NEW AGE BISHOPS

THE APOSTLE MOHAMMED

"What next?" You’re almost afraid to ask, especially when you hear some of the things that are uttered by New Age, "Orthodox" bishops. You’re afraid, because what you hear next may be even more distressing.

A case in point is the recent statement of Patriarch Parthenius of Alexandria, who declared:

The Greek-language periodical Epignosis (Dec. 1989. #20, Thessalonica), had the following commentary to make on Patriarch Parthenius’ recent statement:

Epignosis then goes on to note that those who continue to commemorate Parthenius as an Orthodox Patriarch, "even though they themselves do not consciously serve the New Age," are "worthy of tears."

What is equally worthy of tears and a source of grief to Orthodox Christians is that this incident is not isolated. In fact, Patriarch Parthenius’ statement appears to be part of a long-range program that is slowly unfolding before our eyes.

SYNCRETISTIC SALUTATIONS

Already, back in December of 1972, Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrius startled the Orthodox Christian world with his congratulatory message to Muslims on the occasion of their Bairam (i.e., one of two feasts that occur after the Islamic fast of Ramadan).

Demetrius’ statement was reported in the newspaper Orthodoxos Typos (15 Dec., 1972) as follows:

Alas, the truth is that "all faithful and good Muslims" are not, have not, and, if they observe the precepts of the Koran faithfully, probably never shall be filled with these same ideals.

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE KORAN BELT

The usual Islamic attitude towards all others is demonstrated by the shocking incidents reported in the Ecumenical Press Service (Jan. 1–5, 1990). Although it is reported that these practices have stopped for now, the above-mentioned periodical noted that during the 1980’s in Iran, Christians "were frequently exposed to attacks by the ayatollahs and mullahs while celebrating holy communion . . . Christians were maltreated, communion cups were emptied and besmirched." The report goes on to say that Islamic revolutionary guards would enter Christian catechetical schools in order "to make sure that Jesus Christ was portrayed according to the Islamic faith, namely as a precursor of Mohammed and not as the Son of God. Those who violated this law were expelled from the country or hauled before an Islamic tribunal."

These incidents in Iran are not local quirks or deviations from the norm for Islamic govemments, which are not particularly noted for their record on human rights. The Ottoman Turks, for example, were well known—even throughout Moslem Arabic countries—for their inhuman ways. When they first overran Albania, the Ottoman Muslims cut out the tongues of tens of thousands of Christian parents so that the latter would not be able to teach the Christian Faith to their children. In Serbia, Bulgaria, and parts of Romania, entire villages of Christians— men, women, and children—were impaled on thousands of stakes planted along both sides of the roads. In Greece, similar massacres were frequent and were also accompanied by "the gathering of the children"—the abduction and forced conversion of thousands of Christian boys and girls. In this century, the genocide of the Armenian people by the Turks, overlooked by most of mankind, inspired Hitler and his Nazis to institute their extermination of the Jews and other peoples that didn’t fit in their plans.

In our own days, the State Department’s Human Rights Report for 1989 records that this litany of cruelty continues unabated in Islamic countries. The Report is quite harsh on the state of human rights in the "Koran belt." Both Egypt and Turkey are accused of torturing prisoners; in Turkey, the Report notes, the victims of torture have oftentimes been children. Libya is described as ignoring human rights altogether. In Syria such basics as the freedom of speech and assembly are unknown. Iraq and Iran have nothing but contempt for human rights. In Saudi Arabia there are no rights for women, no Christian churches are allowed, nor are Christian meetings permitted without special permission. The Koran itself is filled with exhortations to faithful Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims. Some samples:

And elsewhere, lest any conciliatory Muslims should "weaken" and display a reluctance for war and bloodshed, the second Sura of the Koran takes care to admonish and castigate them:

This warlike attitude is confirmed and encouraged even in contemporary Muslim writers. Here are some examples:

As author Issa Khalil (Epiphany, Vol. 10, No. 3) notes, "two prominent modern Muslim reformers in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th century, Jalalu-iddin al-Afghani and Muhammed Abduh, lamented the fact that the ‘Islamic religion, which was founded on military victory and triumph, and which intends always to conquer new territories and achieve victory’" was in their time under the rule of foreigners. And Khalil goes on to note that these Muslim writers affirm that "anyone who reads but one chapter of the Koran would judge without the slightest doubt that Muslims are supposed to:

In other words, the complaint of some modem Muslim leaders seems to be that their own followers were not the first to develop the atomic bomb! In any case, what happened to the ideals of love and goodness, with which—as Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrius assures us—all Muslims are filled?

NOT THE ONE GREAT GOD OF ALL

In view of these statements from the Koran and contemporary Muslim writers, Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrius’ fraternal greetings to the Muslims seem more like efforts at appeasing a belligerent and brutal foe. However, what is more serious, his statement about "the one Great God of all," Whom we all—Muslims and Christians—"worship and adore," is simply untrue. The Muslims do not worship the one Great God of all: the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Only one with syncretistic or Masonic sentiments could make such a statement.

The Muslims themselves are quite emphatic that they do not worship the God Whom the Christians worship, and they are right. However, since Patriarch Parthenius went so far as to promote Mohammed to the rank of an "Apostle of God," we obtained a copy of the Koran to see what this new "Apostle" has to say about our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. Here below, in parallel columns, we have given passages from the Koran and the Holy Scriptures so that our readers may compare the two and understand that, in truth, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God.

The Koran

The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be": And he was. (Sura 3:59)

Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God. . . .Say not "Trinity": desist: It will be better for you: For God is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above having a son.. . . (Sura 4:173)

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that God is Christ the Son of Mary. (Sura 5:19)

They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary . . ." They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them (Sura 5:75, 78)

Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God doth make His Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (Sura 5: 78)

The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. God’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (Sura 9: 30)

The New Testament

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. . . And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth. (John 1:1–3, 14)

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth Him that begat loveth Him also that is begotten of Him. . . . For there are Three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these Three are one. (I John 5:1, 7)

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. (I John 2:22–3)

All power is given Me in Heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of time. Amen. (Matt. 28:18–20)

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. (Phillipians 2:5–6)

But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that He might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Galatians 4:4–5)

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (John 6:69)

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, by denying ungodliness and wordly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present age; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. (Titus 2:11–13)

From the texts given above, anyone who has even elementary intelligence can see that the New Testament and the Koran cannot both be true and God-inspired. If one is, then the other is not, for they contradict each other on every important point. If Mohammed is an "apostle of God," as Patriarch Parthenius affirms, then Saint John the Evangelist, Saint Paul, Saint Matthew and all the others are not.

And this, precisely, is why countless thousands of New Martyrs were slain by the Muslims—because the New Martyrs, together with Saint John the Beloved Disciple, declared that whoever denies the Son, the same does not have the Father, and that whoever does deny the Father and the Son is of the spirit of antichrist.

Whom, then, are we to believe and follow? the Apostles and the New Martyrs, or Partriarch Parthenius? The New Martyrs, who were slain for their confession of the revealed Faith, or the Muslims, who, following the precepts of their Koran, engaged in this slaughter?

There are countless other anti-Christian verses in the Koran similar to those that we mentioned above. This, too, is why many were shocked when Metropolitan Pitirim of Volokolamsk, the head of the Publishing Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, declared on Soviet television:

As one church writer remarked, "It is to be noted that the publication department of the Moscow Patriarchate has never published a single Orthodox catechism for wide distribution."

Korans for the Muslims, but no catechisms for Orthodox Christians. . .

In the meantime, Bangladesh has forbidden the importation of a New Testament translation in Bengali, the country’s official language, because, say government officials there, the New Testament contains "objectionable statements." As the periodical One World (May, 1990) notes, "Some Islamic fundamentalist groups have apparently become alarmed at [the New Testament’s] popularity among Bangladeshi Muslims," and thus, in contravention of the religious freedom guaranteed by the country’s constitution, the Holy Scriptures have been banned there.

Yet, despite this open animosity that the Koran and contemporary Muslims display towards anything Christian, we now have Orthodox bishops who themselves want to disseminate anti-Christian and Islamic literature.

WE WAITED FOR MONTHS

In view of all these sorry developments, our article’s title, "New Age Bishops," is neither far-fetched nor an exaggeration. Surely such a state of affairs is beyond heresy. It is, purely and simply, a complete indifference to what is true and what is false.

It is sad enough that Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrius, Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch, Archbishop George Khodr of Mt. Lebanon, Patriarch Parthenius of Alexandria, and Metropolitan Pitirim of Volokolamsk have all publicly expressed syncretistic sentiments about Mohammedanism; but what can one say about those bishops and priests who serve together with them as "concelebrants in Christ," or who commemorate them as "rightly dividing the word of truth"? Or what of those who continue to honor them as true bishops, and ask their blessing, and kiss their hand? Are they not, as the article in Epignosis says, "worthy of tears"?

Beloved readers, we waited several months before publishing this article in the Witness, hoping that at least one bishop among those who belong to the so-called "official" Orthodox Churches would protest against these outrageous statements made by Patriarch Parthenius and the others. Unfortunately, not one has taken Patriarch Parthenius to task and called for a retraction on his part. By this, have they not proven conclusively that the only thing that is "official" about them is that they are full-fledged and official members of a syncretistic, world-religion organization—the World Council of Churches?

The only response was one made by Bishop Maximus of the Greek Archdiocese’s Pittsburg diocese in the newspaper The Illuminator (Jan.–Feb. 1990, p. 4). Bishop Maximus’ article was well-written, although it was also somewhat incomplete and misleading. It is incomplete because Bishop Maximus went to great lengths not to mention Parthenius’ name—the closest he comes to referring to Patriarch Parthenius is when he writes that "the author . . . bears full responsibility" for what he said. With this we certainly agree. But what of those who continue to concelebrate with him and commemorate him as though he were an Orthodox Christian bishop?

In his response, Bishop Maximus also writes that "our Ecumenical Patriarchate and our Archdiocese, or any other Orthodox Christian who respects his (or her) name" do not believe in such things as "the author" teaches.

It would appear that Bishop Maximus is trying to say as discreetly as he can that Parthenius does not respect his name as an Orthodox Christian. With this also we must concur.

But what about Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrius, whom we quoted above, and what of Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch, and Archbishop George Khodr of Mt. Lebanon, who have made statements virtually identical to that of Patriarch Parthenius? And what can one say about Metropolitan Pitirim’s promise to print the Koran and its anti-Christian exhortations? Do these hierarchs respect their names as Orthodox Christians? From what he writes, Bishop Maximus apparently feels that they do not. But then, how can they respect their names as Orthodox Christian bishops? Does Bishop Maximus continue to commemorate and concelebrate with these bishops (or with those who commemorate and concelebrate with them)—even though they have not retracted their statements, which were made publically and openly? As an Orthodox hierarch, Bishop Maximus vowed at his consecration to uphold the holy canons and the Holy Tradition of the Church. With one accord, the holy canons and the Holy Tradition of the Church teach us to defend the Faith against those who pervert it and to break off communion with those who persist in doing so. Here, for example, is what the 15th Canon of the First and Second Council says specifically about this matter:

This is neither "fanaticism," nor "exclusivism," nor "intolerance." It is simply the Holy Church’s time-honored and Traditional (with a capital "T") manner of protecting its flock from the contagion and disease of heresy. Do loving and prudent parents allow their little ones to play with children that are sick with the measles, the flu, the Black Plague, or whatever? So also good and faithful shepherds of the Church do not allow the faithful to pray with clergymen or laypeople who are diseased with the contagion of wrong belief.

In his article, Bishop Maximus goes on to say that if "there is some truth in other religions, this truth points to Christianity, as the true religion; it points to salvation in the Only Name under heaven in which salvation is given, the Name of Jesus the Saviour (see Matthew 1:21 and Acts 4:12)." In itself, what Bishop Maximus says here is true.

MOVING BEYOND CHRISTIANITY WITH THE WCC

Unfortunately, Bishop Maximus’ response is also misleading, because, as it turns out, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Archdiocese (to which he belongs) have very different views from those that he presents in reference to salvation "in the Only Name under heaven in which salvation is given." As we know, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Archdiocese (as well as all the other jurisdictions of "World Orthodoxy") are all official and organic members of the World Council of Churches (WCC).

And what are the Orthodox in the WCC up to nowadays?

At an official meeting of a WCC committee that met in Barr, Switzerland, from January 9–15, 1990, some twenty-one Orthodox, Protestant and Roman Catholic representatives drafted a 2,500 word statement on "Religious Plurality: Theological Perspectives and Affirmations." These twenty-one official representatives of their respective church groups cited the need for "a more adequate theology of religions" (it seems they feel that what the Church has taught for centuries about false belief and idolatry is not sufficient), and, in the section on Christology the participants affirmed

Thus, Bishop Maximus’ feelings notwithstanding (even though he too is heavily involved in ecumenism), his superiors—via their official representatives at the World Council of Churches—are "moving beyond" the theology expressed in Acts 4:10–12:

But while the Orthodox, Protestant, and Roman Catholic representatives were officially formulating their "theology of religions" for the WCC in Switzerland, other events were unfolding in the Soviet Union.

"OMMM, OMMM, OMMING WITH GORBY"

The above title given in quotes is the name of an article that appeared in Mother Earth News (March–April 1990). In this article, author Ben Finney describes an incident that took place at about the same time that the WCC representatives were meeting in Switzerland. Here is what he writes:

Incantations to Hindu deities... "What next?"^*

A little while ago, one of our clergy was visited by a group of new calendar theological students who wanted to know why our diocese was not in communion with them and why we weren’t members of the WCC. Our clergyman replied that the reason we weren’t in communion with them was because we didn’t believe that their bishops were Orthodox. However, in view of recent developments, it appears we have to update our assessment. Now we are forced to ask: in what way are these particular bishops even nominally Christian? Can anyone answer that question for us, on the basis of biblical, apostolic, patristic, and canonical criteria?

WE KNOW THAT THE SON OF GOD IS COME

Since not one hierarch—not one—among the new calendarists and ecumenically-minded has called upon these New Age clerics to renounce their public displays of apostasy, and since all "official" Orthodox continue to commemorate and concelebrate with them (i.e., "business as usual"), then we must conclude that they are motivated by one of the following sentiments:

1) They don’t agree with what their colleagues are doing, but they do not have the courage to do anything about it because they might lose their salaries and positions. OR:

2) They don’t agree, but in a manner entirely consistent with a typically protestant and congregationalist (but not Orthodox Christian) outlook they reply, "What these bishops say is not my affair," or "That’s just their personal opinion." Yet, Holy Tradition is very clear about how we must separate ourselves from bishops who teach error "with bared heads"; furthermore, Orthodox bishops cannot have "private opinions" which are in opposition to what the Church has always taught (and which, oddly enough, though "private," are proclaimed publically over all the media). OR:

3) They are not concerned with what their colleagues and fellow bishops teach. OR:

4) They fully agree with what their colleagues teach.

What about the clergy and the faithful who belong to jurisdictions headed by New Age hierarchs? Among these, one will find those who don’t agree with their bishops. But this is like saying, "I’m on this train, but I’m not going where the engine is going." The unfortunate fact is that by their membership, and participation, and financial and moral support of these modernist jurisdictions, they become equally responsible for all that their hierarchs say and do.

Of course, there are those who fully and whole-heartedly do agree with their pro-Islamic and syncretistic bishops.

And they, and the ones who say they don’t agree, and the ones who show no concern, are all "moving beyond" Christianity, together with these individuals that are leading them.

In the face of such developments, the words of Saint John the Evangelist are especially timely and relevant for us: