Why is Ecumenism a heresy?

Father Daniele Marletta | July 13, 2019

 

 

I am often asked why many Orthodox are so opposed to the ecumenical movement and look upon it with such hostility, even seeing in it a heresy. The reasons are in fact many and serious, and they deserve an in-depth treatment. I will limit myself here to a few fundamental notes, starting from the example of a possible unification between Catholics and Orthodox. I have absolutely no pretension of setting forth here, in a few lines, all the possible interpretations of a problem that is in itself quite complex. I will confine myself to stating what I believe can be considered the most obvious—and in certain respects almost banal—critique of ecumenism, and this because such a critique, precisely on account of its obviousness, is often ignored.

I wish to set aside for a moment the question of dogmatic differences—a question to which many today are (quite unjustly) allergic—and to begin from a simply practical point of view. A possible union between Catholics and Orthodox is possible only in three perspectives, or if one prefers, three paths, which I shall proceed to examine.

The first path is that which we might define as a “Catholic” ecumenism. In such a perspective, the Pope of Rome preserves his present position, remaining the “universal” bishop (according to the Roman Catholic definition), with jurisdiction over the entire Church. This is, in fact, still today the position of the Second Vatican Council and of many recent official documents of the Roman See, in which it is reaffirmed that there is no true communion with the Church except in communion with the Pope. It is clear that such a possibility would sanction the end of Orthodoxy as we currently know it. In the Orthodox Church there exists no universal primacy, and all bishops have equal dignity. Each of them has direct jurisdiction within his own territory, and not beyond it. We can say that such a perspective would lead the Orthodox to cease being Orthodox.

It should be noted that this position is by no means new. It is the one that was advanced at the Council of Lyons (in the second half of the thirteenth century), then at that of Ferrara-Florence (in the fifteenth century), and which was later put into effect with the Union of Brest (1595–96) and, in general, with what the Orthodox call “Uniatism.” These attempts at unification (or, more precisely, at the assimilation of the Orthodox to Rome) were always very modest in their results and in fact rather contributed to confirming the Orthodox in a deep anti-Latin attitude, above all because of unpleasant historical events, such as the massacre carried out by Patriarch Bekkos against those Athonite monks who had rebelled against the union of Lyons. This suffices to say that this path is absolutely not practicable on the part of the Orthodox.

The second path is entirely the mirror image of the previous one, and we could define it as an “Orthodox” ecumenism. According to this perspective, the Pope of Rome should renounce his present position, becoming a bishop like the others (or, if one prefers, a Patriarch like the others). Here the argument just made for the Orthodox applies: in the event of such a change within Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox would perhaps preserve their identity, but it would be the Roman Catholics who would lose theirs. Father Georges Florovsky was for a certain time a convinced supporter of this path. He was radically convinced that the Orthodox, by participating in the ecumenical movement, could in some way “bear witness” to the truth. He soon came to disillusionment, realizing how the underlying spirit of ecumenism did not permit such a witness.

“Our salvation is only with the Pope and in the Pope,” said John Bosco. Obviously, since his time much water has flowed under the bridges, and today very few would use an expression of this sort. This, however, does not at all mean that for Catholicism the figure of the Pope has lost importance. In many respects, on the contrary, the Pope manages to maintain popularity despite the profound crisis of Catholicism. Will Catholics truly be willing to abandon the idea that the Church is visibly governed by a single Vicar of Christ? Being Orthodox, I refrain from expressing myself on their behalf, although everything leads me to conjecture a negative answer.

These first two paths start from the presupposition that the path to unity is above all a path of assimilation, because both begin from a very clear perception of the reality of the Church. If in fact there are many doctrinal differences between Orthodox and Catholics (even though for the sake of simplicity I have limited myself only to the problem of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope), it is obvious that there are also points in common. Among these points in common is the firm faith in the fact that the Church is already visibly united and one. Both Orthodox and Catholics recognize themselves in the Church “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic,” according to the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The difference (which is by no means insignificant) consists rather in the identification of which is the true Church, that is, whether it is the Orthodox Church or Roman Catholicism.

We therefore come to the third path: “Protestant” ecumenism, that is, what is generally called “unity in diversity.” This is the underlying perspective that has animated the ecumenical movement since its origin. It is worth recalling how ecumenism was born within liberal Protestantism and was nourished by some of its fundamental ideas. It goes without saying that an authentic Protestant, who takes seriously the fundamental points of the Reformation, will never be able to accept a compromise on such points. Ecumenism in fact arises in the Protestant world for the Protestant world. Outside the perspective of the Reformation, it fades completely and loses its meaning. In our initial hypothesis, that of a unification of Catholics and Orthodox, unity in diversity could have only two antithetical outcomes. A first possible outcome would be that of a formal unity or communion in which one continues to be divided on everything: if the metaphor is allowed, it would be like moving from divorce to legal separation. Another possible outcome would be that of the relativization of faith: being together while believing that what divides us is only relative, and not absolute. This would mean the loss of identity both for Roman Catholics and for the Orthodox.

It must be noted that this perspective of unity in diversity, unlike the previous ones, starts from the presupposition that the Church is not visibly united. The unity of the Church is here considered either as an invisible unity to be made visible, or as a unity that is only potential and to be, so to speak, put into effect. It is quite curious that both Roman Catholics and Orthodox, while each professing their own form of ecumenism (the first two paths of which I have spoken), have then signed documents such as the Charta Oecumenica, [1] which are clear expressions of this third path.

Here we enter into the problem of dogmatic differences among Christians of different confessions. At this point we must ask ourselves a series of questions: how important are such differences? Are we truly willing to renounce them? A Protestant author, Alphonse Maillot, once wrote concerning relations between Catholics and Protestants the lines that I reproduce:

“One must ask oneself whether it is because of an authentic Christian conviction that Catholics and Protestants today extend a hand to one another, or whether it is not, often, out of lukewarmness and indifference. Like two valiant warriors tired of fighting without clearly knowing the reason, they consent to clasp hands before lying down to sleep or to die. I do not believe that it is always an authentic reconciliation. One may ask whether the cessation of mutual accusations of heresy does not simply prove that both sides have renounced their deep convictions in order to turn their approximations into compromises. The problem must be posed.” [2]

Maillot here touches upon a profound problem. The inter-Christian movement, with its train of dialogues, concelebrations, and common declarations, is perhaps nothing other than the symptom of an illness that today afflicts almost all Christian Confessions: the lack of faith. With the advance of secularization and the ever-growing estrangement between the masses, only nominally Christian, and the Church (whatever one may mean by “Church”), it is clear that all Christian Confessions are passing through a moment of profound spiritual crisis, entirely parallel to the cultural crisis that generally affects the West. The minimalism and dogmatic relativism underlying ecumenism are, from this point of view, the theological version of the cultural relativism that today is so much in vogue. It must be added that, just as cultural relativism is the symptom of the West’s crisis of identity (a West that seems by now to have renounced its Greco-Latin roots at least as much as its Christian ones), in the same way ecumenism is nothing but the symptom of a loss of faith. It is clear that this is not the only symptom of this illness. It is, however, one of the most evident symptoms today.

In conclusion, to the question of whether ecumenism is a heresy, I believe I can reply that it is perhaps much more than a simple heresy.

One might perhaps object to me that the “holy wars” of the past were certainly not a symptom of spiritual health, which in certain respects is true. It is also true, however, that the “wars” (holy or otherwise) among Christians of past centuries always had reasons. The fact of not waging war does not in itself make today’s Christians better than those of yesterday. I believe that it would be a sign of great spiritual pride today, for an Orthodox, to consider himself more Christian than Saint Gregory Palamas (who had words of fire against the Latins), just as it would be a sign of pride, for a Roman Catholic, to believe himself more Christian than that Thomas Aquinas who was the author of a treatise Contra errores graecorum.

 

1. Council of the Episcopal Conferences of Europe – Conference of European Churches, Charta Oecumenica. A text, a process, a dream of the Churches in Europe, Turin, Claudiana – Elledici, 2007. See, in addition to the text of the Charta, also the enthusiastic comments of many theologians, both Orthodox and Catholic, collected in the volume.

2. Alphonse Maillot, Les Miracles de Jesus et nous, Tournon (F), Éditions Réveil, 1977 (“Cahiers de Réveil”); Italian trans.: I miracoli di Gesù, Turin, Claudiana, 1990, p. 75

 

Italian source: https://www.orthodoxia.it/wp/ecumenismo-eresia/

The Only Permissible Condemnation

Archimandrite Seraphim Aleksiev (+1993)

 

A. The Distinction Between Moral Failings and Sins Against the Faith

In the stories of old, we read: A hermit saw one of his brothers sinning and began to lament: "Woe is me! As my brother is sinning now, perhaps I too will sin tomorrow!" After this, turning to his disciple, he added: "Whatever grave sin a brother may fall into in your presence, you must not condemn him! On the contrary, you must be convinced that you sin more than he does, even if he is a man of the world. An exception to this rule must be the case where you hear someone blaspheming God or speaking heretically."

This story from the Holy Fathers wonderfully illustrates the Orthodox answer regarding how our relationship should be towards the two possible types of sinful people: 1) those who sin in their moral behavior and 2) those who sin against the faith.

Towards the first, we must show tolerance and not condemn them, because our own souls are sinful, and through condemnation, they become even more sinful. The Church itself patiently and magnanimously endures and heals such sinners, awaiting their repentance and correction. To such sinners refer the divine words that we must always forgive them if they repent, not merely seven times a day, but up to seventy times seven (Matthew 18:21-22; see Luke 17:4).

Towards the others, however, we are commanded not to be tolerant but to approach them with great vigilance, criticism, and without reconciliation. The Holy Apostle Paul, who always teaches us not to scorn our fellow humans for their moral weaknesses, nor to despise them, but to heal them with love (see 1 Corinthians 13:1-7), suddenly becomes very strict when it comes to those who err against the purity of the faith. While he is fatherly concerned for the weak (see 1 Thessalonians 2:7-8) and recommends comforting conduct towards the brethren (see Romans 12:10), he becomes extremely harsh against heretics: Beware of dogs! Beware of evil workers! (Philippians 3:2). See that no one deceives you through philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition, according to the weak elements of the world, and not according to Christ! (Colossians 2:8). Why is he so sharp towards false teachers? Because, without question, false teachings are poison for the soul, and indiscriminate behavior towards them and adherence to such teachings lead to eternal destruction. Moral weaknesses can sometimes serve to humble a person and lead them to salvation in the Lord through proper repentance. However, heresy is outright perdition.

Nowhere in Holy Scripture do we find instructions that we could forgive sins against the faith commanded by God, while we are repeatedly told that we are obliged to forgive those who sin against us because of human weakness. Those who sin against the Orthodox faith sin directly against God, not against people. They blaspheme the revealed Truth, not the opinions of ordinary men. For this reason, it is said: A man who is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject (Titus 3:10). Even the Holy Church, that caring Mother for Her erring children, is very strict with heretics. After repeatedly calling them to their senses and repentance, and upon their refusal to repent, She removes them from Her communion as unwise and obstinate corrupters of divine truths. Those who sin morally remain Her members, even though gravely ill. However, heretics cannot remain Her members, even if they were so previously (see 1 John 2:19). They no longer belong to the blessed body because they have departed from the Truth, which is God Himself, who is Truth (see Hebrews 10:10; John 14:6), and have united themselves with falsehood, which is the devil, called a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). Just as there can be no fellowship between light and darkness, so there can be no ecclesiastical fellowship in prayer and Sacraments between an Orthodox Christian and a heretic. For the former, though sinful, has wholeheartedly embraced the revealed dogmas, humbled himself before them, lives by them, and is saved through them, whereas the latter is a proud worshiper of his delusions, through which he perishes.

What is heresy? It is the false teaching that, to a greater or lesser degree, distorts the true divine teaching and cunningly seeks to alter it, even to elevate itself in its place. The truths of faith were revealed to us once and for all (see Jude 1:3) by God! But heresies are the invention of the devil, who strives to sow the seeds of discord in the hearts of men, to separate them from God, to divide them, to cause them to quarrel among themselves, and thus to dominate them. Truth leads to God. It teaches us to confess the Holy Trinity: to worship God the Father, His divine Son, who came to earth to redeem us from our sins, and also the divine Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth (see John 15:26) and who guides us into all truth (see John 16:13). The Revelation that God has left us represents perfect righteousness and truth (Psalm 118:38). That is why it obligates us so much! Eternal life is attained through the knowledge of the One True God and the One sent by Him—Jesus Christ (see John 17:3), not through opposition to the Truth. Regarding the Word of God, it is said that it is the Word of Truth (Ephesians 1:13). This Truth sanctifies (see John 17:17), while error, as the fruit of the dark spirit of wickedness, darkens and destroys man.

To protect us from such perdition, the Holy Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes: Now I urge you, brethren, to watch out for those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them! (Romans 16:17). For the same reason, the apostolic canons strictly forbid us from participating in prayer with heretics, commanding: If anyone prays with someone who is not in communion with the Church, even in his own house, let him be excommunicated! (Canons of the Holy Apostles 10, 45, 61; Laodicea 6, 32, 33).

The Ecumenical Councils and the Local Councils of the Holy Orthodox Church had as their most important task to preserve the inheritance of the apostolic teaching undefiled by heresies (see 1 Timothy 6:3). They required heretics to humble themselves before the divine truth preserved in the Church and to renounce their false teaching. In case of resistance, the Church excommunicated (anathematized) them, with the purpose of bringing them to their senses and teaching them not to blaspheme (1 Timothy 1:20).

To some, such an attitude of Christ's Church may seem very "harsh." However, the Church did not act with severity but, on the contrary, with fullness of love. Love both towards the heretics and towards Her faithful children. By excommunicating those who deviated from the truth, She made a final and grand attempt to enlighten them, offering them the possibility, after the excommunication, to repent if they so desired. And towards Her true children, She showed great care, protecting them from the soul-destroying heresies. She would have been harsh towards Her children if She had not shielded them from the death-bringing plague of heresies and if She had left them in the hands of Satan. For it is known that heresy, as an invention of the devil, leads to hell. By acting strictly towards heretics, the Church did not pursue any human caprice but rather the clear command of Christ, who says of the incorrigible person: And if he refuses to hear the Church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector! (Matthew 18:17).

These age-old principles of the Church, preserved with sanctity until recently, are being violated today by a multitude of Orthodox Christians under the influence of modern errors and, in particular, of the so-called ecumenical movement, established by the World Council of Churches. This movement is, at its core, of Protestant origin. Roman Catholicism also collaborates closely with it, even though, for tactical reasons, it has not formally joined this ecumenical community to this day. Almost all sects and heresies of the present world, which unjustly call themselves "churches," participate in it. Ecumenism claims to unite the Orthodox with heretics and even with those of other religions. Under their influence and under the influence of the deceptive spirit of humanism prevalent in today's world, many now say: "What harm is there if all believers on earth unite and stop quarreling among themselves?"

The argument appears very praiseworthy as long as it is based on the desire for peace. It is known that no wise person desires war. However, behind this wonderful proposal lie not bright plans, but dark, devilish ones: plans to undermine divine truth, to align the true Church of Christ with the assemblies of heretics who claim to be true "churches," and to subvert the eternal foundations of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, founded by the Savior, which is solely Orthodoxy (see Matthew 16:18).

The Savior said: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits! (Matthew 7:15-16). Let us see what the fruits are of those participating in ecumenism, eager to unite with heretics! While ostensibly striving to eliminate enmity with those excommunicated, they enter into ideological conflict with their own Church and their fellow believers. By forging connections with heterodox groups, they break ties with their Orthodox brethren who refuse to violate the apostolic rules by praying together with heretics and who dare not trample upon the word of God, where we read: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds! (2 John 1:10).

How far can this path of ecumenism lead? To brotherhood with heretics and to the breaking of fraternal bonds with the Orthodox. Is this not a devilish plan to tear apart the unity of Orthodoxy under the pretense of striving for the ideal indicated by Christ—that they all may be one (see John 17:21)? However, the Savior never desired fellowship between truth and falsehood, between Orthodoxy and false teaching, between light and darkness, between Christ and Belial (see 2 Corinthians 6:15). On the contrary, He comes to bring division between faithful souls and the devil. His divine words are clear and indisputable: Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword! (Matthew 10:34; see Luke 12:51). Indeed, He prays for unity, but unity in Truth, not against Truth. If sectarians, heretics, and false teachers wish to renounce their errors and return to the bosom of the Orthodox Faith, this will fulfill Christ's Testament—that they all may be one (John 17:21). And then, the joy in heaven will be boundless. But as long as there is separation from Truth, there cannot be one flock and one shepherd (see John 10:16). Christ does not include everyone in His flock. He excluded the Jews who did not believe in Him, saying to them: But you are not of My sheep (John 10:26). If, according to Christ's words, there are sheep who are not of His fold, whom He Himself does not accept because of their unbelief in Him, then the proclamation of the false unity of ecumenism is inconceivable and deceptive. Indeed, the Savior clearly says: And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice (John 10:16). What does this mean? That not only the Jews, confined by the law of God and within the fold of the Old Testament, but also the pagans, who are far from this fold, can enter into the one and only fold of Christ, offered by the Church of Christ. But to enter into it, they must hear the voice of the Savior, meaning they must accept without objection the Truth proclaimed by Him, as it is received and preached by the Orthodox Church, established by Him as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Those who do not accept the entire divine truth but only a part of it and who mix it with falsehood do not belong to Christ's flock. Similarly, those who outwardly appear to be in the fold but inwardly separate themselves from Him, from His dogmas and canons, are not His members. This will become clear, if not now, then undoubtedly at the fearful Judgment of Christ.

The deceptive humanist spirit of our times replaces the classical evangelical spirit and stamps its mark of thought even upon educated Orthodox Christians. This deceptive humanist spirit is entirely opposed to the Ecumenical Councils and draws many toward violating the Truth (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3). It urges disobedience to Mother Church. This makes heresy irreconcilable with sound teaching, yet today there is a mistaken understanding being promoted of equality in rights between the devilish falsehood and the truth of divine Revelation. The Church has excluded false teachers from its communion, yet today prayer together with them is being advocated. The Church permits no liturgical or sacramental fellowship between Orthodox and heterodox, yet today there is a push for communion with Protestants. The Church condemns the distorters of Truth, but today such condemnation is considered a sin akin to ordinary slander.

There are modern Orthodox authors, such as Sergei Bolshakov and others like him, who, when speaking of contemporary ascetics, emphasize as their most important quality the fact that they did not condemn anyone—even heretics. Through such equivalence between forbidden and permissible condemnation, these authors secretly introduce the harmful tendency to mix truth with falsehood, favoring the indifferent ecumenist faith, which facilitates the union of Orthodoxy with other confessions and even with pagan religions. Sergei Bolshakov gives as an example of such "non-condemnation" the late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple. Indeed, William Temple did not condemn even the most evident heretics in his church. As a great ecumenist, he upheld the ruinous principle of universality, according to which all can unite with all, regardless of their disagreements concerning dogmas. After the foundation of ecumenism was established in 1954, maintaining a minimal doctrinal basis for the union of Christian faiths—with minimal belief in Christ as God and Savior—W. Temple stated that the rejection of this foundation should not hinder ecumenists from continuing to collaborate with other denominations and sects that do not recognize God as Savior. What else can this signify but the wide opening of the gate for the union of Truth with falsehood?

Some will attempt to justify the non-condemnation of heretics with the argument that it is done in the name of peace and the removal of war. But who incites war? Precisely those dark Masonic forces that preach both the mixing of confessions and the merging of beliefs! Their goal is not the removal of the terrifying war that concerns us all, but the destruction of Truth and leading Orthodox Christians to renounce this Truth (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Let us illustrate these ideas with an example from a story!

In a vast forest lived many rabbits, deer, and stags. There was plenty of pasture for all. The animals were happy and spent their days in peace. However, nearby lurked the wolves. From time to time, they would attack the gentle deer and tear apart some of them. Yet, the hunger of the wolves was not satisfied, for the deer and rabbits were very cautious animals and hid skillfully. The wolves then gathered for a council to decide on the matter of food during a time of scarcity. The eldest wolf, cunning as a devil, said:

"I have devised a plan," said the old wolf. "We will set the forest on fire, and that way, we will flush out all the rabbits, deer, and stags from their hiding places... and after that... you can imagine what we’ll do next!"

The plan was accepted, and the forest was set ablaze.

"Fire! Fire!" came cries of terror one morning.

All the animals, restless, emerged from their dens and hiding places. Rabbits leaped out of the burrows where they had hidden. The deer came out of the thickets, confused about which direction to run. Even the bears, foxes, and other predators appeared, terrified by the calamity. All were frightened and subdued in the face of the general disaster.

"Why are you so bewildered?!" shouted the old wolf to his herbivore sisters. "Let’s all become brothers and flee together! Come with us! We know where it’s safe!"

An old, wise deer turned to her younger sisters and shouted: "We must not go with the wolves! Let us flee from the fire, but not alongside our enemies—let us go in another direction!"

Some listened to her and followed her. But most of the herbivores separated from her and followed the wolves.

"Where everyone is, there we will be too!" they said. "In the midst of the crowd, we will feel safer!"

All the animals—some on the left with the wolf leading them, and others on the right with the wise deer—began a frantic run and escaped the reach of the fire. However, when they reached the "safe" place, the bloodthirsty wolves pounced on their defenseless herbivore companions and organized a sinister feast with them...

Such a fate is prepared for the Orthodox sheep of Christ by the instigator who kindles the infernal spiritual fires... But who thinks of this? Who cherishes their eternal salvation? Who sees in the same figure both the instigator of wars and the deceitful preacher of peace?!

Everything becomes mixed in our unfortunate times, marked by materialistic science and spiritual darkness! Defaming others for their moral sins no longer shocks anyone, despite the fact that this is clearly forbidden by God (see Matthew 7:1-3; Luke 6:37) and causes daily wars among people. However, raising one's voice against sins against the true faith is considered narrow-mindedness. Manifesting hatred toward personal enemies is regarded as normal. Yet hatred against false teaching in the realm of religion is a sentiment incomprehensible to many, despite the fact that the Word of God categorically calls us to this through the mouth of the Holy Prophet David, who writes: Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord, and loathe those who rise up against You? With perfect hatred I have hated them; they have become my enemies (Psalm 138:21-22).

It is worth focusing our attention on these important thoughts from the Psalms. What is meant here by the enemies of God? Saint Athanasius the Great answers: "The enemies of God are, first and foremost, and in the true sense of the word, the unclean demons; secondly, after the demons, they are the defenders of idolatry and the originators of heresies."

But how can the Word of God preach hatred? It must be emphasized that here, clearly, it does not refer to the ordinary hatred that a person feels toward their own enemies, since the matter does not concern such enemies but the enemies of God. Therefore, the hatred felt toward them is not a sin. It is no coincidence that it is called "perfect hatred." In the hatred toward one's own enemies, there is passion, malice, revenge—manifestations of human imperfection. However, in the hatred toward the enemies of God, as experienced by the gentle David, there are no such imperfections; instead, it contains an incomprehensible perfection for us sinners, connected not to passion but to dispassion. This dispassion can hate the evil in people but not the people themselves, reject heresy but spare the heretics. Here is what we read in the commentary on the Psalms by Euthymius Zigabenus (12th century), conveying the words of an unknown author: "He hates his spiritual enemies with perfect hatred, who neither errs in gesture, nor in deed, nor in thought, and this signifies the highest and deepest dispassion."

According to Blessed Augustine, perfect hatred is that by which one hates evil but does not harbor hatred toward the sinful person.

A similar idea is expressed by Saint John Chrysostom: "We must denounce heretical teachings… but we must spare people and pray for their salvation!" In another sermon, he declares: "I am not disgusted by the person, but I hate his error and desire to bring him out of his error. I wage war not against the person, who is God's creation, but I seek to correct his mind, perverted by devils. Just as a doctor treating the sick does not fight against the body but removes the harm from it, so too, when I fight against heretics, I do not fight against the people but seek to destroy the error."

Defaming others for their moral shortcomings is vile and full of wickedness, whereas condemning those who corrupt the faith should be a debate, not a denunciation. The one who defames is filled with anger against his own rivals, hateful neighbors, or hostile relatives; in them, he sees those who wish him harm—enemies of his personal interests. But the one who is critical of heresies sees in heretics the enemies of God, and therefore, vigilant, he guards himself against them. If you hear that your neighbors commit certain wrongs against you and you endure them with meekness, you strive in the virtue of patience. However, if you realize that they are heretics and seek to draw you and your loved ones into their heresy, and then you are filled with holy anger, God will not count this as a sin, provided that this pure and God-pleasing anger does not degenerate into the satisfaction of your own passion, called revenge and malice.

The Savior teaches us not to be angry without cause (see Matthew 5:22). What does the phrase without cause mean here? This is explained very clearly by Abba Pimen. A certain monk asked him, “What does it mean to be angry with our brother without cause?” He answered very wisely and spiritually: "Your anger is without cause when you are angry over material interests, which harm your neighbor, or when someone takes out your right eye! But if someone strives to separate you from God, you may be angry with such a person!"

Saint Theophylact of Bulgaria writes: "He who is angry with his brother without cause will be condemned; but if someone is angry for justified reasons, with a purpose of correction and out of spiritual zeal, such a one will not be condemned. Paul also spoke words of anger to Elymas the sorcerer and to the high priest, but not without cause, rather out of zeal. We are angry without cause when we boil with anger over material things or for the sake of glory."

Anger was given to us for good, but the devil has turned it toward evil... teaches the Holy Apostle Paul: Be angry, and do not sin (Ephesians 4:26; see Psalm 4:5). From this, it follows that we must be angry where it is necessary, to fulfill our Christian duty, and not be disturbed where it is not needed. In short, we must not use our capacity for indignation to slander, but neither must we cover heresies with indulgence, thereby sinning against our duty to guard the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience (1 Timothy 3:9).

Despite the obviousness of these matters, the plague of modern influences spreads with the swiftness of an uncontrollable epidemic. Many minds today are so confused that they plunge into the devilish delusion which considers faithfulness to Holy Orthodoxy as obscurantism and narrow-mindedness, while participation in prayer and the Holy Mysteries with heretics, as well as the open or hidden betrayal of dogmas and canons, is regarded as inclusiveness and openness to the world.

The enemy of salvation works intensely on the consciences of people, clouding their minds. Under his influence, it has reached the point where condemning others for their moral weaknesses is considered "heroism" and "zeal for good," while failing to criticize heretical teachings and the actions of heterodox individuals who seek to undermine the truth of Orthodoxy is regarded as elevated humanism and love for one's neighbor. The Apostolic testament to distance ourselves from heretics is forgotten (see Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Peter 2:1). Instead of correction, a rapprochement with them is preached today. The words of the Holy Apostle Paul are ignored: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed! (Galatians 1:8). In place of this, a new proclamation is heard today: "Why do we not have prayer fellowship with heterodox and those of other faiths? Are we, the Orthodox, the only ones who are right?" And such words are spoken not only by those ignorant of Orthodoxy but even by some who present themselves as teachers of the faith...

And regarding this, the matter is so clear and simple! In the defense of Holy Orthodoxy against heresies, it is not about our human righteousness but about divine righteousness and truth. God, who is Himself the Truth (see Jeremiah 10:10), has revealed through Divine Scripture the salvific truths of faith. These truths do not come from human minds but from the Divine Revelation of the Old and New Testaments. Transmitted through men chosen by God, these truths prepared, in the era of the Old Testament, the salvation of all mankind, immersed in pagan errors. In the New Testament, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of God, revealed to us the truths about the One God in essence, yet Triune in Persons; about His providence over all humankind; about the redemption accomplished by the Son of God; about forgiveness obtained through faith and good works; about the priesthood received through apostolic succession; about the Mysteries through which grace is imparted; about the Church, founded on the true faith in Jesus Christ (see Matthew 16:16-18) and destined to be, for seekers of salvation, like Noah's Ark in the midst of the ocean of errors until the end of the world, and so on.

Through this faith in the revealed truths, man is saved; it is enough to act in accordance with them. But through the rejection of this faith, he falls into perdition (see Mark 16:16). Departure from Holy Orthodoxy is, therefore, undoubtedly a calamity. To remain in the Truth despite today's scandals is the foundation of our hope that God will have mercy on us. Saint Mark of Ephesus, the great defender of Orthodoxy against Roman Catholicism (1444), writes about our Orthodox faith as follows: "With it, we hope to stand before God and receive forgiveness for our sins. And without it, we do not know if any righteousness will deliver us from eternal torments!" He who believes in the truths of Divine Revelation honors God. But he who opposes them makes God a liar (see 1 John 5:10). And this is sacrilege! It is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven, neither in this age nor in the one to come (see Matthew 12:32)!

God speaks the truth! The devil, however, lies, slandering God by claiming that He lied (see Genesis 3:1-5). God is our irreplaceable Benefactor, our Provider, our Redeemer! But the devil, this adversary of God, is our tempter, our enemy, our destroyer! As a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44), he does not abide in the truth but opposes it. He seeks to remove it from the hearts of believers, replacing it with his own lies. In the period of the Old Testament, he invented idolatry and manifested himself through idols in which demons dwelled (see Psalm 95:5). In the grace-filled era of the New Testament, in place of the Church—this unique divine-human institution in the world—the devil establishes heretical groups to teach us to reject the true foundation of Christ’s Church and to claim that these are the churches of Christ! Saint Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century) warned us: "The devil lies to deceive…; he promises peace so that true peace cannot be received, offers salvation to prevent the sinner from walking the path to salvation, proposes the church but acts in such a way that the one who believes his words perishes completely in relation to the Church."

As a result of the efforts of the adversaries, today those heretical groups that bear none of the marks of the Church are called "churches." Examples include the Unitarians, liberal Christians, Quakers, and various other Western and American religious groups that do not believe in Christ as God, yet despite this, claim to be churches and are members under the umbrella of the World Council of "Churches." Into this World Council of "Churches," the local Orthodox Churches are also drawn to participate, so that they may sin there through their prayer fellowship with heterodox and those of other faiths! From this communion, not only does no benefit come for the Orthodox faith, but on the contrary, it leads onto the path of departure from the Truth, foretold by the Holy Apostle Paul as a foreboding sign of the approach of the time of Antichrist (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3).

In the past, the devil divided Christians to separate them and dominate them. Today, he himself unites them to drown even the true Church—Orthodoxy—in the swamp of errors. The devil caused the loss of many souls in the early centuries of the Church's history through the heresies he devised at that time. Now he leads to destruction, and will continue to destroy, even more souls until the end of human history, through the union of all into a pan-heretical "church."

However, the true Church of Christ will remain intact until the end of the world, according to the unchanging promise of the Savior (see Matthew 16:18), and it will remain in its place even if only in the person of the few remaining faithful Orthodox Christians who persevere until death (see Revelation 2:10). The Church floats and will continue to float above the flood of errors and false teachings like a true Ark of Noah, striving toward the heavenly Ararat (see Genesis 8:4)!

B. The Holy Fathers and Heresies

The best sons of Christ's Church, the Holy Fathers, once endeavored to open the eyes of true believers to see clearly who stands behind heresies. Saint Athanasius the Great, the steadfast defender against the gravest ancient error—Arianism—rightly writes: "Every heresy has as its father the devil, who from the beginning strayed and became a murderer of men and a liar. Ashamed to pronounce his hateful name, the heretic hypocritically assumes the wondrous and exalted name of the Savior, gathers words from Scripture, ... but hides their true meanings, and ultimately, by cunningly concealing his invention, becomes a murderer of men by leading those he misguides into error."

Therefore, behind every heresy hides Satan. If this is so, it is evident that condemning heresy is not a sin but, on the contrary, a sacred duty of Orthodox believers; they must only ensure that they are not guided in this by sinful impulses of personal revenge, self-interest, or similar motives.

But is it not good, after all, to have peace with heretics and to avoid disputes on religious matters? In daily life, on a civic level, we are indeed called to live in peace with all people (see Hebrews 12:14). However, this does not mean that we should become indifferent to our faith or allow ourselves to be influenced by false teachings. Driven by the evil spirit, heretics are often very unruly. We must defend our Holy Orthodoxy against them and not allow them, through our indifference, to tear members away from the Holy Orthodox Church, turning them into sectarians and heretics, servants of other interests...

The Lord does not restrict human free will. He allows even heretics, just as He allows the devil to act, but the one who knows the destruction wrought by false teaching cannot remain indifferent to its unrestrained spread among Orthodox Christians. He is obligated to open the eyes of his neighbors to the faith so that they do not fall into the snares of the evil one. In this regard, the most exemplary behavior is that of the saints, who were pleasing to God. They diligently avoided criticizing their neighbors for moral failings and, at the same time, through struggle and critique, protected both themselves and those around them from heresies, which they saw as a death-bringing disease. They did not condemn anyone except themselves when it came to sins in the realm of morality. But, on the other hand, they did not allow anyone to suggest even the slightest deviation from the Orthodox faith. Such was their vigilance in striving to remain faithful to Christ and Holy Orthodoxy until death.

The following story is told about the Venerable Agathon:

Once, he was visited by some brothers. Knowing his great holiness and having heard of his profound humility, they decided to test him. Thus, they said to him:

— Father, many are scandalized by you and say that you are a proud man, that you despise others, and that you consider them to be nothing. Furthermore, they say that you constantly slander the brothers. Many claim that the hidden reason for this behavior is the passion of lust in you. In order to conceal your sinful life, you are always occupied with slandering others.

To this, the elder humbly replied:

— I acknowledge that I have all these passions within me, as you accuse me!

After a moment of silence, he knelt before his visitors and said:

— I beg you, brothers, pray earnestly to the Lord Jesus Christ for me, the unworthy one, that He may forgive my many and grievous iniquities!

But the brothers continued:

— We will not hide from you that many also consider you a heretic!

Hearing these words, Saint Agathon leaped up as if burned and firmly opposed them:

— Even though my conscience accuses me of many sins, I am not a heretic!

The brothers marveled at his response, fell at the feet of the great elder, and asked him:

— Father, tell us why you were not at all troubled when we accused you of various passions and sins, but at the accusation of heresy, you were deeply shaken?

The elder replied:

— I accepted the first accusations of sins for two reasons: first, to acquire humility in this way; and second, so that you would not have a false opinion of me as being righteous. We know that salvation lies in humility. Our Savior Jesus Christ endured all when the Jews hurled insults and slanders at Him. In this way, He gave us an example to follow Him... but the accusation of heresy I cannot accept, and I cast it away with disdain because heresy is estrangement from God. The heretic separates himself from the Living and True God and unites with the devil and his angels. He who has severed himself from Christ no longer has God to whom he can pray for his sins, and thus he perishes. However, if the heretic sincerely returns to the faith safeguarded by the true Holy Catholic Church, he will be received by the Good and Merciful Redeemer!

From ancient times, many authoritative testimonies have reached us about how the Holy Fathers viewed heresies and heretics.

Saint Anthony the Great advises: "Do not sin in faith, so that our Creator may not be angered with you! He who does not hold the true faith prepares food for the undying worms and a sacrifice for the prince of the darkness of hell."

Saint Ephraim the Syrian, who taught us the wonderful words of the prayer, "Lord, grant me to see my own sins and not to judge my brother!" himself continually condemned heretics. From him, we know that his entire life was spent battling the enemies of Christ's truth. At the end of his life, wishing to instill zeal in his disciples for preserving the true faith, which he always exalted in his words, he said to them: "Neither by day nor by night, throughout my entire life, have I spoken ill (condemned) anyone. And as far as I can remember, I have not quarreled with anyone. But I have constantly fought in church assemblies against those who have strayed from the faith. You know that even the shepherd chastises his dog if, seeing the wolf approach the fold, it does not leap and bark against him."

Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus said to his disciples: "Flee from every heresy as from beasts filled with deadly venom!"

Abba Gelasius drove the Monophysite heretic Theodosius out of his cell without hesitation. And when Theodosius, through cunning, managed to become the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Abba Gelasius was not intimidated but continued to refuse to recognize him or submit to him. He considered it better to suffer for the Truth than to fall away from it for earthly benefits.

Blessed Jerome writes of himself: "I have never spared heretics, and I have always strived to make the enemies of the Church my enemies as well!"

The gentle Saint Seraphim of Sarov, who greeted his visitors with the comforting words, "My joy!" was, at the same time, a very stern exposer of those who strayed from the Orthodox faith.

Equally instructive for us is the example of Saint Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria, in his conduct toward the heretic Arius, the originator of the most harmful heresy of the ancient Church—Arianism.

Arius was a learned priest from Alexandria. Under the influence of certain Gnostic views, he began to preach, contrary to the Gospel, that Christ is not true God, nor the Son of God, co-eternal and without beginning with the Father, but rather a kind of highest first creature of God, a sort of instrument through which God created the world. Through this false teaching, he damaged the faith revealed by God in the Holy Trinity, undermined the authority of Holy Scripture, and eroded the doctrine of redemption, according to which only Jesus Christ, as God and the incarnate Son of God, could redeem the entire human race from sin, curse, and death. This is because a creature cannot redeem other creatures, as the Psalmist says: "The redemption of their soul is costly, and it shall cease forever" (Psalm 48:8).

Saint Peter, the Archbishop, observed the unjust thinking of Arius. Many times he reproved him, taught him, exposed his false teaching, and advised him in every possible way, but all in vain. Arius persisted stubbornly in his heresy. Then the righteous hierarch removed him from the priestly rank and excommunicated him from the Church.

At that time, a persecution against Christians had broken out under the pagan authorities. Archbishop Peter became a victim of this persecution and was thrown into prison. Arius saw this as the opportune moment to seek rehabilitation. His secret intention was that, after Archbishop Peter's death, he might be elevated to the throne of Alexandria. To this end, he sent two priests, close to the Archbishop, to intercede on his behalf, claiming that he had repented and renounced his erroneous views. That very night, Saint Peter had a vision in prison. Christ Himself appeared to him and revealed that Arius’s repentance was insincere and that he must not be received back into the bosom of the Church.

The following day, the two priests entered the prison to see Archbishop Peter and humbly begged him to forgive Arius. The blessed Peter, with tears in his eyes, replied: "My dear children, you do not understand what you are asking of me by interceding for the one who tears apart and will continue to tear apart for a long time the entire Church of Christ. I love my flock and fervently pray to God to forgive their sins and save them. But Arius I cast out, for God Himself has rejected him! It is not my judgment but God's judgment that has removed him from the Church. He blasphemes the most honorable Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity!" After this, he added: "Do not think that I am merciless toward Arius or that I am harsh toward sinners! The one who sins out of human weakness, even if that sin is great, is far less guilty than the sin of the heretic Arius!"

After this, the archbishop revealed to them how Christ Himself had appeared to him that night, clothed in a torn garment. Filled with reverent fear, Peter asked: "Savior, who has torn Your garment?" The Lord replied: "The foolish Arius! He has separated from Me many of My people, whom I have gained through My blood. But take heed! Do not allow him to have fellowship with the Church, even if he begs for it, for he harbors enmity against Me and against those who believe in Me! Do not allow the wolf in sheep's clothing into the fold!"

How instructive is Christ's attitude toward heretics! He defined them as enemies of God. If the Incarnate Love does not tolerate heretics and instructs the righteous archbishop to cast Arius out of the Church, who are we to cover for the enemies of divine truth and treat them with indulgence? They tear apart the Church of Christ. Therefore, they must be removed from it unless they repent!

Saint Peter suffered martyrdom in the year 311, and Arius was condemned as an incorrigible heretic by the First Ecumenical Council in the year 325.

The episode with Saint Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria, contains other parts full of instruction. The Orthodox Church in his time was in a very difficult situation. On one side, it was shaken by the storms of pagan persecutions, and on the other, it faced the dangerous heresy of Arius, which was gaining more and more followers. Arius was not a pagan but a Christian priest. He was a teacher of the faith in his parish. However, he misunderstood the mystery of Christ.

"What of it?"—many today might say, those who do not understand that the Church is not an earthly organization that issues various opinions on specific matters. It is a divine institution, founded upon the absolute and binding truth of Divine Revelation that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the Living God (see Matthew 16:16). Earthly organizations operate on earthly platforms and may compete for primacy among themselves, but the Church of Christ is the only divine-human organism, without any equal adversaries. It is the treasury of the mysteries of faith revealed by God, the herald of the Gospel of salvation, the dispenser of grace, and the guide leading us to heaven. The Church is not a propagation of human teachings to form alliances full of compromises with various earthly religious societies. It has God the Father as its Lawgiver (see Exodus 20:1-17), God the Son as its Teacher (see Matthew 23:8), and God the Holy Spirit as its Sanctifier (see 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). What has been revealed by God, only this does it accept. Heretical opinions are decisively rejected because they obstruct the path to salvation. This is why Saint Peter, the Archbishop, could not enter into a compromising alliance with Arius. Arius was cunning and slippery in his thinking. He pretended to be seeking peace with the archbishop, ostensibly in the name of the general interests of the Church. In the face of a common enemy—paganism—Arius proposed uniting the Arians, who held erroneous beliefs, with Orthodox Christians. It was as if he were saying to the Archbishop: "Before us lies persecution. See, you are under arrest. Many of your faithful flock are perishing as martyrs. Should we now, when faced with such a critical threat to the Church, argue among ourselves over our differences in ideas? We both believe in Christ, though one in one way and another in another! At least we do not deny Him as the pagans do! I am willing to make concessions. You should make a compromise too, and we will unite! Is it better for paganism to destroy us? If we unite and gain a majority, we will more successfully oppose and overcome it!"

However, the true hierarch of Christ did not think this way. He understood clearly that a union with heresy does not mean the growth of the Church but its internal disintegration, leading to destruction. Therefore, heresy is the devil’s bacillus, which decomposes, kills, and annihilates…

Paganism persecuted Christians externally, but inwardly it was beneficial. Outwardly, it reduced the number of the faithful, making a multitude of martyrs. However, through their blood, their innocent sufferings, and their exalted example, it contributed to the spread of the Church. As Tertullian aptly noted: "The blood of Christian martyrs is the seed of the spread of the Christian faith." For every martyr who died, hundreds and sometimes thousands of new followers of Christ arose. When the persecution ceased, the martyrs shone like stars in eternal life, so that, in reality, they did not perish but victoriously attained the goal of human life—the salvation of the soul (see 1 Peter 1:9). These pagan persecutions, in the end, contrary to the intentions of the godless emperors, proved beneficial both to the Church and to its members.

It was not the same with heresies. They did not contribute to the flourishing of the Church, for they corroded it from within. Heresies stole the sheep from Christ's fold, taking them out of the Church's flock to sell them to the devil, who howls like a wolf. This resulted in both a numerical decline in the members of the Church and the eternal destruction of those who rushed upon it.

Saint Peter, the Archbishop, with a mind enlightened by God, understood all these things, and therefore could not refrain from condemning Arius and his dark heresy. He did not consider the multitude of people that could have resulted from a possible union with Arius and his followers, but rather relied solely on the help of Christ God and His Church, which had been wondrously demonstrated so many times in the troubled history of the Church. From the very foundation of the Church by Christ, when it was composed of few believers and led by the faithful stewards, the future Apostles—men who were uneducated, unprepared, and weak—God the Son said: "Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom!" (Luke 12:32). And behold, these twelve souls, with the help of God, overcame the world and spread the Gospel everywhere. The strength of the Church lies in the Truth, not in numbers; in the power of divine grace, not in cunning diplomacy; in faithfulness to Christ, not in agreements full of compromises.

Many times in the history of the Church, heresies have dominated large masses of people, while the Orthodox could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Despite this, the true Christians did not lose heart but remained faithful to Christ until the end.

From the life of Saint Nicephorus the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople, we know how much harm the heresy of the iconoclasts caused to the Orthodox Church within the borders of the Byzantine Empire. Many Orthodox bishops were exiled and tortured there with hunger and thirst. The people were re-educated in a heretical spirit. Seeing this, Saint Patriarch Nicephorus, who still held his throne due to his great authority and who ceaselessly prayed to God with tears to protect His Church and safeguard His rational flock from the heretical plague, summoned several devout Christians to himself. He advised and taught them not to unite with the heretics but to guard themselves against their sinful leaven and the serpent’s poison. He also urged them not to lose heart because of the persecution by those who can kill the body but not the soul. Even if emperors and everyone else follow heresy, and if very few remain in the truth, the faithful of Orthodoxy must not yield but must know that the Lord does not approve of numbers but looks mercifully upon the one who fears and trembles at His word (see Isaiah 66:2). Such a one is more precious to Him than a multitude of people who disregard divine fear. To the faithful who had lost courage, the patriarch repeated Christ's words: "Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom!" (Luke 12:32). For his faithfulness to Orthodoxy, Saint Nicephorus was removed from the Patriarchal throne and sent into exile, where he died in the year 828.

Saint Maximus the Confessor also left us a profound example of courage and readiness to suffer and die in the name of divine truth. He stood up against both the emperor and the patriarch, who had been drawn into the Monothelite heresy. He wrote expositional works against this heresy and, despite harsh threats, unjust judgments, and severe tortures, he fearlessly maintained his Orthodox convictions. Arrested, falsely accused of being a supposed traitor to his homeland and an enemy of the emperor, and placed in the shameful position of bearing the gravest responsibility, Saint Maximus, knowing his innocence, would only sigh heavily and say: "I thank my God that I have been handed over into your hands and that I am being judged for unjust accusations, so that through all these things, the sins of my will and the wretchedness of my life may be cleansed!"

Seeking repeatedly to persuade him, to sway him with flattery, and to entice him with enticing promises in the name of the emperor, he firmly confessed: "Not even all the heavenly powers could convince me to do what the emperor demands of me! What excuse shall I offer—not before God alone, but even before my own conscience—if for human glory and honor, which are worth nothing, I abandon the true faith that saves those who love it?"

For his courageous confession, Saint Maximus suffered greatly: his tongue and both hands were cut off. Sent into exile, he spent several years in horrifying prison conditions and eventually died, to dwell in the eternal mansions of the heavenly kingdom. He passed into eternal rest in the year 662.

It is remarkable that all the saints of all ages, when faced with the trial—whether to accept a compromise with their conscience and embrace falsehood as heresy for the sake of certain earthly benefits, or to reject it at the risk of losing their lives—always preferred death over the deceptive prospects of a compromise.

The situation of the Russian Orthodox in the western and southwestern parts of Russia in the 17th century was difficult, as the powerful Roman Catholic propaganda, under the cover of favorable historical circumstances, was drawing many Orthodox Christians toward union with Rome. At that time, Saint Macarius of Kanev, the venerable martyr, labored in those regions. He taught all people not to stray from the Holy Orthodox Church. As abbot of the Ovruch Monastery, he worked to preserve the brotherhood entrusted to him in the Orthodox faith and indeed made his monastery a fortress of Orthodoxy. When Roman Catholic missionaries attempted to persuade him to accept, along with the entire monastic community, union with Rome and submission to the pope, Macarius boldly replied:

"What fellowship can we have with you? You have abandoned the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, begun to preach falsehood, and instead of being under the governance of the Lord Jesus Christ, you submit yourselves to an earthly ruler [the pope]!" Thus, he remained steadfast to the end and suffered a martyr's death. For his faith in the Truth, God deemed him worthy that his body remain incorrupt after death and that he be glorified by the Church. This glorification occurred only ten years after his martyrdom, which took place on September 7, 1678.

To us, the Orthodox Christians of today—facing the dangerous snare of entering into union not only with Roman Catholics but also with all the other heresies of the present world and even with all non-Christian religions on earth—the guidance found in the well-known "Testament" of the great Russian saint, the venerable Theodosius of the Kiev Caves (May 3, 1074), is especially precious. This testament was sent to Prince Iziaslav Yaroslavich of Kiev, whom cunning papal envoys were attempting to draw toward Roman Catholicism, shortly after Rome’s official separation from the Orthodox faith in 1054. Here is its content:

"Lord, bless! I must tell you something, God-loving prince! I, Theodosius, the unworthy servant of the Most Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—was born into the pure Orthodox faith and was raised in goodness and right teaching by my Orthodox parents—my father and my mother. Guard yourself, my son, from those of false faith and from conversations with them, for they have filled even our land! It is possible to save your soul only if you live according to the Orthodox Faith! For there is no faith better than our pure and holy Orthodoxy. If you live in this faith, not only will you be delivered from sins and eternal torments, but you will also become a partaker of eternal life and will rejoice forever with the saints! But those who live in another faith will not see eternal life. My son, it is not fitting for you to praise a foreign faith! Anyone among us who praises a foreign faith is as though he were blaspheming our own. And anyone who praises both our faith and a foreign faith is double-minded in faith and close to heresy!

"So, my son, guard yourself against these people and always remain in our faith! Do not fraternize with them but distance yourself from them, and labor in our faith through good deeds! Show mercy not only to those of our faith but also to those of other faiths. If you see someone who is naked, hungry, or in distress—even if he is a Jew, a Turk (Muslim), or a Latin (Roman Catholic)—be compassionate toward every person, helping him in his trouble as much as you are able. You will not lose your reward before God, for God Himself, in this life, pours out His mercies not only upon Christians but also upon unbelievers (see Matthew 5:45)! God cares for pagans and those of other faiths in this life. However, in the life to come, they will be strangers to eternal blessings. But we, if we live according to our Orthodox faith, will receive all blessings from God in this life and, in the life to come, will receive salvation from our Lord Jesus Christ.

"My son! Even if you must die for our holy faith, go boldly toward death! In the same way, the saints died for the faith, and today they live with Christ.

"If you see, my son, that those of other faiths (and the heterodox) are disputing with an Orthodox believer and trying to deceive him to pull him away from the Orthodox Church, you must help the Orthodox believer! By doing this, you will rescue the lamb from the lion's mouth. But if you remain silent and leave him without help, it is the same as tearing a soul redeemed by Christ away from Him and handing it over to Satan.

"If someone says to you, ‘Both your faith and ours are from God!’ you, my son, answer them thus: ‘Distorter of the faith, do you also consider God to be divided in faith?!’ Do you not hear what Scripture says: ‘There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism!’ (Ephesians 4:5)"

 

Romanian source: Vederea păcatelor noastre – tîlcuire la rugăciunea sfîntului Efrem Sirul [The Vision of Our Sins – An Interpretation of the Prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian], by Archimandrite Seraphim Aleksiev, Sophia Publishing House, 2003.

Online: https://web.archive.org/web/20200811161751/https://lumea-ortodoxa.ro/index.html@p=1002.html

 

St. Basil the Great: “In you ought to be preserved the remnants of true religion…”

Epistle 257: To the Monks who were afflicted by the Arians

Written in 376. Its subject is the same as that of Epistle 256 (The heretics had proceeded to persecutions against the Orthodox of Syrian Beroea in 376, and especially against monastic communities. Basil writes in a consolatory manner). The Arians were especially persecuting the monks.

***

What I said to myself when I heard about the trial which had been brought upon you by the enemies of God, this I have thought it well to report to you in writing, namely, that in a time which is considered to be peaceful [1] you procured for yourselves a blessing which is reserved for those who suffer persecution for the name of Christ. Not just because a gentle and mild name invests those performing wicked deeds ought we on this account to consider that the acts are not hostile. I judge that a war on the part of those of the same race is harder to bear, because it is even easy to guard against enemies who have been publicly proclaimed, but, in the case of those who mingle with us, it is necessary to be exposed to all harm. This you yourselves, too, have experienced. Our fathers also were persecuted but by idolaters, and their property was plundered and their houses were ruined and they themselves were banished by those who were openly making war on us because of the name of Christ. But the men now appearing as persecutors hate us no less than those, and for the purpose of deceiving the many put forward the name of Christ [2] in order that the persecuted may not even have consolation from their confession of it, since the many and the simpler souls admit that we are wronged but do not account our death for the truth as martyrdom for us. For this reason, I am convinced that the reward reserved by the just Judge is greater for you than for the martyrs of that time, since they not only had the approbation conceded by men but also received the reward from God, but to you, for equally virtuous acts, the honors from the people are not granted. Therefore, the likelihood is that a manifold recompense for your sufferings for the sake of piety is reserved for you in the future life.

For this reason, we urge you not to be faint-hearted in your afflictions, but to renew yourselves in your love for God and daily to increase your zeal, being conscious that in you ought to be preserved the remnants of true religion which, when the Lord comes, He will find upon earth. And, if bishops have been driven from their churches, let this not cause you to waver, or, if traitors have sprung up among the clergy themselves, let not this weaken your confidence in God. The names are not the things which save us, but our motives and our sincere love for Him who created us. Consider that even in the plot against our Lord the chief priests and the scribes and the elders contrived the treachery and few of the people were found really accepting the teaching; moreover, that it is not the multitude that is saved, but the elect of God. Therefore, never let the crowd of people dismay you, since they are borne hither and thither like the water of the sea by the winds. For, if even one is saved, as Lot in Sodom, he ought to persevere in his right judgment with hope in Christ unchanged, because the Lord will not abandon His holy ones. Salute all the brethren in Christ for me; offer up sincere prayers for my pitiable soul.

 

1. Without external persecutions, that is, while there were internal disputes caused by the heretics.

2. The heretics who self-identify as Christians.

 

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/eis-sas-prepei-na-diasothi-to-ypoleimma-tis-eyseveias-megas-vasileios/

Epistle translation from The Fathers of the Church: Saint Basil, Letters, Vol. 2 (186-368), translated by Sister Agnes Clare Way, Catholic University Press, Washington, D.C., 1955, pp. 215-216.

Brief assessment of an online dialogue

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | January 11, 2026

 

 

In a previous post, we had issued an open invitation to the readers of the blog to explore the following topic:

"To what extent is it necessary to make a clear and conscious distinction, in the anti-ecumenist texts that are published, between the theological refutation of heresy and the condemnation of persons who have not been synodally judged, but who publicly and without concealment teach the heresy of Ecumenism?"

(https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_84.html)

Making a brief assessment of all the comments that were published—including in the previous post at the electronic address: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/m.html—we publish the following conclusions, after evaluating 32 comments. We thank the readers who participated in this dialogue, which, of course, did not exhaust the subject under investigation, because the participation of all anti-ecumenist groups is required. For us, it is a beginning, and that is what matters.

Conclusions

A. The comments that were published express an intense confessional zeal and a deep desire to defend the Orthodox faith. The fundamental observation that Ecumenism constitutes an ecclesiological deviation is not merely an opinion, but a dogmatically substantiated judgment, which is fully aligned with traditional patristic and synodal experience. The recognition of the objective difference between Orthodox doctrine and heresy is a foundation of the Church, for faith cannot be defended without a clear distinction.

B. In contemporary discourse, an ecclesiological disagreement is often observed in the handling of crises. Synodality—that is, the process of judgment and manifestation of faith through the Synod—is being diminished, while individual or collective certainty is preferred instead. In other words, the Synod ceases to be regarded as the principal organ for securing the faith, and the ecclesiological crisis is transformed into a personal or limited matter, detached from the life of the Church as a body that lives “in the Holy Spirit.”

C. The practice of walling off [ἀποτείχιση] is often theologically overloaded, acquiring a content that exceeds its proper function. Normally, walling off is an act of breaking ecclesiastical communion with bearers of heresy for personal soteriological reasons, but also a means of creating conditions that will lead to the convocation of an Orthodox Synod for the condemnation of heretics (regardless of whether or when it will take place). Walling off is not a definitive condemnation; however, when it is turned into a means of “private condemnation,” it substitutes the synodal process and alters the nature of the Church. This does not mean that we cease to judge the heretical practices of individuals, but our critique must remain within the Orthodox ecclesiastical ethos, without insults or personal characterizations.

D. Confessional zeal, without ecclesiological discernment between heresy and heretics who have not been condemned, risks ending up in a private ecclesiology which, despite the use of strict patristic phraseology, does not express the living life of the Church. The defense of the Orthodox faith cannot be confined to fragmentary measures or personal certainties; what is required is the complete integration of three elements: doctrine, confessional zeal, and synodality. Only through this synthesis does the Church truly bear witness to her faith and live the fullness of Christian life in the Holy Spirit.

E. The problem that remains and must be examined is how Synodality will function today, so that an Orthodox Synod may be convened for the condemnation of the heretics. The fragmented groups of those who have walled themselves off, it appears, are not concerned with this matter.

Comment by Dimitris Hatzinikolaou, January 11, 2026:

It is at the very least unjust for those who use harsh language against the Ecumenist (=Theosophists/Satanists) pseudo-bishops to be accused of allegedly issuing “private condemnations” of persons and supposedly being indifferent to the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Council that would provide solutions to today's impasses. From what I understand, the model being recommended is that of lukewarm reactions, of the type: “Your All-Holiness, you have gone too far…” (that is, the exercise of polite and well-reasoned criticism). However, this has been done ad nauseam over the past 7–8 decades, when there were still bishops with Orthodox mindsets, and not only did it produce no results, but it also demonstrated that the Ecumenists are not in the least concerned! For on the one hand, those who truly protested (the walled-off adherents of the Patristic Calendar) were relentlessly persecuted both by the system and by the so-called “discreet conservatives” of the type of Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos; and on the other hand, such (spineless and largely hypocritical) reaction proved that the Ecumenist pseudo-bishops (in the sense of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council) are being recognized as canonical, while the walled-off (the “healthy” part of the Church, according to the Holy Fathers) are being treated as schismatics! An upside-down world!!! The facts, therefore, show that the aforementioned model has utterly failed, as should have been expected, because it is not even Orthodox—since the pseudo-bishops are recognized as canonical and the “healthy” part of the Church as schismatic! What must be done, then, today, when, as far as I know, there is not a single Orthodox bishop in Greece? Should we continue to recognize the pseudo-bishops as canonical bishops and to exercise “criticism” of their “errors,” hoping thereby they will call for the convocation of a “pan-Orthodox council,” at which they themselves will, of course, preside—since they are considered “canonical”? May God protect us from new Kolymbaris! Therefore, the only Orthodox language is that which the Lord Himself and His Saints (the true ones, that is, and not the love-talkers who go along with the Ecumenists and praise them) have used—perhaps in this way the uncatechized people will cease to regard them as canonical, thereby provoking the intervention of God, if we are not already in the last days!

Reply by Fr. Dimitrios Athanasiou, January 11, 2026:

It appears that there has been a misinterpretation of the relevant articles. It is recalled that the issue was initially raised on the occasion of an open letter by Ms. V.O. to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

[https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/01/open-letter-to-ecumenical-arch.html]

The concern does not pertain to the entirety of the letter, but exclusively to its second part, which clearly deviated from all theological and ecclesiological propriety, adopting an abusive and uncanonical tone. In this way, any positive element that may have existed in the first part was nullified.

The ensuing discussion neither had nor has the character of personal targeting. The conclusions expressed do not level accusations against individuals but are confined to the formulation of a fundamental ecclesiological question, which is systematically overlooked: What is the purpose of walling off according to the canonical tradition of the Church? Is it a means of ecclesiastical activism or a temporary canonical measure aimed at restoring both the proper functioning of the synodal system and the right preaching of the word of truth by bishops?

The Orthodox Church is essentially characterized by conciliarity, which constitutes a fundamental ecclesiological principle and not merely an administrative practice. Its proper functioning presupposes Synods composed of bishops who are Orthodox in faith, who act within the patristic tradition and operate according to the consensus patrum. Without this condition, neither canonical judgment nor ecclesiastical restoration is possible.

The present ecclesiastical situation is particularly problematic and, in many cases, exceeds the boundaries of Orthodox ecclesiology. Nevertheless, walling off, as defined by the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, does not constitute a condemnation of persons nor a schism, but rather a preventive suspension of ecclesiastical communion with bishops who preach heresy “with bare head.” These bishops remain uncondemned heretics, insofar as no Orthodox Synod has been convened to judge them canonically.

It is emphatically stressed that only an Orthodox and canonically constituted Synod has the authority to depose bishops. Such deposition cannot be substituted for nor expedited through abusive language, public denunciations, or forms of ecclesiastical activism which lack canonical precedent and ecclesiological legitimacy. This, of course, does not imply silence or tolerance; unorthodox practices must be subject to scrutiny through theologically substantiated and ecclesiastically responsible discourse.

Furthermore, given that the Orthodox Church is catholic and not ethnophyletic, those who are walled off are not justified in limiting themselves exclusively to national ecclesiastical frameworks (e.g., that of Greece). They are obliged to seek ecclesiastical communion with Orthodox hierarchs of other Local Churches (such as those of Romania, Bulgaria, etc.) who uphold the Orthodox faith and canonical order in their entirety.

Whether and when a condemnatory Synod will be convened is a matter of divine providence. Ecclesiastical history, however, is clear: the Saints who practiced walling off, such as Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint Mark of Ephesus, never resorted to practices of ecclesiastical activism. On the contrary, they remained within the canonical ethos of the Church, with speech that was sober, precise, and courteous—even under persecution.

Finally, the absence of ecclesiastical communion between the walled-off and Orthodox bishops (without this implying integration into Synods) creates a serious ecclesiological problem. Walling off cannot remain in a deadlock, for then the canonical ordination of priests becomes impossible—a fact which objectively serves the Ecumenists and not the Church.

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_11.html

Question: How should we partake without scandal of communion of the holy mysteries when we happen to hear and see that the priest is falling into sins of the flesh?

 

Answer of Saint Anastasios of Sinai (+ 7th c.)

1. It is only a bishop, and not a lay person, who can judge and condemn a priest, even if some people nowadays have imagined that they can try to do this. If we were to give leave to condemn in our mind the life of priests, then Satan would set about arranging things so that taking scandal from all of them, we would inflict harm on our souls and remain without communion. However, if a priest requires to be condemned and corrected, then let us bring to the bishop what is against him, but for us, who hold the rank of sheep, it is impossible to condemn the shepherd, unless he is at fault in some matter of faith.

2. Indeed, if we are worthy of the divine mysteries, the reception of communion becomes a source of light for us and the unworthy life of the priest cannot do us any harm. On the other hand, if we are unworthy of the gift and communion of the holy mysteries, even if an angel were to distribute them to us, we would not profit in any way. For even Judas, who received communion from the divine hands of Christ, found no help there. A sinful priest resembles a man who has leprosy in his hands and is distributing coins; the leprosy stays with him, but the gold and those who receive it remain spotless and unharmed from the leprosy.

3. But listen once more to a story which is profitable for the soul from the period of Arkadios, who became bishop about fifty years ago.

4. There is a place called Trachiades about fifteen signposts from Constantia. There was a priest in that place and through the devil’s workings, he was led astray and became a sorcerer; he was so irreligious that in the company of whores and harlots he would eat and drink from the sacred church plate. Then after some years, word got about, he was denounced, arrested and interrogated. The Governor’s adjutant questioned him under torture, “Tell us, most wicked man, unworthy of any human pity and worthy of every punishment and retribution! Granted that you despised the coming dreadful judgement and had no regard for any present tribunal, but how did you not hold in awe the fearful sanctuary with the altar when you offered up that awesome and bloodless sacrifice, considering that perhaps fire would come down from heaven and burn you up, or the earth would open its mouth and swallow you?”

5. The sorcerer replied to this saying, “By the God who now punishes me through your hands, and who will punish me in the other place by His own hands, <I swear> that I did not present the holy offering, nor did I distribute communion to the people ever since I abandoned God and became a sorcerer. Instead, an angel of the Lord would come and tie me to a pillar of the priestly area [the sanctuary], and then offer and distribute to the people; and when he said,  “Let us go in the peace of Christ”, then he would untie me and I would go out. However, none of the people saw this secret except for me alone, and the people thought that I was the one making the offering and distributing communion to them.

6. No less worthy of being written down for future memory is something that the blessed Isidore, the lawyer, who died three years ago, recounted to me. He said that he had a certain brother-in-law, while he was still a layman in Alexandria, who had on his forehead a tumour that had formed there, the size of a large apple. He said that this man had the custom, each time that he received the holy mysteries in communion, to anoint the hard swelling of the tumour with the holy blood.

7. Now one day he came for his daily midday communion to the church of the holy Mother of God, the church in the Theonas district, and moved by some diabolical impulse he peeped through the keyhole of the door and saw the chaplain inside in the sacristy copulating with a woman. Drawing back a short way away, when he saw that the woman had left, he did not become critical or shocked but thought to himself, “If the clergyman has just sinned, still tomorrow he can make his repentance and be saved, and it is not my business to judge him until Christ judges him. In any case, my belief is this, that the holy mysteries are given to us not from the hands of human beings but from the hands of holy angels.” And so, approaching for the communion, no sooner had he opened his mouth and said the “Amen”, at once the tumour on his forehead was cured and became invisible.

8. However, if those who are really super-critical say that these are mythical tales, let them be put to shame before the holy and ecumenical synod of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers in Nicaea; in connection with this the following story is recounted concerning the blessed and saintly Emperor Constantine. After the condemnation of the foul Arius and the definition of the true faith, the devil, who could not bear to see the holy churches in peace, set some bishops against others, and they handed in to the Emperor accusations in writing, one accusing the other and vice versa, about sins of the flesh and other foul and impure causes.

9. Then the Emperor Constantine, that divinely inspired imitator of Christ’s kindness, having accepted and read such disgraceful tracts, called together the bishops; then he had the papers brought in and ordered wax to be brought to bind them together and that they should be burned, uttering a dictum that is worthy of God: “If I were to see with these eyes of mine some priest of Christ committing a sin, I would spread out my purple cloak and cover him, so that Christ may also cover my own sins. Anyone who publicly makes mockery of a priest of God makes mockery of the faith of the Christians and of the Church, to the delight of the pagans and the enemies of the cross.”

 

Source: Anastasios of Sinai: Questions and Answers, translated by Joseph A. Munitiz, Brepols Publishers, Turnhout, Belgium, pp. 63-66, minus footnotes.