas is that he admits he desired to study at the Hebrew University but was not given the blessing from his superiors. Well as the author of the article says it is one thing to dream and another to be real. When one takes into account his academic record it becomes obvious that his ambitions are well beyond the realms of reality and into the impossible. To usurp positions, qualifications and fabricate achievements for ones own expediencies is to undermine the integrity of those who you interact and deal with. In all human professions this is not simply dismissed as an error of judgment (as Prokopios proclaims) but rather a crime against human nature.
When the Hebrew University of Jerusalem was asked about Mr Prokopios (Panagiotis) Kanavas’ status as a student, the following reply was given by Dr Joel Alpert:
We do not have any record of a person of this name being a student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (see image below)
May the Lord our God alleviate the Greek Orthodox faithful in Adelaide and all Australia from the schism plaguing our Church. May the schismatics come to repentance and may the unrepentant limit the harm they cause to themselves and everyone else.
Dear readers as we see below the only thing that can arise from a schism is more schism. Here we find an internal schism awaiting those eight communities (GOCSA and four others) that are part of the Federation of Greek Communities. In particular it is only those communities that are in schism that are threatened.
This intending schism comes as a result of GOCSA’s sacking of Christodoulos. Christodoulos upon the advice of dissident stake-holders of the federation responded by seeking partnership with a renegade “Archbishop of Greece and all Athens” Seraphim, who has his headquarters on the tiny Greek islet of Salamina. Together they invented the “Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Australia and Oceania” which upon the last count has three clerics and no laity.
Christodoulos without the knowledge of the Federation made these deliberations, and together with the two clergy men loyal (for now) to his cause, the self appointed “chancellor and vicar-general” George Athanasiades and Savas Pizanias, will set up shop in opposition to the Federation. Mr Athanasiades who in the past has said «υπάρχουν και άλλες πορτοκαλιές που βγάζουν πορτοκάλια» (there are other orange trees that produce oranges) and Mr Pizanias who once in the Greek Herald News Paper categorically denied he had any involvement with rogue churches, are both included in the media release of this new *Orthodox Metropolis*. (See image below.)
Of concern to us are the following words from the Neos Kosmos:
According to reliable sources the coup was hatched by a number of renegade communities with the specific aim to impede attempts by interested members of the Federation to engage dialogue with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia.
Greetings to all of our readers in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We received an email from a supporter recently who had some encouraging things to say. In their pleasant email they made a very important point that we felt was worth sharing here on our blog. We therefore obtained their permission to post the following extract from their email:
I also pray that the schism is healed.
I also want to point out that GOCSA have done well in the past by setting up schools, and dancing groups, youth committees and festivals, the list goes on, but I can say that they have been very successful in raising money to build schools, aged home centres and the like – it is just a great pity that we are not united to make their great works recognised by all Greek Orthodox in South Australia. Just as the Archdiocese churches etc were built by the sweat, money and tears of many migrants, the same can be said for GOCSA.
Again, I pray for unity and it will be a great day when we follow what has happened in NSW.
Keep up the good work – I commend you for staying strong and speaking the truth against people who stand in the way of unity.
Can I make a suggestion for your next blog? Commending what GOCSA have been able to achieve in SA and that if unity happens they can continue this good work that will be recognised by the Ecumenical Councils of Orthodoxy around the world, and their Greek Orthodox churches will be given the Myrrh etc etc …
(A heartfelt thank you to this person for giving us the permission to post this.)
Ridleyton Greek Home for the Aged
Our reader makes a very good point that we have tried to emphasise in a couple of recent posts, however upon this person’s suggestion we have decided that the point is important enough that it deserves a blog post dedicated to it exclusively.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of a Greek community organisation. Having an organisation in this state that caters to the secular needs of the Greek-speaking people is a good thing. Among some of the good things that GOCSA does are:
Welfare and Community Care
The Ridleyton aged care facility
Promoting the teaching & learning of the Greek language & culture
Greek dance groups
Running Greek festivals
These are all worthy causes for the Greeks of South Australia and we believe that GOCSA ought to be commended and respected for all that they do in these areas. And while we on this page don’t represent the Archdiocese on an official level, we are pretty sure that they would officially agree with this positive assessment of GOCSA’s purely philanthropic and cultural programs – after all, it would be difficult to explain why they left GOCNSW with autonomy in continuing to run their philanthropic & cultural programs after last year’s reunion agreement if they did not view their programs positively.
If we do not mention these positive comments frequently, it is not because we don’t believe them – it is only because these points usually aren’t disputed. In any conversation about unity it is only natural for more time & focus to be placed on those things that divide us, because it is only by addressing the issues which divide us that unity can be achieved.
Of course, although GOCSA does these things well, we firmly believe they could do them so much better if they weren’t hindered by their irregular relationship to the Orthodox Church. If they re-united with the Archdiocese, they would no longer have to waste time, energy & money continually looking for solutions to their recurrent “ecclesiastical problems” – then they would have more time, energy & money to spend on the things that they do well. However, although there is a time to be critical, we’d prefer not to go into this in any more detail just now. Instead, we’ll simply leave off by commending GOCSA for the good things that they’ve achieved, and pray that by working towards unity with the Archdiocese (hopefully soon!) they may able to do even better for the Greeks of South Australia and for the South Australian community in general.
The Orthodox Church always does its best to ensure that blameless & trustworthy people who uphold the Orthodox Faith are chosen to be ordained to the priesthood and the episcopate (ie, a priest or bishop). However because people are not perfect, occasionally a bad apple slips through the cracks, or perhaps someone who was originally good and blameless succumbs to temptation and falls into sin. What happens in such cases? Are they still priests/bishops? Are the Mysteries and other official acts that they conducted while a bishop/priest still valid? This question is the subject of this post.
Membership & Validity in Parliament
House of Representatives in Australian Federal Parliament
To understand this issue it might be helpful to consider how Parliament handles similar problems.
As a nation we have certain minimum standards for our MPs. Of particular relevance at this time is that people who have been found guilty of a crime are not permitted to be members of Parliament. So let’s consider a current example: Craig Thompson is a Federal Labor Member of Parliament (MP), holding the Federal seat of Dobell. Recently he has made headlines due to allegations that he misused a Union credit card while head of the Health Services Union. If found guilty of this crime, he would be ineligible to be an MP and would be forced to resign from his office. But (and here is the first important point): up until the time that he resigns or is otherwise forced out of office, he is still the Federal Member for Dobell.
Now for the second important point: as long as he is the Federal Member for Dobell, he is entitled to a vote in the Federal Parliament. Even with this investigation against him pending, his vote counts just as it always did. And if he is later found guilty & forced to vacate his seat, then this does not affect the validity of any of the votes he made before that time.
The reason for this is obvious when you think about it: could you imagine what would happen if the MP’s sacking was applied retroactively, and all his earlier votes cancelled? We would forever be in doubt about our legislation, because there would always be the possibility that one or more of the MPs had committed an as-yet-undiscovered crime which invalidates his/her/their vote(s). Parliament could not function or legislate effectively.
For example, suppose the “Carbon Tax” legislation passed by one vote (thanks to Craig Thompson). Two years pass and various companies pay various forms of tax on their carbon-dioxide emissions. Then Mr Thompson is found guilty of the allegations against him and cast out of his seat. Does this mean that the Carbon Tax legislation was invalid? Does this mean that the Government would have to refund the carbon taxes that they collected? The answer is no. In this way citizens & businesses of this country can have certainty about their legislation.
The Donatist Heresy
St Augustine of Hippo was famous for his refutation of the Donatists.
The Orthodox Church has a very similar approach to the decisions & acts of its bishops as our nation does towards its MPs. The most famous example of this was the Donatist heresy in the 4th century.
In the early 4th century there were severe persecutions against Christians that tried to convince them to betray their faith by (among other things) handing over copies of their Scriptures. The penalty for this denial of the faith was to be cast out of the Church. When the persecutions ended, the Church in her mercy accepted the “lapsed” (as they were known) back into the Church after a period of repentence. However, there was a “strict” group who were less merciful and would have preferred to see them left out of the Church permanently.
This tension boiled over when a new bishop of Carthage (Caecilian) was elected in AD 311. One of the bishops that ordained him was allegedly one of the “lapsed”. The strict group accordingly declared Caecilian’s ordination to be invalid and ordained their own rival bishop of Carthage (Majorinus) – beginning a new schism in Carthage. Majorinus lived only four more years, at which point his followers appointed a successor called Donatus. This schism became known as the Donatist schism after him. (You can read more about the Donatist schism on Orthodox Wiki.)
Fundamentally, the Donatists were teaching that Mysteries (aka Sacraments) or other official actions of the Church conducted by a priest or a bishop were not valid if he has any kind of sin in him. If the Donatists were correct, then the same problems of uncertainty would arise as described in the case of Parliament above. No one would know if their Baptism, Marriage, Ordination, or even Holy Communion was valid, because there’s always the chance that a priest may have committed some grave sin that won’t come to light until later.
It is for this reason that the Orthodox Church has always firmly rejected Donatism as a heresy. We believe that the ability to perform the Holy Mysteries does not come from the priest’s personal holiness (and conversely, that it is not taken away by the priest’s personal sins). His ability to perform the Mysteries comes from the Holy Office of the Priesthood – which the priest holds by the grace of God. As long as a priest/bishop has been properly ordained, and hasn’t been defrocked, then he is still a priest/bishop – and as long as he is still a priest/bishop, then the Mysteries he conducts are valid Mysteries and all his official acts remain official acts, regardless of his personal sin. Of course, if a priest commits a sin that later comes to light he may be defrocked as a punishment – but until he is defrocked he is still a priest!
Example: Dioscoros & the 4th Ecumenical Council
The 4th Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon
The above principle might make a bit more sense if we look at an example where it has been put into practice.
In the 4th Ecumenical Council (AD 451), the Patriarch of Alexandria (Dioscoros) was placed on trial for heresy and for his handling of a council two years earlier (which turned violent). What is interesting is that even though most of the bishops at the Council suspected that Dioscoros was guilty of the charges against him, they still took care to address him as “the most religious bishop of Alexandria” (see here for the first session). It was not until after he had been officially defrocked (during the third session of the Council) that they stopped referring to him as “the most religious bishop of Alexandria” and simply referred to him as “Dioscoros”. As an example, in the fifth session they say “Which would you follow, the most holy Leo or Dioscorus?” Note the clear difference in the way that they refer to St Leo (who had not been defrocked) as “the most holy Leo” whereas Dioscoros was simply “Dioscoros”.
When the bishops at the Council were showing respect by addressing Dioscoros in this way, it was not because they respected him as a person (a great many of them didn’t) – it was because officially he was still a bishop. It was not until he was officially defrocked (at which point he ceased to be a bishop) that they dispensed with the titles.
After Dioscoros had been deposed, the decisions he had made as Patriarch of Alexandria were still in force – they weren’t automatically annulled when he was deposed. During the remainder of the Council, a substantial amount of time was dedicated to undoing what he had done wrongfully or unjustly while Patriarch – for example, bishops who had been wrongfully deposed were officially re-instated.
The Relevance
This may seem a little off-topic for our blog, but it is relevant because of some of the accusations that have arisen recently. Accusations are often made against our priests and bishops. Sometimes they are true; usually they are false. But the important thing to remember is – even if the accusations are true, until he is officially stripped of that rank (ie, defrocked) he is still a priest/bishop, and the acts that they carry out in their name we need to respect them as such even if we don’t respect them as people.
Dear Greek Orthodox Christians of Adelaide, it has come to our attention that certain pseudo-priests are offering to hear confessions. We thought that it would be appropriate to issue a warning at this time: please be careful who you confess your sins to. There are two important things to look for: a priest who is experienced and trustworthy.
A Confessor must be experienced
The role of a priest who is hearing confessions is also to offer advice. Being in a position of offering advice requires life experience to go on. This is why in the Orthodox Church not every priest is normally allowed to hear confessions (except in cases of emergency) – for everyday confessions only certain priests (known as “confessors”) are authorised to hear them. In the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, priests aren’t normally approved for hearing confessions until they have some life experience. Most confessors are not made confessors until they are well into their 40s – a younger priest simply doesn’t have the life experience to draw on to be giving advice for delicate situations that can arise during Confession.
Who made Mr Kanavas a Confessor? Who gave him permission to hear confessions? What makes him think he has the necessary experience?
A Confessor should be trustworthy
The Mystery of Confession & Repentance is a sacred rite of the Orthodox Church in which we confess our darkest secrets to the priest. Obviously we need to be careful who we are confessing to because an unscrupulous priest might use this information against you. Even a well-meaning priest might use this information with seemingly noble intentions if they naively believe that they can help. However, this is forbidden in the Orthodox Church so that you may always know that you can confess your sins freely. This is called the “Seal of Confession”.
In the Orthodox Church, there are penalties for priests who break this “seal” – with the most severe of them being defrockment (which is the most severe punishment a priest can face apart from excommunication). These penalties stand as a reminder of the seriousness with which a priest ought to treat the Seal of Confession. This acts as a deterrent against breaking the seal of Confession for any reason.
However, what about a someone (such as Christodoulos, or Mr Kanavas) who has already been defrocked? What about someone who has already been defrocked twice? Clearly the threat of defrockment doesn’t seem to act as a deterrent for such a “priest”. How can they be trusted not to break the seal of Confession? What is left to deter them from doing so? What would theirpunishment be (indeed, what could it be)? To be defrocked?? Again??? Wouldn’t such a priest just laugh at this punishment (after all, that’s what they seem to have done in the past)?
How can you trust someone to guide you in the rules of the Orthodox Faith (as a Confessor is supposed to do), when they show such blatant disregard for them?
The Prodigal Son
Choose your Confessor carefully
Brothers and sisters, your soul is precious and not to be dealt with carelessly. We encourage you all to access the Mystery of Confession, but please avoid entrusting your soul’s innermost secrets to someone with limited experience and a questionable background. The Archdiocese has four priests in Adelaide who are capable of speaking English (with varying degrees of fluency) who have been appointed to the role of Confessor:
Fr Panagiotis (Peter) Photakis (St Panteleimon, Glenelg North) (Note: Fr Peter has only recently been made a confessor and it seems that the Archdiocese’ website hasn’t been updated yet – it is incorrectly listing him as “no”.)
None of these priests has been defrocked (not even once!), and they have many years of experience as parish priests. They are all well qualified for the important role of Confessor. If you need a priest to hear your Confession then please feel free to approach one of them.
We’re approaching the four-month mark for our blog now, and recent events have inspired us to dedicate another post to reflection on the past four months. In particular, we’d like to focus on the practical concerns of re-unification from the perspective of “ordinary” people.
A few people on our FB page have stated that they want to see GOCSA reunite with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. This is very encouraging. However, they also recognise that questions like “what happens to the GOCSA clergy” are out of their hands. A fair question may be asked, then – for the average person who wants to re-unite, what can they do about it? In answer to this question, we think it is important to re-visit the last attempt at reunion to see what caused it to fail and see if there is anything that can be done about it.
As recently as earlier this year (2011) there were serious attempts to bring about a reunion. However, these attempts fell through. This failure is undoubtedly due in large part to the fear campaign that was distributed in the form of not for sale flyers around the time of the GOCSA AGM. This flyer claimed that the Archdiocese would seek to sell off GOCSA property if a reunion took place. No doubt it caused enough fear to scare people away from reunion.
As we have shown in various posts on this blog, this rumour is false. Here is a summary of the evidence offered:
His Grace Bishop Nikandros has explicitly denied it: “I repeated categorically that His Eminence Stylianos is not interested in the properties as only the people are the wealth of the Church” (see this Neos Kosmos article).
We gave reasons in our second-ever post why their claims are inconsistent with the Archdiocese’s track record on this issue (including the fact that it’s never sold a Church).
“His Grace Bishop Nikandros added that if a future agreement eventuates within the South Australian Greek Orthodox community, it will be along the same lines with the agreement within the New South Wales community.” (from the same Neos Kosmos article).
We explained that it is not even legally possible for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia to sell GOCSA property under an agreement like the one with GOCNSW.
In short, there’s no rational reason to believe that the Archdiocese plans to sell GOCSA property (or even that it would be able to), given the evidence that we have available.
We’re not sure who started these false rumours or distributed these flyers (though we have our suspicions), but that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that they are an unnecessary barrier to reunion, and as long as they continue they are likely to impede any reunification attempt.
So, for the average person who wants reunion, here is a very simple and practical way that you can help:
by denying these false rumours ourselves,
by speaking out against these false rumours,
by gently correcting people who may be spreading these false rumours (bearing in mind that most people do so without realising that the rumour is false).
In this small way we can do our part and make a difference. We encourage all those who desire unity to do the same.
In the announcement of the schismatic community of Clayton, Victoria, in the program for the “feast day” of St. Spyridon, mention is made that “the first and only church that is dedicated to St. Spyridon” is the schismatic one (see announcement above). The “parish priest” at the helm of all this is George Athanasiadis. Mr Athanasiadis for those who are not aware of it has been defrocked twice. As a former canonical priest he would officiate at weddings and baptisms without declaring and registering these sacraments with the civil authorities or the Archdiocese. All this naturally met the protests of the disturbed faithful including members of his family (see relevant article here).
We must remind you that Mr Athanasiadis is the one that advertises his services to conduct weddings at non Orthodox churchesbecause he shamelessly boasts of being “independent” and therefore it follows cut off from the Orthodox Church. Ironically Mr Athanasiadis criticises Clayton’s canonical Greek Orthodox Church “The three Hierarchs” for having a “nonexistent chapel” dedicated to St. Spyridon, labelling its autonomy to worship on this great feast day as an “unholy parody”.
All Greek Orthodox Churches across the world will be celebrating the Divine Liturgy for the feast day of Saint Spyridon on the 12th of December. According to Mr Athanasiadis and his fellow schismatics these churches are nonexistent and have no ecclesiological status, they are an “unholy parody”. Indeed we ask who are the schismatics to speak? They are the ones who are unholy since they have cut themselves off from the body of Christ as they themselves know all too well.
Perhaps Clayton’s canonical Greek Orthodox of “The Three Hierarchs” which neighbours Clayton’s schismatic community needs to seek permission from Mr Athanasiadis and Mr Pizanias (who by the way has been defrocked twice and married twice) to serve the Divine Liturgy! “Stubbornness” and “opposition” is not new to Clayton’s schismatic community, for forty years they have been rejecting to be united to the body of Christ, which in Australia for the Greek Orthodox faithful is the “Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia”. Thankfully Sydney’s former schismatic community has now been regrafted into the body of Christ.
Only canonical clergy can celebrate in Orthodox Churches, only they have the validity to impart the grace of sanctification on the faithful through Christ’s gift of priesthood. For Mr Athanasiadis and Mr Pizanias all they can ever do with any degree of validity on the feast day of St. Spyridon, is to create a gathering where the consumption of food and loukoumathes will take place. To quote Saint Cyprian from the third centuary “Outside of the Church nobody is saved”.
In terms of what is “unholy” and provocative, this is personified with the presence at Clayton’s schismatic community of the fake “His Eminence Bishop Christodoulos of Trimythous”. Not only has Mr Christodoulos been defrocked twice but as we read in the newspaper “O Parikos”his “tourist” visa has lapsed forcing him to take occasional trips to New Zealand or the islands of Fiji. His visa status is further compounded by the alleged belief that he is a carrier of the Hepatitis B virus.
On account of the above Christodoulos is no eminent bishop of any Orthodox Church. Of course the faithful will tell you this, in particular those who understand, listen, read and discern.
We commented recently on why certain clauses may have been added to the GOCNSW constitution by the MOU signed with the Archdiocese. Interestingly enough a recent example of scandalous misuse of liturgical items was brought to our attention and photos of this public misuse were published on Facebook. Due to the photos being taken off Facebook in response to false copyright claims we will republish them here with some commentary.
It is clear from the photos that an artophorio has been set up on top of a fridge in the public dinning hall of a nursing home. This is not accidental either as candles have been carefully placed on either side and appear to be used for some sort of activity as they are being burned and replaced.
A person who claims to work at the nursing home excused this behavior by saying:
it wasnt set up there purposely so once again get your facts before passing judgement would u prefer them to put it under the bench? because thats the only other place there for it to go i know because i work in there
This was followed by claims that it is needed there as elderly people may not be able to attend the church services. Presumably this is intended to imply that the Eucharist can be kept and distributed from there.
Although the practice of private keeping and receiving of the Eucharist did exist at one time very early on in the Church this has been forbidden by the Church due to the potential for sacrilege and abuse.
For instance the thirty-sixth of the canons attributed to Saint Athansius says,
“No priest shall carry forth the Mysteries and go with them about the streets, except for a sick man, when the end and death’s hour of need draw nigh. And when they carry the mysteries [without], they shall suffer none but the sick to partake. And they shall not do according to favour and give unto one beside the sick, but unto the sick alone. . . “
Of course this sort of abuse can occur even in the canonical Church but there the oversight of a bishop helps to prevent it. In the case of an organisation like GOCSA where is the oversight of a bishop? Lay people are not always familiar with proper ecclesiastical behaviour or care for holy objects, which is why they should not be burdened with this responsibility. It is no suprise that the Archdiocese would request that GOCNSW change their constitution so that the Bishop is able to intervene in these sort of situations.
See this post for more commentary on the changes to the GOCNSW constitution.
One of the most common arguments we’ve heard since starting this blog is “Orthodox is Orthodox”. What the person usually means when they say this is that “if it looks like an Orthodox service, then it must be Orthodox”. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case, because there are counterfeits out there – services that are are designed to look Orthodox but in fact are not.
In order to address this issue, we aim first to look at a case of counterfeiting in another field where people might be more aware of the issues of counterfeiting: money. We will look at how our money has special security features in it in order to detect counterfeiting. And finally, we will look at how the Orthodox Church applies special security features to its own services in order to make it possible to detect counterfeits.
Counterfeit currency
Counterfeit notes can be hard to detect. While Australia has possibly the most difficult-to-forge notes in the world, this does not stop some people from trying. For example, in 2007 there was a case of fake $50 notes appearing in Brisbane. More recently a counterfeiting ring was busted in Sydney, with a large stash of fake $50 notes.
As the above picture shows, fake notes can look identical to a legitimate note at first glance. However, merely looking identical is of course not enough to make a note legitimate, so we should never rely on superficial appearances alone to judge whether or not a note is legitimate. So how do we judge if a note is legitimate or counterfeit if they look almost identical?
The Reserve Bank of Australia is the organisation responsible for producing bank notes. Because they knew that people would try and forge their bank notes, they have included a number of security features in the notes’ design. A person who is aware of these security features & knows what to look for will easily be able to tell if a note is fake, even if it looks genuine.
It is good for people to know their rights & how to detect a counterfeit note. When you are presented with a bank note as payment for something, you are entitled to review its security features and to reject it if you think that the note is not genuine.
Counterfeit Orthodox Church Services
Unfortunately, as with currency, there are services out there which at first glance look identical to Orthodox services. Take the above clip from a service in the US: It looks for all the world like it is Orthodox, doesn’t it? And yet, this is a so-called “Ukrainian Catholic” Church, and is actually part of the Roman Catholic Church. This service is the product of a program known to Orthodox as “uniatism” and to Roman Catholics as “Eastern-Rite Catholicism” – in this program, Roman Catholics tried to entice Orthodox to join their church by allowing them to keep the externals of their worship the same. In doing so they also relied on the ignorance of the simple faithful who couldn’t see the change that had taken place. Their confusion is humorously summed up in the following quote from His Eminence Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: “Many of them, at any rate, explained the matter by saying that the Pope had now joined the Orthodox Church” (in actual fact, it was them who had left the Orthodox Church and joined with the Pope).
So what are the faithful to do? Are they forever doomed to be uncertain as to whether or not a service is legitimately Orthodox? Fortunately, just as the RBA has included security features in Australian bank notes, so too has the Orthodox Church over the years developed “security features” in its services in order to make it possible to distinguish a real Orthodox liturgy from a counterfeit. So what are these security features?
The “Security Features” of the Orthodox Church
The Church has a number of security features that must be present in order for a service to be a legitimate Orthodox service. Some of the most important features are described below – if any of these features are missing than a service is not a legitimate Orthodox service.
Security feature #1. Commemorating an Orthodox Bishop
Here is a video of another uniate service. Like the previous service, it looks Orthodox but is actually Roman Catholic (the parish is called St Mary’s Byzantine Catholic Church). However, this video is at a different part in the service, which is actually perhaps the most important “security feature” of the Divine Liturgy. Here the priest is commemorating the names of those bishops & hierarchs with whom he is in communion. Listen carefully to the name of the first person that he commemorates:
…our holy father Benedict, Pope of Rome…
In other words, he is commemorating the current pope (Benedict XVI)! By commemorating him, he is indicating the fact that he is in communion with the Pope – in other words, that he is a Roman Catholic priest and that this is a Roman Catholic service.
In an Orthodox liturgy, we commemorate an Orthodox bishop at this point – for example, in the Greek Archdiocese of Australia (eg, when Bishop Nikandros is officiating or one of the canonical priests), we commemorate Archbishops Stylianos. Or if Archbishop Stylianos is himself conducting the liturgy, he will commemorate Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. If an Antiochian priest is celebrating a liturgy here in Australia, he will commemorate Metropolitan Paul. And so on.
Security feature #2: Being commemorated by an Orthodox Bishop
Of course, anyone can commemorate any bishop they want in a service, so this alone is insufficient to guarantee that a service is legitimate. It is important that the bishop being commemorated actually gives his approval for doing so. The bishop will express this by in turn commemorating the one who commemorated him.
For example, as noted above when Bishop Nikandros officiates, he commemorates Archbishop Stylianos. Conversely, when Archbishop Stylianos officiates he commemorates Bishop Nikandros (along with all his other assistant bishops). Likewise, the Ecumenical Patriarch in turn commemorates Archbishop Stylianos.
Security feature #3: Priests having permission from an Orthodox Bishop
Antimension
In the Orthodox Church, only the bishop has authority to conduct mysteries (aka sacraments). But because the bishop cannot be everywhere at once, he usually delegates this authority to his priests. As a sign of his authority, he will give them a special cloth called an antimension, as well as the Holy Chrism used for Chrismation. We discussed these features is some detail in an earlier post, so we will not repeat them here, but instead refer you to the earlier post.
Is your service counterfeit?
Please be on the lookout for fake services. Don’t fall for the spin “Orthodox is Orthodox”. You wouldn’t accept money that is missing security features from someone just because they said to you: “money is money” - you should reject it regardless of what they say. How much more important are our worship services than money! If someone offers you an Orthodox service that is missing one of the above “security features”, then it is a counterfeit, no matter how similar it may otherwise look. If you are not sure, don’t be afraid to ask the person leading your worship as he has an obligation to tell you: as a worshipper you have a right to know that you are getting an Orthodox service.
