Tag: Patristics

Interview at Document TV in Oslo with Hans Rustad – English transcript

Panagiotis Pavlos hosted on Document.no Doc-TV’s Dagsorden television show by Hans Rustad, Oslo, Wednesday, October 15, 2025.

Contents: Interview with Matthew Boyle in Washington – President Donald Trump and the Crisis of Europe – Left, Right and Far Right – Norway and Christianity – Left and the Aversion of God – Christ as the True God – The Tree of Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence – Sin and Death – The Resurrectional Confrontation with Death and the Hieromonk from Mount Athos

Hans Rustad: Welcome to Dagsorden! It is Wednesday, October 15, 2025, and I have Panagiotis Pavlos with me. Welcome!

Panagiotis Pavlos: Thank you for inviting me, thank you Hans!

Rustad: We have already met once, and then I realized that you have a lot of knowledge about something that concerns us in particular: Late Antiquity and the origins of Christianity. And you are Greek. That means you have a long history that we can draw from. You also traveled to Washington to interview Matthew Boyle, who is one of the important editors of Breitbart News.

Interview with Matthew Boyle in Washington

Pavlos: That’s right. It was this May when I was in the United States for a conference in Chicago, and on the occasion of my presence there, we arranged to meet and talk with Matthew Boyle. It was then four months into President Trump’s new term in the White House. We had a thorough and detailed discussion regarding this first period in President Trump’s new term, and of course about Ukraine, the Middle East, Europe. As well as what Matthew Boyle says is President Trump’s big goal, namely dealing with China.

We spoke in detail, and I must say that he himself is a very enthusiastic supporter of Trump. He is, as you know, the chief of the Breitbart Bureau in Washington, and one of the journalists who is very close to the US President. They have a very good relationship.

Rustad: They are very close.

Pavlos: Indeed, they are very close and very good friends.

Rustad: I have read most of the interview and it is interesting to hear your impression of Boyle and what he said. Because the Norwegian public is unaware of the fact that in the United States a completely new media has emerged in the last ten years. Exactly, as you said, MAGA predates President Trump. It started under Obama. So it is a river with many supply streams, which has now turned into a flood. The hate propaganda of the Norwegian media is like speaking against the weather. It is an historical natural phenomenon, but these media think they can exorcise it. And that is very promising.

Pavlos: It is true. Before we talk a bit more about that, I would like to say that the work that you are doing here at Document.no is very important. We are living under times where we are experiencing a whole new level of complexity, both nationally and internationally. We see, for example, how difficult it is to resolve the situation in Gaza. We can talk more about it. There was the Peace Agreement the day before yesterday, very important, but it is still early. So I think we are living in times where things are very complicated. And it is not enough to just have the systemic media that only communicate a certain kind of narrative that often does not correspond to the truth at all. It simply serves interests. I think the same is true for the US, not only for Norway, not only for Greece, but also for the US. And that is perhaps why there are media outlets there like Breitbart you mentioned. Charlie Kirk also did a tremendous job, and it is a very sad and tragic story. But what I saw with Matthew Boyle, besides being a very experienced journalist and a person who deeply understands what President Trump’s vision is…

Rustad: …and down to earth.

Pavlos: Absolutely. He is very down to earth. It was also very easy to talk together, he was very friendly. We were in a cafe right next to the White House for two and a half hours, and then we prepared a TV interview. So I saw a very down to earth person, as you said, even though he is one of the closest people to the American President and has access to the White House whenever he wants. But what impressed me the most was that he had a complete overview. And despite the fact, as he characteristically told me, that “I am not a member of President Trump’s staff,” he was nevertheless perfectly capable of understanding his vision, and of analyzing in detail how the American President thinks or acts. This is interesting, because yesterday and today, for example, I was reading about President Trump’s friendly relations with Turkish President Erdogan. There are people who are concerned that we have a situation and a relationship here that could be quite dangerous.

President Donald Trump and the Crisis of Europe

But you would hear from Matthew Boyle that President Trump is a man who can say good things about various people, but in his strategic thinking he remains unaffected, despite what he says. His words are part of his strategy. And it is important to hear this from a man who is so close to the US President, who has experienced him in everyday life, and in real situations. This is very interesting, I think.

Rustad: So Trump reads the situation and understands how to handle people and then brings them to this point that he wants. We have seen that many times. He does things in a very different way than professional politicians who deal with the wind and the weather. They are opportunists, unlike Trump who thinks long-term.

Pavlos: That’s right. And of course, it is still early, it hasn’t even been a year since January 2025, but I think we already have some indications. For example, the fact that Trump has already served as President of the United States before; there is nothing he needs to achieve now, he has done everything in his life. In this sense, it is reasonable to think and believe that he is simply trying for the best, both for his country and for the world, what he himself considers best.

Furthermore, and equally important, I do not recall anyone in our days who has experienced two assassination attempts. He did. But he did not lose his drive, his conviction and his strength; on the contrary. I think that says a lot. Yet, something that I find impressive and very important – and I think we will all agree on this – it is the first time in many years that the US has a President who leaves no doubt that he is in control of things. Whereas with the previous Biden administration there was a President, but at the same time there was a feeling that behind him there was a multitude of invisible factors that defined and determined US policy. Now, we see that Trump is taking the lead. Of course, this can have certain negative consequences; for instance, the fact that he is unpredictable, or that he does whatever he wants, or that he can suddenly cause certain situations that are difficult to manage. I remember, for example, a relatively recent interview of the Norwegian Prime Minister Støre, when he somehow pointed out the unpredictable nature of Trump and the question of how to interpret situations. But overall, I think that if one tries to understand what President Trump is trying to achieve, then it is not too difficult to adapt and get into a good understanding and agreement.

Rustad: However, with regard to what you are referring to, the Støre case, European politicians and the media alike, are talking about a straw man that they themselves have created. And the more they insist on it, the lower they fall. While Trump is constantly rising and advancing. We have not seen Trump in a fall like other politicians.

Pavlos: That is true. And the best example is what took place the day before yesterday [on Monday, October 13, 2025] in Sharm El Sheikh. That is, he, together with Sisi of Egypt, invited twenty countries to participate in this agreement. One would say, okay, he did it deliberately with the expectation that all of them would offer to contribute large sums of money and other resources to Gaza. That is one thing.

The other thing is that he shows an openness and dedication. He sees that Europe is basically going through a political crisis. It is not a lie to say that today’s European leaders do not demonstrate independence. They do not have the resilience that, one might say, Trump expects them to have. He said it yesterday on the flight back to the US, that “I do not come along well with weak guys”, “I come along with tough guys”. This means, therefore, that he himself would like to have interlocutors who want the best for their country and in an independent manner, not as satellites. Unfortunately, today Europe is a satellite, on many levels. This is not good for the population, for the peoples of Europe. This may also be partly true for Norway, to the extent that here we have a systemic approach to a new reality. By “systemic approach” I mean that we do not directly see what is happening and is in progress, but we live in a situation like what someone once told me, that, okay, what we are living in is a parenthesis now, in 2028 we will have the Democrats back into power.

But that’s not the point. The point is that one should respect the reality in which Donald Trump is the President of the United States. And so it is reasonable and prudent to adjust your policy, to adjust your political goals and so on, and to try to respond to that reality, without seeking to create a reality that does not exist.

Left, Right and Far Right

Rustad: As you know, Europe is ruled by the Left, which cannot understand America. They do not want to understand because they only see Obama’s United States, that is their America. But it is not the real United States, the historical one. So they invent this old word, the Right, the Far Right. And so, a parallel is increasingly created with the 1930s, in a completely different way, however, from what the Left claims. Because it is the Left that has now given itself the mandate to use violence.

Pavlos: The story with the “far right” is funny. Because what is actually happening is that we observe the Center, for example, or the Left shifting more radically to the limits of the political framework, towards the corner. And they say that those who are on the Right, who remain conservative, are far right! However, it is not that the latter shifted to the far right, but that the former shifted in the opposite direction.

Things are therefore relative. If I move away from you, and if I am not honest, I will say “ah, you are standing far away on the edge!”. But this does not reveal the truth that I have moved away, I have withdrawn, I am the one who has not maintained my original positions and values.

Norway and Christianity

Rustad: Let me tell you, you are Greek. You Greeks have a long history of 2,500 years and more. We have a much younger history, 1,000–1,500 years. But we have now cut our roots from our own history. We are sitting on a branch that is breaking, as we have no knowledge of the first Viking period [Norrøn times, 800–1350 AD] and the old deities. We also have no knowledge of Jesus Christ. We are throwing Jesus Christ out the window. While in five years from now we will celebrate in Stikkestad the thousand years of Christianity in Norway, they have de-Christianized the country! So what have we left? Nothing.

Pavlos: That is true. There is a crisis. And I don’t know to what extent Norwegians are aware of the fact that Norway is a Christian country. Saint Olav died, or rather was killed, in 1030 AD. That means, 24 years before the Schism. At that time the Christian Church was One, Orthodox, Catholic, Apostolic Church. That was before the separation between East and West. Isn’t that right? Therefore, I, as a Greek and as an Orthodox Christian, know that St Olav is celebrated in the Greek Church, he is one of the Saints of the Church. This is very important. Lutheranism and Protestantism come much later, after 1500 AD.

Rustad: Yes!

Pavlos: So what is happening today, which I find very unfortunate, is that in Norway there is a gap in the consciousness of Christian identity. This is because Christianity is no longer seen as part of our being, of our existence. It is seen as a cultural value, or as a hobby, a religious subject that we may or may not be interested in.

But, to put it this way, what is missing today –we see that in the society- is the ontological connection, understanding and knowledge that man is created by God. What does that mean? And not just created by God, but created in the image of God. And not just in the image of God, but also in his likeness. This implies that we have a teleology here. That man has a purpose, an end, which is to become like God. If we understand this deeply, it is something explosive! It opens up to completely new horizons. Because all what we are discussing, politics, geopolitics, everything, it concerns the present of the world which we live in.

But here is the question. Okay, here we have war – Heraclitus the Presocratic says “war is the father of all things” and we see this every day. But the question is: are we interested in solving problems for sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety – as Norwegians live quite a long time – a hundred years? And then what? Zero? Nothing? Christianity carries a very valuable truth, precious for all people. A Christianity that does not recognize this truth ends up being just a “religion”. I think, therefore, that we should reflect on this and realize that we have escaped and distanced ourselves from our roots and sources.

Rustad: “We threw the baby out with the bathwater!”, we say in Norwegian.

Pavlos: Exactly! That’s a very apt phrase.

Rustad: And I believe that in this spiritual crisis of Europe, which is also a political crisis, Europeans will return to history to rediscover their roots and share them with new inhabitants who want to become Europeans…

Pavlos: …Let’s hope so!

The Left and the aversion of God

Rustad: Well, I am convinced of that, because we have such a rich heritage, don’t we? I mean the Greek heritage, the Roman, and of course the Jewish, Israel; these are the great stories.

The Left, however, aversions God. That’s what they do! If we wanted to put it into words, the central point is that Netanyahu bows down to God, just like Trump, in contrast to European politicians.

Pavlos: Perhaps there is an explanation, I think, for this. One can interpret it as a reaction to an untrue belief in God. For example, if you say that “I believe in God” and at the same time do all the opposites to this belief – after all, Christ says that if you do this and this and that, by these the world will know that you are my disciples. What does this mean?

It means that it is not enough for me to say that I am a Christian. I must also act as a Christian. And what does it mean to act as a Christian? It means to act as a person who sees the image of God in the persons of all other people. If I do this, then I move on to a level that is “beyond” being “left” or “right”. This is something beyond being or being named in a certain way.

Christ as the true God

If we read the New Testament, we see that Christ shattered all the frameworks, all the ways of understanding the people of that time had, and introduced a completely new reality. Sometimes this reality seems contradictory, but it is not. Because what happens with Christianity and Christian epistemology, if one may say so, is that truth is not defined on the basis of principles that are independent of God. Rather the principle is Christ himself. So if a true Christian attempts to establish principles, he must do so through a personal relationship, a personal connection, with Christ.

Today, I sadly recognize that we are losing this reality. We often create a Christianity that is an ideology. That is why Christ says, I do not know when I return to earth whether I shall find true faith. This is how I understand it. That Christ, as the true God who knows what is happening within man, sees all the situations and challenges that take place in the human soul, all the crises and all the stakes. That is why he “wonders” whether he will find faith again in people, at the Second Coming, and so on.

Therefore, it is not very easy to put aside our opinions, to abandon our thoughts, right or wrong, what we consider to be either true or false, in general, to abandon everything and meet in a personal way with Christ. And from this meeting and relationship to receive our direction. That is, how will we function politically, whether shall we do this or that. To put it this way, if a person truly believes in Christ, it does not harm whether he is a left-wing or a right-wing. Whereas, you can have someone who is either right-wing or left-wing but who does not believe in Christ; then he harms everything.

Rustad: That is so. But in this case you should feel a pull towards the transcendent. And the Left does not feel this! They oppose everything that moves upwards. They only move on a horizontal plane. Besides, that’s why we have the sign of the Cross.

Pavlos: This observation about the Cross is very correct!

Rustad: Isn’t it? And I think about how this tradition has reached us. I was in Rome where Christian Schou showed us around. We went to churches. Caravaggio is a painter who moves a lot of people because his paintings have a lot of power.

This image of Paul, of Saul, who is overcome on the road to Damascus, is in one of these churches. They are the kind of images that you don’t forget because they make you feel something. Caravaggio is, in other words, a power, precisely because of what he depicts. He is the messenger of a message: that Saul became Paul.

Pavlos: This happens because, due to the fact that they are created by God, all people have the spirit of God within them, in some way. So they are, in a sense, divine. And we should not forget that we are in a situation where man has fallen from Paradise. But what is Paradise? It is not a place; it is a way of being. The Fall, therefore, is not a change of location, rather it is precisely the divorce of the relationship between God and man. That man denied God and believed that he himself could become God in the place of God.

If I wanted to somehow try to interpret what you said earlier about people who belong to the Left and deny God, it would not be very difficult, since man has an absolute freedom. He has the freedom to deny God. If man did not have this freedom, then God would not be a true God. He would be a tyrant, and that would make no sense…

Rustad: …Our God is not Allah…

Paul: True. What you are now saying is also important. Because if God is not a person – for example the Greeks, all Greek philosophy understands God as the highest principle, as the One, from which everything comes. This is largely true. But the Greeks of the ancient world did not have the personal experience of God that Paul had on the road to Damascus, which made him completely converted and become the greatest Apostle of Christ while previously he was a murderer. We observe a radical change here.

The pre-Christian Greeks had clearly arrived at a correct understanding of the transcendental but not in a personal way, as is necessarily the case with the Incarnation of Christ. To contemplate that God comes and becomes man is not something that man can fully grasp. To believe this and to recognize it, is a gift. It is a gift, because man will always be a creature. How, then, can I, who am created, and have a beginning – I am not eternal, I have a beginning and I will probably die too – how, then, can I say that I have the ability to find, first of all, God, to recognize him, and then say to the people “hey, here is God!”? This is completely absurd.

Therefore, we are talking about a manifestation, a revelation, just as we have the revelation in the Old Testament with Moses. But now it is not a revelation through signs and symbols; it is precisely God himself who becomes man, so that there is no one who has the excuse to say “and who is God? Show him to me!”.

The Tree of Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence

Rustad: There is, as you mentioned, Moses and there is also Christ. But there is something third, still, in the eyes of the beholder. Because in Paradise Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. And they became “wise”. They then made clothes to cover their nakedness, and God said to them: “who told you that you were naked?” Because this was a result of their eating from the tree of knowledge.

Today, however, there is AI, artificial intelligence, which offers the great temptation, because you can become omnipotent. There is the temptation to become God, as it happens in Silicon Valley and in these environments where one can become a great destroyer of the world. They can destroy the world.

Pavlos: Artificial intelligence is very interesting, because here we have the greatest challenge. That is, as man has the ability to perform miracles, he can believe that he is God. This is a repetition of the deception that Adam and Eve suffered from the Evil, who convinced them that, if you eat of this you will become God. The problem was not that they simply ate, since – again – God is not a tyrant who wants to prevent man from benefiting from everything. But with the “you will not eat of this fruit, of the apple” he actually told them: “do not try to do anything without me.”

So we can say that the prohibition that God gave to the first man, Adam and Eve, was essentially about telling them: don’t try to do things without me because you will perish. Not because I will make sure that you will pay for it in some way. But because this is how things work since you are created by me, and since you do not have an ontological autonomy, you are not self-sufficient. So it makes perfect sense that,if you decide to separate from me and destroy our relationship, you will lose.

This was said with love. That’s why Christ later, when he comes and becomes man, says: “without me you can do nothing” [cf. John 15:5]. This is a repetition of the original prohibition “you shall not eat of this”. Now Christ repeats it in other words and says “without me you can do nothing”. Not because this is an obstacle, but precisely because this is a revelation of a truth. That is, “look, you can do anything with me”!

Sin and Death

Rustad: You are a philosopher and you know ancient Greece. So I would like to invite you, we are going to start a radio podcast about the fact that we do not learn anything in school anymore. There is a logic in the Bible. Just as there is logic in the Greek world. And there is a greatness in that. Because in the Bible, Paradise was lost and so sin entered the world. That has been grounded. It is the primary mythology of our origins, and the consequences of sin are death. But most people do not know that, Panagiotis! They don’t know that sin enters the world and the wages of sin is death.

Pavlos: That is true, and I think we have a duty, first of all, to delve into that truth. That is, to understand that death is not an action of a God who seeks revenge against us. But, as already said, it is an ontological consequence of our own decision. At the same time, again, this is not enough. Because death is an ontological state. It is the most serious state of separation of soul and body. It is truly a catastrophe. It is a decay. We do not have similar experiences before we die, so that we can delve deeper into this truth and reality. So, the question is, how will we talk about death while we are alive?

There are Greek philosophers who said, “I am not concerned with death, since as long as I live I am not dead, and therefore I do not care. And when I die I will not be alive, so, again, I do not worry.” But this way of approaching death is quite sophistical. The truth is that death is a radical destruction of humanity as we know it. And the only way to delve into it, and not just delve into it, but essentially the question is how do we overcome death, how do we defeat it? Is there any way out of death?

If, for instance, you ask me why I like Christ, or why I am a Christian, I shall answer you this: if Christ is not sincere in what he says about the Resurrection, or if Christ has not risen from the dead and does not grant us the Resurrection, then I am not interested in him. Then, he is nothing more than all the gods that have arisen in human history.

If there is value in being a Christian, it is because Christ is the only one who took upon himself all the sin that you spoke about earlier. Which was not his fault, it is we who decided to commit it. And he somehow absorbs everything, becomes the one who goes to the bottom, to the lowest, becomes the humblest being in the history of the world, descends into Hades and resurrects the dead. Thus, Resurrection is the most subversive thing that man can understand, or rather experience. If there is no Resurrection, then Christianity is completely useless.

The Resurrectional Confrontation with Death and the Athonite Hieromonk

Rustad: I heard Kasper Støvring mention a meeting he had with a hospital pastor, who told him something very interesting. That is, on their deathbeds, people struggle against death. They refuse to give up life because they want to live and they believe that science will save them. Because this is the worldview we live with today. To cling to life because science will soon grant us immortality, as some believe. So this priest said: “the most important thing I do is to reconcile people with the fact that they are going to die. Because when they accept it, they calm down. Then they surrender to what is about to happen and thus they gain peace.”

Pavlos: This is a very honest approach. I will tell you a true story, which happened very recently. I was in Greece a month ago. And the reason I was in Greece was that on Athos, on the Holy Mountain, where there are many monasteries, there lived a hieromonk very dear to me, I loved him very much, who died. So it was his burial and I went to his funeral. There I was informed about some of his last words, as well as some moments and images that people who were close to him described to me.

The first is that he himself was very happy and grateful to Christ. Shortly before his passing away he received the Holy Communion, before his death he prayed, and he was so happy and peaceful that he said: “I look forward to the celebration of my funeral.” That’s what he said.

The second is that shortly before he died – I heard this from a person who saw it with his own eyes, and therefore it is true – the room where he was, in the hospital in Thessaloniki, was illuminated with a very special light; only the room in which he himself was. It was not an easily described light, it was indescribable. It was not like the light of these spotlights here in the studio. It was a different kind of light.

And of course, there was his funeral on Athos, where only men and not women can go, as is the case. It was a ceremony where of course people were very sad but at the same time there was a joy that you could feel. A joy that this person who is now lying in the grave, who was a very humble person and who in his last moments said “I am worth nothing, absolutely nothing, I am nothing” and, at the same time, I am very happy because Christ loves me and I will go to Christ.

In this sense, you can say that this man is not reconciled with saying, okay, I embrace death since I have no other choice. Instead, he was very happy that life had reached an end that is not the end but the beginning. Again, this is not easy – as you rightly said before – to do through scientific methods. It is impossible, precisely because we are talking about a reality that is not of this world, so to speak. We do not have the premises and the data, if we want to speak in machine terms, we do not have the necessary data to process it. That is one thing.

The other thing that you mentioned, artificial intelligence: I think it is very good that man has the ability to perform these miracles. The very fact that man can perform them, artificial intelligence, is a confirmation that man is created in the image of God. Because God has transmitted to man, and has enriched him with, all his own capabilities and abilities. So, just as God creates man out of nothing, so too man has the ability to create something so intelligent. Besides, Christ said that people will be able to do more miracles than him, as we read in the Gospel.

So this reality does not surprise us. The question is how will we use this power and ability? Shall we use it for the good, to glorify God? Or shall we use it to replace God, and so we will return to the Fall and the Original Sin…?

Rustad: Or will we serve Evil?

Pavlos: Exactly. Therefore, everything depends on our choice. Everything depends on what we will.

Rustad: Panagiotis, we have now gone through many, and even big issues. But it was very pleasant and I think that our viewers also appreciate it very much. And I would like to be allowed to invite you to come again.

Pavlos: Thank you very much, with pleasure!

Rustad: Thank you for this time, thank you for coming.

YouTube link:

https://youtu.be/jrds4exEtzs?si=pXOAPqtVscmWg-35

Source:

https://www.document.news/editorials/2025/11/an-interview-with-greek-philosopher-panagiotis-pavlos

Για τον Γέροντα Βασίλειο Ιβηρίτη (Γοντικάκη) [8/2/1936 – 4(17)/9/2025]

Ο Γέροντας π. Βασίλειος Γοντικάκης.
Πηγή φωτογραφίας: https://x.com/manos_1959/status/1971596089607557580?s=46

Σχίζεις το ασημόχρυσο πέλαγος στα πόδια του Άθωνος να προφθάσεις την εξόδιο ακολουθία του Γέροντος Βασιλείου Ιβηρίτου, και μέσα από αναρίθμητους ιλιγγιωδώς ιπτάμενους λογισμούς ο νούς σου καρφώνεται μια στιγμή στο ιδιόμελο του Εσπερινού της Κυριακής των Βαΐων: «Σήμερον η χάρις του Αγίου Πνεύματος ημάς συνήγαγε…».

Επί σαράντα χρόνια η μορφή του πατρός Βασιλείου χαράχθηκε μέσα σου τόσο οικεία, ώστε να νιώθεις όχι ότι πηγαίνεις στο Άγιον Όρος αλλά ότι επιστρέφεις σε αυτό. Δεν τον κατανοούσες καταλαβαίνοντας τη γλώσσα του αλλά κοινωνούσες από το βίωμα, αλλότριο και υπερκόσμιο, που την άρθρωνε και την εμπλούτιζε. Η ομιλία κι η γραφή του σε χρόνο ενεστώτα, όπως τα λειτουργικά κείμενα, καθώς «ο χρόνος είναι κινητή εικόνα της αιωνιότητας» που στην Εκκλησία βρίσκει τα όντα σε «αεικίνητο στάση» και «στάσιμο ταυτοκινησία».

Κοντά του ανέπνεες ελευθερία άλλης τάξης που δεν περιχαρακώνεται σε λογικές προτάσεις. Το πρόσωπό του εξέπεμπε τέτοια χάρη πρωτόγνωρης δύναμης και γλυκύτητας που ξεχνούσες τον εαυτό σου και σου θύμιζε πώς περιγράφει ο Άγιος Διονύσιος Αρεοπαγίτης την εκστατικότητα του θείου έρωτος στο «Περί Θείων Ονομάτων». Σπανίως μια ανθρώπινη μορφή σε ελκύει με τρόπο του επέκεινα εκπέμποντας ιλαρή αγαθότητα και κάλλος όχι περιγράψιμο αλλά μετεχόμενο. Μετοχή αλλόκοτη ως ξένη, και επιθυμητή ως απολύτως συγγενής.

Δεν σου έδινε ντιρεκτίβες, μάλλον σου μιλούσε με τρόπο άλλου -κατά Χριστόν- Ηρακλείτου, όπως το μαντείο των Δελφών που ούτε λέγει ούτε κρύπτει αλλά σημαίνει. Αποφατικότητα των καταφάσεων και κατάφαση των αποφάσεων συναμφοτέρως, όπως το θεσπίζει ο Άγιος Μάξιμος Ομολογητής στη «Μυσταγωγία», ανώτερα μαθηματικά άλλης λογικής, Ορθόδοξης κατ’ αντιστροφήν διαλεκτικής. Γράφει στα «Αποτυπώματά» του: «Όταν ένας άγιος σου μιλά για την κόλασι, οσφραίνεσαι την ευωδία του παραδείσου. Όταν ένας πλανεμένος σου περιγράφει τον παράδεισο, παγώνεις από την κρυάδα της κολάσεως». Ευφυία απαράμιλλη ιλιγγιώδους αντίστιξης, αλληλοσυμπλοκής λόγου αποφατικού και καταφατικού εφάμιλλη.

Ο Γέροντας Βασίλειος δεν ήταν φιλόσοφος, επιστήμων, τεχνίτης, διανοούμενος, ποιητής, ως φορέας κατατετμημένης γνώσης ειδικής, αλλά ως υποδοχέας των ομόκεντρων εκφάνσεων της παρουσίας του Ενός «ού εστι χρεία». Δεν ήταν θεολόγος ως «θεολογών» αλλά ως φανερωτής -όσο σου ήταν δυνατόν- του Θεού Λόγου Χριστού. Ως λειτουργός δεν προέβαλλε εαυτόν αλλά αποκάλυπτε τη λογική λατρεία της Θείας Ευχαριστίας ως ιερουργούμενη θεουργία.

Σε αγαπούσε τόσο που καθώς ασχολιόταν μαζί σου, αισθανόσουν το είναι σου να παίρνει αξία και νόημα τέτοιο που μόνος σου εσύ δεν μπορούσες να του προσδώσεις. Ήταν λόγος, ώστε από θεατής της αγιότητας να σου έρθει όρεξη να γίνεις μέτοχος. Κάποτε η λάμψη του θείου έρωτος στο πρόσωπό του αντανακλούσε μέσα σου λούζοντάς σε με τέτοιο φως ελευθερίας, που να μην θέλεις να αντισταθείς στη δρόσο του Πνεύματος.

Δεν σου προσέβαλλε το έλλογον του αυτεξουσίου αλλά σε απάλλασσε από το άλογον του ακουσίου. Δεν σου μετέδιδε πληροφορία αλλά εμπειρία. Δεν σου διαμόρφωνε τη σκέψη αλλά σε μυούσε στην αληθή ελευθερία. Δεν επεδίωκε να σου δώσει κάτι δικό του αλλά να σε βοηθήσει εσύ να κοινωνήσεις την Πηγή του Παντός. Δεν σε παρέπεμπε στα γραπτά και τις κατακτήσεις του πνεύματός του αλλά σε μυούσε στον πλούτο των άλλων, των μεγάλων.

Δεν σου μιλούσε για να καταλάβεις αλλά για να αναλάβεις. Δεν σε καθοδηγούσε ως οπαδό αλλά σου ανέπαυε τον λογισμό. Δεν παραμελούσε τίποτε και κανένα αλλά σε όλους και όλα έβλεπε την Χριστοείδεια και Θεοείδειά τους. Αφού και το κακό ακόμη εφίεται του Αγαθού, καθώς έλκει το είναι του από αυτό, όπως μαρτυρεί ο Αρεοπαγίτης. Δεν τον ενδιέφερε να σε εντάξει σε σχολή σκέψης αλλά να βοηθήσει τη σκέψη σου να σχολάσει· «Σχολάσατε και γνώτε…»

Δεν σε έκρινε γι’ αυτό που είσαι αλλά σε διέκρινε γι’ αυτό που ο Χριστός θέλει να γίνεις. Δεν σε τακτοποιούσε στα μικρά, σε άπλωνε στα μεγάλα. Δεν σου έλυνε απορία διανοητική, σου χάριζε εμπειρία ασκητική. Δεν σου δίδασκε τα θεία αλλά τα έπασχε φανερώνοντάς τα κατά το μερίδιο της δικής σου αντοχής. Δεν κήρυττε στους κτιστούς τον Άκτιστο αλλά υπηρετούσε το γεφύρωμά τους.

Τον ευγνωμονείς όχι για τις απαντήσεις που σου έδωσε αλλά για τα ανεξήγητα που σου μίλησε. Πονάς με την κοίμησή του. Αλλά χαίρεσαι με τη βεβαιότητα ότι είναι παρών, όπως υποσχέθηκε σε ένα μοναχό της Μονής της Παναγίας Πορταΐτισσας λίγο πριν το τέλος: «Εγώ θα φύγω αλλά εδώ θα γυρίζω. Θα τα παρακολουθώ όλα χωρίς να μ’ ενοχλείτε· χωρίς να σας ενοχλώ».

Έπρεπε να φύγει, ώστε να αντιληφθείς ότι το δεύτερο ενικό του προφορικού και γραπτού λόγου του ήτανε κάλυψη και απόκρυψη εμπειρίας πρώτου προσώπου. Νύν πάντα πεπλήρωται Φωτός, Γέροντα Βασίλειε!

* Δημοσιεύθηκε στην Καθημερινή της Πέμπτης 25 Σεπτεμβρίου 2025, και αναδημοσιεύθηκε από τη Romfea.gr, τις Ανιχνεύσεις, το Defence-Point.gr, το Κανάλι 4Ε, την Εκκλησία Online και διάφορες άλλες ενημερωτικές ιστοσελίδες.

Ιστορική χειροτονία στην Εσθονία, νέου Επισκόπου Haapsalu κ. Δαμασκηνού

Ο Μητροπολίτης Ταλλίνης και Εσθονίας κ. Στέφανος πλαισιούμενος από τον εκπρόσωπο του Οικουμενικού Πατριάρχη Μητροπολίτη Σμύρνης κ. Βαρθολομαίο, τον νεοχειροτονηθέντα βοηθό του Επίσκοπο Haapsalu κ. Δαμασκηνό, και τους Μητροπολίτες Δημητριάδος, Βόλου και Αλμυρού κ. Ιγνάτιο, Σιδηροκάστρου κ. Μακάριο, Περιστερίου κ. Γρηγόριο, και Σουηδίας και πάσης Σκανδιναβίας κ. Κλεόπα. Φωτογραφία: Rimas Akutaitis, Ι.Μ. Ταλλίνης και πάσης Εσθονίας.

Ένα ιστορικής σημασίας γεγονός έλαβε χώρα την Κυριακή, 12 Ιανουαρίου 2025, στην Εσθονία. Στον Καθεδρικό ναό Μεταμορφώσεως του Σωτήρος στην πόλη Pärnu, νοτίως του Tallinn, της Ιεράς Μητρόπολης του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου της βορειότερης αυτής χώρας της Βαλτικής, χειροτονήθηκε βοηθός Eπίσκοπος Haapsalu του Μητροπολίτη Στεφάνου ο Φινλανδός κληρικός Δαμασκηνός Ολκινουόρα, ιερομόναχος της Μονής Ξενοφώντος του Αγίου Όρους.

Ο νέος βοηθός Επίσκοπος Haapsalu κ. Δαμασκηνός πλαισιωμένος από τους Σεβασμιώτατους Μητροπολίτες Ταλλίνης και Εσθονίας κ. Στέφανο, Σιδηροκάστρου κ. Μακάριο, Περιστερίου κ. Γρηγόριο, τους καθηγουμένους των Ιερών Μονών Ξενοφώντος και Παντοκράτορος του Αγίου Όρους, κ.κ. Αλέξιο και Γαβριήλ, λοιπούς κληρικούς, και τη μητέρα του. Φωτογραφία: Rimas Akutaitis, Ι.Μ. Εσθονίας.

Πρόκειται για τον πρώτο βοηθό επίσκοπο που εξέλεξε η Σύνοδος της τοπικής Εκκλησίας η οποία ανασυστήθηκε από το Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο Κωνσταντινουπόλεως με την επανενεργοποίηση, το 1996, του Πατριαρχικού Τόμου του 1923 ο οποίος είχε καταστεί ανενεργός λόγω του σοβιετισμού.

Η Εσθονία, μολονότι χώρα μικρή με έκταση σχεδόν όσο δυό φορές η Πελοπόννησος, και πληθυσμό 1,4 εκατομμύριο ανθρώπους περίπου, διαθέτει μια διόλου ευκαταφρόνητη κοινότητα Ορθοδόξων πιστών που ξεπερνούν σήμερα τις 140.000 ψυχές. Από αυτούς οι 30.000 ανήκουν στην αυτόνομη Εκκλησία της Εσθονίας η οποία υπάγεται στο Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο.

Μολονότι προφανώς είναι έντονη στη χώρα η παρουσία της ρωσικής Ορθοδοξίας, η Εσθονία είναι σήμερα από τις Βαλτικές χώρες εκείνη με τον εντονότερο ίσως αντιρωσισμό. Προς αυτό συνέτειναν και ιστορικοί λόγοι αλλά και οι εξελίξεις των τελευταίων τριών σχεδόν ετών στην Ουκρανία.

Το πέρας της Οκτωβριανής Επανάστασης βρήκε την Εσθονία παραχωρημένη στους Γερμανούς από τον Λένιν, με τη Συνθήκη του Μπρεστ-Λιτόφσκ, ωστόσο η Εσθονία κήρυξε λίγο αργότερα, το 1921, την ανεξαρτησία της.

Από τον Αύγουστο του 1940, όμως, σε συνέχεια της παραβίασης, τον Ιούνιο του ιδίου έτους, της Διακήρυξης της Ουδετερότητας της Εσθονίας (1938) και του Συμφώνου μη Επιθέσεως (1939) των σοβιετικών στρατευμάτων που στάθμευαν στη χώρα, η βαλτική αυτή χώρα προσαρτήθηκε στη Σοβιετική Ένωση ως Σοβιετική Σοσιαλιστική Δημοκρατία της Εσθονίας.

Ο νεοχειροτονηθείς Θεοφιλέστατος Επίσκοπος Haapsalu κ. Δαμασκηνός, με τον αναποκριτή της Hellas Journal Παναγιώτη Παύλο. Φωτογραφία: Hellas Journal.

Ακολούθησαν οι γνωστές παλινδρομήσεις μεταξύ Γερμανίας και Σοβιετικής Ένωσης κατά τον Β´ Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο και μόνον το 1991, με τη διάλυση της δεύτερης η Εσθονία ξαναβρήκε την ανεξαρτησία της.

Χαρακτηριστική του κλίματος αυτού το οποίο αντικατοπτρίζεται και στα εκκλησιαστικά πράγματα, ήταν η πρόσφατη εξέλιξη για την οποία ενημερωθήκαμε στο Ταλλίν, της απέλασης με εντολή της εσθονικής κυβέρνησης, Ρώσου Επισκόπου κι ενός συνεργάτη του που φέρεται να λειτουργούσε σε βάρος των εθνικών συμφερόντων της χώρας.

Υπό το φως των ανωτέρω, αλλά και λαμβάνοντας υπόψιν τις σχέσεις μεταξύ Μόσχας και Κωνσταντινούπολης τα τελευταία εννέα έτη, δεν είναι δύσκολο να καταλάβει κανείς την κρισιμότητα των πραγμάτων στην παρούσα κατάσταση αλλά και το ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου για την Εκκλησία στην Εσθονία.

Eίναι δε μάλλον ασφαλές να συμπεράνει κανείς ότι η αύξηση του Ορθόδοξου ποιμνίου αυτής της Εκκλησίας, οι ποιμαντικές ανάγκες της οποίας οδήγησαν ακριβώς στην εκλογή του νέου βοηθού επισκόπου του Μητροπολίτη Εσθονίας, οφείλεται εν μέρει και στις τρέχουσες γεωπολιτικές εξελίξεις.

Ο νεοχειροτονηθείς Επίσκοπος Haapsalu κ. Δαμασκηνός με τη μητέρα του, κα Anita Olkinuora. Φωτογραφία: Rimas Akutaitis, Ι.Μ. Ταλλίνης και Εσθονίας.

Ωστόσο, δεν θα πρέπει να λησμονεί κανείς ότι ο ρόλος της Εκκλησίας είναι κατ᾽ εξοχήν και πρωτίστως θεολογικός και η ζωή της Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας κινείται πέραν του χώρου και του χρόνου, προς την ενότητα των πάντων.

Μια ενότητα η οποία παραμένει διαρκώς ο πρωταρχικός στόχος, ανεξαρτήτως των ιστορικών συγκυριών της έκβασης των ανθρωπίνων πραγμάτων. Υπ᾽ αυτήν την έννοια, η χειροτονία του συγκεκριμένου επισκόπου είναι ασφαλώς ένα ιστορικό γεγονός που καλείται να λειτουργήσει ευεργετικά εντός ενός περιβάλλοντος μεγάλων προκλήσεων.

Υπάρχουν, ωστόσο, ορισμένα στοιχεία που αφορούν το πρόσωπο του νέου επισκόπου, τα οποία αξίζει να σημειωθούν. Διότι δεν συμβαίνει σήμερα συχνά να χειροτονούνται αρχιερείς άνθρωποι οι οποίοι έχουν εμπειρία του μοναστικού βίου και δεν προέρχονται απλώς από εκκλησιαστικές γραφειοκρατικές θέσεις καριέρας.

Ο νεοχειροτονηθείς Επίσκοπος Haapsalu κ. Δαμασκηνός εκτός του ότι προέρχεται από τις τάξεις του μοναχισμού είναι μια πολυτάλαντη πολυσχιδής προσωπικότητα, με εκπληκτική ευρυμάθεια και ικανότητες.

Ο νεοχειροτονηθείς βοηθός Επίσκοπος του Μητροπολίτη Ταλλίν και πάσης Εσθονίας, Επίσκοπος Haapsalu κ. Δαμασκηνός, και σε δεύτερο πλάνο ο Μητροπολίτης Ταλλίνης και πάσης Εσθονίας κ. Στέφανος. Φωτογραφία: Rimas Akutaitis, Ι.Μ. Εσθονίας.

Είναι Καθηγητής Υμνολογίας, Ορθόδοξης Θεολογίας, και Φιλοσοφίας στο Πανεπιστήμιο της Ανατολικής Φινλανδίας με πλούσιο ερευνητικό και συγγραφικό έργο, ενώ ομιλεί 12 γλώσσες – είναι αδύνατον, ακούγοντάς τον να μιλά ελληνικά να αντιληφθεί κανείς τη φινλανδική καταγωγή του – και διαθέτει πλήρη μουσική παιδεία, κλασική και βυζαντινή.

Όπως μάλιστα ανέφερε ο ίδιος στην ενθρονιστήρια ομιλία του, είναι η «πρώτη φορά στην ιστορία που η Φινλανδία προσφέρει στην Εσθονία, τη χώρα της Μαρίας όπως λέγεται, αρχιερέα Φινλανδό».

Με αυτά δεδομένα, εύκολα εξηγείται η παρουσία στην ιστορική αυτή χειροτονία πολλών σημαινόντων εκκλησιαστικών προσωπικοτήτων τόσο του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου όσο και της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, αλλά και του Αγίου Όρους.

Ενδεικτικά, μαζί με τον εκπρόσωπο του Οικουμενικού Πατριάρχη Μητροπολίτη Σμύρνης κ. Βαρθολομαίο, συμμετείχαν ο Μητροπολίτης Σουηδίας και πάσης Σκανδιναβίας κ. Κλεόπας και ο Μητροπολίτης Ελβετίας κ. Μάξιμος. Από την Εκκλησία της Ελλάδος παραβρέθηκαν στην Εσθονία οι Μητροπολίτες Δημητριάδος κ. Ιγνάτιος, Σιδηροκάστρου κ. Μακάριος, Εδέσης Πέλλης και Αλμωπίας κ. Ιωήλ, Περιστερίου κ. Γρηγόριος (καθηγητής Κανονικού Δικαίου στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών), καθώς και ο Εσθονός Θεοφιλέστατος Επίσκοπος Pärnu και Saarek κ. Αλέξανδρος.

Ενώ από το Άγιον Όρος ταξίδεψαν στη Βαλτική οι ηγούμενοι των Ιερών Μονών Ξενοφώντος και Παντοκράτορος, κ.κ. Αλέξιος και Γαβριήλ με συνοδείες τους, αλλά και από τις Σέρρες η καθηγουμένη του Ιερού Ησυχαστηρίου Τιμίου Προδρόμου Ακριτοχωρίου Ιακώβη.

Επιπλέον τεκμήριο της προσωπικότητας του Φινλανδού νέου Επισκόπου συνιστά η παρουσία, ανάμεσα στο πλήθος των συμμετεχόντων από Ευρώπη και Αμερική, 30 περίπου Ελλήνων που ταξίδεψαν στην εσθονική πρωτεύουσα από πολλές περιοχές της Ελλάδας, μεταξύ των οποίων και ο Πρωτοψάλτης του Μητροπολιτικού Ναού Αγίου Γρηγορίου Παλαμά Θεσσαλονίκης, Ιωάννης Λιάκος, ο οποίος και διηύθυνε πολυμελή βυζαντινή χορωδία αποτελούμενη από φίλους και συναδέλφους του νέου επισκόπου, όπως ο Καθηγητής Ορθόδοξης Θεολογίας του Πανεπιστημίου Notre Dame του Ιλινόις, πρωτοπρεσβύτερος της Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου π. Αλέξιος Torrance, και ο γράφων.

Απόσπασμα από τη Δοξολογία της Ενθρονίσεως του νέου Επισκόπου Haapsalu κ. Δαμασκηνού, στον Καθεδρικό Ναό του Ταλίν, το απόγευμα της Κυριακής 12 Ιανουαρίου 2025. Ψάλλει βυζαντινός χορός υπό τη διεύθυνση του Πρωτοψάλτη του Μητροπολιτικού Ναού Αγίου Γρηγορίου Παλαμά Θεσσαλονίκης, κ. Ιωάννη Λιάκου. Λήψη βίντεο: Ι.Μ. Δημητριάδος, Βόλου και Αλμυρού

Διαβάστε τον Ενθρονιστήριο λόγο του βοηθού Επισκόπου κ. Δαμασκηνού ΕΔΩ:

Λόγος Ενθρονιστήριος Επισκόπου

* Αποστολή της Hellas Journal στο Ταλίν: Παναγιώτης Παύλος

Δημοσιεύθηκε στη HELLAS JOURNAL, και σε άλλα ΜΜΕ όπως το anixneuseis.gr, το Σάββατο 25/1/2025.

Πηγή:

Ιστορικής σημασίας η χειροτονία του Επισκόπου Δαμασκηνού στη Μητρόπολη Ταλλίνης και πάσης Εσθονίας: Ήταν ιερομόναχος της Μονής Ξενοφώντος του Αγίου Όρους
Hellasjournal.com
https://www.anixneuseis.gr/ιστορικής-σημασίας-η-χειροτονία-του-ε/
Anixneuseis.gr

An eminent researcher of Greek philosophy: Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro Dr. Filip Ivanović, in an exclusive interview with Hellas Journal, during his first official visit to Athens (March 11-12, 2024)

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro Dr. Filip Ivanović, gave an exclusive interview to Hellas Journal and Panagiotis Pavlos, during his first official visit to Athens. Photo by Hellas Journal

During his first official visit to Athens, on March 11 and 12, the new Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro, Dr. Filip Ivanović, offered an exclusive interview to Hellas Journal.

The head of diplomacy of the next candidate for accession to the European Union Balkan country and member state of NATO, had an extensive and cordial conversation with the correspondent of Hellas Journal in Oslo, and his old friend, Panagiotis Pavlos.

In the detailed discussion he had with him, Minister Ivanović pointed out the fervent support the Greek Government and his counterpart Mr. Georgios Gerapetritis provide to the top priority of Montenegro’s foreign policy, its accession to the EU. He referred to the recent Forum of Foreign Ministers in Antalya, Turkey, and his meeting with the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Fidan, while at the same time he called on Greece to strengthen its presence in the Balkan peninsula in various ways.

Dr. Ivanović made an impressive exhortation to young Greeks to be proud of their unique heritage. The fervor with which he speaks about Hellenism, Greek civilization, art and culture, and the Greek spirit in general, is evident as he reveals his personal relationship with Greece and Athens, being himself an eminent researcher of Greek philosophy with a large internationally recognized philosophical work and a unique contribution to the spread of Greek Paideia in his country.

Montenegro’s MFA emphasized the role that Balkan states such as Montenegro expect Greece to play in the region as the cradle of democracy and culture and as a guarantor of European unity and integration. He did not fail to expand on the possibilities and strategies for further deepening bilateral relations between Montenegro and Greece in several areas of cooperation, inter alia, the education of university students and Armed Forces executives, research exchange, cultural and scientific diplomacy, opportunities in the investment sector.

Finally, he pointed out the urgent need for a dynamic return of international diplomacy at a time of major disturbances in the international scene, at the center of which is the war in Ukraine and Gaza.

Hellas Journal: Your Excellency, MFA of Montenegro Dr. Ivanović, dear Filip! It is such a pleasure to have you here, in your first official visit to Athens after assuming your duties as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro. We hope that you had a fruitful visit with productive meetings and communications with the Greek Government.

MFA Ivanović: I must say that I am very happy to be here in Athens. It is, as you have said, my first official visit to Greece since I became Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro. I am very pleased by the hospitality and the wholehearted greetings that I received here in Athens. On the first day of my visit, I spoke with the vice-president of the Parliament, as well as with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic. I also used this opportunity to laid wreath in the tomb of Vasos Mavrovouniotis, as the Greeks know him, or Vaso Brajović, as the Montenegrins know him. He was a very prominent military figure of the 19th century in Greece, who was of Montenegrian origin, so it is just one of the very important historical figures that tie our two countries and our two peoples.

I am very happy with the meetings I had today, I have received quite a friendly welcome by all the officials. What is very important is the willingness of Greece to deepen the friendly and good relations that Montenegro and Greece have. Equally of great importance is that Greece fully supports the primary foreign priority goal of Montenegro, which is to become the first next member of the European Union. I was reassured by my interlocutors today that Greece is going to give its full support, both political and technical, to this goal.

HJ: How do you evaluate the attitude, the disposition of the Greek government towards a Minister of Foreign Affairs of a Balkan state country? In the sense that, you come here, you meet with the Government and at the same time, while you expectedly have certain topics and issues in the agenda, you offer them insights of how the Balkan states look upon Greece, and perhaps of what they expect from her. Was that a dimension in your discussions?

MFA Ivanović: Well, what I have said to my friends and interlocutors today, is that when it comes to chief Foreign Policy Goal, not just of Montenegro but also of other Balkan states which are joining the European Union, is to remind the pivotal role of Greece in this process that was marked by the 2003 Thessaloniki Summit, where there was promise for EU enlargement, especially for the countries of Balkans. Now we are twenty-one years later. So, this promise still needs to be fulfilled. I also conveyed to my interlocutors here in Athens that I expect Greece to take the leading role again, and to be a very vocal advocate of enlargement of the EU to all the other countries, but especially to those countries that are in the South-East European region. Greece has historical ties not just to Montenegro but also to other countries of this region. Greece knows very well what the advantages and, sometimes, the problems of the region are, and I believe Greece can be the best promoter of the European integration of the region. It will be extremely useful, I would say, for Greece’s foreign policy, for Montenegro’s foreign policy, for the region, but also for the EU.

HJ: You have assumed your duties as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro almost four months ago, yet in a period of unprecedented turbulences, both on the large picture but also regionally, such as the case is, for instance, with Ukraine and the Middle East; we are really experiencing tough times. So how does this geopolitical theater challenge countries such as Montenegro, which although not in the size of, say, Germany or France, yet demonstrate an increasing degree of integration in the Western institutions and certainly, they move to fully participate in the EU and, broadly, the international arena?

MFA Ivanović: As you know, Montenegro has been a NATO member for seven years. It is also the front-runner in the EU integration process. We believe that we can complete the process of negotiations within the next few years, and become, as I have said, the first next member of the EU. Indeed, the geopolitical situation is not very easy. We are facing crises in different parts of the world that are very difficult, that are challenging the very existence and concept of diplomacy and international order; and Montenegro has maintained a very clear position. This position is to uphold the international peace and stability and the respect for international law. In this regard, we have fully supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine; we have been, and we will continue to be fully aligned with the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU, including sanctions against Russia in this conflict with Ukraine.

Of course, we must not forget the crisis in Gaza that has been unraveling before our eyes in the past few months. Here as well, Montenegro has kept a very balanced and principled position – it has condemned in strongest possible terms the terrorist attack of the 7th of October by Hamas; but it has also called constantly Israel to keep its response and its right to defend against terrorism within the boundaries of the International Law and the International Humanitarian Law. What we are advocating now is at least a humanitarian pause that would lead to complete ceasefire. We also believe that the two states solution is the best one for this conflict, that both Israel and Palestine have the right to have their own sovereign states living next to each other and that both need to be guaranteed safety. In our view, this is the only permanent solution of this crisis. This is what we are advocating in all multinational and multilateral fora.

On the other hand, the crisis and the Russian aggression in Ukraine has opened a new way of thinking in the EU. As you know, the process of enlargement of the EU has been quite technical in the past years, if not decade, and now it is crystal clear that the safety and prosperity of the European continent can be best achieved through its unity; and its unity can be best achieved through the membership in the EU. Therefore, I would say that now the way of thinking has changed; the process of enlargement is now perhaps more political, or, at least, in the same degree political as well as technical. Without doubt, Montenegro is on the way to use this window opportunity and, as I said, finish the whole process on its part by the end of the mandate of this government and become the first next member of the EU.

HJ: Recently, you participated in a rather big event, the Antalya Forum of Diplomacy that was organized and hosted by the Turkish minister of Foreign Affairs. There you had the chance to meet and discuss with your colleagues from many other countries but also with the host, the MFA of Turkey, Hakan Fidan. As you probably are aware, Greece has since December in 2023 embarked on a rapprochement process with Turke. This was sealed by the Declaration of Athens, in the beginning of last December, despite fundamental challenges and problems in the bilateral relations of the two countries, chiefly due to the revisionist character of Greece’s neighbour. Could you briefly tell us what did you get out of that meeting? And, if I may push a bit the question further: How does Montenegro regard Turkey’s role in the Balkans?

MFA Ivanović: Indeed, I participated in the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, and I must say it was a very big event and well organized. There I had the opportunity to meet with several colleagues, especially with those ones that us from Balkans, or from Europe, do not get a chance to meet very frequently. I mean mainly our colleagues and friends from Asia, Africa and Latin America. It was very interesting and useful to meet with a diverse group of politicians and colleagues and see where we can work together and improve our relations. I also met, as you have said, with the Türkiye’s Foreign Affairs Minister Fidan, it was our second meeting in the past couple of months. This meeting was very cordial, and I thanked him for the invitation and the organization of the forum, while we discussed certain issues of bilateral cooperation between Montenegro and the Turkish country. I must state that the relations between our two countries are good, and they are marked by good connectivity, by a number of Turkish investments in Montenegro, and by, I would say, very live political dialogue.

I am very aware and understand the relationship between Greece and Türkiye, and I can only say that where there are challenges and problems that is where diplomacy needs to step in. I would welcome and greet all the efforts between the two countries that have as their goal and as their result easing of the relationship between them and bettering the relations between the countries and between the peoples, based of course on mutual respect and respect of each other’s sovereignty. On the other hand, Montenegro and Türkiye and Greece, all three of them, are NATO allies. Greece is member of the EU, we are, as I said, frontrunner in the process of EU integration. Türkiye is also a candidate country for the EU, so I am sure that, as in all kinds of relationships there are things that perhaps separate us and things that we look at differently, so are also things that bind us and can bring us closer. Therefore, it would be very useful to work on those things that bring countries and peoples closer.

Türkiye is a very active actor in the Balkan region, not just in Montenegro, but also in other countries. I welcome its activity and its role in the Balkans. But I also very much welcome a more active role of Greece in the region. This is yet another thing that I conveyed to my interlocutors, that we are looking forward to a more active role and more visible presence of Greece in the region. Not only in terms of European integration, i.e., Greece’s support of EU integration, but also in terms of bilateral cooperation between Greece and the countries of Balkans.

HJ: Speaking of the relation between Montenegro and Greece in the perspective of joining common institutions such as the EU, one could remark that in the common consciousness of most of the Greek people, in the common perception at least of those who have a certain age, Montenegro is associated at large with the Serbian nation and people. How valid is this perception today? How would onemost accurately identify the modern state of Montenegro, the foreign policy of which you are leading, and what are Montenegro’s and its people’s aspirations today?

MFA Ivanović: During the history the destinies of individuals, of peoples and countries, have been very much intertwined. Many of today’s countries in the Balkans, including Montenegro and Serbia, have shared the same historical destiny throughout different eras. As you know, Montenegro and Serbia formed a state union that lived for almost ninety years, and of course, it is very natural that there are historical, cultural, and even familial ties between them. A third of the population in Montenegro considers itself to be Serbs. We have some forty five percent of people who identify themselves as Montenegrins, and we also have Bosniak, Albanian and Croatian population in Montenegro. But what is very important is that Montenegro is constitutionally defined as a secular and civic state, a state of citizens, not state of nations or ethnicities, and Montenegro is a country in which every individual citizen has the right to cherish and profess his or her own identity without bearing any kind of negative consequences, or repercussions. When it comes to the foreign policy, what is also very important now is that eighty percent of Montenegrin citizens – and that means Montenegrin citizens of all ethnicities and of all religions – are very pro-European and would like to see Montenegro as the next member of the EU. So, what we are doing is that we are pursuing a foreign policy that is a foreign policy of Montenegro as a unified civic country and that can be for the benefit of every single citizen regardless of his ethnicity, religion, or any other aspect of identity.

HJ: I would like to come now to a more personal level, since we also have a friendship that goes quite back in time and even a colleague relation connecting us in the field of philosophy. It is certain that much of the Greek people have no idea that you, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro, are not only a great friend of Greece in theory, a real philhellene, but also – and I wouldn’t fear to name it so – in praxis, both as a prolific scholar of ancient Greek and late antique philosophy, and one of the eminent experts in the study of Dionysius the Areopagite and its legacy. Please, could you tell us a bit about your relationship with Greece, its beginnings and how it evolved?

MFA Ivanović: Thank you for your question! It is always good to get back to my academic and scholarly origins. Indeed, by education I have a PhD in Philosophy and Religious Studies, and my field of expertise is Ancient Greek and Late Antique philosophy, as well as Byzantine philosophy. These are the topics and areas of philosophy that I was very much interested in since the very beginning of my studies in philosophy. Of course, the interest in those areas have naturally brought me to appreciate and to investigate even more Greek history, culture, and civilization. During my academic carrier I have had an opportunity and chance to visit many places in Greece; not just to visit but also to stay in Athens twice for a longer period, and to get to know the Greek people, the Athenian life. It is a very vibrant culture and society, and I must say that this very deep personal relationship to Greece that I have, would be best defined by one word. That word is ‘love’.

HJ: That’s fantastic! And, since love is the key word here, what would be the message that you would convey to the newer generation of Greeks today that, one could say, might not fully grasp the significance of Hellenism, and the awareness about it and the Greek spirit in general? What would be the advice both of a scholar who has spent years in studying Greek culture, philosophy and literature, and of a friend of Greece who is the Head of the Foreign Policy of a state of the Balkans that aspires to the contributions of Hellenism in the region?

MFA Ivanović: If I say that Greece and Greek culture is the cradle of the western civilization, I wouldn’t say anything new. But sometimes even the known and old things need to be repeated, in order to be remembered. If there are so many people outside Greece, not just in Europe but in other continents as well, in the Americas, Asia, Africa, that admire and love Greek history, civilization, culture, philosophy, art and so on, then people in Greece, especially the young generations should be very proud of their inheritance. This inheritance is not just about ancient Greek culture and civilization; it is not just about the Byzantine culture and civilization. It is also about modern Greece. It is about struggle for Freedom, for Liberty, for the values of Democracy, and this is something that should be cherished by every Greek young person. This is something they should be proud of and, as I said, if people outside of Greece are proud of it, then people within Greece should be even more proud of the legacy of their ancestors.

HJ: Coming now to something that perhaps few people know: we often speak of institutes, of friends’ culture, of Chinese culture – there are many hundreds of ‘Confucius’ Institutes all over the world – and one would expect Greece to have its own chain of cultural Institutions all around the globe. However, that is unfortunately not the case. But you again, several years ago, you established an initiative which I would call it rather unique. I mean the Center for Hellenic Studies in Podgorica, which, if I am not wrong, was established in 2015. Could you tell us a bit about that?

MFA Ivanović: The Center for Hellenic Studies was established in 2015 as a non-profit organization in Montenegro and it was a result of enthusiasm of a few colleagues of mine and myself, who are all in Montenegro, but are academically working on issues of Greek culture. Some of them have studied and spent research in Greece and have an in-depth knowledge of Greek culture and civilization. We thought that it is very important that we, like many other western countries and western research centres, establish an institution that is going to be fully dedicated to the study of Hellenic culture and civilization, from its ancient roots to the contemporary times. And we have founded the Center for Hellenic Studies in Podgorica.

We have launched an academic journal called ‘Akropolis: Journal of Hellenic Studies’. This journal is now in its seventh year. It is, I would dare to say, a very good and prominent international journal. It is, for example, in the Scopus list of the academic journals, which is one of the prestigious lists of academic journals. We have also launched the International Conference of Hellenic Studies that was first held in Montenegro, in 2019. Unfortunately, the plan was to continue with the annual conference in different places in Montenegro, but the covid pandemic and some other crises have struck us, so the conference was postponed. But what we are also hoping is that we will renew the work of the Center and the work of the Conference. The whole point is to cherish, promote and investigate the relationship between the Hellenic culture, the Western civilization, and, of course, Montenegro is one of the particular places in Europe that has special ties with Greece.

I would also like to encourage my Greek friends to do their part and promote their own culture and civilization around the world through different means. One of the very effective means of doing that is by establishing and supporting Centres of Hellenic Studies throughout the world. We are of course not the only one, not the only Center for Hellenic Studies; there are many centres like that in the US, the UK, across Europe and even in Japan. So, this is a very good opportunity for cultural diplomacy, for scientific diplomacy, apart from pure basic academic research and interest.

HJ: Did you have the chance during your meetings at this visit to also raise issues on bilateral cooperation between Montenegro and Greece, precisely on this level of culture, of Paideia, research, and scientific collaboration? Or is it something that still there is room to work on soon?

MFA Ivanović: There are many areas in which Greece and Montenegro can collaborate even further. One of the good examples is the education of our cadets on military academies in Greece. This cooperation has been very fruitful and many young soldiers and officers from Montenegro have completed their studies in Greece. We have discussed, during my visit, the opportunities for increasing the number of scholarships that Greece is offering to Montenegrin students from both undergraduate and postgraduate studies, at Universities across Greece. We also discussed the possibilities of greater and stronger connection between Montenegrin and Greek universities and research institutions, because we think that working on mutual projects, exchange of academic staff, exchange of students, are some of the best opportunities to strengthen the ties between the two countries. I hope that, soon we will also have some bilateral agreements in place in the areas of culture, education, and research. Thus, we agreed that we should work harder on this together in the near future.

HJ: And the last question, dear Minister. What is your vision as the head of Montenegro’s foreign affairs policy, and how would you like to see it be incarnated?

MFA Ivanović: The government which I am a member of has laid down four main Foreign Policy Goals that we want to pursue. Number one Foreign Policy goal is Montenegro’s membership to the EU. The second FP goal is continued active and credible membership to NATO. Number three is good neighbourly relations and cherishing regional cooperation. And number four, which is a long-term goal, is about a more active and visible role of Montenegro in multilateral organizations, especially the UN. These are the FP goals to which we as the government, and especially us the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, are fully dedicated and working hard on achieving them.

When it comes to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, what I have promised and what the government has promised is renewal of our diplomatic network abroad; the focus on younger diplomats; the possibilities of offering different kinds of trainings through cooperation with different diplomatic academies and international institutions, more oriented towards practice, such as the Programs with the UNDP and similar organizations, field visits, etc.

We also want to include more – and what we are currently working on – is the bigger focus on cultural and scientific diplomacy, because we believe that these are the best ways that a rather small country can achieve bigger visibility on the international scene. So, we have actually now founded a Directorate for Economic and Public Diplomacy, within which we will have a bigger focus on cultural and scientific diplomacy.

In addition, we want to encompass all these ideas by a bigger focus on digital diplomacy, because we believe that in the twenty-first century combining contemporary information and communications technology with diplomacy can be a winning formula for Montenegro.

HJ: Your Excellency, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro, Dr. Ivanović, dearest Filip, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for this profound conversation and I cordially wish you all success in the rest of your trip here, in Athens, and your duties further. It was a great pleasure, and I am deeply grateful for the time you dedicated to this meeting and discussion.

MFA Ivanović: Thank you so much. It was my great pleasure first of all to see you, and then to have the honour to answer the questions you gave me.

PGP: All the best!

MFA Ivanović: Thank you.

Source:

An eminent researcher of Greek philosophy: Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro Dr. Filip Ivanović, in an exclusive interview with Hellas Journal, during his first official visit to Athens

«In memoriam mortuorum στώμεν καλώς, κυρία Λινού»! Εις δικαίαν μνήμην Μητροπολίτου Περγάμου Ιωάννου Ζηζιούλα

Με μεγάλη έκπληξη και απορία, διάβασα την εναρκτήριο αναφορά της Βουλευτού του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, Καθηγήτριας Πανεπιστημίου και Πρεσβυτέρας, Αθηνάς Λινού, στον μακαριστό Μητροπολίτη Περγάμου Ιωάννη Ζηζιούλα, κατά τη χθεσινή (15/2/24) τοποθέτησή της στη Βουλή εν όψει της ψήφισης του νομοσχεδίου για τον γάμο ομοφυλοφίλων.

Με την αναφορά της αυτή ήταν προφανές ότι θέλησε η ίδια αφενός να ισχυριστεί ότι το επίμαχο νομοσχέδιο συνάδει με την Ορθόδοξη εμπειρία, θεωρία και παράδοση της Εκκλησίας μας, και αφετέρου, ότι η ίδια το υπερψηφίζει αφορμώμενη, κινούμενη, και αποσκοπώντας στην ανωτέρω τριάδα.

Έτσι, ανέφερε χαρακτηριστικά η κα Λινού:

“Θα ξεκινήσω με τα λόγια ενός από τους πιο σημαντικούς Θεολόγους του αιώνα μας, σύμφωνα με τον Οικουμενικό Πατριάρχη Βαρθολομαίο αλλά και τον Πάπα Φραγκίσκο.

Ο Μητροπολίτης Περγάμου Ιωάννης Ζηζιούλας, Καθηγητής σε Ελληνικά και Αγγλικά Πανεπιστήμια, μέλος της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών, είχε πει πριν μερικά χρόνια δημόσια: «Δεν έχουμε το δικαίωμα να ταπεινώνουμε και να θυσιάζουμε την εικόνα του Θεού. Είναι ανάγκη οι σεξουαλικές μειονότητες να προστατεύονται από κάθε είδους διάκριση και αδικία». Αυτή η δήλωση με εκφράζει απόλυτα. Για το νομοσχέδιο, σαφώς και είναι απαραίτητο να εξασφαλίσουμε τα δικαιώματα, όπως είναι και ο απόλυτος σεβασμός, η αγάπη αλλά κυρίως η ισότητα και η προστασία των συνανθρώπων μας, και βέβαια των ομόφυλων ατόμων”.

Ομολογώ ότι καταρχήν με ξάφνιασε η εν λόγω τοποθέτησή της για έναν απλό, απλούστατο λόγο.

Την εποχή που στην Ελλάδα εφαρμόζονταν τα καταπληκτικής εμπνεύσεως μέτρα κατά του κορωνοϊού και είχαν οδηγήσει σε πρωτόγνωρη καταστολή της Λειτουργικής ζωής της Εκκλησίας, ο μακαριστός Μητροπολίτης Περγάμου είχε προβεί σε σχετική συνέντευξη σε ξένο μέσο.

Την συνέντευξη αυτή είχε μεταφράσει ο ίδιος ο γράφων στα Ελληνικά και δημοσίευσε η Romfea.gr, αφού προηγουμένως ο Σεβασμιώτατος κ. Ζηζιούλας είχε εγκρίνει το τελικό ελληνικό κείμενο (με εγκωμιαστικά μάλιστα για το πρόσωπο του μεταφραστή λόγια) στο οποίο ο ίδιος τασσόταν επί της αρχής κατά της πρωτόγνωρης αυτής πρακτικής.

Ωστόσο, δεν είδαμε ούτε ακούσαμε τότε την κυρία Λινού να δράττεται της ευκαιρίας να επικαλεστεί τον μακαριστό, εν ζωή τότε, φίλο της – η φιλική σχέση της οικογενείας της με τον Άγιο Περγάμου είναι γνωστή – και να τοποθετηθεί αναλόγως και ελλόγως, στην άλογη απόφαση και εκτροπή της θεσμικής Εκκλησίας από τον ρόλο της.

Έκπτωση που ρητά είχε επισημάνει ο Μητροπολίτης Ζηζιούλας στη συνέντευξη εκείνη λέγοντας κατηγορηματικά ότι, «η Εκκλησία άνευ της Θείας Ευχαριστίας δεν είναι πλέον Εκκλησία».

Προτού προχωρήσουμε, ένα διευκρινιστικό σχόλιο: ο γράφων είχε την χαρά και την αγαθή τύχη να έχει γνώση προσωπική του μακαριστού Μητροπολίτου Περγάμου, σχεδόν παιδιόθεν, και μάλιστα να τύχει και εκτενών συνομιλιών μαζί του, με τελευταία στην Κωνσταντινούπολη τον Σεπτέμβριο του 2019, στο περιθώριο του Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου για τον μέγιστο ίσως θεολόγο του 20ου αιώνα, και δάσκαλο του κ. Ιωάννου Ζηζιούλα, τον π. Γεώργιο Φλωρόφσκυ.

Και πάντοτε θα θυμάται με ευγνωμοσύνη την ευγένεια και την καλωσύνη του μακαριστού Επισκόπου, τη διάθεσή του για διάλογο και προσφορά από τη βαθιά θεολογική γνώση του, καθώς και τη διαλλακτικότητα του πνεύματός του (υπό την προϋπόθεση βεβαίως ότι κανείς διαλεγόταν μαζί του καλοπροαίρετα και τεκμηριωμένα).

Από κει και πέρα όμως, τα ατοπήματα της χθεσινής δήλωσης της κυρίας Λινού είναι πολλά και διόλου αμελητέα.

Καταρχήν, ούσα η ιδία καθόλου αμέτοχος της θεολογίας της καθ᾽ ημάς Ανατολής, όφειλε να γνωρίζει στοιχειωδώς – μιας και επικαλέστηκε μεγάλο θεολόγο – περί της θεμελιώδους διακρίσεως φύσεως και χρήσεως, λόγου και τρόπου, για να μιλήσω με τη γλώσσα του Αγίου Μαξίμου του Ομολογητού.

Αγνοώντας αυτή την κεφαλαιώδη διάκριση, προσήλθε η ιδία με προχειρότητα μη αρμόζουσα όχι μόνον σε ερασιτέχνη θεολογούντα, αλλά πολλώ μάλλον σε καθηγητή Πανεπιστημίου και σύζυγο ιερέως, και σωρηδόν μετεξήλθε μια δήλωση (;) [θα έλθω στο ερωτηματικό] του μακαριστού Μητροπολίτου Περγάμου με τρόπο παραπλανητικό:

«Δεν έχουμε το δικαίωμα να ταπεινώνουμε και να θυσιάζουμε την εικόνα του Θεού».

Σαφώς και είναι έτσι, και σαφώς η εικόνα του Θεού αφορά, ορίζει, κατηγορεί, αν θέλετε, τον λόγο της ανθρώπινης φύσεως και του ανθρώπου ως σύνθετον σώματος και ψυχής.

Δεν καθορίζει ούτε επιβάλλει όμως και τον τρόπο της, δηλαδή τη χρήση του αυτεξουσίου και τα έργα ενός εκάστου ανθρώπου.

Για το τελευταίο οι Πατέρες της Εκκλησίας, μηδενός εξαιρουμένου, μιλούν σαφώς για απόλυτη ελευθερία (αυτό που ο μακαριστός φίλος της κυρίας Λινού και ημών αποδίδει στο Πρόσωπον) στα όρια της οποίας είναι απολύτως δυνατό το σφάλμα, η αστοχία, η αμαρτία.

Αυτά αρκούν για να καταδείξουν το πρώτο βασικό επιστημολογικό θεολογικό και ανθρωπολογικό σφάλμα της ιδίας, αυτό της – λογικά και αναγκαστικά προκύπτουσας – σωρηδόν συμπερίληψης στην εικόνα Θεού ακόμη και των έργων του ανθρώπου των μη κατά Θεόν, των μη συν Θεώ, αν προτιμάτε, ειργασμένων.

Κάτι τέτοιο, όχι μόνον δεν ανήκει στο κατ᾽ εικόνα αλλά είναι και εμπόδιο του καθ᾽ ομοίωσιν.

Έρχομαι στη δεύτερη πρόταση της αναφοράς της κυρίας Λινού στον μακαριστό κ. Ιωάννη Ζηζιούλα:

«Είναι ανάγκη οι σεξουαλικές μειονότητες να προστατεύονται από κάθε είδους διάκριση και αδικία».
Δεν θέλω να κουράσω τον αναγνώστη με σχολαστική ανάλυση κάθε λέξης. Θα περιοριστώ μόνον στο να θέσω στην πρεσβυτέρα Βουλευτή, αλλά και στον κοινό νου, το εξής ερώτημα. Συνιστά αδικία η μη εξίσωση του κατά φύσιν με το παρά φύσιν, ή όχι; Αν συνιστά, τότε, κατ᾽ αντιστοιχίαν με τον λόγο της διαφοράς (differential) του ενός από το άλλο, ποιος είναι, καθ᾽ υμάς, κα Λινού, ο λόγος της ομοιότητας ή της ισότητας του παρά φύσιν με το κατά φύσιν που καλεί σε «άρση» της επιχειρηματολογούμενης «αδικίας»; Αν αυτό δεν είστε σε θέση να το απαντήσετε, τότε και η αναφορά σας στην «πρόταση» του Μητροπολίτου συνιστά τυφλή και απερίσκεπτη επίκληση συναισθήματος και αυθεντίας.

Επιπλέον: τί εννοείτε, κυρία Λινού, λέγοντας ότι σας εκφράζει απόλυτα μια φερόμενη δήλωση, τη χρήση της οποίας ο δηλών δεν είναι σε θέση ούτε να εγκρίνει ούτε και να διαψεύσει; Είστε βέβαιη ότι ο Άγιος Περγάμου θα έλεγε «Ναι στον γάμο ομοφυλοφίλων!» ως επιτέλεση άρσης της καθ᾽ υμάς μεθερμηνευόμενης αδικίας; Και άρα, ότι θα κινείτο ο ίδιος ο πολιός κεκοιμημένος θεολόγος αντίθετα προς όλο το Σώμα της Εκκλησίας, το οποίο έχει πολλαχώς ρητά και σαφώς εκφραστεί τώρα και πάντοτε και καθ᾽ όλη την Ορθόδοξη Πατερική παράδοση και ιστορία;

Κι ακόμη: με το σκεπτικό της στόχευσής σας και την αναφορά σας στον Άγιο Περγάμου, αναλαμβάνετε, κυρία Λινού, την ευθύνη του λογικού περιεχομένου της δια της εύλογης αντιστροφής συνεπαγωγής της φερόμενης πρότασης του Μητροπολίτη ότι, «με τον γάμο ομοφυλοφίλων δεν ταπεινώνουμε και δεν θυσιάζουμε την εικόνα του Θεού»;

Έρχομαι τώρα στο τρίτο σημείο της δήλωσης της Βουλευτού, το οποίο υπαινίχθηκα ανωτέρω.

Πόσο αυτοσεβασμό διαθέτει ένας άνθρωπος Καθηγητής Πανεπιστημίου, σύζυγος Ορθοδόξου ιερέως, και τιμηθείς με το υπέρτατο αξίωμα της δημοκρατίας, όταν: απευθυνόμενος στην εθνική αντιπροσωπεία, προβαίνει ενώπιον αυτής και του ελληνικού λαού σε αναφορά φερόμενης, και ως εκ τούτου αμφίβολης, δήλωσης, άνευ τεκμηρίωσης [εκτός κι αν η προσθήκη του επίθετου «δημόσια» συνιστά επιστημονική εγκυρότητα, περαιτέρω διασφαλιζομένου –με την προσθήκη του «πριν μερικά χρόνια»– του ότι κανείς δεν πρόκειται να ψάξει να βρει πώς και τί], παρασιωπώντας πλήρως τα συμφραζόμενα, αυτό που πολλοί αρέσκονται να ονομάζουν συνάφεια;

Είναι αυτό επιστημονική ακρίβεια και συνέπεια;

Ποιά «φεουδαρχική» νοσταλγία, άραγε, ωθεί σε λογικές προ–Διαφωτιστικών επικλήσεων αυθεντίας, και ποιά απέλπιδα λουθηρανικής προέλευσης ανάγκη προτεσταντικής ερμηνευτικής μέσα στους κόλπους της Ορθοδοξίας;

Αισθάνεται, αλήθεια, η κυρία Βουλευτής, τίμια την επίκληση μιας ορισμένης γενικής θέσης – που σαφώς κάθε νοήμων άνθρωπος αξιωματικά αποδέχεται – μιας «αυθεντίας» που πρόσφατα απήλθε του βίου, την οποία η ίδια επιστρατεύει σε μια ορισμένη στόχευση, αγνοώντας ενδεχομένως, ή και αδιαφορώντας για τις συνέπειες τοιαύτης παρόρμησης;

Συνέπειες, μεταξύ των οποίων είναι μάλιστα και η αυθαίρετη ανάδειξη –φεύ! – του μακαριστού Μητροπολίτη Περγάμου σε θεωρητικό θεμελιωτή της καινοφανούς αίρεσης ταύτισης, ή έστω εξίσωσης, του παρά φύσιν με το κατά φύσιν, εντός της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας;

Αλήθεια, είναι αυτός ο τρόπος τιμής φιλίας φιλουμένου και φιλούντος in absentia τελούντος;

Εκτός, βεβαίως, κι αν η Βουλευτής είναι σε θέση να παράσχει η ίδια ακριβή τεκμηρίωση του ότι ο Άγιος Περγάμου έχει δημόσια κατατεθειμένες διαφωνίες με τον Απόστολο Παύλο, για να παραλείψω όλους τους άλλους Πατέρες της Εκκλησίας.

Αν δεν είναι σε τέτοια θέση, τότε η αναφορά της αυτή μόνον τιμή δεν περιποιεί στην ιδία, αλλά αντιθέτως, εργαλειοποιεί τον άνθρωπο, αντικειμενοποιεί και προσβάλλει και τη μνήμη, και το έργο του, και την προσωπικότητα του κεκοιμημένου.

Κλείνω με ένα ερώτημα στην ερρίτιμη κυρία Λινού.

Πώς, άραγε, αντιλαμβάνεστε, ως Ελληνίς Χριστιανή Ορθόδοξη, ως θεραπαινίς του υψίστου πολιτεύματος της δημοκρατίας, και ως άκρως τιμηθείσα από τον ελληνικό λαό, την καθ᾽ υμάς ισότητα του τρόπου του παρά φύσιν με τον τρόπο κατά φύσιν, και πώς μια τέτοιου είδους «ισότητα» προάγει το τέλος του δημοκρατικού πολιτεύματος, που δεν είναι άλλο παρά η μετοχή στο Αγαθόν;

Με άλλα λόγια, πώς, ταυτίζοντας το παρά φύσιν με το κατά φύσιν θα διατηρήσει, καθ᾽ υμάς, ο άνθρωπος την απαιτούμενη ενάργεια του λόγου ώστε να αποκτήσει τον φωτισμό του υπέρ λόγον που θα του επιτρέψει να εισαχθεί στο Υπέρ Φύσιν;

Δημοσιεύθηκε στη Romfea.gr την Παρασκευή 16 Φεβρουαρίου 2024.

Πηγή:

https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/61735-in-memoriam-mortuorum-stomen-kalos-kyria-linoy