THE ICON OF THE HOLY TRINITY

THE ICON OF THE HOLY TRINITY 
By: Vladimir Moss

In recent years, the icon of the Holy Trinity in which the Father is portrayed as an old man with white hair, the Son as a young man, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, has been characterized as "deception" and "cacodoxy" by some Orthodox writers, especially the Greek-American George Gabriel.

The arguments Gabriel brings forward are essentially three:-

1. It is impossible to see or portray the Divine nature. Only the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, can be portrayed on icons, for He took on visible, tangible flesh in His Incarnation. Therefore the portrayal of the Father, Who has not become incarnate, is forbidden and speedily leads to the heresy of the circumscribability of the Divinity.

2. The icon of the Holy Trinity in question is supposed to portray the Prophet Daniel's vision of "The Ancient of Days", the old man with white hair being a depiction of the figure called "The Ancient of Days" (Daniel 7). However, the Ancient of Days, according to the Tradition and hymnology of the Church, is Christ, not the Father. Therefore the icon is based on a false interpretation of the prophetic text.

3. The icon of the Holy Trinity in question is a western invention, and has been forbidden by the Councils of Moscow in 1666 and Constantinople in 1780. These councils are authentic witnesses of Holy Tradition. Therefore their decisions should be respected and the icon condemned.
In this article I propose to show that these arguments are false and should be rejected. In doing so I shall rely largely on the excellent work, The Holy Trinity in Orthodox Iconography, produced (in Greek) by Nativity skete, Katounakia, Mount Athos. The present article is essentially a synopsis of the main arguments of this work together with a few observations of my own.
*
Let us take each of Gabriel's arguments in turn.

1. Both Gabriel and his Orthodox opponents are agreed, in accordance with the unanimous Tradition of the Orthodox Church, that the Divine Nature cannot be portrayed in icons. Gabriel then proceeds to assume, without any good reason, that the portrayal of "the Ancient of Days" in the icon of the Holy Trinity is an attempt to portray the Divine Nature. This is false.
The icon is a portrayal, not of the Divine Nature of the Father, but of His Divine Person. Moreover, it depicts Him, not realistically, but symbolically, not as He really is, in His Divine Nature, which is forever unattainable and undepictable, but only as He appeared to the prophet in a symbolic form or image for the sake of our understanding. The Son really became a man, so the depiction of the Son as a man in icons is a realistic depiction. The Father never became a man, so the depiction of Him as a man in icons is a symbolic, not a realistic depiction. In exactly the same way, the Holy Spirit never became a dove, so the depiction of Him as a dove in icons is not a realistic, but a symbolic depiction of Him, being a depiction of Him as He appeared in a symbolic form or image to St. John the Forerunner in the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan.

Two critical distinctions are implicit here: (a) between nature and person, and (b) between the Divine Nature (or Essence) and Energies.
(a) Icons, as St. Theodore the Studite teaches are representations, not of natures, but of persons existing in natures. Act 6 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council states: "An icon is not like the original with respect to essence, but with respect to hypostasis". Thus an icon of Christ is an image of a Divine Person in His human nature, which is visible to the bodily eye. The icons of the angels are images of the persons of the angels in their angelic nature, which is invisible to the bodily eye. Nevertheless, God has condescended to allow the prophets and the saints to see the angels in bodily form, and it is these visions that we depict in the icons of the angels.
(b) The distinction between the Divine Nature (or Essence) and Energies was clearly worked out by St. Gregory Palamas. Both the Nature and the Energies of God are common to all Three Persons. Only the Divine Nature is forever inaccessible to man (like the centre of the sun), while the Energies are God coming out of Himself, as it were, and making Himself communicable to men (like the rays of the sun).

The visions of God by the Old Testament Prophets are visions of the Divine Energies of God, not of His Essence. Thus St. Gregory Palamas, commenting on the Patriarch Jacob's words: "I have seen God face to face [or person to person], and my soul has been saved", writes: "Let [the cacodox] hear that Jacob saw the face of God, and not only was his life not taken away, but as he himself says, it was saved, in spite of the fact that God says: 'None shall see My face and live'. Are there then two Gods, one having His face accessible to the vision of the saints, and the other having His face beyond all vision? Perish the impiety! The face of God which is seen is the Energy and Grace of God condescending to appear to those who are worthy; while the face of God that is never seen, which is beyond all appearance and vision let us call the Nature of God."

Abraham's vision at the oak of Mamre was likewise a vision of God, not in His Essence, but in His Energies. One or two Western Fathers (for example, St. Justin the Martyr) say that Abraham saw Christ and two angels. But the Greek Fathers and St. Augustine say that he saw the Holy Trinity in the form of three young men or angels. They all agree that Abraham saw God. Thus St. Gregory the Theologian says that "the great Patriarch saw God not as God but as a man". Again St. John Chrysostom writes that God appeared to Abraham, but not with "the nature of a man or an angel", but "in the form of a man". And St. John of Damascus, the great defender of the icons, writes: "Abraham did not see the Nature of God, for no one has seen God at any time, but an icon of God, and falling down he venerated it."

As the True Orthodox Fathers of Katounakia aptly put it: "There is no icon representing the Nature or Essence of God, but there is an icon of the 'icon' of God." (p. 30).

2. The term "Ancient of Days", like "God", is applicable to all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Therefore there is no contradiction between allowing that Christ can be called "the Ancient of Days", as in the hymnology for the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord, and believing that "the Ancient of Days" in the vision of Daniel is God the Father. Hieromartyr Hippolytus of Rome (P.G. 10, 37), St. Athanasius the Great (V.E.P. 35, 121), St. John Chrysostom (P.G. 57, 133; E.P.E. 8, 640-2), St. Gregory Palamas (Homilies 14, E.P.E. 9, 390), St. Cyril of Alexandria (P.G. 70, 1461), St. Symeon of Thessalonica (Interpretation of the Sacred Symbol, p. 412), and St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite (The Rudder, Zakynthos, 1864, p. 320; Chicago, 1957, p. 420) all agree in identifying "the Ancient of Days" in the vision of Daniel with God the Father. They interpret the vision as portraying the Ascension of Christ ("the Son of Man") to God the Father ("the Ancient of Days"), from Whom He receives the Kingdom and the Glory, together with the power to judge the living and the dead. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria writes: "Behold, again Emmanuel is manifestly and clearly seen ascending to God the Father in heaven… The Son of Man has appeared in the flesh and reached the Ancient of Days, that is, He has ascended to the throne of His eternal Father and has been given honor and worship…" (Letter 55, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 77, Washington: CUA Press, 1987, pp. 28, 29). There are some Holy Fathers speak in favour of the Ancient of Days being Christ in this vision (see The Lives of the Holy Prophets, Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista, 1998, pp. 407-408). Nevertheless, Gabriel's interpretation of this vision as a prophecy of the Incarnation, "the Son of Man" being the human nature of Christ and "the Ancient of Days" His Divine Nature, is difficult to support in that the two figures in the vision clearly represent Persons, not Natures, and the attempt to represent the two natures of Christ in separation, as if they each had an independent enhypostatic existence, smacks of Nestorianism. That is why we prefer the interpretation that the Ancient of Days in this vision is the Father.

The fact that in Revelation 1 Christ is portrayed with white hair does not undermine this interpretation. Christ as an old man symbolically signifies His antiquity, the fact that He has existed from the beginning. Christ as a young man is a realistic image of His Incarnation as a man and a symbolic image of His agelessness as God. These images together teach us that Christ God passes unchanging through all ages from the beginning to the end. Revelation also portrays Christ as a lamb, which signifies that He was slain for the sins of the world. The Father and the Spirit also have different symbolical representations. The Father is represented visually as a man (in Isaiah, Daniel, Stephen's vision in Acts and in Revelation) and aurally as a voice from heaven (at the Baptism of Christ and in John 12.28). Similarly the Spirit is represented as a bird (in Genesis 1 and at the Baptism of Christ) and as a wind and tongues of fire (at Pentecost).

3. Most of these scriptural icons of God passed into the artistic iconographical tradition of the Church from the beginning; only the iconographic representation of Christ as a lamb has been forbidden. Thus the appearance of the Trinity to Abraham is represented in the Via Latina catacombs in Rome (4th century), and the Father as an old man - in the Roman church of St. Maria Maggiore in Rome (c. 432). This constant tradition of the Church was confirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Synodicon of Orthodoxy.

Thus the Seventh Ecumenical Council declares: "Eternal be the memory of those who know and accept and believe the visions of the prophets as the Divinity Himself shaped and impressed them, whatever the chorus of the prophets saw and narrated, and who hold to the written and unwritten tradition of the Apostles which was passed on to the Fathers, and on account of this make icons of the Holy things and honour them." And again: "Anathema to those who do not accept the visions of the prophets and who reject the iconographies which have been seen by them (O wonder!) even before the Incarnation of the Word, but either speak empty words about having seen the unattainable and unseen Essence, or on the one hand pay heed to those who have seen these appearances of icons, types and forms of the truth, while on the other hand they cannot bear to have icons made of the Word become man and His sufferings on our behalf." St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in his prolegomena to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, sums up the Council's decrees on this subject as follows: "The present Council, in the letter which it sent to the Church of Alexandria, on the one hand blesses those who know and accept, and therefore make icons of and honour, the visions and theophanies of the Prophets, as God Himself shaped and impressed them on their minds. And on the other hand it anathematizes those who do not accept the iconographies of such visions before the incarnation of God the Word. It follows that the Beginningless Father must be represented in icons as He appeared to the Prophet Daniel, as the Ancient of Days."

As regards the councils of 1666 and 1780, even if they were without reproach in every other respect, they cannot be accepted as expressing the Tradition of the Church if they contradict the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council as well as the constant practice of the Church since Roman times.

However, there are other strong reasons for not accepting these councils. The Moscow council of 1666 was convened by the Tsar in order to defrock the righteous Patriarch Nikon; but only 16 years later, in 1682, this decision of the Moscow council was annulled by the Eastern Patriarchs. In any case, the prime force at the council, "Metropolitan" Paisios Ligarides, had already been defrocked by the Patriarch of Jerusalem for his crypto-papism. Thus far from expressing the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church against westernizing influences, the "Pan-Orthodox" council of Moscow actually represented a victory for westernism! Which is probably why Russia was flooded with the supposedly illegal icons of the Holy Trinity precisely after this council!

As for the Constantinopolitan council of 1780, it was convened by the same Patriarch, Sophronios II, who four years earlier had unjustly condemned Athanasios of Paros for following the laws of the Church in refusing to carry out memorials for the dead on Sunday instead of Saturday.

Another important historical point is the fact that the famous "Reigning" icon of the Mother of God, which went before the Russian armies fighting against Napoleon in 1812, and was miraculously discovered and renewed in Moscow at the precise moment that Tsar Nicolas II abdicated, on March 2, 1917, clearly portrays the Father as an old man at the top of the icon. Is it possible that God should have worked miracles through an icon that is heretical and blasphemous? Nor is this the only icon portraying the Father that has worked miracles. Another wonderworking icon of the Holy Trinity has been found in recent times in the possession of True Orthodox Christians in the region of Thessaloniki. This timing and location is significant, because perhaps the first opponent of the icon in the recent controversy, Dr. Alexander Kalomiros, was once in the True Orthodox Church in Thessaloniki, but left it and died while speaking against the holy icon.
*
In conclusion, let us consider an icon which everyone accepts to be canonical and in accordance with Orthodox Tradition - the icon of the Transfiguration of Christ. Who or what is represented in this icon? Clearly, the icon represents the Divine Person of Christ, who exists inseparably in His Divine and human natures.
Now the particular significance of this icon of Christ is that we see in it not only the visible part of His human nature - His body, but also the Divine Energies that flow from His Divine Essence - the Divine Light.
And yet, as St. Gregory Palamas writes, "the Light of the Transfiguration of the Lord has no beginning and no end; it remains uncircumscribed (in time and space) and imperceptible to the senses, although it was contemplated... But the disciples of the Lord passed here from the flesh into the spirit by a transmutation of their senses." And again he writes: "The Divine Light is not material, there was nothing perceptible about the Light which illuminated the apostles on Mount Tabor."

Now if we follow Gabriel's argument through to its logical conclusion, iconographers who depict the Divine Light of the Transfiguration are falling into the heresy of circumscribing the uncircumscribable. For unlike the body of Christ, the Divine Light that flowed from His body is uncircumscribable and imperceptible to the senses. But this conclusion is obviously absurd and against Tradition.

The correct conclusion which needs to be drawn is that iconographers are permitted to depict, not only realities that are accessible to our bodily senses, such as the bodies of Christ and the saints, but also those invisible realities, both created and uncreated, circumscribable and uncircumscribable, that God makes visible to holy men by a mystical transmutation of their senses. These invisible realities which God has made visible include angels and the souls of men, and the Divine Light of God Himself. This is the Tradition of the Holy Church of Christ.

Also depictable are those symbolic manifestations of spiritual realities which were revealed in visions to the Prophets and Apostles by a cataphatic outpouring of the Energies of God, such as Daniel's vision of the Ancient of Days, or the Holy Scriptures taken as a whole. For, as St. Nicodemos writes: "There is a third kind of picture (or icon), which is called a figurative or symbolic picture. Thus, for example, the mysteries of the grace of the Gospel and of the truth of the Gospel were originals, while the pictures thereof are the symbols consisting of the old Law and the Prophets."
It remains forever true that the Divine Essence is absolutely unknowable and undepictable. But our zeal to guard this truth should not blind us to the reality of what holy men have seen and which the Holy Church therefore allows to be depicted in icons. For as the Lord says through the Prophet Hosea: "I will speak to the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and in the hands of the prophets I was likened" (12.11).

June 6/19, 1993; revised on January 4/17, 2002.

The Neo-Iconoclasm.

There is a concerted effort in many local “Orthodox” Churches to remove and do-away with many orthodox icons such as: Icon of the Holy Trinity depicting the image of the Father as the Ancient of Days, the Resurrection of Christ our Lord, The icon of the Nativity, The Pentecost and all the non-Byzantine Icons.

The first attack on these Holy Icons appeared in the 1970’s and specifically 1974-1975  an assault against the Icon of the Holy Trinity was organized and carried through in the monastery of Taxiarchon at Athikia Korinthias where this Icon was removed from all the nuns cells and taken away.

 Later on, in 1976 a new episode occurs in the “Florinite” church in the parish of St. John the Theologian in Thessalonica. The episode there took and new dimension because iconoclastic documents were published and circulated amongst the faithful. Their hierarchs convened in 1979 and published their encyclical in their periodical “ FONI TIS ORTHODOXIAS” where they ordered their followers to continue the veneration of the Icon of the Holy Trinity. In the same issue of the periodical they announced that one of their hiero-monks was put on indefinite suspension for not venerating the Icon of the Holy Trinity..

The problem begins to spread in our Church and in 1980 to 1983 the neo-iconoclasm emerges once again in the Women Monastery in Keratea, where in a devious manner the icons of the Holy Trinity, the Resurrection of our Lord and all the classical or non Byzantine icons were replaced by the Hospitality of Abraham, the Descend to Hades and other Byzantine respectively.

When the sisterhood noticed the wicked action of those few nuns, they reacted and reported the incident to the direction on the monastery, (Hygoumenosymvoulion). After realizing that their concerns were not addressed by the direction they wrote, in July 1983 to the Synod reporting that the Archbishop Andreas, deacon Stephanos Tsakiroglou and seven (7) nuns including Theologia and Epistimi Tsakiroglou, both sisters of deacon Stephanos Tsakiroglou, are those responsible for the replacement of the Icons.

When this letter was discussed in the Synod, AB Andreas appeased the other Synod members, he ensured them that the nuns’ accusations are not true, the Holy Synod accepted the AB reassurance and did not get further involved.

Because the Holy Synod did not decide and furthermore, the neo-iconoclasts continued their activities, the sisterhood issued another letter to the Holy Synod in Nov. 1983 in which additional charges are brought against the AB Andreas and the directions of the monastery.

Consequently the Holy Synod met on Nov. 24, 1983  The Synod issued document # 91 dated 1983.11.24 where it was decided to look at the charges closer and also clarified the Orthodox Position on the Holy Icons. The Holy Synod decided not to publish their decision and keep this incident from the rest of the Church. They only issued their decisions to the two monasteries in Keratea. In order to protect the Archbishop the synod decided to send a committee to investigate the accusations if false ask the nuns to retract their accusations.

On the Holy Icons the Synod said:

<<Item 3  Specifically on the  Icon issue it was decided that:

A.-For the Icon of the Holy Trinity.

 The Icon with the Three Persons is to be venerated; the Hospitality of Abraham should not be preferred over the Icon of the Three Persons.

B.- For the Icon of the Nativity of the Lord.

 The bath and the midwifes must not be placed in the icon of the Nativity of Christ. For the existing icons, to avoid scandals they would remain as there are, but from now on the new icons will not depict the bath and the midwifes.

C.-The Icon of “The Descend to Hades” shall not be named Resurrection, for Resurrection is the one from the Tomb. The tomb closed.

D.-For the Icon of the Pentecost, the presence of the Theotokos is in accordance with the acts of the Apostles. …>>

Signed by:

 +Archbishop Andreas

+ Attikis & Megaridos Matthew

+Pireos & Nison Nickolaos

+Vresthenis Lazaros

+Servias Titos

 and

The secretary Hieromonk Kyrikos Kontogiannis

Present also:

Fr. Paul

Deacons Neofitos and Stephanos (Tsakiroglou)

An Orthodox Christian is obligated to abide and conform to his Synod’s decision or if he believes that his Synod made erroneous decisions on issues of faith, as the Holy Icons are, which could lead the synod into heresy, he is obliged to protect him self, separate from it and avoid falling into heresy.

The neo-iconoclasts instead of abiding with the synod’s decision or protecting them selves my leaving, decided to fight and “correct” the Church.

Not only they did not accept and conform to the Church’s positions, they didn’t even have the decency to go away and find a church that would agree with their convictions and leave the Church in peace. They decide to stay and fight the Church or change Her to fit their measure. They decided to go underground and assume the role of the “fathers” and tutors, they started the secret campaign to educate the people and save the Church from Her “delusion”. They exploited their positions and the confidence entrusted upon them by the Archbishop and also the respect that the other clergy had towards the Archbishop Andreas and started recruiting and converting disciples. Prominent people in the Church who had written and published in defense of the Icons and specifically, that of the Holy Trinity, are beginning to fall in line with the neo-iconoclasts and assume front line roles in the last phase of the neo-iconoclast’s organized attack on the Church.

There is an interesting correspondence between the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Keratea under the abbot Fr. Stephanos, mainly between monk Chrysaphios and monks Elias and  Basil in the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston under the abbot Fr. Panteleimon.

The HTM in Keratea used the resources of the neo-iconoclasts in HTM in Boston to write the papers against the Icons and against the decision of the Church.

After the regrouping period following their setback in 1983, they launched their fiercest attack which begun in 1989 with:

1        “ Iconographic Presentation of God the Father”. This 13 page publication against the Icon of the Holy Trinity signed by Hieromonk Cassian Braun. Started to circulate in the summer of 1989.

2        “ An Introduction about the Icons of the Holy Trinity and the Resurrection of the Lord”, 20 page study authored by Hieromonk Amphilochios Tambouras July 1991.

3        “About Iconography” by monk Chrysaphios of the HTM Keratea, July 1991.

4        “The Ancient of Day” a supplementary to his 1989 paper, 13 page paper by Hieromonk Cassian Braun January 1992.

5        Over and above the aforementioned a book by George E. Gabriel “coincidentally” appeared in Thessalonica in 1990 entitled “Forbidden Representations”.

The fathers of the Katounakia Holy Mounted published a 43 page document entitled “The Holy Trinity in the Orthodox Iconography” prepared by Hieromonk Chrysostomos in January 1991. In this study the Athonite fathers documented in an excellent manner the position of the Orthodox Church with regards to representation of the Icon of the Holy Trinity and the image of God the Father.

 ABOUT THE HERESY OF THE NEO-ICONOCLASTS SO THAT THE OLDER ONES DO NOT FORGET

AND THE YOUNGER ONES MAY LEARN

 Extract from KEO July August 2007 pages 117-123 

The heresy of the Neo-iconoclasts tormented the Ekklesia of God for two decades, from 1975 until 1995, at which point the heresy resulted into a Schism.  The Heresiarchs tormented the Ekklesia because they not only disrespected the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Ekklesia on the subject of the Sacred Icons, but they even violated the delivered Orthodox Faith (teaching) by our Holy Father Mattheos1^st(Karpathakes), the Archbishop of the GOC of Athens and all Hellas.  They also were not obedient to the authority of the unanimous Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of the Ekklesia of the GOC of Hellas and Cyprus.  Indeed they carried out every means of deceit, slander shameful dealings, they employed distortions and dissemination.  Finally, they opened an indiscreet mouth of blasphemy against our Lord Jesus Christ and against the Icon of the Holy Trinity.  They then proceeded to the REFUTATION of their signatures from the signed Encyclical 2660/26-2-93, a document of the Synod.  In order to consolidate their Heresy, they ended up with ordinations of bishops which were outside the realms of the synod, being lawless, mutinous, and non-Canonical.  Therefore, they have been cut off from the Body of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Ekklesia by means of their imperious actions.  In addition, they have been condemned to DEFROCKMENT and ANATHEMA by means of the Decisions of the Synods and Canons of the Ekklesia. 

Generally, the Heresy of Neo-Iconoclasm professes that we depict only what has material archetype, that the Appearances by God are not to be depicted, that the Classical icons, are “bad copies of the Devil”, that only the Byzantine icons are Orthodox, because, as they say, only the depictions with material archetype, listen oh listen, depict both the Divinity of Christ and the spiritual character of the Saints.  They also say that the mechanical reproduction of the icons onto paper desecrates the “mystery” of hagiography.  Their allegations constitute the proclamation of Iconoclasm and declaration of blasphemy by saying that Divinity is describable, that it is possible to depict divinity.

 In particular, the Heresy of Neo-Iconoclasm professes that:

 God the Father is not to be depicted, nor is the Holy Spirit, although God the Father and the Holy Spirit have been revealed in visions; in contradiction to Ekklesia which is commanded to depict the prophetic visions.

  They profess that:

 The Holy Trinity not be depicted, but instead of it the Hospitality of Abraham,

 The Bodily Resurrection of Christ from the Tomb is not to be depicted, but instead of this one the Descent Into Hades.

The Nativity of Christ is not to be depicted without the Mid-wives and the bath font.

The Pentecost is not to be depicted with the All-Holy Theotokos in the center, as the Acts of the Apostles include, but with the two Evangelists, Mark and Luke, and with Apostle Paul, who then was not present nor was he even Christian.

 Their allegations iconographically strike against the Trinitological and Christological and Ecclesiastical Dogmas, they eliminate the highest confirmation of our Faith, that CHRIST IS RISEN, and they blaspheme the EVER-VIRGINITY of the All Holy One.  Thus the Neo-iconoclasm is proven to be an enemy of Christianity and a defender of Judaism. 

 The pioneers of the Heresy, however, being sons of falsehood and friends of fraud, circulated and propagate that there did not exist a problem of Iconoclasm, but a matter of having the Archbishop, Andreas, be overthrown by the five (5) Bishops of the Holy Synod. 

 This precise slanderous dissemination constituted a subject of discussion by the Residing and entire Holy Synod, with the President being the Archbishop of the time, Andreas himself, as it is shown clearly by the MINUTES listed below of the 19^th of August 1992, at which time this slander was also condemned by the Synod as being “SATANIC SLANDER”.  “The MINUTES record that the rumors of overthrowing the Archbishop are a SATANIC LIE”. 

 In the following pages we quote the unaltered extract from the original aforementioned MINUTES of the 19-08-1992 Meeting of the Hierarchy, in order that the older ones remember and the younger ones be taught the true events from the Truthful Historic Ecclesiastical Sources.  The quote is presented as it was recorded by Archimandrite Kirykos Kontogiannis in his own handwriting and signed by all the Bishops of the Holy Synod. 

 From this quoted extract of the MINUTES, but also from the developments of the events that followed, it is ascertained that the rumor regarding the overthrowing of the Archbishop was completely UNFOUNDED, a SATANIC SLANDER.  A rumor which the Arch-heresiarchs of the Neo-Iconoclasm and the Pioneers of the 1995 Schism carried out shamelessly:  the brothers Maximos, Stephanos andNeophytos Tsakiroglou, and Eleftherios Goutzides, Demetrios Katsouras, Kirykos Kontogiannis and others.

 Andreas, the Archbishop of the time, was not overthrown by the five (5) Bishops in 1995, the five Bishops being the ones who were defending the veneration of the Holy Icons.  Archbishop Andreas was overthrown by the dark Ecumenist mechanism of Neo-Iconoclasm, which in 2002 obligated him to Resignation and Deposition from his position.  This overthrowing later evolved into the 2005 division of the Neo-Iconoclasts. 

 In the continuation, a clear Extract is quoted from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of the 19^th-8-1992 and, in particular, the relative pages 1, 8, 9.

 “ MINUTES 19-8-1992

 The Residing Holy Synod was convened in Athens, the 19^th-8-1992. 

 Present: *       

1)      His Beatitude (The Archbishop Andreas)

2)      Bishop  Mattheos of Attika

3)      Bishop Nicholas of Piraeus

4)      Bishop Pachomios of Argos

5)      Chief Secretary (Fr Kyrikos Kontogiannis)

 His Beatitude suggested that fr. Neophytos attend as recorder of the Minutes.  The Holy One of Attica opposed the suggestion and said that it is not necessary to have a second recorder.  He then proposed the following:  That there be an introduction to the hierarchy and if it’s approved (should it be approved fr.Neophytos may attend). 

Subjects of Daily Order (proposed)

1)      Regarding the Senior Residence in Pege Trikala

2)      The Matter of the Committee in Agnanterou

3)      Letter by fr. Kassianos

*Note: A little after the beginning of the present Meeting of the Residing Holy Synod, arrived and took part the Most Reverends, the Holy One of Phthiotida, sir Theodosios, and the Holy One of Thessaloniki, sirChrysostomos            .”

  “…Page 8

Proposition by the Holy One of Thessaloniki:

That their phronema (beliefs) be condemned as heretic.

There was sufficient discussion on the matter the created surge.

 DECISION:

That it be published that the Holy Synod, after the latest surge which was provoked from the Neo-Iconoclastic heresy and the false information that apparently the H. Synod is divided and that it is preparing for a schism to happen, declares officially and categorically that it was and is and will be united.  Also, the Holy Synod declares officially and categorically that all which is written anonymously, with pseudonyms or even in name, do not express the spirit of the Synod and that the ones signing in name or anonymously carry the entire responsibility.  The Holy Synod also declares officially and categorically that the rumors about overthrowing the Archbishop, from wherever they come, either from clergy or monks or lay persons, are a Satanic Distortion with the purpose of dividing the unity of the Body of the Hierarchy.**

 All the leaflets, in name or with pseudonym or anonymous which have circulated lately, prior to and after the Encyclical, do not express the opinion of the Synod and are, as of this, blameable and inadmissible because these leaflets are the reason in the Creation of the surge within the Ekklesia and the Creation of the impermissible dissention.

Holy One of Piraeus:

I do not agree with the expression “satanic distortion”.  I suggest that it be written “satanic lie”.  

Approved.

 ** Note:  The Holy Synod pronounces the judgment that not only a plan of overthrowing the Archbishop IS INEXISTANT, but that the rumors that the matter is about a plan of overthrowing the Archbishop also constitute a SATANIC DISTORTION and a SATANIC LIE.

 The Holy Synod also pronounces judgment that the matter at hand which truly EXISTS is a SURGE being provoked by the NEOICONOCLASM HERESY.  The Heresy is EXISTANT, is REAL and is provoking a SURGE among the members of the Ekklesia. ”

  “ Therefore, we paternally command that you be obedient to all that has been formulated in the official journalistic instrument of the Ekklesia and not to pay attention to all that has circulated in a most irresponsible manner.

 The Residing Holy Synod

 The President 

 † Andreas, of Athens  

The Members † Mattheos of Attica

 † Nikolaos of Piraeus

 † Pachomios of Argos 

† Theodosios of Phthiotida

† Chrysostomos of Thessaloniki

 *** I agree with the decision in the Minutes of 19-8-1992 and I sign the Minutes.

 † Titos of Kozanis and Serbia

 I agree with above decision of the Synod

 † Gregorios of Messenia 

***Note:  Because they were not present at the exact Meeting of the Residing Holy Synod, the Most Reverends,  Bishop Titos of Kozani, and Bishop Gregorios of Messenia, signed the MINUTES afterwards; subsequent to being updated about the discussion which took place, and the decision taken, and subsequent to having agreed and accepted the Decision:  the Decision regarding the matter of the re-growth of the NEO-ICONOCLASTIC HERESY AND REGARDING THE SLANDEROUS RUMORS THAT THERE’S A MOVEMENT TO OVERTHROW THE ARCHBISHOP.

With the signatures of both these two Bishops, the absolute unanimity of the entire Holy Synod is expressed: that the rumors about overthrowing the Archbishop are a SATANIC DISTORTION with the purpose in masking the surge which was created by the emerging problem of the NEOICONOCLASTIC HERESY which in a time of peace, and for no reason, disturbed the Ekklesia of GOD with warfare. ”

 http://www.egoch.org/The_Icon_of_The_Holy_Trinity.html