Why I abandoned Papism.
By Hierodeacon Paul Ballester-Convolier.
A horrible dilemma.
My conversion to
Orthodoxy began one day while I was reordering the Library catalogues of
the monastery I belong to. This monastery belonged to the Franciscan
order, founded in my country of Spain. While I was classifying different
old articles concerning the Holy Inquisition, I happened to come across
an article that was truly impressive, dating back to 1647. This article
described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as
heretic any Christian who dared believe, accept or preach to others that
he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.
It was about a
horrible finding that my mind could not comprehend. I immediately
thought to calm my soul that perhaps it was due to a typographical error
or due to some forgery, which was not so uncommon in the western Church
of that time when the articles were written. However, my disturbance
and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the
decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article
was authentic. In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in
1327 and 1331, the Popes John 22nd and Clemens 6th
had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle
Paul during his entire apostolic life, was totally subordinate to the
ecclesiastic monarchal authority of the first Pope and king of the
Church, namely the Apostle Peter. And a lot later Pope Pius 10th, in 1907 and Benedict 15th, in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations.
I had therefore to
dismiss any possibility of it being due to an inadvertent misquoting or
forgery. So I was thus confronted with a serious problem of conscience.
Personally it was
impossible for me to accept that the Apostle Paul was disposed off under
whatever Papal command. The independence of his apostolic work among
nations, against that which characterized the apostolic work of Peter
among the circumcised, for me was the unshakeable event that shouted
from the Holy Bible.
The thing was
totally clear to me who he was, as the explaining works of the Fathers
on this issue do not leave the slightest doubt. "Paul- writes St
Chrysostom- declares his equality with the rest of the apostles and
should be compared not only with all the others but with the first one
of them, to prove that each one had the same authority". Truly, together
all the Fathers agree that "all the rest of the apostles were the same
like Peter, namely they were endowed with the same honour and
authority". It was impossible for who ever of them, to exercise higher
authority from the rest, for the apostolic title that each had was the
"highest authority, the peak of authorities". They were all shepherds,
while the flock was one. And the flock was shepherded by the apostles in
conformity by all".
The matter was
therefore crystal clear. Despite this, the Roman teaching was against
the situation. This way for the first time in my life, I experienced a
frightful dilemma. What could I say? On one side the Bible and the Holy
Tradition and on the other side the teaching of the Church? According to
the Roman theology it is essential for our salvation to believe that
the Church is a pure monarchy, whose monarch is the Pope. This way, the
synod of the Vatican, voting together all the earlier convictions, it
declared officially that "if any one says ....... that Peter (who is
assumed to be the first Pope) was not ordained by Christ as the leader
of the Apostles and visible Head of all the Church .......... is under
anathema".
I am addressing my confessor.
Within this
psychological disturbance I addressed my confessor and naively described
the situation. He was one of the most famous priests of the monastery.
He heard me with sadness, aware that it involved a very difficult
problem. Having thought for a few minutes while looking in vain for an
acceptable resolution, he finally told me the following that I confess I
did not expect.
The Bible and the
Fathers have harmed you, my child. Set it and them aside and confine
yourself to following the infallible teachings of the Church and do not
let yourself become victim of such thoughts. Never allow creatures of
God whoever they may be, to scandalize your faith in God and the Church.
This answer he gave
very explicitly, caused my confusion to grow. I always held that
especially the Word of God is the only thing that one cannot set aside.
Without allowing me
any time to respond, my confessor added: "In exchange, I shall give you
a list of prominent authors in whose works your faith will relax and be
supported". And asking me if I had something else "more interesting" to
ask, he terminated our conversation.
Few days later, my
confessor departed from the monastery for a preaching tour of Churches
of the monastic order. He left me the list of authors, recommending that
I read them. And he asked me to inform him of my progress in this
reading by writing him.
Even though his
words did not convince me in the least, I collected these books and
started to read them as objectively and attentively as possible.
The majority of the
books were theological texts and manuals of papal decisions as well as
of ecumenical synods. I threw myself to the study with genuine interest,
having only the Bible as my guide, "Thy law is a lamp unto my feet and a
light unto my paths". (Ps 118:105).
As I progressed in
my study of those books, I would understand more and more, that I was
unaware of the nature of my Church. Having been proselytized in
Christianity and baptized as soon as I completed my encyclical studies, I
continued with philosophical studies and then as I speak to you I was
just at the beginning of the theological studies. It concerned of a
science totally new to me. Until then Christianity and the Roman Church
was for me an amalgam, something absolutely indivisible. In my monastic
life I was only concerned with their exterior view and I was given no
reason to examine in depth the bases and reasons of the organic
structure of my Church.
The preposterous Teaching about the Pope.
Exactly then,
within the bouquet of articles, that wisely my spiritual leader had put
together, the true nature of this monarchal system, known as the Roman
Church, started to unravel. I suppose a summary of her characteristics
would not be superfluous.
First of all, to
the Roman Catholics, the Christian Church "is nothing more than an
absolute monarchy" whose monarch is the Pope who functions in all her
facets as such. On this papist monarchy "all the power and stability of
the Church is found" which otherwise "would not have been possible". The
same Christianity is supported completely by Papism. And still some
more, "Papism is the most significant agent of Christianity", "it is its
zenith and its essence".
The monarchic
authority of the Pope as supreme leader and the visible head of the
Church, cornerstone, Universal Infallible Teacher of the Faith,
Representative (Vicar) of God on earth, shepherd of shepherds and
Supreme Hierarch, `is totally dynamic and dominant and embraces all the
teachings and legal rights that the Church has. "Divine right " is
extended on all and individually on each baptized man across the whole
world. This dictatorial authority can be exercised at any time, over
anything and on any Christian across the world, whether lay or clergy,
and in any church of any denomination and language it may be, in
consideration of the Pope being the supreme bishop of every
ecclesiastical diocese in the world.
People who refuse
to recognize all this authority and do not submit blindly, are
schismatic, heretic, impious and sacrilegious and their souls are
already destined to eternal damnation, for it is essential for our
salvation that we believe in the institution of Papism and submit to it
and its representatives. This way the Pope incarnates that imaginary
Leader, prophesied by Cicero, writing that all must recognize him to be
holy.
Always in the roman
teaching, "accepting that the Pope has the right to intervene and judge
all spiritual issues of everyone and each Christian separately, that
much more does he have the right to do the same in their worldly
affairs. He cannot be limited to judging only through spiritual
penalties, denying the eternal salvation to those who do not submit to
him, but also he has the right to exercise authority over the faithful.
For the Church has two knives, symbol of her spiritual and worldly
power. The first of these is in the hands of the clergy, the other in
the hands of Kings and soldiers, who though they too are under the will
and service of the clergy".
The Pope,
maintaining that he is the representative of Him whose "kingdom is not
of this world", of Him who forbade the Apostles to imitate the kings of
the world who "conquer the nations" and nominates himself as a worldly
king, thus continuing the imperialism of Rome. At different periods he
in fact had become lord over great expanses, he declared bloody wars
against other Christian kings, to acquire other land expanses, or even
to satisfy his thirst for more wealth and power. He owned a great number
of slaves. He played a central role and many times a decisive role in
political history. The duty of the Christian lords is to retreat in the
face "of the divine right king" surrendering to him their kingdom and
their politico-ecclesiastic throne, "that was created to ennoble and
anchor all the other thrones of the world". To day the worldly capital
of the pope is confined to the Vatican City. It concerns an autonomous
nation with diplomatic representations in the governments of both
hemispheres, with army, weapons police, jails, currency etc.
And as crown
and peak of the almightiness of the Pope, he has one more faithful
privilege that even the most ignoble idolaters could not even imagine-
the infallible divine right, according to the dogmatic rule of the
Vatican Synod that took place on 1870. Since then on "humanity ought to
address to him whatever it addresses to the Lord: you have words of
eternal life". From now on, there is no need of the Holy Spirit to guide
the Church "to all the truth". There is no more need of the Holy Bible
nor of the Sacred Tradition for thus there is a god on earth, based on
the infallible, the Pope is the only canon of Truth who can even express
things contrary to the judgment of all the Church, declare new dogmas,
which the faithful ought to accept if they do not wish to be cut off
from their salvation. "It depends only on his will and intention to deem
whatever he wishes, as sacred and holy within the Church" and the decratalian letters must be deemed,
believed and obeyed "as canonical epistles". Since he is an infallible
Pope, he must receive blind obedience. Cardinal Bellarmine, who was
declared saint by the Roman Church, says this simply: "If the Pope some
day imposed sins and forbade virtues, the Church is obliged to believe
that these sins are good and these virtues are bad".
The answer of my confessor
Having read all
those books, I felt myself as a stranger within my Church, whose
organizational composition has no relation to the Church that the Lord
built and organized by the Apostles and their disciples and as intended
by the Holy Fathers. Under this belief I wrote my first letter to my
superior- "I read your books. I shall not contravene the divine warrants
so that I may follow the human teachings that have no basis at all in
the Holy Bible. Such teachings are a string of foolishness by Papism.
From the provisions of the Holy Bible we can understand the nature of
the Church and not through human decisions and theories. The truth of
faith does not spring but from the Holy Bible and from the Tradition of
the whole Church".
The reply came
fast- You have not followed my advice- complained my elder- and exposed
your soul to the dangerous impact of the Holy Bible, which, like fire
burns and blackens when it does not shine. In such situations like
yours, the Popes have pronounced that it "is a scandalous error for one
to believe that all the Christians could read the Holy Bible", and the
theologians assure us that the Holy Bible "is a dark cloud". "For one to
believe in the enlightenment and clarity of the Bible is a heterodox
dogma" so claim our infallible leaders. "As far as the Tradition, I do
not consider it necessary to remind you that we should primarily follow
the Pope on matters of faith. The Pope is worth in this case thousands
of Augustinians, Jeronymuses, Gregories, Chrysostoms...........".This
letter accomplished to strengthen my opinion rather than demolish it. It
was impossible for me to place the Holy Bible below the Pope. By
attacking the Holy Bible, my Church was losing every worthy belief ahead
of me, and was becoming one with the heretics who "being elected by the
Bible turn against it". This was the last contact I had with my elder.
The Pope is everything and the Church is nothing
However I
did not stop there. I had already started to "skid due to the skid" of
my Church. I had taken a road that I was not allowed to stop until I
found a positive solution. The drama of those days was that I had
estranged myself from Papism, but I did not accost any other
ecclesiastical reality. Orthodoxy and Protestantism then were for me
vague ideas and I had not reached the time and opportunity to ascertain
that they could offer something to soothe my agony. Despite all this I
continued to love my Church that made me a Christian and I bore her
symbol. I still needed more profound thinking to reach slowly, with
trouble and grief to the conclusion that the Church I loved was not part
of the papist system.
Truly, against the
monocracy of the Pope, the authority of the Church and of the bishopric
body, is not intrinsically subordinate. Because according to the Roman
theology "the authority of the Church exists only when it is
characterized and harmonized by the Pope. In all other cases it is
nullified". This way it is the same thing whether the Pope is with the
Church or the Pope is without the Church, in other words, the Pope is
everything and the Church is nothing. Very correctly did the bishop
Maren write, "It would have been more accurate if the Roman Catholics
when they recite the "I believe" would say "And in one Pope" instead of
"And in one .......Church".
The importance and
function of the bishops in the Roman Church is no more than that of
representatives of the papist authority to which the bishops submit like
the lay faithful. This regime they try to uphold under the 22nd
chapter of St John's gospel, which according to the Roman
interpretation "the Lord entrusts the Apostle Peter, the first Pope, the
shepherding of His lambs and of His sheep", namely, He bestows on him
the job of the Chief Shepherd with exclusive rights on all the faithful,
who are the lambs and all the others, Apostles and Bishops, namely, the
sheep.
However, the
bishops in the Roman Church, are not even successors to the Apostles,
for as it dogmatizes, this Church "the apostolic authority was lacking
with the Apostles and was not passed down her successors, the bishops.
Only the Papist authority of Peter, namely the Popes. The bishops then,
having not inherited any apostolic authority, have no other authority
but the one given to them, not directly from God but by the Extreme
Pontiff of Rome.
And the Ecumenical
synods also have no other value than the one given to them by the Bishop
of Rome, "for they cannot be anything else except conferences of
Christianity that are called under the authenticity and authority of the
Pope". Suffice the Pope to exit the hall of the Synod saying "I am not
in there anymore" to stop from that moment on the Ecumenical Synod from
having any validity, if it is not authorized and validated by the Pope,
who could impose through his authority on the faithful.
The frightful answer of a Jesuit.
I almost
gave up on my studies during that period, taking advantage of the hours
that my order allowed me to retire to my cell, to think of nothing else
but my big problem. For whole months I would study the structure and
organization of the early Church, straight from the apostolic and
patristic sources. However, all this work could not be done totally in
secrecy. It looked obvious that my exterior life was greatly affected by
this great concern which had overwhelmed all my interest and sapped all
my strength. I never lost an opportunity to enquire from outside the
monastery whatever could contribute towards shedding light to my
problem. This way I started to discuss the topic with known
ecclesiastical acquaintances in relation to the trust I had in their
frankness and their heart. This way I would receive continuously
impressions and opinions on the topic which were for me always
interesting and significant.
I found most of
these clerics more fanatical than I expected. Even though they were
deeply aware of the absurdity of the teaching on the Pope, being stuck
to the idea that "the required submission to the Pope demands a blind
consent of our views" and in the other maxim by the founder of Jesuits
by which "That we may possess the truth and not fall in fallacy, we owe
it to always depend on the basic and immovable axiom that what we see as
white in reality it is black, if that is what the hierarchy of the
Church tells us". With this fantastic bias a priest of the order of
Jesus, entrusted me with the following thought:-
"What you tell me I
acknowledge that they are most logical and very clear and true.
However, for us Jesuits, apart from the usual three vows, we give a
fourth one during the day of our tonsure. This fourth vow is more
important than the vow of purity, obedience and poverty. It is the vow
that we must totally submit to the Pope. This way, I prefer to go to
hell with the Pope than to Paradise with all your truths.
A few centuries ago they would have burnt you in the fires of Holy Inquisition.
According to
the opinion of most of them, I was a heretic. Here's what a bishop wrote
to me, "A few centuries ago, the ideas you have, would have been enough
to bring you to the fires of Holy Inquisition".
However, despite
all this I intended to stay in the monastery and give myself to the
purely spiritual life, leaving the responsibility to the hierarchy for
the deceit and its correction. But could the important things of the
soul be safe on a road of super physical life, where the arbitrariness
of the Pope could pile up new dogmas and false teachings concerning the
pious life of the Church? Moreover, since the purity of teaching was
built with falsehoods about the pope, who could reassure me that this
stain would not spread into the other parts of the evangelical faith?
It is therefore not
strange if the holy men within the Roman Church started to sound the
alarm by saying such as: "Who knows if the minor means of salvation that
flood us, do not cause us to forget our only Saviour, Jesus...."?
"Today our spiritual life appears like a multi-branch and multi-leaf
tree, where the souls do no more know where the trunk is, that
everything rests on, and where the roots are that feed it".
"With such a manner
we have decorated and overloaded our religiocity, so that the face of
Him who is the "focus of the issue" is lost inside the decorations"
Being therefore convinced that the spiritual life within the bosom of
the papist Church will expose me to dangers, I ended up taking the
decisive step. I abandoned the monastery and after a little while I
declared I did not belong to the Roman Church. Some others seemed
prepared until then to follow me, but at the last moment no one proved
prepared to sacrifice so radically his position within the Church, with
the honour and consideration he enjoyed.
This way I
abandoned the Roman Church, whose leader, forgetting that the Kingdom of
the Son of God "is not of this world" and that "he who is called to the
bishopric is not called to any high position or authority but to the
diaconate of all the Church", but imitating him who "wishing in his
pride to be like god, he lost the true glory, put on the false one" and
"sat in the temple of God as god". Rightly did Bernard De Klaraval write
about the Pope: "There is no more horrible poison for you, no sword
more dangerous, than the thirst and passion of domination". Coming out
of Papism, I followed my voice of conscience that was the voice of God.
And this voice was telling me, "Leave her ....... So you may not partake
of her sins and that you may not receive of her wounds". How after my
departure I fell in the embrace of Orthodoxy, in the light of the
absolute and spotless Truth, this I will describe at a later
opportunity.
Secondly, as my
departure from Papism became more broadly known within the
ecclesiastical circles and was receiving more enthusiastic response in
the Spanish and French protestant circles, so was my position becoming
more precarious.
In the
correspondence I received, the threatening and anonymous abusive letters
were plentiful. They would accuse me that I was creating an anti-papist
wave around me and I was leading by my example into "apostasy" Roman
Catholic clerics "who were dogmatically sick" and who had publicly
expressed a sympathetic feeling for my case.
This fact forced me
to leave Barcelona, and settle in Madrid where I was put up - without
my seeking - by Anglicans and through them I came in contact with the
Ecumenical Council of Churches.
Not even there did I
manage to remain inconspicuous. After every sermon at different
Anglican Churches, a steadily increasing number of listeners sought to
know me and to confidently discuss with me some ecclesiological topics.
Without therefore
wishing it, a steadily increasing circle of people started forming
around me, with most being anti-papists. This situation was exposing me
to the authorities, because in the confidential meetings I had agreed to
attend, some Roman Catholic clerics started to appear, who were
generally known "for their lacking and weakening faith, regarding the
primacy and infallibility of the Highest Hierarch of Rome".
The fanatical
vindictiveness that some papists bore against my person, I saw it fully
expressed and hit its zenith the day I replied publicly to a detailed
ecclesiological dissertation, which they had sent to me as an ultimate
step to remove me from the "trap of heresy" that I had fallen in. That
work of apologetic character had the expressive title: "The Pope vicar
of our Lord on earth" and the slogan that the arguments in the book
ended up with, was the following: "Due to the infallibility of the Pope,
the Roman Catholics are today the only Christians who could be certain
for what they believe".
In the columns of a
Portuguese book review, I replied: "The reality is that due to this
infallibility you are the only Christians who cannot be certain about
what they will demand that you believe tomorrow". My article ended with
the following sentence: "Soon on the road you walk, you will name the
Lord, vicar of the Pope in heaven".
Soon after I
published in Buenos Aires my three volume study, I put an end to the
skirmishes with the papists. In that study I had collected all the
clauses in the patristic literature of the first four centuries, which
directly or indirectly refer to the "primacy clauses" (Matt 16 :18-19;
John21: 15-17; Luke 22: 31-32). I proved that the teachings about the
Pope were absolutely foreign and contrary to the interpretation given by
the Fathers on the issue. And the interpretation of the Fathers is
exactly the rule on which we understand the Holy Bible.
During that
period, even though from unrelated situations, for the first time I came
in contact with Orthodoxy. Before I continue to recount the events, I
owe it to confess here that my ideas about Orthodoxy had suffered an
important development from the beginning of my spiritual odyssey.
Certain discussions I had on ecclesiological topics with a group of
Orthodox Polish, who passed through my country and the information I
received from the Ecumenical Council regarding the existence and life in
Orthodox circles in the West, had caused me a real interest.
Furthermore, I started to get different Russian and Greek books and
magazines from London and Berlin, as well as some of the prized books
that were provided by archimandrite Benedict Katsenavakis in Napoli,
Italy. Thus my interest in Orthodoxy would continue to grow.
Slowly, slowly in
this way I started losing my inner biases against the Orthodox Church.
These biases present Orthodoxy as schismatic, without spiritual life,
drained group of small churches that do not have the characteristics of
the true Church of Christ. And the schism that had cut her off, "had the
devil for father and the pride of the patriarch Photios for mother".
So when I started
to correspond with a respected member of the Orthodox hierarchy in the
West- whose name I do not believe I am permitted to publish due to my
personal criterion that was based on those original informations, I was
thus totally free from every bias against Orthodoxy and I could
spiritually gaze objectively. I soon realized and even with a pleasant
surprise that my negative stance I had against Papism was conforming
completely to the ecclesiological teaching of Orthodoxy. The respectable
hierarch agreed to this coincidence in his letters but refrained from
expressing himself more broadly because he was aware that I lived in a
protestant surrounding.
The Orthodox in the
West are not at all susceptible to proselytism. Only when our
correspondence continued enough, the Orthodox bishop showed me to read
the superb book by Sergei Boulgakov, "Orthodoxy" and the not less in
depth dissertation, under the same title by metropolitan Seraphim. In
the mean time I had also written specifically to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate.
In those books I
found myself. There was not even a single paragraph that did not meet
completely the agreement of my conscience. So much in these works as in
others, that they would send to me with encouraging letters -now even
from Greece- I clearly saw how the Orthodox teaching is profound and
purely evangelical and that the Orthodox are the only Christians who
believe like the Christians of the catacombs and of the Fathers of the
Church of the golden age, the only ones who can repeat with holy
boasting the patristic saying, "We believe in whatever we received from
the Apostles".
That period I wrote
two books, one with the title "The concept of Church according to the
Western Fathers" and the other with the title "Your God, our God and
God". These books were to be published in South America, but I did not
proceed with their release, so that I may not give an easy and dangerous
hold to the protestant propaganda.
From the Orthodox
side they advised me to let go my simply negative position against
Papism, in which I was dirtied and to shape my personal "I believe" from
which they could judge how far I was from the Anglican Church as well
as the Orthodox.
It was a hard task
that I summarized with the following sentences: "I believe in everything
that are included in the Canonic books of the Old and New Testament,
according to the interpretation of the ecclesiastical Tradition, namely
the Ecumenical Synods that were truly ecumenical and to the unanimous
teaching of the Holy Fathers that are acknowledged catholically as
such".
From then on I
began to understand that the sympathy of the Protestants towards me was
cooling down, except of the Anglicans who were governed by some
meaningful support. And it is only now that the Orthodox interest,
despite being late, as always, started to manifest itself and to attract
me to Orthodoxy as one "possibly Catechumen".
The undertakings of
a polish university professor, whom I knew, cemented my conviction that
Orthodoxy is supported by the meaningful truths of Christianity. I
understood that every Christian of the other confessions, is required to
sacrifice some significant part of the faith to arrive at the complete
dogmatic purity and only an Orthodox Christian is not so required. For
only he lives and remains in the substance of Christianity and the
revealed and unaltered truth.
So, I did no more
feel myself alone against the almighty Roman Catholicism and the
coolness that the Protestants displayed against me. There were in the
East and scattered around the world, 280 million Christians who belonged
to the Orthodox Church and with whom I felt in communion of faith.
The accusation of
the theological mummification of Orthodoxy had for me no value, because I
had now understood that this fixed and stable perseverance of the
Orthodox teaching of truth, was not a spiritual solidified rock, but an
everlasting flow, like the current of the waterfall that seems to remain
always the same yet the waters always change.
Slowly, slowly the
Orthodox started to consider me as one of their own. "That we speak to
this Spaniard about Orthodoxy- wrote a famous archimandrite- is not
proselytism". They and I perceived that I was already berthed in the
port of Orthodoxy, that I was finally breathing freely in the bosom of
the Mother Church. In this period I was finally Orthodox without
realizing it, and like the disciples that walked towards Emmaus close to
the Divine Teacher, I had covered a stretch close to Orthodoxy without
conclusively recognizing the Truth but at the end.
When I was assured
of this reality, I wrote a long dissertation on my case, to the
Ecumenical Patriarchate and to the Archbishop of Athens through the
Apostolic Diaconate of the Church of Greece. And having no more to do
with Spain - where today there does not exist an Orthodox community - I
left my country and went to France where I asked to become a member of
the Orthodox Church, having earlier let some more time for the fruit of
my change to ripen. During this period I further deepened my knowledge
of Orthodoxy and strengthened my relationship with her hierarchy. When I
became fully confident of myself, I took the decisive step and
officially became received in the true Church of Christ as her member. I
wished to realize this great event in Greece, the recognized country of
Orthodoxy, where I came to study theology. The blessed Archbishop of
Athens received me patristically. His love and interest were beyond my
expectations. I should say the same for the then chancellor of the
Sacred Archbishopric and presently bishop Dionysus of Rogon who showed
me patristic love. It is needless to add that in such an atmosphere of
love and warmth, the Holy Synod did not take long to decide my canonical
acceptance in the bosom of the Orthodox Church. During that all night
sacred ceremony I was honoured with the name of the Apostle of Nations
and following that, I became received as a monk in the Holy Penteli
Monastery. Soon after, I was tonsured deacon by the Holy Bishop of
Rogon.
Since then I live
within the love, sympathy and understanding of the Greek Church and all
her members. I ask from all, their prayers and their spiritual support
that I may always stand worthy of the Grace that was given me by the
Lord.
From the "Theodromia" magazine, Issue 1, January -March 2006
Reference
This article of the then
Hierodeacon Fr. Paul Ballester-Convollier was published in two follow up
articles by the "Kivotos" Magazine, July 1953, p. 285-291 and December
1953 p. 483- 485. The previous Franciscan monk who had turned to
Orthodoxy was made titlebearing bishop Nanzizian of the Holy
Hierobishopric of North and South America with its seat in Mexico.
There he was met with a martyric death, the confessor of the Orthodox
faith. The news of his murder was reported on the first page of the
newspaper "Kathemerini" (Saturday 4 February1984) thus: "THE GREEK
ORTHODOX BISHOP PAUL WAS MURDERED IN MEXICO. As it became known from the
city of Mexico, before yesterday the bishop Nianzizian Paul Di
Ballester of the Greek archbishopric of North and South America died. He
was murdered by a 70 year old Mexican, previous military and suffering
from psychiatric illness. The funeral was attended by the Archbishop
Jacob who was aware of the work of the active bishop. It should be
pointed out that Bishop Paul was of Spanish origin, was received into
Orthodoxy as an adult and excelled as a shepherd and author. The Mexican
authorities do not exclude the possibility that his murderer was driven
to his act through some sort of fanaticism.
/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx
http://www.impantokratoros.gr
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου