Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Constantine Cavarnos on Photios Kontoglou

Expand Messages
  • byakimov@csc.com.au
          Unwavering Fidelity to the Holy Tradition                     Constantine Cavarnos on Photios Kontoglou Interview of DA with
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 22, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
            Unwavering Fidelity to the Holy Tradition

                          Constantine Cavarnos on Photios Kontoglou

      Interview of DA with Renown Orthodox Scholar Constantin Cavarnos on
      Orthodox Writer and Artist Photios Kontoglou.



      DA: Do you think that a contemporary writer attempting to write a novel
      inspired by the Orthodox tradition could look to Kontoglou as a modem
      example of someone who was successful and faithful in combining all of
      these elements with Orthodoxy at the center?

      DC: Yes. However, many writers who tried to imitate him in his language
      and style have not succeeded because it was only an imitation and did not
      spring from within, from the source. With Kontoglou, this vigor of
      expression, sincerity, appreciation of the treasures of the Greek tradition
      were not mere imitation, they were real, he lived them. Another writer may
      try to imitate something stylistically in Kontoglou, but it doesn't really
      have the power that Kontoglou has. The novelist Kazantzakis was a great
      admirer of Kontoglou. He admired him for his style, not for what he said
      or what he believed in, but for the sheer power of his expression. He was
      also admired for his style by writers like the poet Sikelianos and the
      novelist Prevelakis, who had cut themselves off from the Byzantine
      heritage. That's an important thing for Kontoglou; he emphasized this
      point to me.

      Once I learned that he was writing for the daily Athenian newspaper
      Eleutheria. I immediately subscribed to it and renewed my subscription to
      it until he died. On one opportune occasion, I told him that I thought he
      wrote too many times about pirates and sea stories. Kontoglou said, "I have
      to do that because otherwise the newspaper will not print my religious
      articles. They say that people don't enjoy religious articles. But what
      happens is that by reading these stories they also begin to read my
      religious writings." They so admired his style that they began to read his
      religious articles, too, just to enjoy the style of Kontoglou. Yet, they
      also began to absorb the religious content of Kontoglou's writings.

      DA: What would Kontoglou say about some of the real challenges that are
      facing the Church today? What would he say about modernization or
      ecumenism? How did he approach this? Was he unique?

      DC: We often discussed that. I have a whole collection of letters where he
      discusses modernism and Ecumenism. Kontoglou was a clear-minded man. He
      knew what he believed and what he did not believe, very strongly, very
      clearly. He was not muddleheaded.

      DA: Some people might say that he is too black-and-white, that there is
      more gray in the world.

      DC: Some would say he's a fanatic, an extremist, narrow-minded, possessing
      an "Old Calendarist" mentality, and missing the contemporary progress of
      man.

      DA: What do you say to that?

      DC: I mention some of these things in my book Meetings with Kontoglou. He
      was not scared by these epithets. He went on his way. He believed in what
      he was doing, and if people thought he was wrong he was not upset.
      Kontoglou was not motivated by money, although he could have been
      fabulously rich, like Picasso. Picasso became very rich because, as
      Kontoglou put it, "Picasso catered to herds of decadent Souls." Kontoglou
      did not want to sacrifice his creed, his beliefs, his convictions just to
      be financially successful. That's a very important point.

      DA: Was he outspoken in the Athenian daily?

      DC: Yes. He criticized the Greeks for the many evils that have crept into
      the Greek mentality. One of the pervasive evils was Xenomania: excessive
      and indiscriminate love of things of foreign origin and the uncritical
      acceptance of them. This came out again and again in his writings.
      Xenomania is still a widespread disease of the Greeks. It is one of the
      reasons that they disparaged the Byzantine heritage and the Orthodox
      tradition. This stand of Kontoglou also meant being very critical of the
      modern West and the papal church, which he considered a very distorted
      form of Christianity. He was adamantly opposed to the ecumenism started in
      1963 by Athenagoras, Patriarch of Constantinople. Until the end of his
      life in 1965, Kontoglou was the strongest voice against ecumenism.

      DA: Was there anything visionary or prophetic about his insights regarding
      ecumenism?

      DC: I would not say prophetic, except that from what has happened in the
      past one could foresee what would happen in our time and in the future, if
      we don't heed the experience of the past. For instance, the false union at
      Ferrara-Florence in the fifteenth century was very vivid in his mind. Its
      consequences were destructive: after a few years Constantinople fell to the
      Turks. This was not a coincidence; rather it was the natural sequence of
      not being faithful to the Church. It was abandonment by God for apostasy.

      DA: So he saw a direct relationship between the apostasy and the Turkish
      conquest?

      DC: Yes, that is what comes through in his writings. And he felt the same
      thing would happen again, if we go along with Athenagoras's type of
      ecumenism. The end result would be that the Greeks would become puppets of
      the Vatican and would lose their identity. He believed, for instance, if
      the Greeks had accepted union with Rome in the fifteenth century as a
      result of the Pseudo Synod, their cultural and historical identity and
      Orthodox Faith would have been lost very quickly. It was the refusal of
      Saint Mark of Ephesus, whom we greatly admire, saying No! to this false
      union, which saved Greece from being de-Hellenized and losing its national
      character and spiritual treasures. Kontoglou foresaw all this development
      and that is why he strongly opposed ecumenism.

      DA: Of the contemporaries of Photios Kontoglou, to whom was he closest?
      With whom did he share a oneness of mind?

      DC: On the question of ecumenism, there were many, whom I mention in my
      book Ecumenism Examined—namely, his spiritual Father Archimandrite
      Philotheos Zervakos; his publisher Alexander Papademetriou; the Archbishop
      of Athens and all of Greece Chrysostomos; Metropolitan of Phlorina
      Augoustinos Kantiotis; Metropolitan of Argolis Chrysostomos; Abbot Gabriel
      of the Monastery of Dionysiou on the Holy Mountain; Father Theocletos of
      the same Monastery; Archimandrite Haralambos Vasilopoulos, founder of the
      Pan-Hellenic Orthodox Union and of its organ "Orthodoxos Typos"; the
      professors of the School of Theology of the University of Athens:
      Panagiotis Trembelas, loannis Karmiris, Konstantinos Mouratidis, and
      Pantelis Paschos; the prominent preacher Nikolaos Soteropoulos; and many
      others. All of them also shared Kontoglou's emphasis on the vital
      importance of studying the holy Church Fathers and adhering to the
      Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

      DA: Why do you think that Philotheos Zervakos and Photios Kontoglou sided
      with the so-called "New Calendar" Church?

      DC: I explained this in Volume Eleven of my series Modern Orthodox Saints,
      which is devoted to blessed Philotheos Zervakos. From the very time the
      idea of introducing the New Calendar was conceived, Father Philotheos
      wrote letters of protest saying, "No! Stop it; don't do it," but they did
      not listen to him. He wrote letters and brochures protesting this
      innovation until the time of his death. His predictions came true: he said
      that if you allow this innovation to stand, you will divide the people
      into two hostile parties. This prophecy of Zervakos was completely
      fulfilled. In his later years, when he saw that the Greek government, the
      Church of Greece, and the Œcumenical Patriarchate did not listen to him,
      he thought about simply returning his monastery to the Old Calendar. On
      this matter, I suggest a careful reading of my book on Blessed Father
      Philotheos. His senior monk, Father Leontios, whom I happened to meet a
      few years before he died, said that Father Philotheos was very determined
      to declare that the monastery had returned to the Old Calendar. But he was
      opposed by some of his senior monks, particularly Father Leontios. Every
      time the Elder left the monastery to travel as a Confessor, sometimes for
      weeks, Leontios was the acting abbot. So he had a strong voice. He
      emphasized that if they changed the monastery to the Old Calendar, then
      the local bishop would immediately step in and force them to give up that
      idea, or else. The "or else" would be that the police would be sent over
      to expel the monks and say this monastery belongs to the local bishop of
      Paros and Naxos. Father Philotheos was close to the century mark, and
      Father Leontios was about the same age, and they pictured themselves being
      thrown out of monastery. It would have been a very tragic situation. So
      what Father Philotheos did was to die on the Old Calendar. He invited a
      confessor from Mount Athos, where the Old Calendar is followed, to serve
      for his last confession and to bury him.

      DA: And did Photios Kontoglou die with those following the New Calendar?

      DC: Well, Kontoglou himself was in a dilemma. He had followed pretty much
      the advice of Philotheos Zervakos to wait for the return of the Church of
      Greece to the Traditional Calendar. in the 1960s, before Kontoglou died,
      the Archbishop of Athens was Chrysostomos, who was very venerable and
      traditional. I interviewed him once. He said he had made it one of his
      priorities before he died to return the Church of Greece to the Old
      Calendar. So you see, Zervakos and Kontoglou were hoping that this dilemma
      would be resolved by him and that it would be done canonically by the Holy
      Synod of Greece. But it did not happen because the dictatorship that came
      into power removed Archbishop Chrysostomos from his throne and installed
      the priest of the palace, Hieronymos Kotsonis, a modernist and ecumenist,
      as Archbishop of Athens. It was a very difficult dilemma for them. What
      was one to do? A dilemma, you know, has two horns and no matter which one
      you choose it is bad. Kontoglou and Father Philotheos were hoping that the
      change would come down from the top in the Church of Greece. In the
      meantime, Photios consoled himself and was at peace with his conscience by
      attending services at a church in his neighborhood that followed the Old
      Calendar.

      DA: From your fourteen years' association with Photios Kontoglou, what do
      you think his legacy is for us? What does his life and witness have to say
      to us today—especially to Orthodox Christians in America?

      DC: Fidelity to Tradition. In iconography, in music, in church
      architecture, in the liturgy of the Church, in all the other services of
      the Church, in keeping the faith—in all of these, keeping the Holy Canons,
      avoiding all compromises in the doctrines of the Church. The whole
      Orthodox Tradition must be preserved in this country. I am one of the
      people who have been trying to follow him in the struggle to preserve the
      Orthodox Tradition in this country. In striving to avoid all the subtle
      traps, innovations, and false unions of any kind, I am continuing
      Kontoglou's approach.

      I am also studying and writing about the Church Fathers, especially the
      ascetical ones such as Saint John of the Ladder, Saint Symeon the New
      Theologian, and those in the Philokalia. We must continue to study them,
      write about them, and live according to their teachings. There is another
      thing that must be mentioned. Kontoglou was a strong lover of the
      monastics. He believed in the traditional, contemplative (hesychastic)
      Orthodox monastic life and not that of the activistic, Roman Catholic
      variety. In one of his works, he says that we must realize that wherever
      there were no monasteries, spirituality dried up, and wherever there is
      authentic monastic life and monasteries with a tradition of deep piety,
      Orthodoxy flourishes.

      DA: What about this? Today in Orthodoxy we have a lot of discussion, and
      not a little controversy, about the appearance of priests and monks in the
      West. There are those who would say that this is something for the old
      country. In America we do things differently, because of where we are, and
      the situation dictates that we have to dress differently, and exterior
      things are not that important. What did Kontoglou have to say on this?

      DC: Kontoglou wrote special articles about the rasson [cassock] for the
      priest. He would agree that the rasson alone does not make the priest. But
      it is one of the things, together with others, that make one a priest or a
      monk. Kontoglou would say the rasson is an essential. It's a symbol of
      Orthodoxy. The beard is also an essential part of the appearance for an
      Orthodox clergyman or monk. These things he emphasized very much, and he
      gave reasons from Tradition and common sense that this outer appearance of
      the priest or monk should continue to identify the clergyman or monk as
      truly Orthodox.

      DA: So would this be correct? Photios would say that these things are
      integral parts of Orthodoxy, are expressive of Orthodoxy. They are not
      detached features, but are united with the image and symbols of Orthodoxy.
      Thus, abandoning these things is somehow minimizing Orthodoxy.

      DC: Right. Some years ago, hardly any priest of the Greek Archdiocese in
      this country had a beard. But now, what has happened is that the younger
      priests have beards, most often trimmed, but still beards. Next to them is
      an old priest, a white-haired priest, completely shaven. Shaving off the
      beard cannot be justified by saying that we live in America and the beard
      is inappropriate here. Rather, it is quite acceptable now. Kontoglou was
      very resolute that a priest should have the beard and the rasson for his
      identity, the way a policeman has his specific police uniform when he goes
      out in the streets. Seeing it, you know he's a policeman.

      DA: Did Kontoglou ever make a distinction between the so-called "big-T
      Tradition and small-t tradition"? Such a view states that there are some
      traditions in the realm of dogma, doctrine, and spirituality that are
      absolutely non-negotiable, but there are smaller traditions like beards
      and rassa that are negotiable. You don't have to have them, but you may
      have them. Did he ever make any distinctions like that?

      DC: He did not make such a distinction. He believed that innumerable
      things organically related make Orthodoxy and give it its identity.
      Everything is organically related. About the Church's arts, for example, he
      would say that iconography addresses itself to our sense of sight, while
      music addresses itself to our sense of hearing, but both seek to express
      the same essence, the Orthodox Faith. Architecture has its own tradition,
      particularly recognizable in the dome, in the round arch, and by the
      surfaces that are used for the wall paintings, which other kinds of
      architecture, such as the Gothic, do not provide. The architecture of the
      Orthodox church is a very important element of the totality; in other
      words, all of these arts are organically interrelated, though using
      different media. The iconography, hymnody, music, and architecture of the
      Byzantine tradition are trying to convey the same thing. They have the
      same point of origin: they all spring from and are used to communicate the
      Orthodox Faith and make it apprehensible to the believer through the
      senses. Thus, you can see the organic unity of the fine arts of Orthodoxy.
      You can also see it in the appearance of the priest, the monk, the form of
      the prayers, and the Liturgy. All of these things are organically related
      to one another. If you say that traditional iconography is not essential,
      or the traditional music is secondary and can be replaced with organs or
      violins, while still retaining Orthodoxy—that's not so! When you eliminate
      these things, what's left? Soon you'll begin toning down the dogmas
      because of minimalism or relativism. The Greeks have a word for this:
      xephtisma, "unravelment." Your pants are torn in one place, you let that
      go, then the tear spreads out. If you don't patch it up in time, it will
      spread more and more, and the whole garment then falls to pieces. So you
      have to mend it. If you don't take the time to repair any kind of break
      from the Tradition, then the whole thing begins to fall apart. And that's
      what has happened to much of the Orthodox world. It's falling apart in
      this way, saying: This does not matter, that is not essential, that's
      unimportant, that's a convention, and so forth.

      DA: Kontoglou reminds us to "stay faithful to the Tradition."

      DC: Yes, because the Tradition brings everything together in a meaningful,
      beautiful, organic relationship with everything else.

      DA: It gives us life.

      DC: It gives us life and solves unnecessary problems and unnecessary
      worries that are created by "modernization" and ecumenism.

      DA: Kontoglou foresaw these things thirty years ago and earlier, and you
      have seen them while writing your sixty books in the last four decades.
      Are we in a place now in which we have, perhaps, progressed even further
      down the road than in Kontoglou's time?

      DC: Of course.

      DA: It almost appears that we are overcome by these innovations, which are
      raining down like a terrible thunderstorm on the Church. Where do we
      start, where does the parish and the priest begin the task of repairing
      before the whole garment falls apart? How do we begin on the road to
      restoration?

      DC: I would say that there are different things one has to struggle with.
      One of the first things to see is that most of this falling apart, these
      innovations, is a result of ignorance. That is at the root of all these
      things. So we have to write enlightening books, articles, and letters, as
      Kontoglou did. Kontoglou wrote countless letters. I have ninety of his
      letters. Those who possess the needed knowledge and understanding must
      write and teach, in order to enlighten people, to cure the sickness of
      ignorance. Well-equipped bookshops should be organized in all parishes and
      monasteries. Also, there should be edifying lectures at the parishes,
      offered from time to time, especially during the fall season and Great
      Lent.

      DA: It's a long process.

      DC: Indeed. It's a process that takes time and has to be done continuously
      by as many people as possible. The other sad factor is indifference. So
      the religious feeling of people has to he warmed up. The coldness that is
      conducive to the death of the faith must be banished. Good writings, good
      sermons, and personal conversation with people are some means of doing
      this. Indifference is rooted in ignorance. People are indifferent to
      something they do not know, do not understand. Indifference often comes
      because one does not understand the doctrines of the Church, the canons,
      or the significance of such practices as fasting and the Jesus Prayer.

      DA: Does ignorance, therefore, lead to a perversion of the Faith?

      DC: Yes. Faith comes to be viewed as akin to magic. Christianity is not
      magical. It's a Divine-human relationship involving prayer on our part,
      the sincere prayer of believing Christians and other spiritual practices as
      well, before we can hope for a response to come from God. Erroneously,
      people think they can obtain Divine benefits without paying the spiritual
      price for them.

      DA: So, to receive the benefit of Holy Orthodoxy one has to work hard to
      empty himself and allow Orthodoxy, the Tradition, and the Spirit of God to
      come into him; one has to have faith?

      DC: This is the foundation. Faith, in the sense of espousing
      wholeheartedly true doctrines and practices, is the foundation.

      DA: In conclusion, let me ask you: there still seems to be a great
      challenge for zealous Orthodox people to be connected to the life-giving
      tradition of the Holy Fathers. Such people are alive and awake to the holy
      tradition, yet could be in a spot in American Orthodoxy where that
      tradition is not readily accessible. What do we say to someone in this
      situation?

      DC: A person must have zeal and persistently search for a place—a parish
      in the "world" or a monastery—where there is authentic, traditional
      Orthodox Christianity. Our Lord Jesus Christ said, "Ask, and it shall be
      given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto
      you."
      + + +

      The Soul of man, of every man, is something deep and unexplored. But most
      of us do not realize this. Believe this, that your soul is unknown and
      immortal. The body is something temporary. And its passions and needs
      prevent the soul from knowing itself. The heavy vapors that arise from the
      flesh cloud and darken the sun that rises within us with God's
      illumination. When souls are defiled and darkened, they are incapable of
      seeing either themselves or other souls.

      —Photios Kontoglou, from the article "The New Language," which appeared in
      the Athenian newspaper Eleutheria, July 19, 1964, almost exactly one year
      before his death, and which was reprinted in Erga, Vol. 6, pp.
      167-170.From Divine Ascent, Vol. I, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 33-47. Reprinted here
      with the kind permission of Hieromonk Jonah, editor of Divine Ascent. For
      subscriptions to this journal contact the Monastery of Saint John of
      Shanghai and SF, P.O. Box 563, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956; phone
      415.663.1705.



      "The time has come for all faithful Orthodox Christians to speak out and
      promptly put an end to this spurious form of Orthodoxy known as
      'ecumenistic Orthodoxy'. It is a betrayal of the Holy Orthodox Church, a
      negation of its essence. It is time to take her divine dogmas 'out of the
      storeroom,' where [Ecumenical] Patriarch Athenagoras I relegated them [in
      the sixties], bring them to the open light, and proclaim them by every
      means, and in every land... Let us not offer to the world the
      pseudo-Orthodoxy of 'Orthodox ecumenism,' which puts error on the same
      level as truth... This offering will be an act of true Christian love, a
      fulfilling of Christ's commandment of loving our neighbor as we love
      ourselves. Christ says, 'What man is there of you whom if his son asks for
      bread would give him a stone?' (St. Matt. 7:9) 'Orthodox ecumenism' does
      precisely the latter... People today are searching for the truth that
      saves; yet these ecumenists have put the bread of truth in the storeroom
      and have been offering instead the stone of untruth, of error, and of
      heresy that leads to perdition. The commandment of love demands that we
      take the bread of the teaching of the Orthodox Church out in the open and
      offer it lovingly to all who hunger for the truth that frees and saves."
      (From a lecture by Dr. Constantine Cavarnos at the Greek Orthodox
      Cathedral of the Annunciation, Atlanta, GA, on March 16, 1997)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.