My Defense

Fear

• First, I would like to ask for your indulgence regarding the time, as I have waited five full years for this moment to speak for the first time about this case. I will not say anything unnecessary or anything you haven’t already heard. According to historians, in brief, the phenomenon begins in the early 9th century, after the death of Charlemagne. This is stated by the great historian of the era, Mosheim, the father of modern ecclesiastical history. However, everyone agrees, both Greeks and foreigners, that the phenomenon officially begins in 870 with the testimony of a French monk [Bernard], and since then, it has been repeated annually, considered a miracle by many and not a miracle by many others. A great deal has been written about it. I remind you here that even during the First Crusade, Pope Urban II, in an attempt to incite, motivate, and encourage the crusaders, used as one of his arguments that they were going to Jerusalem to liberate it from the Ottomans, from the infidels who rape our women and destroy our holy sites, and to encounter the annual miracle of the Holy Fire. Of course, as you know, in 1238, Pope Gregory VIII renounced the miracle. And he forbade the Latin Franciscans, who were then in Jerusalem, from engaging with it. Indeed, to this day, they have no involvement with the ceremony. Since then, the views of the ‘light-worshippers’ and ‘light-fighters’ – as I characteristically call them – have proceeded as two parallel monologues. Because each one presents their own arguments. The believers, the ‘light-worshippers,’ claim it is a miracle. Why? Because we saw it. Because a traveler told us. Because a pilgrim told us…
  
  (protests)
  – (President) Please leave, sir.
  – Isn’t this a public hearing?
  – It is public, but when you disrespect the court… Please. And you are making noise during his defense.
  
  – …because, after all, many people saw it, and so that’s how it proceeded. This was one trend. And of course, there are also people within the Church who, to this day, defend the version, the narrative of the miracle. And on the other hand, the so-called rationalists, skeptics, possibly atheists. But also Church Fathers. That is, people who had a direct connection with Orthodoxy and emblematic figures, who questioned it for theological reasons, but also some, as they themselves say, having information “from within.” Here I invoke, and you know very well, the famous work of Adamantios Korais and his characterizations. Allow me to say, the very severe ones, which when I read them before writing the book, of course, I was shocked, as they are truly insulting and even extremely slanderous towards the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood. Something you will not find a single word of in my work, in my research. I understood from the outset that what I needed to do had not been done until that moment. Why? Because we had two opinions. Two parallel monologues. That could not meet. But how could they meet? Only in one way. To find, with strict methodology and absolute documentation, one thing: the method, the technique, how the Holy Fire is lit. And this was my objective. This began a few days after Easter ’18, specifically on Easter Thursday, April 16th. I also had my father’s testimony, who had told me for years, since I was a small child, “My child, the Holy Fire in Jerusalem is lit just as I light it and every priest in the ecumene lights it.” But this was also an opinion that I wanted to document. However, I knew it was almost impossible because no one had done it until then. But I said to myself, that week in April, “what do I have to lose?” So I start with the first phone call I make to the Patriarchate; the chronology is in my book. The beginning of the unraveling. I wanted to start with the Most Reverend, now deceased, Cornelius, because he had already spoken in 2001 to journalist Maria Karchilaki. And to colleague Maria Papoutsaki, who is no longer alive. And he had said something significant then for the first time. It had been recorded for the first time. That the Holy Fire is a natural light lit from the unextinguished lamp. Period. And he had stopped there. So I wanted to pick up the thread from there and speak with him again because he had left a gap. Alright. He lights it from the unextinguished lamp. But how is the lamp lit? One could say it lights miraculously. He hadn’t closed that gap. So I wanted to speak with him. When I called the Chief Secretariat, they connected me with the Most Reverend Aristarchos. And there I knew that the forbidden question you can ask a member of the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood is: you never ask him how the Holy Fire is lit. Why? Because this question does not exist anywhere in history; it has never been posed to anyone. As paradoxical as it may sound, as absurd as you might find it, while we can ask any priest about the mystery of baptism and the baptismal font, “whose use is made” – that is a phrase from the Patriarchate. Can you tell us what the use of the baptismal font is in the mystery of baptism? I don’t think anyone would object to explaining why a baptismal font exists. Or regarding the cross when we perform the sanctification. I don’t think any priest has any objection to explaining to the faithful what the role of the cross is when the priest throws it either into the sea or into the waters. However, the “whose use is made” that I found archived in 2010, and of course the source, was not the Patriarchate. It was a sacred figure, and the Most Reverend Aristarchos himself told me about it. It was the historian Miliaras. That is, a member of the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood from whom they took the excerpt; there is a treatise-work by Kallistos Miliaras on the Holy Fire. I have it in my archive, if you wish; the Most Reverend Aristarchos himself gave it to me, and I emphasize that he helped me.
  – May I interrupt for a moment?
  – Please.
  – When you go to the Patriarchate, with whom do you communicate?
  – As of April, when we are speaking now, I have not been to the Patriarchate. I speak with Aristarchos by phone. And…
  – Have you disclosed that you are a journalist?
  – Of course.
  – That you are conducting research?
  – Of course.
  – Have you told him about the Holy Fire?
  – Of course. It’s the first thing I ask him.
  – But you said earlier that the members of the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood stop at this topic. Did you tell him immediately?
  – Yes. But I don’t ask him how the Holy Fire is lit.
  – Indeed.
  – I cannot immediately ask him how the Holy Fire is lit because I know it is a taboo subject. It is not discussed.
  – So you speak by phone.
  – I speak by phone. I ask him: “Please tell me, Your Eminence – I write this in the book – how is the lamp placed? Is it placed lit or unlit?” This was the beginning. And he tells me the lamp is placed lit. This was a huge surprise for me. Why?
  – Did Aristarchos tell you this?
  – Aristarchos.
  – By phone?
  – By phone. And I have written them in my book. This was a huge surprise for me. Because it confirmed the centuries-old claim of skeptics. Who used to say, “Oh, these people are doing it, they’re lying. It doesn’t light miraculously.” The lamp, the unextinguished lamp, which is placed around 12 o’clock noon before the eyes of millions. This is important. Of millions of faithful in front of the television. Why do I say this? Because His Eminence Aristarchos said in his testimony: “This is the first time I hear about a lamp.” Everyone sees this. You can see it in dozens of videos in Russian, Arabic, Greek, and so on. And he tells me: “it is placed lit.” I say, “Okay, fine, but wait a minute. Are you talking about a miracle or not? About a miracle?” I write it in the book, I have the entire dialogue. “We are not talking about a miracle, my child.” I say, “One moment, Your Eminence. But I have my computer on in front of me. And I am on the entry for Holy Fire. Could you please open your computer so we have the same view?” He tells me: “Tell me, I believe you.” He didn’t have a computer. I saw it. There is also a photo in his office; the man did not (UNINTELLIGIBLE RECORDING – possible words: did not have a computer) for that reason. He had no contact with a computer, even though he was responsible for the Patriarchate’s website. “But tell me, I believe you,” he says. I say, “Your Eminence, I am reading to you. And ‘it is a miracle, wondrous, that lights with cotton’.” “Oh, why is this there?” And from April 12, to shorten the story, until June 22, June 22 is the last day that the word “miracle” appears on the official website of the Patriarchate under the entry “Holy Fire.” In the interim, something His Eminence Aristarchos did not deny in front of you, many phone conversations took place. Lengthy ones. Which I mention, I state that they were lengthy, and he did not deny them.
  – Do you record these conversations?
  – Of course not.
  – Did you take notes? What did you do?
  – Of course. It goes without saying. But note the most important thing. He asked me – and this is the truth, and I state it in the book, and it surprises me why the lawyers insist on something that is self-evident – not to reveal anything from now on that he would tell me, and he told me tremendous things. I mean tremendous things regarding the history of the Holy Fire. Right? Not anything personal.
  – So, a point that was highlighted, which you later said you were bound by, concerns some things you did not record in the book?
  – Yes, of course. Many things. I will tell you in one phrase. If I had recorded, if I had written down what His Eminence Aristarchos told me during our lengthy meetings – as he himself admits – both by phone and during the three times I went to Jerusalem, my book would not have been 110 pages, Madam President, it would have been 610. And it might have become a bestseller with what he told me. That is, by describing a situation to me historically, because we had a very nice historical overview of the roots of the phenomenon throughout history, how it proceeded, and why the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood cannot tell the truth. And indeed, I asked him at one point, “Your Eminence, allow me. We are all mortal. At some point, we will leave this world. Will you take – and you are much older than me – will you take the secret, and all these things you are telling me, with you? How do you feel?” His answer truly saddened and shocked me. And he tells me exactly, “I do not want to have the curses of the fathers.” What does this mean?
  – May I ask something now?
  – Yes.
  – This thing he confessed to you, that it is placed lit.
  – “Confessed” in quotation marks.
  – Alright. That he told you.
  – Exactly. Because His Eminence says it literally. This is important. Here, he told you that he was speaking literally. There is no literalness in confession.
  – So it wasn’t a confession. It was on the level of a conversation.
  – No, I accepted and respected the off-the-record agreement. That’s why I didn’t write them down. His testimony is not in my book. All those lengthy conversations, which he insists I write about in my book, I respected, I answered him and I write it on a certain page, I respected his urging, that is, I respected what? Our journalistic self-evident principle called “off the record,” Madam President.
  – I want to say something else. This fact, this thing he told you, which you say he told you, that it is placed lit, did he know that you would record it in a journalistic investigation in a book, on YouTube, I don’t know what?
  – It’s not on YouTube, nor did I record it. This conversation is not recorded.
  – Yes. In any case. What did he know would happen with this conversation?
  – Listen to me for a moment. I have already shown you a video because for years now the other side, especially in the beginning, has claimed that His Eminence Aristarchos and all the members of the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood were unaware of a book being published. I was there as a pilgrim who went to seek and satisfy my spiritual quests. This is false, and I showed it to you with a video when he himself says in response to my question, “Did I help at all” in changing the entry on the site, so that the entry would change from a lie, a miracle, to the truth of a non-miracle. Which it did. And pay attention. The correspondence he sent me is in the case file. Would the Chief Secretary of the Patriarchate do that for an ordinary citizen? To essentially send him the text that would be included for approval? It’s in my inbox. And it’s in the case file. What did he send me? The new text; the previous one was removed, and he sent me the new text. Would he do that for a pilgrim? And not for a journalist whom he knows and who has pointed out to him…
  – So, was it his desire for this matter to be made public? That’s what I’m asking you.
  – Of course. And it was his desire for it to be made public, but as it turned out later, it was also his desire to control exactly what I would write. But as you understand, I couldn’t do that. What journalist – let alone a journalist – what author writing a novel submits it for approval to someone? To someone to tell him “I agree – I disagree”? Even more so when it comes to journalistic research. Look. Allow me in two words to give you the atmosphere, because you made a very apt observation a little while ago, as to why we are here. And why the trials happened, why this trial is happening. I will tell you in one word. This trial is happening because of the word, because the word… Fear exists. And this word, allow me to document it not through the words of atheist skeptics, but through emblematic figures of Orthodoxy. Please give me just two minutes. Nikephoros Theotokis, archbishop, also known as the teacher of the nation, in response to a question – the source is from the original code at the University of Thessaly – in response to a citizen’s question about how the Holy Fire is lit, states, pay attention to the last phrase of this, I will only read this to you: “It does not descend from heaven, nor does it gush forth from the tomb, but the hierarch appointed to this ministry, having entered the so-called Edicule, striking the flint, brings forth fire upon the life-giving tomb, then, having lit the lamps previously rubbed in the tomb, he comes out holding them and transmits the light as sanctified by the contact and augmentation of the Most Holy Tomb. And the common people believe the light gushed forth from the tomb, but no one dares to say the opposite to him, fearing to suffer something terrible.” And no one dares to tell him the truth because they are afraid of suffering some harm.
  – Indeed.
  – Terrible. Please listen to this last point. Here we are talking about a very emblematic figure of Russian Orthodox Christianity, Bishop Porphyrius Uspensky. It is from his book “My Existence,” Volume 3, published in 1894. He is the founder of the Russian Church in Jerusalem in 1847. I will read to you, allow me, once the well-known ruler of Syria and Palestine, Ibrahim – our well-known Ibrahim who burned down the Peloponnese, right – the Pasha of Egypt, was in Jerusalem. It became known that the flame lit on Holy Saturday from the Holy Sepulchre is not holy but is lit like any other flame. This Pasha thought to find out if the flame on the Holy Sepulchre truly appeared suddenly and miraculously or was lit by a divine match. And what did he do? He announced to the Patriarch’s representatives that he himself wished to be present in the Edicule at the time of the lighting of the fire and to carefully observe how it appeared, adding that if it was true, they would be given five thousand “poutzi poungi,” or rather, purses.
  – Indeed.
  – Two and a half million piastres, the currency of the time, while if it was a lie, then all the money they collected from deceived devotees should be returned to him, and he would publish this abominable fraud in all the newspapers of Europe. The representatives – Metropolitan Michael of Petra, Metropolitan Daniel of Nazareth, and Bishop Dionysius of Philadelphia, now Bethlehem – met to discuss what to do. During the discussion, Michael admitted that he lights the flame inside the Edicule from the lamp which is hidden behind the movable marble icon of the Resurrection of Christ, located next to the Holy Sepulchre. After this admission, it was decided to politely ask Ibrahim not to interfere in religious matters, and the Dragoman of the Holy Sepulchre was sent to him, who informed him that His Excellency had no benefit in revealing the secrets of the Christian liturgy and that the Russian Emperor, Tsar Nicholas, would be quite displeased by the revelation of the secrets. Pay attention here. When Ibrahim heard this, he waved his hand – the translation here from Russian is, “we are done,” that is – but from then on, the clergy of the Holy Sepulchre no longer believed in the miraculous appearance, and so on.
  – Indeed.
  – And it ends, but we, as Porphyrios’ testimony says, ‘as God knows and is able to enlighten and bring peace to the peoples who now believe in the luminous miracle of Holy Saturday, we, however, should not even begin this change, this enlightenment in the minds of the faithful, because they will tear us apart in the very chapel of the Holy Sepulchre.’ The translation is from a Ministry of Foreign Affairs interpreter from Russian.
  – Indeed. Shall we now move on to the indictment?
  – I told you about the fear. I gave you the context of the fear. So, what happened? When they saw that I approached the subject not from Korais’ perspective, not from Nikephoros Theotokis’ perspective – an opinion, I believe, that they don’t care about, they told me they don’t care how many people insult us. If you open YouTube, the internet, Google, there are thousands of texts that hurl terrible epithets at them. They don’t care at all. Why? Because no one knew the secret of the Holy Fire’s ignition. The technique had never leaked for eleven centuries, I repeat, it’s important, the technique of how it is lit, that is, my mission, the reason I engaged in this research.
  – Indeed.
  – To resolve the question, to answer the question. Only that. I am not interested, parenthetically, in my book, in how the patriarchate functions, its finances, the people, their personal lives, private lives – I have no mention of any of that. My book is monothematic: how the Holy Fire is lit. And unfortunately…
  – Regarding his image now.
  – Pardon?
  – Which says you didn’t get permission for the photo.
  – Which one? Tell me.
  – Aristarchos Peristeris and Fakitsas. What do you say about that?
  – Let’s start with Peristeris.
  – Yes.
  – As you heard, he told you here when he came and testified that Mr. Alikakos took a photo of me and insisted two or three times until he saw the photo and saw that Mr. Alikakos was in the photo and the camera was at a distance of four or five meters, so it couldn’t be a selfie. My hands were down and as you saw, the photo was taken from a distance, and as you also saw, he was wearing the epitrachelion, sorry, sorry, the kalimavkion, that is, and I remember the scene exactly, I said, ‘Your Eminence, leave it, don’t wear it,’ ‘No, since it’s official, my child,’ with the Cretan accent. Maria, if I remember her name correctly, he calls out to his secretary, ‘Will you take a photo of us with Mr. Alikakos?’ She didn’t take one, she took five, and I have them all in my archive, and these photos all have a different frame. Why do I say this? Because it proves the fact that the camera was not set up, which I can show you. If the camera is set up and you press it to take four or five photos, the frame will be the same, the angles will be the same, but there are five photos, four or five if I remember correctly, where the frame is different, it changes a little up, a little down, which means the nun or employee who took our photo moved like this, like this, like this. ‘Thank you, Maria, be well.’ I tell him, ‘Your Eminence, I have taken other photos of you.’ ‘No, my child, only this one where I am wearing the kalimavkion.’ He wanted it to be official, that is.
  – For you to publish it?
  – For me to publish it, of course.
  – Yes.
  – And he knew, you saw the video, ‘let’s see what your publication will say,’ to my question, ‘did I contribute anything to this research?’ ‘Let’s see your publication and we will judge.’ Of course, he has acknowledged, but this is my word against his, if you will, but I must say it, he has acknowledged that without me, the entry ‘Holy Fire’ today would have the same form it had in 2018.
  – Indeed.
  – Which in 2018 told lies. Because today he later told the truth, that is, he deleted, the word ‘miracle’ was deleted, and today, pay attention, this is important, the entry is the only entry out of the hundreds of entries on the website if you go and open the official website now, in the Holy Sepulchre section, which includes the pilgrimages of Golgotha, the Stone of Anointing, and so on, if you click on all of them, it gives you a description. Today there is nothing, it is empty, the link is inactive, which means that these people accepted, this is my interpretation, that when they put up the text that did not speak of a miracle, they obviously received some pressure because ‘why did you change it now from miracle to non-miracle?’ So they found a Solomonic solution not to write anything.
  – Indeed.
  – And right now, as we speak, it is empty. Regarding His Eminence Isidore. He claims in his lawsuit, and his lawyers say, ‘yes, we have the SMS messages where you ask him for photos.’ Indeed. And at some point, he sends you two photos. Indeed. Which photos? The Holy Fire ceremony, not from Christmas, because those were what I was asking for, because those were the subject of my research. And he indeed sends me two truly high-resolution ones.
  – Indeed.
  – Why did I ask for them? Because searching online, I wanted to have the clearest possible images, and the publishing house can confirm this, that publishing houses always want the best, technically perfect photographs wherever available. And who else could have the most technically perfect, I mean, clear photographs? He himself. And he sent me two photos. The claim of the accusers’ lawyers, which says, ‘yes, but he didn’t answer your question.’ Yes, he didn’t answer me. After 9 days, he knew and came there, and pay attention…
  – Where did he come?
  – Sorry, I came.
  – You went.
  – I went after 9 days. Firstly, he could have done the simplest thing for a journalist. And a journalist who respects ethics would have done it immediately. Firstly, Mr. Alikakos, please, you already know, I sent you photos 9 days ago, on the 16th of the month. I want to tell you now that I do not want you to publish these photos. Indeed. Instead, what does he do? On the same day, he stands in front of the camera, is photographed and videotaped for 45 minutes.
  – Was that video, the one shown, made then?
  – Yes.
  – After you went.
  – Exactly on November 26th then. That is, he had 9 days, I come, I see him, and he could tell me the simplest thing. ‘Please, I don’t want any,’ pay attention, ‘not photos, leave the photos aside, photos are implicitly included, I don’t want any publicity.’ Instead, what does he do? For 45 minutes he stands, is photographed, ‘let me say it on camera,’ he speaks again and again, he ‘unravels’ in quotes at the moment I ask him that truly difficult question, which is difficult to ask and difficult to answer, and at that moment His Eminence Aristarchos makes history because he is the first, pay attention, Madam President…
  – Aristarchos or Isidore?
  – Isidore, he is the first in history, not some monk, some guardian, there are a hundred people in the brotherhood who serve the pilgrimages, he is the person who prepares and carries out the ignition of the Holy Fire. He is the sole person responsible for the entire ceremony.
  – Did he remain afterwards?
  – And of course he remained, not only did he remain but, as I learned, he also became a synodal metropolitan, meaning he has no problem. Of course, he remained, as I learned, but these are journalistic insights, if you will, okay, he felt internal threats from the community, from the brotherhood, based on the logic – you will understand the logic – ‘we have been here for so many centuries, who are you? Are you the smart one who will tell the secret when we guard it with a thousand teeth? And you go and blurt it out and say it on camera and it appears normally?’ It is our mission, I read to you about the fear, the fear, the fear of the faithful. It is our mission to keep this, not only, of course, for fear, but also for other things that others wiser than me have written about, for power, for strength, for the renewal of their dominion there, and so on.
  
  – Indeed. Madam Prosecutor.
  – I have no question.
  – Do you have anything further to add?
  – Yes. I feel no, I want to speak humanly, just a minute, I feel no malice towards these people, especially towards His Eminence Isidore, because I believe that His Eminence Isidore, in particular, made a tremendous personal sacrifice. I feel his anguish, I remember the words he told me when I was there, ‘Mr. Alikakos, did you find others?’
  – What did you say?
  – Did you find others? He wanted support. I tell him, ‘yes, I also have Theophanis.’ Others? ‘I have also spoken with Cornelius, you saw it.’ He was anxious not to be the only one to come forward and feel the threat from the community. But not only from the community. Also from the faithful. He made a display of, shall I say, courage, historical courage, to publicly admit for the first time that there is no miracle. Of course, he said all this respectfully, that the Holy Fire is lit naturally. This is also the reason, one of the reasons, as you would have seen if you leafed through my book, that my research has no insinuation, no scandalous character in conclusion, no reproach towards these people, but you will see there is a paragraph where I say, ‘I wish everyone would be like whom?’ Like Aristarchos, Isidore, Cornelius, Theophanis.
  – Indeed.
  – I honor them, I acknowledge that they are honest, I acknowledge that they told the truth, they wear the cassock and honored it, those who did so, because there are, of course, others who hide it, and there are, of course, others who still lie today, perpetuating an 11-century delusion. That is all I had to say. Thank you.
  – (President) Do you have a question from the bench? Please sit.

Furthermore, the President asked the Prosecutor and the litigants if they required any supplementary examination or clarification of any evidence, and having received a negative answer, declared the evidentiary process closed.

The Prosecutor, having been given the floor, after presenting the accusation, proposed that both defendants be declared innocent.

The lawyers representing those supporting the prosecution disagreed with the prosecutor’s proposal and requested the conviction of the defendants as charged.

The defense lawyers for the defendants, having successively taken the floor, fully aligned with the prosecutor’s proposal and requested the acquittal of the defendants.

Following this, the President declared the discussion closed.

The Court then, in a private deliberation with the presence of its Secretary, drafted, and its President published in a public session, its decision STT950/2024, which is as follows: