VIDEOS — Interview with Professor Demetrios Tselingides on Our Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Crisis
Interview Source: Orthodox Ethos (links: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3)
To receive notification regarding articles and interviews by Orthodox Ethos, subscribe to the Orthodox Ethos podcast on YouTube, ApplePodcast, GooglePodcast, Spotify, Stitcher, and other platforms or follow Fr. Peter Heers on social media. (Links: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)
AUDIOS — Interview with Professor Demetrios Tselingides on Our Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Crisis
Interview Source: Orthodox Ethos (links: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3)
To receive notification regarding articles and interviews by Orthodox Ethos, subscribe to the Orthodox Ethos podcast on YouTube, ApplePodcast, GooglePodcast, Spotify, Stitcher, and other platforms or follow Fr. Peter Heers on social media. (Links: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)
TRANSCRIPT (Part 1 of 3) — Interview with Professor Demetrios Tselingides on Our Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Crisis
Interview Source: Orthodox Ethos (links: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3)
To receive notification regarding articles and interviews by Orthodox Ethos, subscribe to the Orthodox Ethos podcast on YouTube, ApplePodcast, GooglePodcast, Spotify, Stitcher, and other platforms or follow Fr. Peter Heers on social media. (Links: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)
Interview (Part 1)
Fr. Peter: The first thing I would like to ask you in this first part of our three-part interview, is the following: this crisis is presented first of all as a crisis related to health, private and public health, and now we are entering into an economic crisis worldwide. We don’t hear too often of the spiritual crisis, or the ecclesiastical crisis. How are we to respond to and encounter this state of things? How should we understand it and what are the messages God is sending us? How should we face and respond spiritually to this unprecedented situation?
Professor Tselingides: It is true that most people understand the crisis in a material sense. When an economic problem arises, a problem with employment, with making a living, this is when it is felt, because the man of our day has become a materialist. The spiritual dimension of man, which is the most fundamental, has been relegated to the margins, even within the life of the Church. In the recent past, a few decades earlier, twenty to thirty years ago, in light of the negative developments, into which we have already clearly entered, we did not pay proper attention [to what was happening] in order for us to prepare ourselves spiritually.
In the Old Testament we read, “Attend to yourself” (Deut. 6:12). St. Basil the Great has a whole treatise on this. The Fathers emphasize this, especially those of the hesychast tradition, where it has been associated with noetic prayer and is practically expressed as a readiness of the spirit. In other words, when a man prays with appropriate attention and is conscious of Whom he is talking to and what he is asking of Him (more on that later), in the Church this is called a stance that gives us a kind of spiritual readiness, so that, when an issue of great importance arises, whether on a personal or societal level, we may have trained our spiritual sensors and so be able to deal properly with the difficulties (and by “properly” I mean not in a worldly way but according to the will of God). We, all of the faithful in the Church, have equally received our healing at our baptism. Thus, we have no ontological or existential difficulty in keeping God’s commandments. On the contrary, God’s commandments are the specifications of being in the image of God, which we had. The only difference is that now we Orthodox Christians are at an advantage over the other people in that we have not only been healed by baptism and no longer have any weight or ancestral sicknesses (and much less does the evil one have any sort of power in us to direct us) but all of us faithful have equally received (equally, I repeat) the advantage of having the Kingdom of God within us, which Christ promised. This occurred by Holy Chrism. Yet although we equally received this Kingdom of God, it is not seen to be active in the vast majority of Christians (I do not wish to analyze this: I am simply mentioning it.) To what is this due? As St. Paisios aptly put it, it is because we are filled with rubble. This rubble is the various kinds of noetic “refuse of vainglory”, as St. John Chrysostom says, or simply our sins, which are purely the results of our free will, of our free choice of sin, and not of some internal ancestral sickness, since we have been healed. Because God is a God of gentleness and freedom, the grace of baptism is not expressed by force but remains inactive within us, although it is inalienable. It is as if we were not baptized, since we act, think, and speak like the rest of the world. Simply from this realization, we understand that because of sin we have spiritually become like those that aren’t even baptized. When, however, we desire to reactivate this Kingdom of God within us, this is very simple and easy. It has repentance as its starting point. Let us remember the parable of the formerly prodigal and thereafter saved son: the first action is to turn towards our father, towards God. This action is very much helped by God Himself. Even before we approach Him, He is depicted in the parable as being outside of the house and waiting for us, embracing and kissing us while sin is still upon us. Repentance, however, has already effected a first cleansing. We read that when the prodigal son went to his father, the father embraced him and kissed him lovingly on the neck: He “fell upon his neck, and ardently kissed him”, not simply “kissed him” (Luke 15:20). This means that God does not take issue so much with a man’s sin as with his lack of repentance. Realistically, this allows us to be very optimistic, that is, this first move on our part for this beginning which is uncreated inside of us, that is, the Kingdom of God, which defeats all the powers and Lucifer and his armies and, of course, death and sin. Therefore, thenceforth man does not act on the basis of fear, which defines his ethos, the quality of his life. The evil one, of course, uses fear as his instrument.
Fr. Peter: To keep a man from repenting.
Prof. Tselingides: To keep him from repenting… He makes it difficult for him to repent in this way: when a man commits sin, he provides space for the evil one to exist in.
Fr. Peter: He grants rights.
Prof. Tselingides: Rights to the evil one. And so, when a man wishes to drive him out of himself, the evil one does not leave because he is a bad master. He says, “I now have rights upon you. Since you gave me space, now I shall not come out, even if you believe that I should rightfully leave because you have denied me.” He is a bad tenant.
Fr. Peter: Is this seen primarily in habits?
Prof. Tselingides: It is can be expressed as a habit, but it can also be expressed by continual requests (“telegrams”, as St. Paisios would call them) which the evil one send us in the form of thoughts, which are craftily invested so as to seem logically beneficial, until we realize that we have been terribly deceived. But then, he brings us other difficulties (also seemingly logical) to stop us from repenting. There he presents shame. He does not present shame when a man is sinning but rather when a man is about to repent and confess.
Fr. Peter: This does not concern moral, bodily things only.
Prof. Tselingides: This concerns a man’s entire stance. What do we mean by a man’s entire stance? A man either turns towards God in repentance — and what does repentance mean? In Greek repentance means “I turn my mind in the opposite direction.” That is, I turn my back on what I was previously facing. I was facing the world, which “lieth in evil” (1 John 5:19), and consequently the entire civilization that I built within myself by my education, since this education and this civilization are largely the result of the worldly spirit, and so not of God. We do not need proofs to say this. “The whole world lieth in evil.” Therefore, whoever repents must turn his back on the worldly mindset, of which the devil is ruler. But this is not for the one moment when a man has realized one specific sin, since man is on the blade of a razor, meaning that, independently of his baptism, he is free to decide with his disposition to move towards the evil one and towards the world. But because the world surrounds us, especially in our day because of technology, which for example presents to us on television whatever filthy things exist in all the world (while in the past these things were not so widely known), and then because there is the internet, too, where someone can go whenever and as much as he wants, therefore man has become weighed down by this one-sided unloading into the dump that his soul has become. As a result it seems impossible for him to develop a spiritual life. The evil one tells him so, too. Yet things are not so. The Kingdom of God within us is not created but uncreated. In other words, it has the Divinity. The Divinity pulverizes all these things, even if they be reinforced concrete on our spirit and our heart, precisely because it is the divine power. The key, however, for the activation of this power, the “okay”, is found in freedom which is expressed as repentance. Repentance is simply the turn. Beyond that, all the things we have mentioned cannot be activated — a man can receive a downpayment, even from his turn alone — but all of these things are granted sacramentally. That is, the Church is the hospital that heals us. Christ Himself is the doctor, hierarchs and priests and others are the hospital’s staff, the medicines granted are perfect and do not leave behind even a scar of sickness. “Man is healed perfectly,” says St. John Chrysostom, because these medicines act uncreatedly. While they do have an external, material, sensory form, as is the case with the water of baptism, the holy water, the bread and the wine, within them is the Divinity. Thus, an icon also is equally a carrier of the uncreated divinity. Speaking of icons, St John of Damascus, for instance, says that a man is sanctified not only in his eyes— (in fact he characterizes them as the first sense). The eyes are sanctified when they behold an icon of the Church because it is a carrier of the grace of the one depicted. And when he venerates it, because that is a more proximate relationship, then particularly he does receive the grace of the saint. In this case, St. Theodore the Studite in the second phase of iconoclasm says that even if someone should say that the Divinity is present in the icon, he is not mistaken, except that it is by a union by grace. Thus, it’s not the paint, the wood, the metal that is sanctified, but rather the form that is depicted and to which the veneration goes. Thus, we are now speaking of a dogma of the Church, and I am elaborating a bit more on this because it is somewhat relevant to our times.
Fr. peter: We will have to return to this topic.
Prof. Tselingides: As you like. For now, with reference to this let me close by mentioning the dogmatic importance of this matter. In the minutes and decisions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council on the icons we read that whoever does not venerate them, if he be a priest he is defrocked, while if he be a layman he is excommunicated. Thus, it is not a good, pious tradition: if you like you venerate them, if not you don’t venerate. No: if you don’t venerate for any reason, then you are outside the Church. You will tell me, “So, all these people who do this, are they condemned, excommunicated?” I will say, “Yes”, regardless of the fact that they haven’t received a personal excommunication from the leadership of the Church because it doesn’t deal with this matter, and it does well in not dealing with it. The Church wants to inform you of the certification of what you will be living. In other words, just as we receive payment in full consciousness for every sin that deactivates the Kingdom within us— How? We do not have communion with God. Let someone ask himself if Christ is living within him while he is not keeping the specifications of the life of the Church (and by “specifications” I mean the dogmatic teaching). Let such a man claim, if he can, that Christ is living within him. The Ecumenical Council comes along and states this to help us, so that we won’t need to search long. It tells us, “Did you not do this? Now you are suffering the consequences.” Adam’s Creator, the bodiless Word, had told Adam not to eat of this fruit because if you eat of it you will die. “Did Adam die right after he ate it?” Yes, spiritually (since we are speaking of the spiritual life). Where is it seen that he died spiritually, that he no longer communed with his Creator? When he heard the sound of God’s feet, he hid and God asked, “Why did you hide?” Adam said, “I am naked.” “But you were always naked. Who told you that you are naked?” They have a whole conversation for Adam to repent, but Adam and Eve remain unrepentant. I wanted to speak of the spiritual death, which comes first, but I shall close here with the biological death, which God permits so that, when Adam sees in practice the wretched life that he has by not keeping the specifications, he repents and is saved; because Adam is now a saint. Eve too is a saint; she is in Paradise, because they repented. Here I shall stop. We have said much and can say much more, but I believe we have set the matter on a spiritual basis.
Fr. Peter: One thing you said, which is very important, is that the canons of the Church are spiritually applied immediately. Their administrative application is another story.
Prof. Tselingides: They might even be never applied administratively. That changes nothing. “Immediately” means “instantaneously”. Anyone can discover this. Look, this isn’t theory. I’ll tell you something simple that you can try experimentally. I used to tell this to my students. Let’s suppose that you are in a very good spiritual state. Put, permit, a blasphemous or evil thought to enter your heart. As soon as you have permitted it, consented to it, then again examine yourself, list yourself, and see what’s happening to you. You have nothing to do with God. The previous state has ceased to exist. In reverse, repent for whatever you are aware of doing. Deeply, existentially. Orient yourself toward Christ and say, “my Christ, I repent wholeheartedly for these things and do not wish to repeat them in any case to repeat them. I want to listen to you and live for you.” If you do not receive a downpayment of remission immediately in full consciousness — watch the words I am using. They aren’t mine; they are St. Symeon the New Theologian’s. — He says that if you do not feel this after repenting, before you even go to confession.
Fr. Peter: The next question is, “If spiritually this happens immediately, why do we have to go to confession?”
Prof. Tselingides: I shall respond to that afterwards. I am speaking of a downpayment. He says, “Then, if you do not see this thing in full consciousness,” that is, feel it in your soul and in your body, “then may I forfeit my salvation.” Look at that: he named the most precious thing he could! Nine hundred ninety eight years have passed since the repose of St. Symeon the New Theologian. That is, almost a thousand years. For a thousand years, the Church has been celebrating him as a saint and a great theologian. That means in practice that he was not proven wrong, that whoever does this will most certainly receive the downpayment. Because if he did not receive it, St. Symeon should have ceased being a saint. You will tell me, Is there no possibility of one not feeling this, of the Saint being proven wrong?” Yes, there is. It is when a man thinks that he has repented and then confessed, but he did not repent. He regretted. That is, he realized that he made a mistake. Like Judas.
Fr. Peter: Like Judas and not like Peter.
Prof. Tselingides: Not like Peter who cried bitterly. Now. You have brought up the question of the downpayment with reference to complete remission and asked why should one then go to confession. It is entirely necessary for one to go to confession, because Christ gave this power of binding and loosing entirely to the apostles and through the apostles to the bishops and priests. This means that, because we are baptised, we have become a royal priesthood. (The book of Revelation says this; St. Peter also says this.) We have a general kind of priesthood. What does this mean? We can participate in the mysteries, not celebrate the mysteries. A special gift is needed in order to bind and loose, and this is of the apostles, bishops and priests. But the ability of participation is giving by the power of this priesthood. And the basic thing is that we can defeat thoughts. We have the spiritual power within ourselves, by our baptism and holy chrism, to defeat thoughts and “every high thing which lifteth itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5). St. Paul says this in 2 Corinthians. Now I come to the mystery of repentance, which is different from the mystery of confession. Repentance is the existential turn towards God and our persistent concentration on Him alone, as much as possible. This is evident in prayer. That is, we are in repentance when during prayer our nous does not travel around, when it is focused on God on the whole, and whenever it does depart, we bring it back, repenting that it isn’t where it should be continually because the nous should be working. Christ told us so. He said, “My Father worketh until now, and I work” (John 5:17). He called us to be working. The work performed by the nous which is worthy of the supreme worth the nous has in man (since the nous is the governor, the peak), this work is prayer. And let no one say, “If I am praying, how will I take of the worldly cares?” When a man is praying, then is that he becomes brilliant because he sees things in a spiritual way, he puts them in the right priority, swiftly, and makes the right decision. We think that by making our nous independent of God and bringing it down into our mind, that is, by reckoning purely with our logic on the basis of the available data, we see experientially that we make mistake, sometimes very many mistakes, because there is one thing we didn’t consider. The spiritual man, however, does not make mistakes, not because he is infallible, but because the Spirit that possesses him and governs him is the Spirit of God Himself. So, even from the viewpoint of being spiritually smart, it is in our best interest to be in repentance. This regards repentance. This is what continual repentance means, not our occasional report of some sin.
Fr. Peter: You had said earlier that repentance is only a turn.
Prof. Tselingides: Not only a turn! It is the existential turn as a first movement and a permanent movement, if I may so say. I call it a turn because experientially our nous slips away and we have to bring it back. Beyond that the process of repentance contains what is called self-visitation, which is when we pray that the Holy Spirit enlighten us, that is, “enlighten our darkness”, so that we may see what happening to us. This is self-visitation. During self-visitation we realize what is happening within us, and then we come to self-diagnosis.
Fr. Peter: That’s what the Prodigal did: he came to himself.
Prof. Tselingides: Precisely, he came to himself, visited himself, saw his pitiful state, and thought what he had with his father.
Fr. Peter: So it was the beginning of repentance but not the end.
Prof. Tselingides: Precisely. It is the beginning of repentance, but it also has procedures. In other words, after we have critiqued ourselves and seen what state we are in, then repentance is more evidently born. He said, “I shall go to my father” (Luke 15:18). But from the moment he said it until actually coming to his father there is a whole trip, which St. Chrysostom analyzes very well. Let our audience read the pertinent passage. It says, “He went to his father”. Then it says, “He decided to go to his father.” Then it says, “He went to his father. But while he was on his way, his father was outside,” etc. As st. Chrysostom interprets, in his disposition he decided to go to his father. But it is not easy to go. The evil one had power over him, as we said earlier, because the prodigal son had been doing his will. So the evil one had him in bonds. When a man becomes a slave of sin, just because he made a good decision doesn’t mean that he’ll realize it. First of all, he has to battle with the demonic powers. Let’s remember this in our conversation because, after repentance, the first thing we need to seek is for these powers to be immobilized. If they be not immobilized, if the evil one, who’s occupying certain spaces within us by our passions, does not come out, we shall not be able to do anything. We shall be swinging back and forth. So, the first thing we must do immediately, which can only happen in the mysteries, is that we must go to confession. Because it is written, “When he went to his father, the father embraced him and kissed him.” What does that mean? He accepted the man that repented. So, we repent, we go there— For communion to be restored, we have to publicize these things (because publicity extinguishes the evil one and ridicules him), and then, in this sincere confession, which is a different mystery, that is, when we have not only considered and decided it internally but also confessed, then we receive this entirety of remission. I would like to comment on the downpayment a bit more, because they are of a so great importance. We cannot go to our confessor very often, but we can repent and receive the downpayment and so be free, relatively free, of the evil one in our decisions and actions. But to conclude, I would like to say that even this sincere confession does not absolutely safeguard the remission that we received as a gift unto our communion with God. Only Divine Communion secures this. “Only when you eat and drink me will you have life,” said Christ (cf. John 6:53). We have received remission. But what is remission? It’s healing. Simply being healthy is not the goal, from a Christian viewpoint, in the Church. You must also have secured that life, which is not static but always increasing, according to your disposition. So, this whole process reaches its culmination in your blameless participation in the mystery of life, which is participation in Divine Communion.
Fr. Peter: So, remission clears away obstacles but only that: it is not life. We need to have communion. Man must have communion.
Prof. Tselingides: Remission is the healing. Look, it is as if the sick man went, received some medicine or had a surgery, and his health was restored. This is, he isn’t sick. Let’s put it in the negative: he isn’t sick. But the healthy man is ever at risk of falling ill. The goal is not being healthy: he must have some sort of activity, some positive stance towards life, some development, some creativity. This is a kind of nourishment. Alright, the child is healthy, but if he is hungry…. The same with adults. I am healthy, but if I don’t receive fuel, so to speak, strength, I cannot have the creativity that gives worth to my existence as a man. In our homes it’s to enough for us to be healthy.
Fr. Peter: Because the Lord brought abundant life, not only biological existence.
Prof. Tselingides: So now we are speaking of the life that is of an uncreated character, since we are receiving the Divinity within us by grace. Now let me only mention one very important point about the downpayment.
Fr. Peter: Could we return a bit to our current situation, so as to connect this beautiful spiritual discourse with the handling of this current crisis?
Prof. Tselingides: Yes. Look: without the substructure that I spoke of, whatever else we would have said would have remained incoherent and suspended in the air. Here I shall conclude with this, saying that the importance of continual repentance gives us the ability of being freed from the powers of the evil one because we are continually in humility (since we acquire humility by repenting), and as St. Paisios would say, there is no exception in the spiritual law of humility. “God giveth grace to the humble” (James 4:6). When we receive this grace on the level of the downpayment, by repentance alone, we have a certain liberty of proper spiritual movement. This is not absolute. Then we say, “Glory to God! We live by these downpayments.” I am saying this in connection with the present situation. The churches are closed, we aren’t receiving life within us (since we aren’t communing; that is very serious), nor can we go to confession, but we can have remission of sins in the form of downpayments. By experience we realize that not everything is black within us. Of course, we know that this is only the beginning of healing, but still, we are not dying because we are repenting. Now, with this mindset as a prerequisite, we are coming to answer the question of how we the faithful should face the situation imposed by the world which initially presents itself as a health problem of the whole world, which then has consequences on our spiritual life, and this is what mainly concerns us. Our spiritual life is not abstract, it is not a matter of the intellect, it is a matter of eating and drinking Christ, as He said. “If you do not eat me and drink me, you do not have life in yourselves.” I believe that now we have before us a framework in which we can speak. On the one hand, it is a commandment of Christ, non-negotiable, irreplaceable. If we are not eating Him and drinking Him, there is a specific time-period for which one can survive. We notice this when for some reason we haven’t confessed for over forty days, even though we haven’t done any particular great sins, in practice we realize that the thorns, the dust, the garbage comes in and this is expressed in our social life in the context of our family, of our job, etc. What do I want to say? I want to say that of course there has been a stage of realignment, of things being arranged in many organisations, etc.; but in terms of time we are at the limits of our spiritual endurance. Communing in the mysteries is a matter of spiritual life or death. Yet with the approach that the state sets before us and to which the leadership of the Church consented for the most part, it raises the question of the next step, of the next day, if not of this day.
TRANSCRIPT (Part 2 of 3) — Interview with Professor Demetrios Tselingides on Our Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Crisis
Interview Source: Orthodox Ethos (links: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3)
To receive notification regarding articles and interviews by Orthodox Ethos, subscribe to the Orthodox Ethos podcast on YouTube, ApplePodcast, GooglePodcast, Spotify, Stitcher, and other platforms or follow Fr. Peter Heers on social media. (Links: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)
Interview (Part 2)
Archpriest Peter Heers: You spoke earlier about the Holy Icons. What you said made an impression on me. You has said that the matter of the veneration of the Icons is a dogmatic matter. Now that the faithful are not venerating and we hear some saying that it will be forbidden to venerate in the Church because supposedly we may become sick. Can you tell us more about this, as it is an important dogmatic matter?
Professor Demetrios Tselengides: Yes. As I had the opportunity in my life to dedicate quite a lot of time to the examination of the Holy Icons, as it was my doctoral thesis, I am especially sensitive to its details, which are completely unknown to those for which it ought not be, that is, to bishops and priests. Not only was it heard, but it is a clear directive, at least in the framework of Greece, for the faithful to avoid venerating icons in order to avoid the spread of the coronavirus. Likewise, it was recommended that the faithful not kiss the hand of the priest and to not take antidoron from his hand, but for the faithful to take it on their own.
From the purely spiritual and theological standpoint, this is not simply an error. It is not simply mistaken. There are certain things in our life which are characterized as erroneous, and there are other things which are characterized as criminal. Understood spiritually it belongs in this category. It is, in other words, an act which, when done, for whatever reason, signifies that the person has fallen away from his identity, as a believer. This is very clearly stated in the decisions of the [Seventh] Oecumenical Council: veneration is not a matter of a recommendation or counsel for reasons of piety. Rather, it is entirely necessary, for through the veneration, on the one hand, the relationship of the prototype with the icon is confirmed (that the veneration ascends directly to the prototype), and, on the other hand, that the icon, regardless of the material used, becomes a bearer of the Grace of the Holy Spirit which the one depicted had, whether that is Christ, in which case His divinity is intact, or the Theotokos and each particular saint. Thus, veneration renders us partakes of sanctification. Consequently, it is not a simple religious custom but something absolutely necessary. The veneration of holy relics as well! It is inconceivable for it to be banned, because the relics are the principal bearers of the grace of the saint that bore these holy relics.
Archpriest Peter Heers: All these things are not an attack on some custom or tradition but against the person of Christ, right?
Professor Demetrios Tselengides: In the final analysis, yes, with the pretext of love for man, of wishing to keep him from falling ill. We can understand this in the case of other precautions. It is understandable, it is right; it is the responsibility of the state and of the scientists to tell us these things. But there is a place that should be off limits for them. Even the thoughts alone, even if they be thoughts of the faithful, are blasphemous. They are blasphemous. Namely, that God could defile him! God can neither be defiled nor can He defile.
Consequently, to complete this section, the veneration of the Gospel, of the holy relics, of the precious cross, and of the hand of the celebrant, whether priest or hierarch, has absolutely nothing to do with these measures. Let me dwell a bit on the celebrant. According to the theology of the Church, the celebrant is Christ Himself. The celebrating man, whether priest or hierarch, lends his hands for this procedure. Besides, these very hands are the ones that carried the Lamb (that is when the Lamb was sanctified, when they put it in the holy chalice). That is why we venerate the hand of the celebrant, having the spiritual awareness that we are venerating the hand of Christ, since the celebrant is in the place and type of Christ (εἰς τόπον καὶ τύπον Χριστοῦ). It is spiritually inconceivable for the hand of this specific man to become a carrier of a sickness that he will then transmit.
Of course, this is not imposed. It is a matter of the faith of the one approaching. In no case, however, does any state agency have the right to ban it. Of course, every state can use force, force to the the point of death. That is a given, throughout history. We need to, however …we are saying this here, from the point of view that there must be total clarity within us that, we will do it [listen to the State] not on account of a falsely-posited obedience to an authority overhead, supposing, according to the Biblical word, expressed both by Apostle Peter and Apostle Paul, that we should be obedient to the worldly power. It is said, yes, that we should be obedient, so that there is order in the world, for they are appointed by God, but not for the matters of Faith and the life of the Church. For this the Apostles are appointed.
Archpriest Peter Heers: It is not for Caesar.
Professor Demetrios Tselengides: Caesar doesn’t have any place or responsibility. He is exceeding the limits of his power. Therefore, we need to know that the only obstacle to our approaching [the Temple], and Holy Communion, is our sin. Nothing else. And our only excommunication is our lack of repentance. If, in spite of this, we commune and we venerate, not only do we not receive sanctification and blessings, but , on the contrary, we receive the opposite, as the Apostle Paul confirms. Then it is that we can get sick - not by an infectious disease, of course, but He can allow an illness to befall us, or even death!
Archpriest Peter Heers: Ok, here, some say, see, the Apostle Paul says that it is possible for someone to get sick from Holy Communion. So, we cannot say that in the Temple one cannot get sick.
Professor Demetrios Tselengides: There are two different things. First of all, someone who communes of the Divine Eucharist and becomes ill, this is on account of his blasphemy. In other words, it is spiritual. It has nothing to do with the current illness. It is a totally independent form of sickness or even death itself. What was the second question?
Archpriest Peter Heers: That we can get sick in the Temple.
Professor Demetrios Tselengides. Yes, that we can get sick. Yes, we can get sick. We need to clarify matters here, though. I said earlier what things do not, in any case whatsoever, make us sick, that is, do not impart an infectious disease. However, with respect to the existence of another person next to us, with whom we come into contact, the fact that this happens in the church, or happens out on the road, or in a store somewhere, or in a house, it is nearly the same thing. Why? Why is it almost the same thing? Because it does not have to do with our communion with God, but our intercommunion with another person. Of course, a faithful person, who asks God for a spiritual “umbrella,” is made immune to many things.
Archpriest Peter Heers: It is a matter of faith?
Professor Demetrios Tselengides: It is a matter of faith and the freedom of God to allow something. This does not mean that we should take as a given and put God to the test. In the Temple we need to keep in mind that, the devil can be in the Temple. This is important to say. He can be in the Temple. He even goes into the altar. I have testimonies of holy people who told me; that he brings to the thoughts blasphemies, and other things.
Archpriest Peter Heers: In the case where we have given him “rights” to do this?
Professor Demetrios Tselengides: Exactly. When we open up the door to him, he can visit us even in the Temple.
Archpriest Peter Heers: So, this does not mean, of course, that the Temple becomes a place of the devil?! God forbid!
Professor Demetrios Tselengides: No! It is the house of prayer, and the house of God. Except that, these do not operate magically, mechanically, automatically. They work only on the basis of the spiritual presuppositions, the spiritual presuppositions. A man not only does not fear, or should not fear, not only sicknesses, but even death itself, and the devil. And this not only when in the Temple, but wherever he might be, if God wishes to protect him. Bring to mind the three youths in the furnace, which was heated sevenfold! (Dan. 3:19)!
Fr. Peter: And how many more saints!
Professor Demetrios Tselengides: Yes, so many more saints! St. George in the pit of slaked lime, etc. Therefore, there are some subtle aspects, to which we should give their due importance. They look subtle, but at their base there is the life in the Holy Spirit, which life is not simply piety or simply morality: it is an uncreated power, it is the uncreated Divinity. That is why Christ advised us not to fear anyone. Of course, He will allow them to do some things to our body. He can allow them to so some things; He says as much. They might even lead us to the cancellation of life as a biological entity (always with the permission of Him, of God, that is), but without harming our soul in the least. For this soul we must be always caring and not compromise with any threat, with any fear, not simply of a sickness but even of the cancellation of our life itself.
Fr. Peter: Here I would like to ask one quick question, and after that let’s go to the matter of Holy Communion. But before we go there, please tell us something. Now, if the churches are open and we tell people to come to the churches, there are some that are afraid, who don’t want to come. Attendance is not obligatory, of course. The problem is that we close the doors and exclude even those that want to come to church and who have faith. Right? Some say, “We have to close down for the good of our fellow-man in any case.” They do not make this distinction.
Professor Demetrios Tselengides: Look: in the first place, the closing of the churches originates from the health-service’s advice, which the state adopts and forwards on through the Church’s administration, which are the hierarchs. This, however, goes against our ecclesiology. There is no reason, there never has been any reason, that is mentioned in Holy Scripture and our Sacred Tradition, for which the churches should to be closed, with the exception of persecution, of open persecution against us. This is the answer to the one question.
The other question is “What if the faithful are afraid?” If the faithful are afraid, this means that the faithful suffer from faithlessness. Well, this cannot be healed by pills, nor by closing, nor by opening [the churches]. These people must be properly catechized. They must learn that “greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.” (1 John 4:4). He who is in the world is the devil himself, not simply the sicknesses. Christ told us not to fear even death itself. Let me put it conversely as well. We should even be glad if we are given the possibility of giving a testimony of this faith. I bring to you the apostles as an example. They were imprisoned because, despite being advised by the Jews to stop speaking of the Resurrection of Christ, they continued to do so. So they were imprisoned. By analogy, we would say that they closed the churches. There, they severely threatened them that they would move on to further [punishments], by which they meant death, if the apostles continued [to preach Christ’s Resurrection]. But the apostles did not compromise at all. They said that which we should have well established in our hearts: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In other words, in terms of value, the discipline which the apostles recommended for the sake of accommodating our lives and society in general, this discipline cannot be of higher value than the commandments of God. That’s why the apostles told them, “We can’t do differently. We are obeying God.” What did the Jews then do? They did not kill them, but they beat them and let them go with the threat of more evils if they continued. And what does Scripture also say about them? “they departed … rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His Name.” (Acts 5:41). What was the shame that they suffered? They were beaten. Note, however, how spiritual men face [difficulties]. Instead of grieving for having been beaten or for whatever other torture, they rejoiced because they gave a practical expression of love and faithfulness to the Lord. This should be our own mindset [phronema] also. But today the evil one uses the confusion that exists among the faithful because things are especially dangerous, since even the ecclesiastical spokesmen, the administration of the Church, have become secularized. [This administration] says things that are in accordance with the worldly mindset. At the same time, in the Church we have the teaching of obeying our ecclesiastical leaders. So, many faithful are terribly confused. In other words, they think that they should be obedient to whatever the ecclesiastical authority says, to the bishop or priest respectively. This, however, is refuted of itself by the example of the apostles that I mentioned. That is, although yes, the Jews were no longer in the Church, in a position to tell them what to do (and so things are harder for us because its our ecclesiastical leaders), but obedience in the context of the Church is not without judgement. That is, it is not done blindly to whatever they tell us. That would have been suicidal, if we accepted that. The evil one would have deceived and overcome us.
Fr. Peter: How many heretics we would have obeyed!
Professor Demetrios Tselengides: Exactly. Where would the Church have been led?! Here, with all exactitude, we must define whom we obey. Since in the Holy Scriptures many things are said, which if you look at them independently, autonomously, that is, if you take them by themselves, out of context, you can arrive at very mistaken conclusions, in fact, even that there is no God. If you do not previously say that “The fool said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 13:1) and instead simply say, “‘There is no God’: the Holy Scripture says so!’ then as you can see we would be reading in a manipulative, piecemeal manner. The same is true in the case of obedience. When St. Paul is interpreting this — Forgive me! When St. John Chrysostom is interpreting what St. Paul said (“Obey them that have the rule over you, for they watch for your souls” [Heb. 13:17]), he adds a basic presupposition, which is usually ignored by priests as much as by bishops. He says, “whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,” their way of life (Heb. 13:7). In other words, your obedience cannot be without judgement. You must see to make sure if what they tell you is in accordance with what they do (“considering the end of their conversation,” as he says, imitate their faith — and we are speaking of matters not of everyday life, but of the faith, such as the ones we are discussing). He says that you are not obliged to follow what they are saying if they are not in accordance with what Christ says and what the Church says. A question arises: “Is it possible for the bishops or (in a parish) the priests to be saying things opposite to what Christ and the Church are saying?” I, as a professor of theology, assure you that, yes, it is possible. It doesn’t mean that everyone is doing this, but we must examine whether some are doing it.
Fr. Peter: It’s presupposed that we know our faith.
Professor Demetrios Tselengides: Two things are presupposed. First and foremost, we must be in a state of continual repentance, because repentance realizes our purification. We must live in the mysteries, the sacramental life. That is, our repentance should end up at the priest’s epitrachelion, at a sincere repentance — eh, in a sincere confession, and thereafter at Holy Communion, so that our spiritual sensors, which we received at our baptism, may be healthy, that we preserve them. So, in the case where our spiritual sensors are functioning, it is possible for us to see that a specific leader, even bishops expressing themselves in council, are in error. In other words, we shall this — of course, not arbitrarily. We will then consult men in the Church that have the discernment of spirit, who are theologians. We will ask them if we are seeing clearly. This is a key that keeps us in humility, and then God enlightens both them and us. So! When we see that the aforementioned organs of leadership are in opposition to an express commandment of Christ, we do not obey them. This is not disobedience! It is obedience — to Christ. After all, the objective is always that through them we obey Christ.
The second argument is related to the Church throughout time. That is, there are some sayings of Christ or the apostles which are not very clear. The question of interpretation arose, heretics appeared, and so the Church assembled in Ecumenical Councils, laid down the exact boundaries of truth and condemned falsehood and heresy. When we say “throughout time”, we mean that ever since the Church appeared until today we see an absolute consensus of the Ecumenical Councils, but even when an Ecumenical Council has not concerned itself with a certain topic, there is the consensus patrum. In other words, the Fathers of all the ages, up to our day, that is, the Saints (let not every clergyman consider himself a Father of the Church) — so all these agree with each other.
Now, let’s take the case of the laymen. What shall we do? We need to learn what you said earlier, [namely] “which is this teaching that has this continuity?” And provided that we find, we shall go behind it, “following the Holy Fathers”. We shall be neither beside nor ahead of it, but rather follow it, so as to preserve the condition of humility so that we may have the grace of God in our action, that our manner may not be impudent nor insolent. And we shall say both to the priests and to the bishops, “We are being obedient to what Christ said, as they have been interpreted on this question by the consensus of all the Holy Fathers. That is, we are ‘following the Holy Fathers’. Therefore we are neither rebels nor outside of the Church, even if we be condemned in synod. As long as we keep this continuity, history will prove that this decision was mistaken, even if it be by a council, for it was a council that condemned St. John Chrysostom, (just to name one example, but not only him but so many others). The Church Herself restored him in another conciliar act, etc.
So, in our mind, or rather in our nous, we need to be clear on what we obey and what we do not obey. We obey Christ, also through the hierarchs when (as we ought) we know what was the Church’s phronema, mindset, But if we do not know, we should not consider this ignorance of ours to be deserving of leniency, that is, to be forgivable, but rather it is unforgivable, since we do not know it because we were not interested in knowing it, and because we do not know it by virtue of the darkening that we have, that is, the spiritual darkness, which is a result of our sins. We sin doubly, that is, first, in being darkened, and secondly, in being led to something mistaken.
TRANSCRIPT (Part 3 of 3) — Interview with Professor Demetrios Tselingides on Our Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Crisis
Interview Source: Orthodox Ethos (links: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3)
To receive notification regarding articles and interviews by Orthodox Ethos, subscribe to the Orthodox Ethos podcast on YouTube, ApplePodcast, GooglePodcast, Spotify, Stitcher, and other platforms or follow Fr. Peter Heers on social media. (Links: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)
INTERVIEW (PART 3)
Fr. PAH: Someone might say all is well in theory, but in practice the newly enlightened one or a grandmother or a gentleman who does not know [the Faith] well, how can they assume this responsibility and the authority to say that I know the Holy tradition, I know the Faith and I will not follow the bishop, I will follow the Fathers.
Prof. D.T.: This is a good question! I have had the opportunity to have many discussions with people who did not have theological knowledge and were of a different educational level, from completely illiterate to educated with doctorates and university professors, I discovered a common denominator, a common basis: when these people, regardless of their educational level, took seriously the spiritual life, that is, it mattered to them to live according to God’s will and the life of the Church - at whatever time during the day, that is, throughout their life they showed interest - the following happened… [I should say that I have tested these things empirically, that is, that which, as a professor of Dogmatics, I knew based on the minutes of the Oecumenical Councils, I discussed all of those controversial points, which have to do with matters facing the Church, with the Saints of our age, who coincidentally were all unlettered, with only one who finished middle school, but all the others without schooling, I was delightfully amazed that they were perfectly harmonized with a teaching they didn’t know existed, or who said what. They didn’t know it, for a variety of reasons; some knew something, very little. But they had the criterion of the heart, of the nous, and God informed them as to what is right.
I will give you a typical example of people who were not saints. He was simply a member of the Church. This example, of course, is not the only one, but it is characteristic. And, since we are speaking for the most part to those on the American continent, I was in America and at Divine Liturgy which was celebrated on Sunday and there was a visiting bishop who liturgized and gave the homily, who was from another country, of the wider American continent, and not the specific local bishop from that Archdiocese.
When we came out after the service, I was asked by a simple, faithful person, how did you find the sermon? I didn’t answer. Again, how did it seem to you? And, I said, why do you ask? Well, there was something I didn’t like in the homily. I said, sermons are neither to be liked nor not to be liked but if they are saying correct things or wrong things. What do you want to say? He said, while my heart was rejoicing in what I was hearing, at some point he said something and I immediately felt troubled and wondered if what he said was correct. I asked, what does that mean and in what were you troubled? What happened? Did you understand? No. I felt that my heart pushed it away, didn’t accept it. In other words, there was a reaction and I was troubled afterwards: why is it that my heart didn’t accept it? If you know why, explain it to me. This reaction made an impression on me.
Of course, it was true that the homily was correct - except at that point, which was wrong, and it was a theological error, a serious one, which impacts on the spiritual life. I explained what was wrong in the sermon, As soon as I said this it was accepted and it was accepted immediately without any difficulty whatsoever. Nor was it asked who was I to question correctness of his position. I was impressed by the fact that while he did not know why - he did not have any opinion on the manner nor had heard anything about it - the heart of this man did not accept it and then he humbly went to ask someone else. As soon he received the answer to his question, he accepted it with pleasure and happily because it harmonizes with everything else.
Therefore, I want to say, and I will analyze it a bit, that, when we live according to his will, God does not leave us uniformed, even when we least expect it. When a problem arises we will understand what is right and what is not. If we still do not fully understand what is right because we have not yet cleansed our spiritual senses well, then God will still give us the minimum which will tell us that there is a problem here. We will ask Him and since we are humble and want to know, we will learn [the truth]. Once again the criterion will be our heart and those things which follow: peace of thoughts and the joy which springs forth. On the contrary, when something is wrong, it creates internal turmoil. In other words, this is how we will understand what is right and what is erroneous.
[06:41] Fr. PAH: So, in order for one to stand aright concerning the Faith it is not an issue of mental understanding or education but the level of spiritual cleansing or purity. The presupposition is purification.
Prof. D.T.: Exactly.
Look, in order to see this, let’s take the first Ecumenical Council, that is so characteristic and is very clear. There we see Saint Nicholas intervening and slaping Arius, in spite of the law, thus expressing his indignation against his blasphemy against Christ, that he is not God. An illiterate man comes and the other bishops try to restrain him from speaking - that is, St Spyridon who was just a simple shepherd. What will he say? He takes a terra cotta tile out of his pocket in order to speak in a demonstrative way about the Holy Trinity with an example so understandable; it was not a matter, of course, of the abstract process of the mind, but rather God put it into practice right there - water, mud and the flame. And, yet, we see that the figure of Saint Athanasius dominates in the Council, even though he was still a deacon, representing his bishop. We see that there is the literary, theological putting forth of the Truth and the simple presentation. Yet, these are two sides of the same reality. Both the one and the other said the same thing. In the final analysis, it does not matter if one articulates the Truth with a rich and impressive philosophical and cultural presentation. What matters is whether you articulate the truth, or if within it there are lies.
[08:50] Fr. P.AH.: Because all the Saints lived the Truth existentially, as a person.
Prof. D.T.: Yes. Exactly. They are informed directly. In other words, directly from the Holy Spirit, from the kingdom of God which is within them.
[09:06] Fr. P.A.H.: Now the question arises, what happens if the topic is not clearly dogmatic. You say that the issue of the veneration of the Holy Icons, of the holy relics of the Saints, of Holy Communion, whether they doubt Holy Communion…
[09:22] Prof. D.T.: It is a matter of faithlessness.
[09:23] Fr. P.A.H.: …whether the holy lavida (or spoon) can transmit sickness.
[09:24] Prof. D.T.: These are blasphemous thoughts.
[09:26] Fr. P.A.H.: What happens when there is no clarity as to whether or not something is a dogmatic matter? What happens with obedience in this case? Here we are saying it is a dogmatic issue, but what if they say that they are closing the churches for the good of the faithful, as a matter of health. Is this still a dogmatic issue?
[09:46] Prof. D.T.: Look, all of these aspects have such an alliloperichoresis, an interpenetration, that, the Saints, such as St. Basil the Great, would say that what you said, dividing it as you did, can only be done as a notion; that is, only in thought can dogma be separated from life. It is a theoretical question and it does not have topos, it has no place. But, I will provide you with a theologically and biblically based explanation for I have said.
Christ said, “I am the truth,” “I am the life” and “I am the way.” These three have great importance. In order to approach the truth, it is not a matter pertaining to the dianoia, the rational intellect. It must be Christ as the way, as the method, which will take us to The Truth, which is not separated dichotomously from Life.
There is no event in the Church, as you say, here, in practice, the churches being open or closed, and that it has nothing to do with the life of Christ - because this is the Life of the Church - and with the Truth of Christ. And this is the case for a very simple reason. When they say that that the churches are to be closed, this means that there won’t be any Mysteries. If, however, you take the Mysteries out of the Church, there is no Church, because “the Church is known in the Mysteries” (St. Nicholas Cabasilas). In other words, it is apparent, revealed in this way. When the believer does not go to commune, to partake of Life, he will die spiritually.
Thus, it is a dogmatic matter because he does not believe that it is the Body and Blood, as Christ Himself said, that if you do not eat me and do not drink me, you will not have life in yourself. Pay attention to this: Life is He Himself. So our life - whichever life of ours, whether related to the closing or opening of the Church - is this Life, of Christ. Yes, but the life of Christ is a matter of His Truth. In other words, dogma and life are the two sides of the same coin.
Here allow me to take advantage of this opportunity to see the synamphortero, the two together, that you can speak of them academically as being separate for purely methodological reasons, but it is not permissible to see them dichotomously, that is, as divided, otherwise then we go to Nestorianism. Christ is the Theanthropos - God and man. You can not say that I commune spiritually with Christ, staying at home, in the so-called, erroneously referred to, “home church.” Because the home church - and let’s clarify that, too - was with the presence of the President of the Eucharistic Synaxis. It was a residence, and not a Temple, but it was worship, it was the mysteries of the Church, the synaxis - the Eucharistic Synaxis. Today, they have connected the way of life, the prayer life in the house, in other words, the private prayer, because it was done in the house, and they said let’s make this a “home church.” But, this is our problem, that they do not let us have the Church, because the Church, of course, means the mysteriological showing forth, revelation in the Mysteries. You understand the contradictions and the tricks. Either we do not understand what we say or we understand, and we say it with ill-intent, deceptively.
[13:30] Fr. P.A.H.: Do we accept the idea, as they said the day before yesterday, that they opened the Churches for “private worship”? What is that? Where did they find this idea?
Prof. D.T.: It saddens me that they allow such phrases to be used. Private worship does not exist. Worship is always common in the Temple.
I want to clarify the matter of our approaching, or not approaching, Holy Communion, since the governing authority wants to have the churches closed. We need to understand that it is a matter for the believers, of our choosing between life and death. If we say, let the Churches be closed, we are consciously choosing death, spiritual death. Why? Because when Christ said to his disciples, and more broadly to those who were present there, for this discourse: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” Then the Evangelist says that when they heard this teaching it seemed harsh, and they said: “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” Then they took steps back and, as the Evangelist notes, “From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more,” which means that the wider circle of his listeners separated from Him, and suddenly, as it appears from the description, the disciples were left alone with Christ. Christ did not try to mollify them, or to tell them a little bit at a time, to humor them, and eventually they will understand. Rather, I would say, He put it bluntly, right in front of them, and he told them - pay close attention to the expression - “Do you also want to go away?” He doesn’t say, “it would be good if you remained, so as to have life.” Rather, He provoked their freedom: “Do you also want to go away?” Which means that the one who, according to St. John the Chrysostom, is revealed as the Greatest Lover of Salvation, being God became man only for one reason, to save sinful man, turns and says to his chosen ones, perhaps you also want to leave? Leave, if you want. The Apostle Peter then answers, full of the Holy Spirit: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
Therefore, by that which he said it is clear he understood something, that is, he was receiving through the words, through the word of Christ, the content of life - not, of course, that which he will receive on Pentecost, but definitely some doses of this life and he knew what he was saying.
What do I want to say, in order to apply this experience of His disciples to our current situation? Today, they always tell us that for our own good - the evil one, as you know, presents himself as the compassionate one, even better than God! So that we don’t get sick, for our own good, better not to go [to Church], just for a short time. Then he will tell us, you see, you were away for so long and you were fine, were you not? In other words, it is as if he was telling you that you were dead, so just remain dead. Because, if we were alive, if, that is, we live God - the spiritual life about which we discussed earlier - we understand what we are missing. Sure, for a time we are patient, but after a certain point, after, as we said, 40 days dysfunctionality begins to appear, because we have no life. Our batteries are empty and we must recharge them! It is a matter of life or death. Observe how a person is after 40 days of not eating. This person starts getting sick and, if he doesn’t get nutrition, he will die. This will also happen with the faithful, if they don’t commune. This is no small matter!
That is why we move now from repentance to confession [of faith]. This is what we have to say - this is confession! Which means what exactly? For us, our presence in the temple is not a matter of custom or ritual or an external matter [alone], but is a matter of life and death. We must come together, commune in the Mysteries, not [simply] at some point, but as the Church calls for in the Divine Liturgy, to commune in order to have life. This is the first and foremost confession, as the bishop-celebrant confesses, and says there at the Holy Table, repeating the words of Christ: “This is my Body, This is my Blood.” And then everything he says, the prayers, and so on, these confess, and from the point of view of God’s people, that this is life, the content of life.
This, in my understanding, with particular regard to this current historical moment, is “the confession of the thing, in practice, that is, no longer only with regard to names. This is also a confession, that Christ is God. Saying this one confesses. But here it is par excellence a confession in practice. For, that which we believe, in other words, we say to others, living as we do in a democracy, such as it is. We can still say this; we are not overtly under persecution. The governing powers themselves say as much, that we are not persecuting anyone. They say it is on account of health measures that we are ruling out certain things. And we will respond saying, thank you for the concerns of our hygiene, thank you for your sensitivity. Thank you for all you do, if you do it for the good. We, however, do not want to be in good health, so to speak, or if we are sick to become well, but to become good - and good is God alone, as He Himself said (kalos and agathos), and man becomes kalos [good] when he obtains his kallos [beauty], which is His Divinity.
This is what we want as a confession of faith, what we want as Truth. This is what we want to have as Life, and we want to acquire it because this is the commmission we have when since we received our identity, which is called “Orthodox faithful,” reborn on another level, as the Evangelist John says, that we are not the result of the flesh, of the desire of man and woman, but we are born of the Spirit. In other words, what the State needs to know from us is that we are etero genos anthropoi, people of another birth, because we were born of the Holy Spirit and therefore we must commune in the Spirit from which we were born. This is exactly the Spirit we receive in the Body. For, what is the Body of Christ? It is His human nature, His sinless human nature. Yes, but, we also have the human nature. Are we are saved by it? No. The sinlessness of human nature - let’s say that this could keep you from sin. But what is at stake and what we seek is not sinlessness but the content of life, that is, of the divinity. That which we receive first and foremost is the divinity. This is why we commune of the Body and the Blood. That life which Christ tells us that we will have, or, not have, is the divinity. Hence, with the State not knowing all of this - and that is why we must confess it - we will tell them that, because we were born of the divinity, we live with the divinity. You may not you believe it, but this is our identity and based on the constitution of all the countries that we know, religious freedom is guaranteed. This is the most basic point of man’s freedom in the context of religious life.
[22:35] Fr. P.A.H.: Can we can talk about true repentance, return and communion with God without having communion in practice, in the Divine Eucharist; that is, to confess and re-enter our churches? Is our repentance fulfilled if we do not return to our churches?
Prof. D.T.: First of all, repentance is the beginning (when on the outside, and call to mind the prodigal son), it is in the middle, and at the end, as the Saints tell us. In other words, it is lifelong. In order to properly enter into communion, repentance is a necessity. Repentance, however, as a decision does not suffice in order to have life, for the prodigal son also repented, but if he did not leave the pigs and go through the process of his journey, he would not have had the opportunity to live this life he wanted, at the table of his father.
So to answer your question: repentance accompanies us throughout our lives. However, we will not remain here, saying, “we are repenting, therefore all is well. We will lay claim to this as a matter of existence, with all of the legitimate means, of course. When we say we insist on this, it is not in a worldly way. Within the constitutional framework, within the framework of religious freedom, we will ask for it. (I am talking about the State at the moment because that’s where it starts and then it comes to us by way of the leadership of the Church.) If they respect it, fine; we will go to the churches. If the State does not respect it for its own reasons, and we have clarified the matter, it will be clear that we are under persecution. The Church has been under persecution, but it was not extinguished. Not only did it not decrease, it increased much more numerically and most especially shined and was made brilliant.
[24:56] Fr. P.A.H.: Now the question: if there is no church leadership in this endeavor, and there are no guides, what happens?
Prof. D.T.: Look, the Church will never be found without a guide because Christ said I am the way. So, when He is the way (Odos), He is also the guide (odygos). He says I lead to God the Father; he has said it explicitly.
That which often appears to us is the temptation of “numbers”. We do not see that which is not included among the numbers on the account. This does not occur [only] when one is [spiritually] darkened. If God does not reveal the content of people’s hearts, he will not recognize it. And I will give you a very typical example from God Himself which confirms this. Only after the Prophet Elijah slaughtered the priests of Baal did he realize that Jezebel was dangerous, for she had decided to kill him. He was then afraid and took to the hills. God asked him, where are you going? I am afraid that Jezebel will kill me. Why? Well, all of your altars have been destroyed and I was left alone, indeed, all alone; I confess you, I worship you, and then God said to him, Who told you that you are alone? I have 7000 who did not bow their knees to Baal. Regarding these people God does not give us other clarifications, because their faith and worship to the true God was not revealed, for whatever reason; this does not matter to us now. What is important is that they exist, that which we do not see. Of course, Elijah remained faithful even by himself. Yet, when he slaughtered so many priests he was not afraid, because God gave him the power, but when he thought he was alone, that was when he feared Jezebel.
This is of greatest importance, because when the Kingdom of God is energized within us, we rejoice and do not fear death, because we taste - or, more accurately, we have a foretaste of eternal life in the activated Kingdom of God within us. Our problem lies therein. Our problem is in our heart, then it is in our nous, and then it goes to the brain. If it goes through the brain, there it is that logic dominates - for the good of one, for the good of the other, we have to balance things out, be wise people, care for our family’s needs, and our children and we have the property, which we must not lose. All of this and so on, and the compromises begin, which, in the final analysis, cancel out the faith and the life.
Fr. P.A.H.: Rationalism.
Prof. D.T.: Yes, rationalism.
About Professor Demetrios Tselingides
Demetrios Tselingides
Professor of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology at the University of Thessaloniki
Professor Tselingidis’ depth of knowledge, his education and studies, and his diligent research and labor have made him an internationally renowned academic theologian of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. His most important offering and characteristic, however, is his work’s fidelity to the Holy Tradition and the Deposit of the Holy Fathers, a faithfulness he acquired by following experiential theologians of our day, such as Saints Paisios of Mt. Athos and Ephraim of Katounakia. He considers himself a humble minister, always emphasizing the absolute interrelation of right doctrine with the right way of life, distancing himself from the creation of a sterile and cold academic discourse.
He is the author countless articles and seven books on Dogmatic Theology, covering a wide range of topics, including the theology of the icon, grace and freedom, critical studies of the doctrine of salvation in Luther and the satisfaction of divine justice in Anslem of Canterbury, the Soteriology of Western Christianity, and the presuppositions and criteria of Orthodox Theology. Through his many lectures, articles, and appeals to the hierarchy on pressing ecclesiastical matters such as the Orthodox-Roman Catholic, and Orthodox-Anti-Chalcedonian Dialogues, the documents of the Cretan council, and the Ukrainian schism, Professor Tselingides has given much courage and consolation to the faithful.