A favorite argument of the ecumenists is: “Why do you
protest the Patriarch’s joint prayers, since that Saint Mark of Ephesus, whom
you so often invoke, prayed together with the Latins at the opening ceremony of
the Council of Ferrara – Florence?” (See Acts of the Council of Ferrara -
Florence, lines 475–478.)
Our response will be
multifaceted, and thus, necessarily extensive.
The facts of the matter are
twofold: that our Saint DID PRAY TOGETHER, and that the Church, the Holy
Canons—that is, the Holy Spirit—FORBID joint prayers with heretics.
From the evaluation of these
facts, two conclusions can be drawn: Either our Saint made a mistake (as is
known, the Saints are not infallible; they also fall into errors, and rarely
even into theologically mistaken views due to temporary delusion — cf. Saint
Gregory of Nyssa, concerning Origenism, etc.). Secondly, that he did not err,
but acted with divine inspiration, divinely moved — that is, with the
illumination of the Holy Spirit and prompted by Him. Which of the two is the
case, we shall see below. According to the above, we must accept either that
the Saint is a transgressor of the canons or that he acted under divine
inspiration. Our Saints become apparent transgressors of the canons (in the
case where this is done through divine inspiration) only in the rarest of
cases, by condescension, with specific persons as recipients, at a specific
moment in time and for specific reasons and purposes, ALWAYS in extreme, rare
cases.
This means that we are not able
to make these extreme exceptions into a rule of our Church, and this is what
Saint Nikodemos teaches: “The oikonomia, which certain Fathers employed
temporarily, can be considered neither law nor example” (P, p. 371). The Saint
is absolutely clear: “Neither law nor example can it be considered!”
And from this alone, the argument
of the Ecumenists collapses. Let us also present some examples to make
the above more understandable. We read (in the Gerontikon) about Saint
Sisoes that, when a father came to him with his son and asked that he become a
monk, the Saint told him to throw his son into the furnace. The father obeyed
and threw him in, and by a miracle, the child was not burned by the fire. As we
see, the Saint gives a command that is clearly contrary to the Gospel and
inhumane. Yet this command is divinely inspired! How do we know? From the
result! The child suffered nothing at all! This case is extreme, exceedingly
rare. Is it possible for us today to make it a rule of the Church, and for
Abbots to test the obedience of those who wish to become monks in this way? Of
course not! Therefore, how is it that today the Ecumenists want an extreme,
exceedingly rare act (even if divinely inspired) of a Saint to be made a rule?
To justify the Patriarch?
Another example is that of Saint
Dionysios of Olympus. In his life we read that, when he was a monk in a
monastery of Meteora and wished to leave, his Elder did not give him a
blessing. He, disobeying, departed by leaping from the rocks down into the abyss!
This too was a divinely inspired act. How do we know? From the result! The
Saint suffered nothing from his fall into the chasm, for God protected him.
This disobedience of the Saint (which appears contrary to the Gospel) is also
an exceedingly rare case, yet divinely inspired. However, is it permissible to
make this extreme, rare case of the Saint into a rule of the Church and to
practice disobedience toward our Elders? Of course not! Therefore, how do
today’s Ecumenists want a rare, extreme case of a Saint (even if divinely
inspired) to become a rule?
Another exceedingly rare, contrary
to the Gospel and uncanonical case is that of the holy Abbas [elders] (from the
Evergetinos), who entered houses of prostitution with the purpose of
admonishing and saving the women working there as prostitutes. Yet this action
was divinely inspired. How do we know? From the result! They brought the
prostitutes to repentance and saved them! However, is it permissible today for
monks, invoking this exceptional act of the Saints, to enter houses of
prostitution and, from exception, make it a rule? Of course not! Therefore, how
do the Ecumenists wish to make an exceptional act (even if divinely inspired)
of a Saint into a rule?
Fourth and final example is that
of Saint Theodora, who dressed in male clothing and, appearing as a man, became
a monk in a male monastery. Another extreme, rare case of a Saint acting
clearly uncanonically, yet divinely inspired. How do we understand this? From
the result! She became a Saint and was never condemned by our Holy Church; on
the contrary, she is praised. But is it permissible today for women who wish to
become monastics in male monasteries to be received into them—even in male
attire—invoking the exceptional action of the Saint and making it a rule of the
Church? Of course not! So how, then, do the Ecumenists, invoking an extreme and
rare action of a Saint, seek to make it a rule?
As even the simplest Christian
understands, even if Saint Mark did not err, but prayed together through divine
prompting, this still cannot constitute either a law or an example, as is
proven by the above cases and by the teaching of Saint Nikodemos, which we have
already cited: “The oikonomia, which certain Fathers employed
temporarily, can be considered neither law nor example” (Pedalion, p.
371).
Even if, however, we insist with
demonic stubbornness on the heretical doctrine of the Ecumenists, our arguments
do not end here. Even if we continue to accept that the Saint did not err, in
order thereby to justify the Patriarch by saying that he is doing nothing more
than imitating the Saint, we must still point out: Bravo to the Patriarch for
imitating him—but why does he imitate him only in the matter of joint prayer?
Why does he imitate him only in his stance toward the Latins before the
council, and not also in his stance after the council?
The Saint engaged in dialogue
with the Latins for fifteen months, and as soon as he discerned their
satanic unrepentance, he no longer wanted even to see them! Why does our most
holy Patriarch not imitate the Saint also in this—he who ceased dialogue after
fifteen months—whereas our Patriarch, after decades of dialogue, continues it?
And it goes without saying that the Latins remain satanically in the same
heresies, having, moreover, in the meantime added many more. Why does he
imitate selectively? Perhaps because selective imitation is convenient? Why,
furthermore, does our most holy Patriarch imitate the Saint in his addresses to
the pan-heresy-promoting Pope with phrases like “father,” “sister Church,”
etc., and does not also imitate him in the rest of his expressions, found in
the same letter, which are full of reproof and truth? Why does he imitate
selectively?
Let us clarify at this point
that these expressions of the Saint were words of courtesy and nothing more.
This is proven by the later
stance of the Saint, when he calls them heretics, schismatics,
Christ-traffickers, Christ-merchants, etc.
From these expressions alone, it
is evident that the Saint was speaking courteously in the first instance and by
no means intended to imply that the heretics are the Church. And it is
understood that these words of courtesy are so rare, that personally I do not
know if there exists another Saint who used such expressions when addressing
the Papists. Today, however, they are no longer rare but have become a rule (!)—and
indeed such a rule that it allows not a single exception! Moreover, when our
Saint ceased the dialogues, he said of the Latins that they are heretics,
schismatics, Christ-traffickers, Christ-merchants, etc.
But has our Patriarch ever been
heard to imitate the Saint and call the Latins in such a manner? Why this
selective imitation? Why does he imitate the Saint in joint prayers and in all
other matters do the exact opposite of him? Perhaps because it is convenient?
From this alone, the hypocrisy of those who bring forth such examples and
arguments is made evident. And imagine that Saint Mark not only did not wish
to see the Latins, but even the Latin-minded “Orthodox” themselves! Indeed, he
said at the time of his repose, that the more I distance myself from them, the
closer I draw to God! What relation do all these things of the Saint have
with today’s Patriarch? Is it possible to claim that the Patriarch is an
imitator of Saint Mark? O, what madness!!!
And yet our arguments have not
run dry, even if the heretical-minded persist with satanic obstinacy, despite
all the above observations. We shall continue, by way of condescension, to
accept that the Saint did not err (though the above is more than sufficient).
Let us accept that the Saint did
engage in joint prayer (all that we say, it is understood, also applies to the
other actions of the Saint that the Ecumenists invoke) in order to justify the
various actions of our Patriarch. But what relation do the things our Patriarch
does have with the things the Saint did? Is there any comparison? The Saint
performed one prayer (how long could it have been—five minutes, ten?) and you
invoke this to justify the thousands of uncanonical missteps of the Patriarch? In
what instance did the Saint engage in joint prayers with those of other
religions (Muslims, Buddhists …), and even with leaders (!), as the Patriarch
does, when the Holy Canons of our Holy Church anathematize those who pray
together with heretics or those of other religions? When did the Saint bring
the Pope to the All-Holy Tomb (!!!) for joint prayer, as the Patriarch does,
when the Holy Canons of our Holy Church anathematize those who pray together
with heretics?
When did the Saint allow the
Pope to bless the Orthodox (!!!), as the Patriarch does, when the Holy Canons
anathematize those who give or receive blessings from heretics, because, as the
Holy Rudder of our Holy Church says, these are not blessings of the heretics,
but follies?
When did the Saint ever
receive the Pope (!!!) into an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, as the Patriarch has
done THREE TIMES with THREE POPES, even chanting the Polychronion for
them—when the Holy Canons of our Church forbid not only the presence of
heretical leaders in the Church (for joint prayer), but even that of ordinary
heretics, the laity! When did the Saint say to the Pope, “Blessed is he who
comes in the name of the Lord” (!!!), as the Patriarch has done?
When did the Saint allow the
Pope during the Divine Liturgy to say the “Our Father” (!!!), as the Patriarch
does?
When did the Saint allow the
Pope, inside an Orthodox Church and moreover during the Divine Liturgy, to
deliver a sermon from the pulpit to the Orthodox faithful (!!!), and moreover
to preach the heresy of the primacy (!!! — not three, but thirteen exclamation
marks should be used), as the Patriarch does?
When did the Saint commemorate
the heretical Pope as an Orthodox Bishop, as the Patriarch did in
Constantinople (may God have mercy on us), whereas the Saint, on the contrary,
taught that:
“I, Mark the sinner, tell you
that he who commemorates the Pope as an Orthodox hierarch is guilty, and
whoever holds the doctrines of the Latins will be condemned with the Latins and
will be regarded as a transgressor of the faith” (Letter to Theophanes, PG
160, 1096–1100).
As for the documents signed
within the WCC (World Council of Churches), when did the Saint ever say or sign
anything resembling the shameful and heretical texts (Porto Alegre, Busan,
Balamand, etc.) which the Patriarch signs and praises? And the transgressions
have no end (there are more and more and more—these were only a MINIMAL
sample!!!). And ALL of this is justified by invoking five to ten minutes of
joint prayer (and some other actions done by oikonomia, which are
themselves extreme, rare, and limited). But what madness is this? How is it
possible that all of these things we have mentioned—and many more—are justified
and compared with the 5–10 minutes of joint prayer of the Saint? Is it possible
to take the least as a basis to justify the greatest? Is it ever possible for a
murderer to be acquitted when, in response to the judge's question, “Why did
you kill?” he answers, “Because he slapped me. He struck me, should I not
strike him back?” Is it permissible to invoke the least (the slap) to justify
the greatest (the murder)? Of course not!!! How then do they attempt, by
invoking the least of the Saint’s actions, to justify the GREATEST (and what
great things indeed—I marvel how God has not consumed us) of the Patriarch
mentioned above? Is there any comparison? The same degree of similarity that
exists between “a slap” and “murder” exists between the actions of the Saint
and those of the Patriarch. Is this not perverted? Is this not madness? Unless,
of course, it is the height of hypocrisy—and then the perplexity is resolved.
The arguments have not been
exhausted. Our subsequent arguments will not, of course, be used to persuade
the Ecumenists, because if they were not convinced by the above, their damage
is incurable, but they are set forth solely for the instruction and establishment
of the well‑intentioned. Up to now we have argued by taking as our basis the
version that Saint Mark did not err. The arguments that we shall now present
prove, in our humble opinion (which may also be mistaken—we are not
infallible), that the Saint did err; his actions were human, proceeding from
the real and sincere desire of the Saint for the return of the heretics to the
truth, and thus he proceeded to uncanonical actions, by way of condescension. And
first, that the Saint did err is shown by his stance when he saw their satanic
persistence in heresy after the council. After the council, the Saint did not
even wish to see them. He called them Christ‑traffickers, Christ‑merchants,
heretics and schismatics! Indeed, it is characteristic that he taught that we
should avoid them as we do snakes!!! From these things is it not evident that
the Saint erred and repented? Is it possible to claim that, if the Saint had
been able from the outset to foresee their persistence in their heresies, he
would have proceeded to such actions? Of course he would not have said or done
the things the Saint did if he had known beforehand what would follow. Not only
would he not have said them, but he would not even have entered into
dialogue!!! How could he have gone into dialogue, when he himself later taught
that we should avoid them like snakes?
Second argument of ours that the
Saint erred, that his action was human, is the argument that this action was
certainly not divinely inspired! From where is this proven? Let us first answer
the question: How do we know that an action of a Saint is divinely inspired in
those cases where it is also uncanonical? The answer will naturally be: We know
it BY THE RESULT! A divinely inspired action (when it is also uncanonical, contrary
to the Gospel, etc.) is impossible to be a failure! The opposite cannot occur,
because it would mean that the Holy Spirit prompted a Saint to an uncanonical
action in order to lead him to failure! But the Holy Spirit prompts uncanonical
actions only in cases where it foreknows that there will be positive fruit, and
the examples of the first chapter support this point—namely, the examples of
Saints Sisoes, Dionysios, Theodora, etc., prove that all of their
transgressions bore positive fruit, something which is not the case with Saint
Mark. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that, when an uncanonical action of a
Saint is also divinely inspired, it must necessarily yield positive fruit.
Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would appear to be prompting violations of the
canons without purpose (!), which we would say is blasphemous.
For the end, as the saying goes,
let us place the cherry on top of the cake. Only, allow us to make a small
innovation. After all, innovation is not a privilege exclusive to the
Ecumenists—let them permit us to have that privilege too. So instead of one cherry
on the cake, we will place three cherries. A whole cake with only one
cherry—who will manage to grab it first? With three, at least something can be
done.
The first cherry, then, is this:
When we say “honoring a Saint means imitating the Saint,” we do not mean that
we merely take a Saint’s life and try to imitate his deeds independently of his
teaching. Both must coexist—never the one without the other. One complements
the other; otherwise, we will certainly fall into delusion.
What do we mean in plain words?
Let us once again take the above examples from the first chapter (of Saints
Sisoes, Dionysios, the Abbas, and Theodora). Saint Sisoes, as we said, gave a “contrary
to the Gospel” command. However, he never taught that others should do
likewise. Therefore, that particular act of his does not align with his
teaching, nor does it constitute an instruction for application, much less a
rule he established. This does not give us the right to imitate him in that
specific act, since he neither taught, nor encouraged, nor imposed it! The same
applies to the disobedience of Saint Dionysios and to the entry of the Abbas
into brothels. Saint Dionysios never taught or encouraged others to disobey.
Therefore, his isolated act does not align with his entire teaching and does not
give us the right to imitate him in that act. Thus, the reasonable question
arises: Yes, Saint Mark may have engaged in joint prayer—but when and where did
he teach, encourage, or, even more so, impose it as a rule that others should
do the same? Of course, never!!! With what right, then, do you take, so dryly
and arbitrarily, as an example, a single act of a Saint independently of his
teaching, and (supposedly) imitate it, especially when Saint Mark actually
taught the opposite, as we said above? By that same logic, why don’t the
Ecumenists simply take as an example the act of Saint Paisios the Great, who
did not eat for decades, and try to imitate that? Or the act of Saint Symeon
the Stylite and go sit atop a pillar for years, and other similar feats? (Of
course, regarding the spirituality of the Ecumenists, it is better that we do
not speak—Saint Paisios the Athonite has already spoken about that.)
The second cherry we will borrow
from the Pedalion (commentary on the 6th Ecumenical Council, Canon 94,
footnote 1). Saint Nikodemos speaks about the oath and invokes Saint
Chrysostom. Saint Chrysostom says regarding the oath (in brief), that it is
entirely forbidden by Scripture. “But you say to me, such-and-such a man,
virtuous, devout, a clergyman, sober-minded, took an oath. Do not tell me that…
he swore… Even if, hypothetically, Peter, Paul, or an Angel swore… it is not
their command, but God’s… Why do you bring forth this one and that one?... For
on the Day of Judgment, God will say to you ‘I commanded,’ and you were to
obey—not to bring forward this or that one and to busy yourself with the
transgressions of others… even if the transgressor is ten thousand times great
and wondrous.” I believe the parallel is perfect and clear. In other words, no
one has the right to invoke the transgressions of others, even Saints (even the
greatest of them). The Ecumenists, who are obedient instruments of the devil,
do the opposite, that is, they invoke the transgressions of Saints in order to
justify their heretical missteps.
I do not know how one should be
characterized who, after the above arguments, persists in the heresy of the
heretical (better yet, pan-heresy of the) Ecumenists. In any case, we have a
duty, in conclusion, to add the third promising and innovative cherry on top,
which comes from… the fierce opponent of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, Fr.
Epiphanios Theodoropoulos... We will quote a few phrases from one of his
letters, the context of which is as follows: The Elder was a vehement opponent
of the transfer of bishops (yet another plague), and someone, in order to
justify this violation by the bishops, brought up the transfer of a Saint and
said: “Behold, why do you protest?” And naturally, he received the appropriate
response from the most wise Elder—and here too, the parallel with our topic is
perfect. We quote approximately what he wrote, without of course altering the
meaning:
“The divine Father Gregory the
Theologian says that ‘if you rebuke someone for a transgression committed
willingly and deliberately, he will hasten to find examples of others, so as to
justify his own deviation. If, for example, you say to someone that he should
not, while still beardless, assume the role of teacher of the Church, since
even the Lord was baptized and began to teach at the age of thirty, he will
refer you to Daniel, who at a young age became a judge—and to others!’... ‘What
is rare is not law in the Church.’ (Oration 37, PG 36, 352)... What
significance is there if, in the history of the Church, there have occurred few
or many transgressions of this or that Canon? Shall transgression prevail, or
the Law? But do there happen to be, among those who at times transgressed the
Canons against translation (in our case, the Canons against joint prayer with
heretics), persons who are respectable, notable, and virtuous? And what of it? ‘No
one is pure of stain, even if his life on earth be but one day.’ Even the
holiest of men fall into transgressions and slips. What must we imitate? Their
transgressions and slips—or their virtues? The virtues are to be imitated; the
faults are to be avoided.
“Saint Epiphanios, Bishop of
Cyprus, performed in Constantinople—an evident violation of the holy Canons—an
ordination without the permission of the local Bishop (John Chrysostom)… Should
we therefore abolish the relevant Canons and legislate that each Bishop may
freely ordain in any foreign diocese? Saint Theodora not only wore male
clothing but also lived in a male monastery… Should we therefore abolish the
relevant Canons? Saint John the Merciful struck a monk, in violation of the
holy Canons. Should we therefore abolish the Canons that forbid striking and
legislate that clergy may freely use the rod for the correction of the
disobedient?... What if among the transgressors there were perhaps virtuous
persons? Their virtues, we repeat, are examples to be imitated; their possible transgressions
and errors are examples to be avoided. Let us hear our great Father Basil
crying out: ‘Even if Saint Dionysios of Alexandria said that those returning
from the Montanists to the Church should be received without baptism, yet in
this he erred. And by no means must we follow his error.’ (St. Basil, Canon
I)”
(Articles, Studies, Letters, 2nd
ed., p. 137, ‘WE MUST NOT GUARD THE IMITATION OF ERROR’)
I believe further comment is
unnecessary.
And yet, despite all the above
that we have said, the Ecumenists persist, insist, and claim that they are
right!!!
These, however, are not
Orthodox—they are (hard though it may be to say, yet necessary) HERETICS!!
Your brother in Christ…
Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_51.html
