Petitie impotriva eclesiologiei eretice a Patriahului Bartolomeu

UPDATE 20.12.2014

Fratii de la Graiul Ortodox au fost mai rapizi cu traducerea. Textul din articol tradus il gasiti la:


Am tradus prima parte a textului:

Sinaxa Clericilor si Monahilor Ortodocsi,

Tesalonic, 19 Noiembrie 2014

Preaiubiti frati,

Mai jos gasiti un text pregatit de Sinaxa Clericilor si Monahilor Ortodocsi care este semnata de catre toti membrii sai si care prezinta si examineaza noile vederi eclesiologice recent exprimate de Patriarhul Ecumenic Bartolomeu. Veti observa ca sase ierarhi ai Bisericii Greciei – Andrei de Dryinoupolis, Serafim de Pireu, Paul de Glyfada, Serafim al Kithirelor Cosma al Etoliei si Akarnania si Ieremia al Gortinei – au semnat acest document si va fi in mod sigur semnat de un numar mare de clerici si laici in zilele ce vor urma.

Efectele acestui text vor creste semnificativ daca dvs. si orice alt cleric, monah sau laic pe care il cunoasteti isi vor adauga numele pe acest document, dupa care il va semna digital, mai jos. Informatiile personale nu vor fi folosite in alt scop, decat pentru petitia in cauza.

Cu tot respectul si onoarea cuvenite,

Synaxis of ORTHODOX
Clergy and Monastics

Thessaloniki, November 19, 2014

Beloved Brethren,

Below you will find a text prepared by the Synaxis of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics and signed by all its members which presents and examines the novel ecclesiological views recently expressed by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. You will note that six of the Church of Greece’s hierarchs—Andrew of Dryinoupolis, Seraphim of Piraeus, Paul of Glyfada, Seraphim of Kythira, Kosmas of Aetolia and Akarnanias, and Jeremiah of Gortynos—have already added their signatures to this document and it will certainly be signed by a broader segment of the clergy and laity in the coming days.

The effect of this text will be greatly increased if you, and any other clergyman, monastic or layman whom you may know, add your signatures to the following document and then digitally sign it, below. Your personal information will not be used for any other purposes than for this petition.

With all due respect and honor,

On behalf of the Synaxis of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics

Archimandrite Athanasios Anastasio
Former Abbot of Great Meteora Monastery
Archimandrite Sarantis Saranto
Rector of the Church of the Dormition of the Theotokos, Marousi, Attica, Greece
Archimandrite Gregory Hadjinicolao
Abbot of Holy Trinity Monastery, Ano Gatzeas, Volos, Greece
Elder Efstratios, Priestmon
Great Lavra Monastery, Mount Athos
Protopresbyter. George Metallinos
Professor Emeritus of the Theological Academy at the University of Athens, Greece
Protopresbyter. Theodore Zissis
Professor Emeritus of the Theological Academy at the University of Thessaloniki, Greece

In the text that follows, footnotes are omitted to simplify Web formatting (Download Original as PDF)

It was with great sorrow that we all witnessed the events which unfolded in the Holy Land, now a few months ago. Within the context of his meeting with Pope Francis in Jerusalem on 25 May of the present year, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew expressed, amongst other things, a novel ecclesiology, entirely foreign to Orthodoxy. The culmination of years of deviation within the sphere of ecclesiology, and indeed its worst manifestation, this new ecclesiology denies the indissolubility and incorruptibility of the Church, despite the fact that it is, according to the Fathers, „…the Theanthropos (the God-Man) Christ, extended through that ages and unto all eternity. It is for this reason that the Church is without, „…spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.” Conversely, according to the Patriarch, the Church has been divided, contrary to the will of the Almighty Christ:

1. Various formulations of ‘Divided Church’ ecclesiology.

The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by the “Word who was in the beginning,” who was “truly with God,” and who “truly was God”, according to the Evangelist of Love, sadly, on account of the dominance of human weakness and of impermanence of the will of the human intellect, was divided in time in the course of her earthly campaign. This brought about a variety of conditions and groups, each of which claiming “authenticity” and “truth” for itself. The Truth is One, however; Christ, and the One Church founded by Him”.

Unfortunately, the human element prevailed, as a result of a build up of “theological,” “practical,” and “social” additions, the Local Churches were led into a division of the unity of the Faith, into isolation, which at times gave rise to hostile polemics.

This position is not entirely new: much earlier, the Ecumenical Patriarch expressed his view in favour of the equality of the Orthodox Church and the Papal heresy:

A common sacramental conception of the Church has emerged, sustained and passed on in time by the apostolic succession…the Joint Commission has been able to declare that our Churches recognize one another as Sister Churches, jointly responsible for safeguarding the one Church of God, in faithfulness to the divine plan, and in an altogether special way with regard to unity… In this perspective we urge our faithful, Catholics and Orthodox, to reinforce the spirit of brotherhood which stems from the one Baptism and from participation in the sacramental life.

Dialogue is most beneficial, for by means of it we come to recognize the harmful elements of the old leaven, which is a presupposition of true and salvific repentance…Inasmuch as one Church recognizes another Church to be a storehouse of holy grace and a guide leading to salvation, efforts aimed at tearing faithful away from one church in order that they may join another are unacceptable, being inconsistent with the aforementioned recognition. Each local Churchis not a competitor of the other local Churches, but rather is one body with them and desires the life of unity in Christ, the restoration of what was disturbed in the past, and not the absorption of the other.

This strange broadening of the Church did not leave the heretical Protestants outside of its bounds. Patriarch Bartholomew had the following to say in 2008 about the 9th General Assembly of the World Council of Churches which took place in Porto Alegre of Brazil in February of 2006:

And so, freed from the tensions of the past and determined to stay together and act together, two years ago at the Ninth Assembly at Porto Alegre, Brazil, we laid down markers for a new stage in the life of the Council, taking account of the present situation in inter-church relations and the changes that are gradually taking place in ecumenical life.

To general astonishment, the final text of that Assembly proclaims about the “churches” of the W.C.C:

Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it. Each church fulfils its catholicity when it is in communion with the other churches…apart from one another we are impoverished.

The Patriarch’s theological advisor, Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, also considers any heretical or schismatic group that employs „baptism” of any kind to be within the church.

Baptism creates a limit to the Church. Now, within this baptismal limit it is conceivable that there may be divisions, but any division within those limits is not the same as the division between the Church and those outside the baptismal limit … within baptism, even if there is a division, one may still speak of the Church.

By arbitrarily widening the boundaries of the Church, Metropolitan John limits the field of heresy. According to him, every heresy that does not expressly contradict Symbol of Faith [the Creed], such as Monophysitism-Monothelitsm (the so-called Pre-Chalcedonians), Iconoclasm, anti-hesychasm, nationalism, etc. is part of the church:

Heresy, meaning the divergence from that which is believed and confessed in the Creed by the Church, automatically sets one outside of the Church. The problem arises, however, from the moment this point of view becomes absolute.

All the above seem to be the extension of an earlier suggestion of Patriarch Athenagoras, the mentor of the subsequent leaders of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, who said:

The movement toward unity it is not a matter of one Church moving toward the other, but rather let us all re-found the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church together, coexisting in the East and the West as we lived up to 1054 in spite of the theological differences that existed then.

2. Historical instances where this new ecclesiology has been applied.

The views of the Ecumenical Patriarch set forth above have been confirmed in practice over time at various ecumenical events. They are confirmed, for example, by the Ecumenical Patriarch’s presence or prayer at Vespers for the patronal feast of Rome (June 1995), at the funeral of Pope John Paul II (April 2005), at a Papal liturgy in the Vatican (June 2008), at a meeting of the Council of Catholic Bishops (October 2008), at the first formal liturgy of Pope Francis (March 2013), when he blessed the Orthodox faithful together with Cardinal Cassidy (at the Phanar in 1992), when Pope Benedict XVI was permitted to participate in a Patriarchal Liturgy in Constantinople (November 2006), during which the Pope, wearing a pallium, recited the Lord’s prayer and was honoured with the singing of „Many Years”. These views were also confirmed more recently (May 2014) by means of joint prayer in front of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, as well, through the giving of a Holy Chalice to the newly elected Uniate bishop, Demetrios Salachas of Carcabia in Athens (May 2008), with the Papal bishop Louis Pelatre participation in the Vespers of Love in Constantinople (Pascha 2009), a custom that has continued in subsequent years, and with the allowing of heterodox to enter into the Altar through the Beautiful Gates. Patriarch Bartholomew’s participation in the Anglican Synod at Lambeth Palace (November 1993) offers further confirmation of these views. All these instances—and many more besides these—were filled with joint prayer, addresses or even common ecclesiological statements. In the context of his ecumenist plans, Patriarch Bartholomew did not forget to encourage the new Bulgarian Patriarch, Neophyte, to return the Patriarchate of Bulgaria to the Ecumenical Movement, from which it had withdrawn in 1998.

3. Denial of the Creed, faith “in One Church”

The above mentioned statements and events make manifest the Ecumenical Patriarch’s consistent ecclesiological mindset. His recent statement in Jerusalem clearly shows the obvious contradictory or double-minded character of this ecclesiology, a common characteristic of Ecumenism, as it projects the One Church, but as “divided in time”. In this case, the Patriarchal text creates confusion and is clearly not inspired by the Holy Spirit, which is a “right” [straightforward] Spirit. It should be understood that this view constitutes a conscious denial, at the very least, of the unity of the “One Church” as an attribute and ontological certainty of the Church. The inclusion of this attribute in the ecclesiological article of the Creed is the expression of the Church’s self-consciousness [αὐτοσυνειδησία] and of its experience in the Holy Spirit. Consequently, whoever consciously doubts or rejects the faith of the Church as it has been set down with exactness by the Decrees of the Ecumenical Synods, especially in the unambiguous articles of the Symbol of Faith, whether he is clergy or laity, self-evidently falls away from the Body of the Church, and according to the Ecumenical Councils is subject to deposition or excommunication.

4. The Church is eternally indissoluble, the unity of Christ with the faithful is unbreakable.

The Lord’s clear promise that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against” the Church, and even more, the assertion that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men”, trump the Patriarch’s assertion that “the human factor prevailed” in the second millennium of the Church’s history. In this case, the findings of the Fathers are clear: for Basil the Great, Christ “was begotten in the midst” of the Church, “and gave Her the gift of being unshakeable”; St. Gregory the Theologian calls the Church “the great heritage of Christ which will never cease, but which will advance ever further”, whereas St. John Chrysostom proclaims that Scripture calls the Church “a mountain, because of It being immovable, and a rock, because It is incorruptible.” St. Nektarios of Aegina, in agreement with the confession of all the Holy Fathers, verifies that the Church alone is “the pillar and the ground of the truth, because the comforting Spirit stays in her until the end of ages”. The continuous presence of the Spirit safeguards the Church, and that is why the work of Christ is complete and whole, for He “has accomplished His work, He has gladdened his friends”.

We believe in the Church as in an eternal theanthropic establishment that “will not only be extended everywhere in the universe, but throughout all time, as well” and consequently cannot be defeated or pass away. It is clear that this space-time extension is not speaking of some noetic Church “outside of time”, but of the militant Church “in time”, which is historically visible as a unity-communion of faithful, because It is “a city that is set on a hill” and “a house of God that is admired by all”.

The extraordinary unity of the Church as the Body of Christ is a fact, absolutely and irrevocably secured by Christ, the Head of the Church, through the continuous presence of the Holy Spirit within It, from the day of Pentecost until the end of time. The faithful, as the body of the Head, which is Christ, are a necessary complement of the Church, “the fullness of Him who fills all in all” and the reason why a Church “outside of time”, without the faithful on earth, is inconceivable. Saint John Chrysostom writes:“for where the Head is, there is the body also. There is no interval to separate between the Head and the body; for were there a separation, then were it no longer a body, then were it no longer a head… and he introduces Him as having need of each single one and not only of all in common and together…then is the head filled up, then is the body rendered perfect, when we are all knit together and united”. That is why God is glorified both in Christ and in the Body of Christ, the Church, whose only saviour is the God-man, He who “nourishes and cherishes the church”. Whoever does not believe in the continuation of the Incarnation, the Church, does not believe in Christ. “The Church is the continuation of the Incarnation in time. And just as our Lord was seen and touched and venerated in the flesh, in time, so too does His Body, the Church, continue—united and holy—in time. If we were to accept the division of the Church, we would be accepting the nullification of the Incarnation and the salvation of the world.

5. Since Christ “cannot be divided” it is self-evident that unity is a mark of the Church

The Church does not chase after unity, but rather, possessing it as an ontological attribute, simply maintains it, “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”. It is an essential characteristic of the Church, since “the Church’s name is not a name of separation, but of unity and concord”. A divided and broken apart Church is a monstrosity and mere imagination. St. Nektarios of Aegina, while targeting the Protestant theory of an “invisible Church”, seems to be asking the Patriarch: “Why the name Ecclesia, when the members are isolated and unknown to each other, and do not constitute an organic system or an unbreakable unity in the true sense of the word?”

Therefore, the unity of dogmatic faith is also the given reality of the Church; because, just as Christ, the Head of the Church cannot be broken apart—Christ is not divided—so too in the Church there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” and not dogmatic polyphony. The Church forms a single faith in the Christ-believing flock, so that “for all the faithful, the grace and calling of faith joins each one to the other in a single form”.

6. The cutting off of the heretics does not harm the Church

Whoever falls away from the unanimous theological confession, becoming like a dried vine that has been cut off from the Vineyard, is himself responsible, as St. John Chrysostom clearly warns: “the Church did not abandon him but he abandoned the Church […] Abide in the Church and you will not be betrayed by the Church. If you flee from the Church, the Church is not the cause of your capture […] if you go outside, you are liable to be the wild beast’s prey: yet this is not the fault of the fold, but of your own faintheartedness […] the Church is not walls and roofs, but faith and life”.

In agreement with the above, the cutting off of the heretical Latins and the absence of the Protestants from the One and Catholic Church did not harm Her (“you will not be betrayed by the Church”) nor would they be able to harm Her. At an eighteenth century synod, the Orthodox Patriarchs clearly professed the incorruptible theanthropic nature of the Church, and that the Latins fell away from this on account of the Pope’s pride: “After many years of being under the evil one’s influence, the Pope of Rome, having been led astray into innovations and strange teachings, was separated from among the members of the Body of the pious Church and fell away […] If the four parts of the sail have been maintained in place, attached and woven together, we do now sail with ease through the waves of this life’s sea without suffering shipwreck […]. Thus it is, for us, that Christ’s pious Church stands upon four pillars, that is, the four Patriarchs, and remains unassailable and unshaken”.

Heresy is certainly not only the damage done in relation to the fundamental faith of the Church, but also that done in the lesser matters of the faith, which invariably worsens over time. Together with many other Saints, the Patriarch of Constantinople St. Tarasios, observes: “As far as dogmas are concerned it is all the same to err to a small degree or to a great degree, because in one case and the other the law of God is broken”. The great Patriarch Gennadios Scholarios II agrees with this, stating: “Whether one sins in great matters or lesser matters against the truth of the Faith, he is a heretic”.

7. Has the Priesthood of the Bishops been abolished?

A consistent/honest interpretation of this new ecclesiology renders the Patriarch and all the Bishops as “deficient” in regards to the true Priesthood of Christ and consequently deputies or locum tenens, but not successors of their Throne, supervisors and not perfecters (or finishers) of the Divine Mysteries of the Church. If Patriarch Bartholomew is right, the Bishops do not partake in the fullness of the Priesthood of the Church. If over time, the One Church, the Body of Christ, was broken up, then the ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Priesthood) which is in communion in Spirit with the heavenly Hierarchy according to St. Maximos, retains the enlightenment of the Priesthood only in a “fragmented” state, since, “…through divine vision the hierarch is illumined first, and afterwards he imparts to those under him and guides to perfection those whom he brought to illumination.”

From the above dogmatic findings, brief yet comprehensive (as far as space permits), the distance of the Patriarchal declarations from Orthodoxy has become as clear as day. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew believes in a “broadened and divided” Church; broadened because he thinks that the heretics belong to the Church by the power of any “baptism”, regardless of their heretical dogmas and their being in schism and not in communion with the Church; divided because there does not exist “inter-communion” between the Orthodox and heretics. According to the Patriarch, even though divided “in history” the One Church continues to exist “somehow—someway”.

It is easy to see, however, in the Faith of the Church, that the Church’s Oneness (Unity—state of being Undivided) is an ontological and inalienable characteristic, because She is the Body of the Indivisible and Almighty Christ our God. As the Body of Christ and the completion of His work, the Church cannot be divided because that would mean Her destruction and the “defeat” of [Christ’s] Divinity. Nor can the Church cease to exist because the Church Herself is the fulfillment of the promises of eternal salvation on earth.

The unity of the Body of the Church is also expressed in her unique dogmatic faith. Calling this faith into doubt constitutes heresy, for it is the doubting of the presuppositions our salvation. Christ revealed that whoever is separated from the Vineyard,i.e. from Himself, is as a withered branch and is lost. Patriarch Bartholomew believes that the Living and blessed Vineyard of our Lord’s Body is deficient without these dried out branches, those who through their own responsibility cut themselves off, who are “broken up”, and we must therefore “graft” these branches, though they be dead, in Her anew, into the ecclesiastical Body of true Life, the Living Christ.

8. Past Resistance by ceasing the commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras

The innovative ecclesiology of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has seen Ecumenism advance from the devaluation of dogma, carried out by Patriarch Athenagoras, to the present, horrific distortion of orthodox faith; apparently the declaration of the “dissolution” of the One Church is necessary for Ecumenism, so that the “new church” can be “re-established” in harmony with ecumenistic specifications.

In the days of Patriarch Athenagoras, the entire Holy Mountain of Athos resisted the Patriarch’s ecumenist overtures. Three Metropolitans of the Church in Greece, invoking the 31st Apostolic Canon and the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, ceased commemoration [of the Patriarch], which is the lawful, ecclesiastical resistance foreseen by the Holy Fathers. The same response was issued by eight Monasteries on Mount Athos: “from the decision of the extraordinary 52nd Double Holy Synaxis Meeting of November 13th, 1971, […] each Holy Monastery, as self-governed, is free to practice according to its conscience regarding this issue”. The discontinuing of commemoration without further separation [“walling-off”] or full break in communion [with other Orthodox] always constituted a praiseworthy stance, because, as set down by the 15th Holy Canon of the First-Second Council (861 A.D.), those who thus react “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.” Those who, with such good intentions, cease commemoration of heretical-minded Bishops “have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers” and this is why “not only are [they] not subject to any canonical penalty, […] but shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians”.

We are saddened, for the way things are developing it does not seem that there is hope for a change of direction by Patriarch Bartholomew. With the imminent visit of Pope Francis to the Phanar for the Patronal Feast of St. Andrew, on November 30, 2014, once again there arises on the gloomy horizon increased liturgical participation of the Pope in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy: his wearing an omoforion [bishop’s vestment], his exchange of the liturgical kiss of peace with the Patriarch (which is reserved for only those who liturgize), his recital of the “Lord’s Prayer” [from the place of the one presiding (προεστώς)], a prayer with a clear Eucharistic reference (“give us this day our daily [super-essential] bread”) and which is to be recited by the one presiding [o προεστώς] on behalf of the Orthodox people, even with the sensing of the Pope and his being granted the pulpit (άμβωνος), for him to preach.

All this is not just a form of simple prayer, because obviously the Divine Liturgy does not begin with “with fear of God, faith and love draw ye near”, but from “Blessed be the Kingdom”. According to Fr. Alexander Schmemann “From the standpoint of Tradition the sacramental character of the Eucharist cannot be artificially narrowed to one act, to one moment of the whole rite. We have an „ordo” in which all parts and all elements are essential, are organically linked together in one sacramental structure. In other words, the Eucharist is a sacrament from the beginning to the end and its fulfillment or consummation is „made possible” by the entire liturgy”.

We pray that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew will come to realize his great responsibility for those he is leading into deception and for stripping the Church of the “robe of truth, the fabric of theology from above”. Nothing of Orthodox dogma shall ever be lost. Nothing will ever be altered. No new, additional decisions will ever be reached which will alter older judgements. It is not possible for dogmatic evolution to exist in any way, shape or form.

The one who is throwing you into confusion, will bear his judgment, whosoever he may be.

At the time of its initial publication, the preceding text had already been signed by some 2000 Orthodox Christians, including six Metropolitans of the Church of Greece, many abbots, clergy, monastics and laity. Those who wish to participate in this humble confession of the Orthodox faith may do so by signing the document which follows below under the heading, “I agree with this document against The New Ecclesiology of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and endorse it,” adding your signature, your name, your clerical, monastic, or professional status and your city of residence in the spaces provided.

Your personal information will not be used for any
other purposes than for this petition.

Nota: Din lipsa de timp din pacate nu pot traduce acum textul, dar sper sa o fac in timp util pentru cei care nu stiu engleza. Oricum, suntem „familiarizati” cu totii cu declaratiile pseudo-patriarhului de Istanbul. Daca sunt frati care vor sa ajute cu traducerea, sunt bine-veniti. Pana atunci, rog sa faceti cunoscuta aceasta petitie in toate colturile.

Petitia a fost creata de catre fratii de la Orthodox Info.

Adresa unde poate fi semnata petitia este:

Acest articol a fost publicat în Ortodoxie. Pune un semn de carte cu legătura permanentă.

25 de răspunsuri la Petitie impotriva eclesiologiei eretice a Patriahului Bartolomeu

  1. STOP RFID zice:

    Cine primeste acte cu cip e eretic.

  2. doktoru zice:

    Salut !!! S-au linistit apele prin zona…parca prea mult.Te intrebasem la un post mai vechi ceva,dar a disparut postul cu totul.Nu-i nimic ,multe posturi sfarsesc la gunoi fiind inutile!!!
    Alta intrebare: asa singur nu te plictisesti? La ce bun blogul daca nu se comenteaza,chiar cu riscul comentatorilor idioti (pro-anti-chip)?
    Cu textele alea de demult pana la urma nu a mai fost nimic….Dar nu-i nimic,eu stau destul de mult pe extern,blogurile noastre le rasfoiesc doar in viteza ,sa vad ce mai este nou.De obicei nimic nu e nou pe la noi ,toti vorbesc si scriu numai inutilitati.Nu stiu de ce au unii bloguri cu vietile sfintilor din sinaxare,copy-paste.Mie mi se pare ridicol !!!
    Uite ,iti mai zic de un text,off-topic bineinteles,si poate imi zici si mie daca remarci cate ceva pe la el,unele chestii mai interesante :


    Patru sunt chipurile în care se tâlcuieşte Sfânta Scriptură: istoric, adică potrivit literei şi după istorie; anagogic, adică după înalta înţelegere; alegoric, adică sub cele spuse se înţeleg altele, ascunse; şi tropologic, adică pentru îndreptarea năravurilor.

    Înţelesul istoric este cel care cuprinde lucruri trecute, care nu trebuiesc altfel înţelese şi nici nu sunt închipuire a altui lucru.

    Anagogic, când, prin spusele Scripturii ne suim de la Biserica pământească la cea cerească, de la oameni la îngeri, de la zidiri la Ziditor, până la Cea Una Sfânta şi Preaînalta Treime, de unde nu este cu putinţă a trece mai înainte. Adică atunci când zicem: „Întru început a făcut Dumnezeu Cerul şi pământul” (Facere 1, 1), prin „Cer” înţelegem pe îngeri, iar prin „pământ”, pe oameni. Încă şi ceea ce zice David: „Că M-am jurat întru mânia Mea: «Nu vor intra întru odihna Mea” (Psalm 94,12; Evrei 3, 11); s-a jurat, zice Domnul, să nu intre evreii cei neascultători şi împietriţi la inimă în pământul făgăduinţei, în Palestina. Potrivit spuselor, adică după chipul istoric, înţelegem chiar pământul Palestinei; dar anagogic, adică după înalta înţelegere, înţelegem viaţa cea veşnică, adică aceea în care este adevărata odihnă.

    Iar alegoric, este chipul în care potrivim cele spuse în Sfânta Scriptură la Hristos, la Trupul Său tainic şi la Biserica cea pământească. Adică: Avraam a avut, potrivit cuvintelor, deci potrivit istoriei doi feciori, unul din Agar slujnica [Ismail] şi altul din Sarra cea slobodă [Isaac]. Alegoric, adică după chipul în care una se spune şi alta se înţelege, Avraam închipuie pe Dumnezeu, Care are doi fii: iudeii din sinagogă şi creştinii din Biserică – creştini care sunt în slobozenia darului Iui Hristos -, iar iudeii sunt sub slujirea şi robia închipuirii Legii lui Moise, după cum tâlcuieşte marele Pavel în Epistola către Galateni (4, 22-30). Încă şi prin arca lui Noe- având dobitoace curate şi necurate-, potrivit chipului alegoric de înţelegere vedem Biserica cea pământească, ce cuprinde şi drepţi şi păcătoşi.

    Iar tropologic este chipul îndreptător de năravuri [moral] care, prin Scripturi moravurile oamenilor şi viaţa lor le îndreaptă de la răutate, către fapta cea bună. Aşa este capitolul 12 de la Matei, capitolul 11 de la Luca şi 3 de la Marcu, în care se arată Iisus scoţând dracul, după care cel mut şi surd grăieşte. Aici, tropologic – adică după chipul cel îndreptător de moravuri – se înţelege păcătosul, „surd” că nu voieşte să audă dumnezeieştile cuvinte şi „mut”, că nu primeşte spovedania; „drac” este păcatul cel de moarte; iar păcătosul venind la Hristos- adică la preotul lui Dumnezeu – şi mărturisindu-şi păcatele sale se izbăveşte prin iertarea preoţească de păcatele cele de moarte şi grăieşte, binecuvântând pe Dumnezeu prin lucrarea faptelor bune. Încă şi cele spuse de Dumnezeu în Deuteronom: „Să nu legi gura boului care treieră” (Deuteronom 25, 4), după slovă s-au spus pentru boi, dar tropologic, se înţelege pentru învăţători, care învăţând poporul, nu sunt opriţi să se hrănească din lucrurile şi veniturile Bisericii, după cum tâlcuieşte marele Pavel în Epistola întâi către Corinteni (9,1-18).

    Deci, în patru feluri se face citirea Sfintei Scripturi: istoric – potrivit cuvintelor; anagogic – după chipul unei înţelegeri mai înalte; alegoric – când înţelegem altceva decât cele spuse şi tropologic – adică în chipul îndreptător de năravuri [moral]. Se cuvine a şti că nu toate cuvintele Scripturii pot fi tâlcuite în toate aceste feluri, ci unele se tâlcuiesc numai într-un fel, altele în două sau în trei şi altele în toate aceste patru feluri.

    Altfel,toate bune si frumoase ?!!!

    • Te salut doktoru si ma bucur sa te regasesc. Ai dreptate ca trebuie sa fie comentate articolele, indiferent de pozitii, dar nu am nici-un fel de chef sa ajung iar la anateme, injuraturi etc. Decat asa, mai bine nimic. Cat priveste textul, l-am citit parca in Talcuirile Sfantului Teofilact. As mai adauga la text ca pentru cine vrea sa inteleaga Scriptura si mai bine, ar trebui sa puna mana pe greaca veche si sa citeasca si originalul biblic. Asta apropo si de interpretarile pe care „666” le-a luat pe la noi.

      • Ana Elisabeta zice:

        Eu nu sunt de acord cu doktoru, sunt de parere ca trebuie sa existe o anumita tinuta a comentariilor. Daca cineva nu e capabil sa atinga un minim nivel de decenta in comentarii, atunci nu ar trebui publicat, pentru ca aduce o atmosfera de coltul strazii sau de spatele blocului pe care oamenii de bun-simt o vor ocoli. Ce sa mai spunem de cei care sunt in nelamuriri si cauta pe net ceva cu privire la Ortodoxie, ce parere isi vor face ei despre crestinii ortodocsi? Iar daca cineva comenteaza in mod repetat ca sa exprime o opinie contrara, poate chiar eretica si anti-ortodoxa, in ciuda argumentelor care s-au adus, nu vad de ce trebuie sa i se accepte acest lucru.

      • preot-duhovnic zice:

        catre Ana Elisabeta

        Avem voie sa folosim termenii folositi de Hristos-Dumnezeu si de Apostoli:

        – pui de vipere ce sunteti (Hristos-Dumnezeu)
        – pui de năpârci (Hristos-Dumnezeu)
        – anatema (Sfintii Apostoli)
        – pagani si vamesi ce sunteti (Sfintii Apostoli)
        – ca preoti avem voie sa le legam pacatele: (Ioan XX-23) & (Matei XVIII-18)
        – avem voie sa spunem femeilor:

        ” Femeia să se înveţe în linişte, cu toată ascultarea.
        Nu îngăduiesc femeii nici să înveţe pe altul, nici să stăpânească pe bărbat, ci să stea liniştită.
        Căci Adam a fost zidit întâi, apoi Eva.
        Şi nu Adam a fost amăgit, ci femeia, amăgită fiind, s-a făcut călcătoare de poruncă.
        Dar ea se va mântui prin naştere de fii, dacă va stărui, cu înţelepciune, în credinţă, în iubire şi în sfinţenie.” (1 Timotei II, 11-15)


      • Din moment ce au existat femei care au invatat pe altii si care sunt cinstite ca sfinte in calendar, ba chiar au primit si binecuvantare in misiunea lor de la Sfintii Apostoli, care credeti dvs. ca e intelesul exact al acelui pasaj? Ne-am obisnuit sa folosim pasajele biblice si sa le manevram cum vrem noi, doar ca sa inchidem gura altora. Femeile pot sa marturiseasca ca si barbatii, cum a facut si Sfanta Ecaterina, patroana teologilor.

      • preot-duhovnic zice:

        Diplomatia sau eleganta contemporana este totuna cu fatarnicia, cu nepasarea, cu minciuna si compromisul ! Ea e nesinceritate si ura mascata!

      • Hristos a alternat diplomatia cu mustrarea. Unii vad numai diplomatia, altii doar mustrarea. Trebuie folosite si imbinate ambele, nu doar ce credem noi ca e bine…

      • preot-duhovnic zice:

        Hristos a avut TOTDEAUNA franchete si… oricum, El n-a fost NICIODATA libidinos!

      • preot-duhovnic zice:

        Ioan VIII-44. Voi sunteţi din tatăl vostru diavolul şi vreţi să faceţi poftele tatălui vostru.(Hristos-Dumnezeu)

    • doktoru zice:

      Ei cum e ?Te-ai mai gandit?…e raspunsul tau final :unsure: ?!!! Doar atat,ca Sf.Teofilact ,din prefata la toate Evangheliile…Hai ca poti mai mult,zau !!! Vrei si din Sf.Ioan Gura de Aur lamuriri ?

      Cat despre comentariile retardatiilor cip-cirip-ulizanti 😆 si eu sunt de acord ca aceia care chiar fac spume la gura pe net trebuiesc span(m)-atemizati :spam: .
      Nu mi-ai zis nici aia cu cel de al 3-lea razbel intergalactic care mi se pare,dar nu stiu sigur,ca apocalipticii il considera a fi Armaghedon-ul din Apocalipsa(ma manca tasta sa pun si un Haș inainte de Apocalipsa :innocent: ) ?!!!
      Ma distreaza astia mici :mbounce: !!!

  3. doktoru zice:

    Aia cu greaca veche nu e rea,dar parca e prea de profesionali.Nici eu nu stiu daca m-as baga la asa ceva,desi nu-i rea ideea.Eu prefer biblia 1688 si 1795.1688 e preferata mea chiar daca e mai intortocheata,e mai plina de intelesuri.
    Cat despre text ,m-am referit mai mult la partea alegorica.Acolo este partea foarte interesanta. Mai citeste-o inca o data.Acolo sunt doua personificari foarte simbolice,ca sa zic asa.
    Nu stiu la ce te referi cu 666 ,dar cred ca la nebunii cu chipurile.Parerea mea ca 666 e simbolic,alegoric si tind sa cred ca se refera doar la evrei si la prozelitii lor.Si mai tind sa cred ca reprezinta trei caderi din cunoasterea de Dumnezeu,gen trei lepadari-apostazii.
    Apropos de asta.Mai stii ca parintele Paisie a spus cum au inteles evreii partea din biblie de la Isaia cu :a inflorit pustiul Iordanului.Iar evreii s-au apucat sa irige desertul si sa tot planteze verdeturi peste tot.Ei,asa au inteles prostalaii de evrei si partea cu 666 si au mers pe varianta asta,au lansat teoria conspiratiei si de aici nebunia chipului 666.Ete,dovada de intelegere mot-a-mot si la evrei si la protestanti!!! Mai, da apoi,toata ortodoxia a preluat cretinismul asta ,in frunte cu popii,si apoi au inebunit si restul lumii si au explodat pe bloguri tot felul de scenarii care mai de care mai sci-fi.Nu pot sa le zic decat prostalai.
    Asta-i separat :
    Nu stiu daca stii dar evreii au saptamanilea alea de cate 7 ani,sabatice.Si ei tot calculeaza dupa ele cand ,zic ei,ca le vine mesia ala,al lor!!!Si saptamana asta ultima sabatica care ei zic acum ca ar fi ultima din lume si apoi vine mesia lor,se incheie pe 2015 septembrie,toamna.Si pana atunci trebuie,zic ei,sa fie si razbelul Gog versus Magog,iar anul urmator,2016, le apare lor mesia.Ma rog,ala al lor.Sau cel putin asa spera ei.Asta ca sa stiti cum ar putea decurge lucrurile in viitorul apropiat. Noroc ca ei zic ca Gog ar fi Iran si ar fi mai departe o secunda.
    Dar partea simpatica la evrei ar fi ca ei au inteles,rabinii aia dezaxati ai lor,chestia cu cei 120 de ani de la Noe cum ca ar reprezenta 120 de jubilee a cate 50 de ani,adica 6000 de ani.De la psalmul care zicea 😮 zi ca 1000 de ani,iar lumea fiind facuta in 6 zile deci totul ar dura 6000 de ani.De aceea rabinii evreii ar fi furat la cascavalul timpului si au ramas in urma cu vreo 1800 de ani,ei de abia au 5775,parca.Anul.

    Dar mai am si eu o intrebare:astia care sunt cu cel de al treilea razbel mondial ,de unde au luat chestia asta?De la Apocalipsa cu Armaghedon.De acolo crezi ca vine,ca sincer nu stiu de unde a aparut magaria asta.Si eram curios pt mine !!!

  4. kosk zice:

    recomand fratiilor internauti @ doktoru si parintelui @ preot duhovnic o perioda de liniste, rugaciune si har intr-o manastire cu traditie athonita (20 ore rugaciune si rucodelie, 4 ore odihna trupeasca)..poate le iese duhul mandriei de sine pe nas..

  5. doktoru zice:

    Ha,ha,prietene…daca si sponsorizezi toata actiunea la care faci referire,cu ceea mai mare bucurie…zbor fugind pe varfuri !!!…cat despre alea 20 de ore ,mai incet…totusi nu vrem sa-i depasim pe Sf.Parinti.Vorba aia,se supara Sf.Antonie/Macarie/Paisie(etc) cel Mare, …nu putem noi sa-i intrecem,nici daca am vrea!!!…Dar ,apropos,de ce te apuca asa deodata mila si grija de mine?…eram curios…
    Mă,da pustiu …!!!

  6. kosk zice:

    prostovan din Bucale intreaba-l pe @preot duhovnic cum e cu vietuirea si viata de obste in manastirile Athonite..sau in metocuri. (sau poate nu poti sa renunti in lunile de post la shaorma si hamburgerul din coltzu strazii…?)

    • Pot sa intreb si eu ce legatura are discutia voastra cu articolul? Ati semnat ca sunteti de acord cu textul ierarhilor si staretilor greci?
      Apoi vi se pare normal sa va adresati asa intre voi? Sunteti ortodocsi si mai sunteti si in post, si cu cateva zile inainte de Nasterea Domnului.

      • doktoru zice:

        Pai de ce folosesti pluralul si imi zici si mie acelasi lucru cum ii zici si la asta de mai sus care s-a trezit peste noapte ca da sfaturi sfatoase la altii …eu am raspuns corect ,el a fost magar…si pe deasupra mai si jigneste…eu am remarcat mai de demult pata care o au țărănoii emancipati din Bucuresti pe adevaratii bucuresteni,si asta o stiu de acum 25 de ani,si mai mult un pic,din armata…mureau da ciuda țăranoii pe bucuresteni,ca deh,de aici se da ora exacta in toata tara nu din alta parte…nu Banatul sau Moldova este fruntea ci Bucurestiul,oricum ai da-o.
        Cat despre off-topic,ce sa-i faci …asa s-a brodit .Dar ce,e obligatoriu sa semnam orice zic grecii.Mie-mi place de nea Serafim din Pireu si atat.Cu restul nu am treaba.Dar ei sa-si faca treaba lor acolo in Grecia.
        PS-Tot nu mi-ai raspuns:Armaghedonul este considerat ca un fel de WW3 ?

  7. zice:

    ” Acela care se intituleaza sau ingaduie sa fie numit episcop ecumenic este un premergator al Antihristului ” (Sfantul Grigorie Teologul)

  8. Pingback: Patriarhul Ecumenic face presiuni asupra Manastirii din Patmos pentru a oferi o biserica papistasilor | Ortodoxie Traditionalista si Teologie Patristica

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:


Comentezi folosind contul tău Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s