A.I. Summary of the zealot Hieromonk Eugenios’ unparalleled work in Greek, “The Concept of Defilement of the Orthodox from Ecclesiastical Communion with Uncondemned Heretics.”

Generated by ChatGPT-5.5 Thinking on June 11, 2026.

 

 

 

I’ll locate the online text first, then summarize its argument structure rather than just paraphrasing isolated passages. I’ll also flag where the work’s claims are interpretive or polemical rather than purely descriptive.

* * *

Below is an extensive English summary of Hieromonk Eugenios’ Greek work Η ΕΝΝΟΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΜΟΛΥΣΜΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΩΝ ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΗΣ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΣ ΜΗ ΚΑΤΑΔΙΚΑΣΘΕΝΤΩΝ ΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΩΝ — The Meaning of the Defilement of Orthodox Christians from Ecclesiastical Communion with Heretics Not Yet Condemned. The online posting identifies the work as dealing with the defilement of Orthodox Christians through communion with uncensured / not-yet-condemned heretics, and the downloadable PDF is listed under the same title on the Agiorites Pateres site.

General aim of the work

The book is written as an anti-ecumenist canonical-patristic study. Its central concern is the meaning of μόλυσμος, “defilement,” when Orthodox Christians remain in ecclesiastical communion with hierarchs or clergy who publicly teach heresy but have not yet been formally condemned or deposed by a council.

The work is not merely asking whether heresy is spiritually dangerous in an abstract sense. Its more precise question is this: what exactly happens ecclesiologically and sacramentally when one communes with a heretic before that heretic has been synodically judged?

The author presents the study as a corrective to two opposite errors. The first error is the view that defilement from communion with an uncondemned heretic means automatic loss of priesthood and loss of sacramental grace before formal deposition. The second error is the view that because no automatic loss of priesthood occurs before deposition, no real defilement exists and therefore separation from such a heretic is optional. In the author’s framing, both positions distort the patristic and conciliar evidence.

Method: Ecumenical Councils and consensus Patrum

The author explicitly grounds his method in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils and the consensus Patrum, rather than in isolated patristic quotations. He argues that one must interpret particular passages from within the whole mind of the Church, not construct the whole doctrine from an isolated passage. He states that the infallibility of the Church is expressed through the Church as a whole, especially through Ecumenical Councils and the consensus of the Fathers.

This methodological point is important because the book is arguing against selective use of sources. The author believes that both rigorists and moderates sometimes take individual patristic phrases out of context. His stated approach is to examine how the Fathers and Councils actually treated heretical bishops in practice: whether they considered them already deprived of priesthood, whether they considered communion with them defiling, and when deposition took effect.

The author also treats the Councils of 879–880 under Saint Photios and 1341–1351 under Saint Gregory Palamas as ecumenical in ecclesial consciousness, even though he acknowledges that only seven Ecumenical Councils have been formally recognized in the usual official numbering.

The main thesis

The book’s thesis may be summarized as follows:

Communion with uncondemned heretics truly defiles Orthodox Christians, but this defilement does not mean that the uncondemned heretic has automatically lost the priesthood or that his mysteries have automatically become graceless before synodal deposition.

In the author’s terminology, defilement means participation in the heresy, condemnation, and schism of the heretic through ecclesiastical communion, not automatic ontological disappearance of priesthood before judgment. The author explicitly says that, according to the consensus Patrum, defilement is not to be understood as loss of priesthood in the way some rigorists claim, but as communion in the heretic’s heresy and ecclesiastical guilt.

This distinction is the key to the entire work. The author wants to preserve both principles:

1. Heresy defiles and communion with heresy must be avoided.
2. Deposition and loss of ecclesiastical rank occur by conciliar act, not automatically before judgment.

Thus, the book argues against the idea that the Mysteries of an uncondemned heretic are automatically invalid, but also against the idea that Orthodox Christians may safely or indifferently remain in communion with such a person.

Chapter A: The existence of defilement

The first chapter argues that defilement from communion with uncondemned heretics is attested in Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Fathers. According to the table of contents preserved in the online text, the chapter begins with “the existence of defilement from testimonies in Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Holy Fathers,” and then answers the objection that one who unites with condemned heretics does not lose priesthood without formal deposition.

The purpose of the chapter is foundational: before defining what defilement is, the author first establishes that such defilement exists. He is especially concerned with cases where the heretic has not yet been condemned. In his view, patristic practice does not allow the conclusion that no defilement exists merely because no council has yet deposed the heretical bishop.

The author’s argument is not that every association with a heretic has the same canonical consequence. Rather, he focuses on ecclesiastical communion: commemoration, liturgical communion, concelebration, and sacramental participation with those publicly teaching heresy.

Chapter B: Defilement and the subsistence of priesthood

The second chapter examines the relation between defilement and what the Greek text calls τὸ ἐνυπόστατο τῆς ἱερωσύνης, that is, the continuing concrete existence or subsistence of priesthood in a heretical cleric prior to deposition. The chapter studies this question through the Acts of several Ecumenical Councils, including the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth as the author numbers them.

The author’s conclusion is that the Fathers could regard heretical bishops as defiling, dangerous, and to be avoided, while still treating them as possessing priestly rank until formally deposed. This is especially important for the author’s rejection of the “automatic loss of priesthood” thesis.

The example of Nestorius is central. The author argues from the Acts of the Third Ecumenical Council that Nestorius was not treated as already automatically deposed from the moment he began preaching heresy. Rather, the Council summoned him, examined his teaching, judged it heretical, and then pronounced deposition. The author highlights that the Council speaks of making a decision against him and states that Nestorius was deposed on June 22, 431.

For the author, this proves that the heretical bishop’s deposition is a real ecclesiastical act, not merely a declaration that something had already happened invisibly or automatically. Yet before that deposition, communion with him was still understood as spiritually and ecclesiastically dangerous.

Chapter C: The meaning of defilement according to the Fifth Ecumenical Council and the Fathers

The third chapter is the conceptual heart of the book. It examines the meaning of defilement in light of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and the Fathers. The online text states that this chapter finds defilement to mean participation by knowingly communing Orthodox Christians in the heresy, condemnation, and schism of the uncondemned heretics. The author compares this to the principle of “communicating vessels”: communion transmits participation in the ecclesiastical condition of the one with whom communion is shared.

This is where the author most clearly distinguishes his position from a strictly sacramental-validity debate. He does not reduce defilement to the question, “Are the Mysteries valid or invalid?” Instead, he treats defilement as a matter of ecclesial participation and accountability. One who knowingly communes with a public heretic becomes implicated in that heresy, even if the heretic has not yet been formally deposed.

The author also examines patristic objections and passages often cited in the debate, including Saint John of Damascus and Athonite Fathers under Michael VIII Palaiologos, according to the contents shown in the online text.

Chapter D: “He who communes with the excommunicate is himself excommunicate”

The fourth chapter studies the principle:

ὁ κοινωνῶν ἀκοινωνήτῳ ἀκοινώνητος ἔστω

“He who communes with one out of communion, let him also be out of communion.”

The author argues that this principle applies not only to those already formally condemned, but also to those who are “ἀκατάκριτοι” or not yet judged, when they are nevertheless public heretics and therefore objectively outside Orthodox confession. The online text explicitly says the chapter concludes that this principle applies in the Fathers not only from a condemned “one out of communion,” but also from an uncondemned one.

This chapter is meant to show that the patristic tradition recognizes a real ecclesiastical contamination through communion, even before final synodal judgment. In other words, synodal judgment is necessary for deposition, but the faithful are not required to wait until final deposition before avoiding communion with manifest heresy.

This is also where the book’s practical anti-ecumenist thrust becomes clear. The author uses this principle to support the necessity of breaking communion with hierarchs who publicly teach Ecumenism.

Chapter E: Defilement and economy

The fifth chapter examines οἰκονομία, economy, and whether historical cases of temporary tolerance or reception of heretical clergy disprove the existence of defilement. The chapter studies seven economies, including cases connected with Saint Athanasius’ letter to Rufinianus, the father of Saint Gregory the Theologian, Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Monoenergists and Monothelites, Saint Theodore the Studite, and the Franks.

The author’s conclusion is that economy does not prove that defilement does not exist. On the contrary, he argues that economy presupposes the existence of a problem that is being temporarily managed. Economy is not a denial of canonical danger; it is a limited pastoral handling of that danger under specific historical conditions. The online introduction states that the author examined seven economies and concluded that economy confirms rather than denies the existence of defilement from communion with heretics under judgment.

This chapter is especially important because it prevents the book’s argument from becoming simplistic rigorism. The author recognizes that the Church has sometimes used economy toward persons involved in heresy. But he insists that economy must be bounded, purposeful, and temporary; it cannot become a permanent excuse for communion with heresy.

Chapter F: “The omitted matters”

The sixth chapter, titled Τὰ Παραλειπόμενα, “The omitted matters,” functions as a large appendix of related canonical and ecclesiological issues. According to the online table of contents, it includes sections on the Councils, their definitions and Acts, the meaning of deposition, the meaning of anathema, objections concerning the Lateran Council, the 1983 ROCOR anathema, which council deposes the Ecumenists, and the interpretation of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council.

The chapter also includes extensive discussion of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, especially the phrase πρὸ συνοδικῆς διαγνώσεως, “before synodal judgment.” The author argues that this canon is not merely optional advice but expresses a binding patristic principle when the bishop publicly preaches heresy. The online text notes that the author is responding to the claim that treating defilement incorrectly leads some to view the second part of Canon 15 as optional.

The author also argues that ceasing commemoration of an uncondemned heretical bishop does not create schism when the separation is made because of the bishop’s heresy. Rather, the author’s position is that the heretic is the one introducing schism into the Church, while those who separate from his heretical teaching are preserving Orthodox communion.

Saint Basil and the distinction between healthy and diseased members

A major later section of the book treats Saint Basil the Great and his approach to heretics not yet condemned. The table of contents indicates that the author examines Saint Basil’s teaching on the existence of defilement, the relation of defilement to the subsistence of priesthood among heretics of his time, and Basil’s distinction between two flocks within the one Church: the healthy and the diseased.

The author uses Basil to argue that heresy creates a real wound within the visible ecclesiastical body before formal judgment. In this framework, there can be a diseased portion and a healthy portion, without implying that the Church herself has ceased to exist or that every cleric connected with the diseased portion has automatically lost ordination.

This is one of the book’s most important balancing points. It allows the author to say that uncondemned heretics are genuinely dangerous and defiling, while avoiding the conclusion that the Church has already vanished wherever such hierarchs remain administratively in place.

The book’s position on Canon 15 of the First-Second Council

The work strongly supports the use of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council in cases of public heresy. The author argues that ceasing commemoration before synodal judgment is not schismatic when done because of publicly preached heresy. In the prologue to the online posting, Geron Savvas Lavriotis says the book explains why breaking communion with un-deposed Ecumenist heretics is obligatory, what defilement of mysteries means, how anathema and deposition are to be understood, and how Canon 15 is to be interpreted patristically.

The author’s own introduction similarly frames the dispute: if defilement is wrongly denied, Canon 15 becomes optional; if defilement is wrongly equated with automatic loss of priesthood, one falls into another error.

Thus, for the author, Canon 15 is the canonical expression of a deeper dogmatic and ecclesiological reality: Orthodox Christians must not remain in communion with publicly preached heresy, even before formal conciliar judgment.

The work’s anti-ecumenist application

Although the book is historical and patristic in structure, its immediate target is contemporary Ecumenism. Geron Savvas’ prologue explicitly describes the book as written for the struggle against Ecumenism and says it addresses the necessity of breaking communion with un-deposed Ecumenist heretics.

The author’s epilogue, according to the introduction, applies the conclusions to the pan-heresy of Ecumenism in the present age.

The work therefore functions as a canonical-theological defense of walling off from Ecumenist bishops, but with a specific qualification: the author does not argue that such bishops automatically lose priesthood or that their mysteries automatically become graceless before synodal judgment. Rather, he argues that communion with them nevertheless brings defilement understood as participation in their heresy and ecclesiastical guilt.

The book’s overall conclusion

The work’s final position can be condensed into several propositions:

1. Defilement from communion with heresy is real. It is not a metaphor with no ecclesiastical consequence.
2. This defilement applies even before formal synodal condemnation, when the heresy is publicly preached and knowingly maintained.
3. Defilement does not mean automatic loss of priesthood or automatic invalidity of Mysteries before deposition. Deposition is a formal ecclesiastical act, as shown especially in the case of Nestorius.
4. Communion transmits participation. Those who knowingly commune with uncondemned heretics participate in their heresy, condemnation, and schism.
5. Economy does not abolish the principle. Historical economies are exceptional pastoral measures, not evidence that communion with heresy is harmless.
6. Canon 15 of the First-Second Council is not merely optional when public heresy is being preached; it expresses the patristic obligation to separate from false teaching before synodal judgment.
7. The contemporary application is Ecumenism. The book is intended to justify and encourage the cessation of communion with hierarchs who publicly teach or participate in Ecumenism, while avoiding the claim that such persons are automatically deprived of priesthood before a council.

In short, the book tries to occupy a middle but still militant anti-ecumenist position: no communion with public heresy, but no private declaration of automatic loss of priesthood before synodal deposition.

 

Scan of Hieromonk Eugenios’ 764-page Greek work (with 1,142 footnotes) online:

https://www.agioritespateres.com/i-ennoia-tou-molysmou/

If prayer has frozen, it is not your fault

Mykyta Rakytnianskyi | June 10, 2026

 

When the canons are long read only with the lips, while the heart remains silent like stone, this is not yet falling away from God. This coldness has an ancient name, and even the most ardent man of prayer has passed through it.

The eyes move over the lines of the prayer book from top to bottom, the lips repeat words we have known since childhood, while the mind is somewhere far away. It scrolls through the morning news or listens for whether the siren sounds. The rule is finished, a mental checkmark is made — and afterwards we will not remember a single line. Sounds familiar?

The hardest part here is not even the coldness in prayer itself, but the shame about it. We are afraid to admit to ourselves that we have long been standing before God like actors: sighing where it is required, making the sign of the cross where it is required, while inside there is emptiness and coldness.

Ice with an ancient name

This state has a precise name. The ascetics called it hardened insensibility. Saint John Chrysostom knew it so closely that he included a plea for deliverance from this affliction in his prayer: “O Lord, deliver me from all ignorance and forgetfulness, cowardice, and hardened insensibility.” This means that Christians fell into this coldness fifteen hundred years ago, long before world wars and modern social upheavals.

One naturally wants to ask about this difficult state someone who knew it not from books. Righteous John of Kronstadt is remembered by the people as a fiery pastor who celebrated the Liturgy in tears. His heart seemed to burn without pause. All the more striking is his diary, My Life in Christ. There, the man of prayer honestly recorded days when he stood before the Altar, while his heart was dry and cold. He does not judge us but supports us.

– Father, you knew this inner cold. We are praying, but the heart is like stone, the lips keep moving, and inside there is emptiness. Is this already betrayal of God?

Righteous John responds: “The evil one tries to scatter prayer like a heap of sand, to make the words like dry sand – disconnected, without moisture, that is, without the warmth of the heart.” According to him, prayer can be either a “house built on sand” or a “house built on rock”: those who pray coldly and distractedly build on sand, and such prayer falls apart on its own.

The saint did not pass judgment on us, but he named the cause of our disorder. It is the evil one who breaks our prayer into grains of sand and dries it out so that it crumbles. What is being stolen from us is nothing less than the life-giving and binding moisture of grace.

Amulet instead of God

– But we often cling to the prayer rule out of fear as well. We read a canon or the Psalter – and it feels as if we’ve covered ourselves with a shield: perhaps no missile will fall, perhaps the day will pass quietly. The prayer book has imperceptibly become an amulet. What should we do about this?

Father John responds sharply: one must not stand in prayer “with spiritual laxity.” And he recalls the stern words of the Savior: “This people draw near to Me with their lips… but their heart is far from Me.”

Here is the subtle substitution. When we read the rule only for the sake of safety, we become those who honor God with their lips, while their heart is far from Him. The amulet takes the place of God. What is frightening is not even that we are tired of war and have become accustomed to defending ourselves with prayer – it is that in such a state one can live for years without noticing the substitution.

– Then maybe we should abandon the rule altogether, if there is no feeling anyway? Not force ourselves?

The saint does not command us to abandon prayer. “Do not allow your heart to become cold, especially during prayer,” he writes.

This is not “stop praying,” but “do not let coldness enter the heart.” He does not break the framework of the rule. For when the inner core has been weakened, only the external structure keeps us afloat. To abandon prayer when nothing is felt is like removing the handrails from an icy staircase. The handrails will not warm you, but they will also keep you from falling down onto the ice.

Strength in emptiness

– And still: what can one say to God when there is real emptiness inside? When there is nothing left to force out of oneself?

Father John consoles: “The Lord is so merciful that He never despises our prayer, but graciously accepts every prayer, and Himself corrects what is imperfect in it – only let us turn to Him sincerely and not forget Him entirely.”

This is an answer that lifts a weight from the heart. An honest “Lord, I feel nothing toward You” is not a failure of prayer, but precisely the sincere turning to God that the Lord expects. We bring to God our emptiness as it is, and He Himself will make up what is lacking. The boldest thing a person numbed by coldness can do is to stop pretending to be a strong righteous person and tell the Creator the truth.

If one gathers everything the holy pastor has said, something unexpected emerges. Coldness in prayer is not a mark of separation from God. More often, it is a sign of an immense weariness of the soul from the grief and anxieties of the present days. And in this spiritual eclipse, what matters is not to forget the One to whom we once came and whom we have found in our lives.

And as a farewell, the holy righteous one leaves a counsel that helped him remain afloat: “Let every spirit be fervent in serving the Lord.” In these words there is no strict command to burn with forced zeal, only a quiet plea to preserve the last ember of faith.

One question perhaps remains. Will we ever have the courage to stand before God, feeling nothing, and quietly say: “Lord, I feel nothing toward You”

If one gathers everything the holy pastor has said, something unexpected emerges. Coldness in prayer is not a mark of separation from God. More often, it is a sign of an immense weariness of the soul from the grief and anxieties of the present days. And in this spiritual eclipse, what matters is not to forget the One to whom we once came and whom we have found in our lives.

And as a farewell, the holy righteous one leaves a counsel that helped him himself remain afloat: “Let every spirit be fervent in serving the Lord.” In these words there is no strict command to burn with forced zeal—only a quiet plea to preserve the last ember of faith.

One question perhaps remains. Can we ever have the courage to stand before God, feeling nothing, and quietly say: “Lord, I feel nothing toward You” – and believe that He who sees us through hears even such a whisper if we turn to Him sincerely? 

 

Source: https://spzh.eu/en/chelovek-i-cerkovy/93677-if-prayer-has-frozen-it-is-not-your-fault

The Theatre of Piety: On the Illusion of “Being Spiritual” Without Repentance

 

There is perhaps no more dangerous delusion in the spiritual life than the belief that one is close to God simply because one appears religious, speaks about spiritual things, or surrounds oneself with the atmosphere of holiness. The soul may learn the language of Heaven while remaining inwardly untouched by grace.

Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet: “One may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” In much the same way, one may speak softly, quote the Fathers, light candles, burn incense, discuss theology, and yet remain fundamentally unrepentant.

This is the theatre of piety.

It is the performance of spirituality without the crucifixion of the ego.

It is religion as costume rather than transformation.

The modern world constantly encourages this deception. Today, “spirituality” is often presented as an aesthetic rather than an ascetic practice. Men wish to appear profound without enduring suffering. They want mystical feelings without obedience, peace without warfare, holiness without confession, and salvation without repentance.

But the Orthodox life is not a performance for men. It is surgery before God.

The saints did not become saints because they appeared spiritual. They became saints because they accused themselves, wept for their sins, endured humiliation, struggled against passions, and refused to trust their own righteousness.

The Pharisees of the Gospel were experts in the theatre of piety. Outwardly, they were exact, religious, disciplined, and respected. Yet Christ, Who sees not appearances but hearts, called them “whited sepulchres.” Beautiful on the outside, inwardly full of death.

This warning was not preserved in the Gospel merely to condemn ancient Pharisees. It was written for us.

A man can be “traditional” and still be proud.

He can defend Orthodoxy while hating his brother.

He can speak about the Holy Fathers while refusing correction.

He can condemn ecumenism while worshipping himself.

He can admire monasticism while fleeing personal repentance.

One of the most subtle forms of spiritual pride is the love of appearing discerning. Such a person delights in exposing the errors of others but never descends into his own heart to see the darkness there. He becomes a critic of everyone’s sins except his own.

Yet true repentance does not make a man theatrical. It makes him quiet.

The repentant man does not seek to appear spiritual because he is too busy mourning his own fallenness. Like the Publican, he stands afar off and cries, “God be merciful to me, a sinner.” And Christ says that this man—not the impressive religious performer—went home justified.

The holy Fathers consistently teach that the beginning of salvation is self-knowledge. Not psychological self-absorption, but the painful realization of one’s distance from God. Without this, spirituality becomes fantasy.

Many today chase spiritual experiences while refusing the narrow path of repentance. They seek consolations, signs, emotional highs, aesthetic beauty, intellectual stimulation, or religious identity. But Christianity is not a hobby for refined souls. It is death and resurrection.

The Cross comes before the Resurrection.

This is why genuine Orthodoxy is inseparable from repentance. Remove repentance, and what remains is merely religious culture, ideological identity, or emotional comfort. One may preserve the externals of religion while losing its heart entirely.

Judas himself walked with Christ, heard His teachings, witnessed miracles, and yet remained inwardly unconverted.

Nearness to holy things does not save a man if his heart refuses to bow.

In our age of images, appearances, and endless self-presentation, the temptation toward theatrical spirituality is greater than ever. Social media especially rewards religious performance: dramatic opinions, public displays of piety, cultivated images of holiness, spiritual branding.

Yet the saints fled attention. Modern man seeks it.

The saint hides himself.

The actor seeks an audience.

And this is the terrifying question each Christian must ask:

Am I struggling to become holy, or merely to appear holy?

One question leads to salvation.

The other leads to delusion.

True repentance is not glamorous. It often feels humiliating, hidden, dry, and painful. It strips a man of illusions about himself. But only the broken heart can truly receive Christ.

For God is not searching for religious actors.

He is searching for the humble.

 

Source: https://trueorthodox.eu/the-theatre-of-piety-on-the-illusion-of-being-spiritual-without-repentance/

Ecumenism and Orthodoxy: Who, in the end, is inside and who is outside the Church?

George Epiphaniou, Professor of Theology

June 10, 2026

 

 

A response to the recent statements of the Archbishop of Cyprus [George III] concerning those who are “placed outside the Church,” and an examination of the patristic teaching on heresy, walling off, and the boundaries of the Orthodox Church, on the occasion of the case of Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos.

The recent statements of the Archbishop of Cyprus, according to which those who react against Ecumenism and adopt anti-ecumenist or walling-off positions are “placed outside the Church,” have opened anew a discussion that does not simply concern administrative issues or personal conflicts. It touches the core of Orthodox self-consciousness and poses a fundamental question: who, in the end, is distancing himself from the faith of the Holy Fathers? The one who resists Ecumenism, or the one who considers it a permissible and necessary expression of ecclesiastical life?

This question is not new. It has occupied the Orthodox Church for decades and has caused intense controversies in many Local Churches. However, the recent developments in the Church of Cyprus, and especially the case of Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos, have given new intensity to a discussion that many considered to have remained confined to theological circles.

What is Ecumenism?

For its supporters, Ecumenism constitutes an effort at dialogue among the Christian confessions, with the aim of rapprochement and the restoration of unity. For its critics, however, modern Ecumenism has gone far beyond the limits of a simple dialogue.

According to the anti-ecumenist theological approach, the problem does not lie in discussion with the heterodox. The Church always discussed with heretics and those in error. The problem appears when Orthodoxy ceases to be presented as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and begins to be treated as one ecclesiastical reality among many others.

The critics of Ecumenism consider that many modern ecumenical practices lead to the indirect [and direct! – trans. note] acceptance of the so-called “branch theory,” according to which no Christian community possesses the full truth by itself and all constitute parts of the one Church. Such a perception, they maintain, is in direct conflict with traditional Orthodox ecclesiology.

Why was it called a “pan-heresy”?

Saint Justin Popović was perhaps the most important figure who connected the term “pan-heresy” with Ecumenism. For the great Serbian theologian and saint, Ecumenism was not simply yet another heresy. It was a system of thought that attempted to justify and synthesize all previous heresies under one common ecclesiological umbrella.

According to this view, when truth is equated with error, and when heresies are treated as equal paths to Christ, then the very foundation of the Orthodox faith is undermined.

It is not accidental that a multitude of traditional theologians, monks, and spiritual figures of the 20th century expressed strong reservations about the course of the ecumenical movement. These concerns were not limited to secondary issues, but concerned the very identity of the Church.

The testimony of the Holy Fathers

The history of the Church shows that the great confessors of the faith often found themselves opposed to powerful ecclesiastical majorities.

Saint Athanasius the Great was exiled repeatedly. Saint Maximus the Confessor was harshly persecuted. Saint Mark Eugenikos remained almost alone against the false union of Florence.

None of them appealed to administrative power or to majorities. They appealed to the faith which they had received from the Fathers.

For this reason, many anti-ecumenists wonder: if resistance to what are regarded as ecclesiological deviations constitutes a reason for departure from the Church, then how is the stance of all these Saints to be interpreted? Did they not also resist powerful ecclesiastical tendencies of their time?

The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council

The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council occupies a special place in the discussion.

The supporters of the anti-ecumenist position consider that this canon provides for the possibility of breaking ecclesiastical communion with a bishop who publicly and openly preaches teaching that is regarded as heretical.

According to their interpretation, walling off does not constitute schism, but an act of protecting the Church from error.

Precisely for this reason, they consider problematic any general statement that those who react against Ecumenism are automatically placed outside the Church. They maintain that such an approach ignores a long canonical and patristic tradition.

The statements of the Archbishop and the questions that are raised

The statements of the Archbishop provoked strong reactions, not only because of their content, but also because of the message that many faithful consider them to convey.

For if those who react against Ecumenism are characterized as people who place themselves outside the Church, then a critical question arises: what place do the Saints and Elders who warned for decades about the dangers of Ecumenism hold in the ecclesiastical consciousness?

Can the theology of Saint Justin Popović be considered marginal? Can the confessional stance of Saint Mark Eugenikos be treated as an exaggeration? Can the patristic warnings be replaced by a new ecclesiological language that systematically avoids dogmatic distinctions?

These questions cannot be dismissed with characterizations. They require theological answers.

The Tychikos case

For many faithful, the case of Metropolitan Tychikos is not simply an administrative dispute. They perceive that behind it lies a deeper conflict between two different approaches.

On the one hand, there is the view that emphasizes the need for obedience and cohesion in ecclesiastical administration.

On the other hand, there is the understanding that confession of the faith takes precedence over every administrative expediency, and that the history of the Church has repeatedly vindicated those who resisted when they considered the truth to be in danger.

For many supporters of Tychikos, their stance is not an act of rebellion, but an attempt to defend patristic tradition.

The real issue at stake

The issue, in the end, is not who holds offices, nor who possesses greater administrative power.

The real question is whether modern ecumenist practice remains within the boundaries traced by the Holy Fathers, or whether it constitutes a new ecclesiological perception foreign to the Orthodox tradition.

The critics of Ecumenism insist that the Church is not saved by diplomatic balances nor by vague appeals for unity. It is saved by the truth. And the truth, as the patristic tradition teaches, is not the result of compromise, but of faithfulness to the apostolic faith.

History has shown many times that those who were initially characterized as extremists, disobedient, or troublemakers were later recognized as confessors and saints. For this reason, every age is called to examine events not according to the criterion of circumstance, but according to the criterion of the faith which “was once delivered unto the saints.”

The question therefore remains open and requires a serious theological answer: when Ecumenism is condemned as a pan-heresy, is this a deviation from Orthodoxy or a continuation of the patristic confession? And when those who express this concern are accused of placing themselves outside the Church, perhaps the discussion must return not to characterizations, but to the patristic teaching itself and the canonical tradition of the Church?

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/06/blog-post_367.html

“We have no king but Caesar.”

By Nikolaos Mannis, educator

Dedicated to those who were recently persecuted for their Faith in Christ the King

 

 

On the occasion of the things, unacceptable to every soul of a true Orthodox Christian, which we experienced in recent days, more and more people are realizing that which certain enlightened Hierarchs foresaw: that the subjugation of the Church to the undoubtedly anti-Christian State has as its result that the leaders of the former submit to the commands no longer of Christ, but of Caesar, unfortunately imitating the behavior of the Chief Priests of the time of Christ. [1]

About one hundred and fifty years ago, the then Metropolitan of Chios, Gregory, [2] on the occasion of the rumor that the Ottoman State was going to put the clergy of the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on its payroll, sent, on this matter, two memoranda to the then Patriarch Sophronios III and the Synod around him. [3]

In these he points out the danger of the captivity of the Church by the State, through salaried payment, crying out prophetically:

“What hope is there of shepherds acting freely in religious matters and proclaiming the divine commandments with boldness, when the clergy are salaried? Then the mouth of the Hierarchs has been muzzled, and the tongue is stuck dry and motionless in their throat..!” [4]

He considers that a salary from the State “humbles and debases the supernatural and lofty office of the episcopacy, because it cheapens the spiritual character of the shepherd before his own sheep... it makes him a captive, a slave, and subject to the State,” [5] while he observes that “there exists a general axiom, confirmed by experience, that the salaried man cannot be independent.” [6]

And foreseeing the dreadful consequences of salaried payment in practice, he writes that in the event that some political rulers make unjust decisions, then “the Bishop, considering the consequences of his opposition, considering that the only means of support for himself and those around him lies in the hands of the political Ruler, who is able, whenever he wishes, to postpone the payment of the salary... considering these things and others similar to them, will yield, willingly or unwillingly, to his will; ‘the irresistible force of necessity’; can there be a greater humiliation than this, or rather enslavement?” [7]

The Church of Greece, however, despite the protests of those who were asking for “a free and living Church,” such as the blessed former Metropolitan of Florina, Augoustinos Kantiotis, not only accepted becoming the handmaid of the State by accepting to be salaried by the latter, but also accepted changing its legal shell in such a way as to be entirely dependent on the State.

Fifty years ago, the ever-memorable former Metropolitan of Sisani, the blessed Polykarpos, [8] on the occasion of the adoption of the then Statutory Charter of the Church of Greece and its transformation into a Legal Person of Public Law, wrote a refutational book, in which, among other things, we read the following fearful words: “[The Church of Greece] officially and irrevocably cut off the head of the Church, which is Christ, and in place of it set the Law of the State; and this, as the head of the Legal Person ‘Church of Greece,’ this will direct the Church, as its head henceforth, wherever it wishes, even to dissolution.” [9]

Is there, then, anyone who still considers the stance of the Hierarchs inexplicable?

May our Lord grant them the courage to rise up and renounce the yoke of Caesar, [10] crying out, together with the servants of the Heavenly King, “Christ is risen, and the demons have fallen”!

 

NOTES

[1] “Pilate says to them: Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).

[2] The blessed former Metropolitan of Chios, Metropolitan of Heraclea and Raidestos, the late Gregory Pavlidis (1825–1888), was described as “one of the most learned hierarchs... upright in character, filled with divine zeal, not loving gain, and of the strictest morals” (Georgios Papadopoulos, The Contemporary Hierarchy of the Orthodox Eastern Church, Athens, 1895, p. 455).

[3] The first memorandum bears the date December 30, 1864, and the second February 28, 1865. Both were published together in Two Memoranda to the Great Church of Christ Against the Salaried Payment of the Sacred Clergy, Chios, 1866.

[4] Two Memoranda..., op. cit., p. 6.

[5] Ibid., p. 7.

[6] Ibid., p. 34.

[7] Ibid., p. 38.

[8] The blessed former Metropolitan of Diavleia, Metropolitan of Sisani and Siatista, the late Polykarpos Liosis (1900–1996), was, by common confession, one of the most distinguished Hierarchs of the Church of Greece during the twentieth century.

[9] The Church of Christ, a Divinely Established Institution and Not a Legal Person of Public Law, Athens, 1969, p. 37.

 

Greek source:

https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/36687-ouk-exomen-basilea-ei-mi-kaisara

 

“Condemned” to be Immortal

St. Justin Popović (+1979)

 

 

Men have condemned God to death; God, however, has by His Resurrection "sentenced" men to immortality. In return for their buffets, He offers embraces; for their insults, blessings; for death, immortality. Never have men shown such enmity for God as when they crucified Him; and never has God shown such love for men as He did in resurrecting. Men wish to render God mortal, but God by His Resurrection designed to make men immortal. The crucified God resurrected and overcame death. Death is no more. Immortality has overtaken man and the whole of his world.

Through the Resurrection of the God-Man, the nature of man has been led irrevocably to the path of immortality, and death has thus become fearful. For, before the Resurrection of Christ, death was something feared by man; but after the Resurrection of the Lord, man has become something fearful for death. If a man lives in Faith within the Resurrected God-Man, he lives above death. He stands impregnable by death. Death is transformed into a "footstool beneath his feet": "O death, where is thy victory? O Hades, where is thy sting?" (I Corinthians 15:55). Therefore, when a man in Christ breathes his last, he sheds only the shell of his body, to be clothed with it once again on the day of the Second Coming.

Until the Resurrection of the God-Man Christ, death was the second nature of man; the first was life, the second death. Man had become used to death as something natural. But with the Resurrection of the Lord, all things changed: immortality became the second nature of man. It has become something natural to man, whereas death is rendered unnatural. Just as before the Resurrection of Christ it was natural for man to be mortal, so after His Resurrection it has become natural for man to be immortal.

Through sin, man was made mortal and limited; through the Resurrection of the God-Man, he becomes immortal and eternal. In this precisely lie the power, the dominion, and the omnipotence of the Resurrection of Christ. Moreover, without the Resurrection of Christ there would be no Christianity at all. Among miracles, the greatest of all is the Resurrection of the Lord. All of the other miracles spring forth form the Resurrection and are centered within it. From it spring forth faith, love, hope, prayer, and godliness. The fugitive Disciples, they who fled far from Jesus when He died, returned to Him when he resurrected. And the Roman centurion, when he saw Christ resurrect from the tomb, confessed Him as the Son of God. It was in this way that all of the early Christians became Christians —because Christ resurrected, because He conquered death. This is that which not one other religion has; it is this, the Resurrection, which exalts Christ above all other men and above all other gods. It is this which, in a singular and indisputable manner, shows and proves that Christ is the only true God and Lord of all the seen and unseen worlds.

By the grace of the resurrection of Christ, by the grace of His conquest over death, men became, are now becoming, and will in the future become Christians. All of Christian history is nothing other than that of one singular miracle, the miracle of the Resurrection of Christ, which is eternally contained within the hearts of Christians from day to day, from year to year, and from age to age, until the Second Coming.

Man is truly born, not when he is brought into the world by his mother, but when he comes to believe in the Resurrected Savior, Christ; for then he is bom into immortality and eternal life, while the mother brings a child only into death, to the grave. The Resurrection of Christ is the mother of all of us, all of us Christians —the mother of all who are deathless. By his faith in the Resurrection of Christ, man is bom anew, bom into eternity.

This is impossible, the skeptic responds. And the Resurrected God- Man replies: "All things are possible to him who believes" (St. Mark 9:23). And one who believes is he who, with all of his heart, with all of his soul, and with all of his being, lives according to the Gospel of the Resurrected Lord Jesus.

Our Faith is the victory in which we conquer death; faith, that is, in the Resurrected Lord. "O death, where is thy victory? O Hades, where is thy sting?" "The sting of death is sin" (I Corinthians 15:55-56). By His Resurrection, the Lord "removed the sting of death." Death is the serpent and sin is its sting. Through sin, death injects its poison into the souls and bodies of men. The more sins that a man has, the more powerful the sting by which death injects its poison into him.

When a wasp stings a person, the person makes every possible effort to extract the stinger from his body. But when he is stung by death —this sting of Hades—, what should he do? He must, with faith and prayer, call upon the Resurrected Savior, Christ, that He may take from his soul the sting of death. And He, compassionate as He is, will do so, for He is the God of Mercy and Love. When many wasps set upon a man's body and wound him with their stings, a man becomes poisoned and dies. The same thing happens when a man is wounded by the many stings of manifold sins. He who is not resurrected from sin succumbs to death.

By conquering the sin within him through Christ, a man conquers death. If a single day passes and you have not yet conquered at least one of your sins, realize that you have become all the more mortal. If, however, you have overcome one, two, or three of your sins, you have become more greatly renewed in that newness that does not age: immortality and eternity. Let us never forget that, for one to believe in Christ, this means that he must straggle ceaselessly against sin, evil, and death.

A man demonstrates that he truly believes in the Resurrected Lord by his straggle against the passions and against sin; and if he so straggles, he must know that he straggles for immortality and for eternal life. If he does not straggle, then his faith is in vain. For, if a man's faith is not a straggle for immortality and eternity, then what is it? If by faith in Christ one does not attain to immortality and victory over death, then to what end our faith? If Christ is not resurrected, this means that sin and death have not been conquered. And if these two things have not been overcome, then why should anyone believe in Christ? He who, through faith in the Resurrection of Christ, straggles against his every sin, however, has profound reinforcement within himself of a sense that Christ is in fact resurrected, that He has in fact removed the sting of death, that He has in fact conquered death on all fronts of battle.

Sin deeply scars man, draws him near to death, and transforms him from something immortal to something mortal, from something incorruptible and unbounded into something corruptible and limited. The more sins a person has, the more mortal he becomes. And if a man does not feel himself immortal, it is obvious that he is wholly mired in sin, in short-sighted thought, and in dead feelings. Christianity is a call to a straggle to the last breath against death, until, that is, the final victory over death. Every sin is a falling-away, every passion a betrayal, every evil deed a defeat.

No one should ask why it is that the Christian succumbs to bodily death. This comes about because the death of the body is a kind of sowing. The mortal body is sown, St. Paul tells us (see I Corinthians 15:42ff), and is raised in power, becoming immortal. Like the seed that is sown, so too the body dissolves, that the Holy Spirit might give it life and perfect it. If the Lord had not resurrected in the body, what benefit would we have taken in this from Him? He would not have saved the whole man. Had He not resurrected the body, then why was He made flesh? Why did He take upon Himself a body, were it not to give to it of His Divinity?

If Christ did not resurrect, why should anyone then believe in Him? I confess sincerely that I would never have believed in Christ, had He not resurrected, had He not conquered death, our greatest enemy. But Christ was resurrected, and He gave to us immortality. Without this truth, our world is nothing but a chaotic display of odious stupidities. Only with His glorious Resurrection does our wondrous Lord and God free us from despair and senselessness. For without the Resurrection, there is nothing more senseless in the heavens or under the heavens than the present world; nor is there greater despair than this life without immortality. For this reason, in all the world there is no more misfortunate a being than a man who does not believe in the Resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead (see Corinthians 15:19). "Better for that man if he had not been born" (St. Matthew 26:24).

In our mundane world, death is the greatest torment and the most hideously cruel thing. Freedom from this torment and cruelty is precisely what salvation is. Such salvation was given to the generation of man only by the Conqueror of Death, the Resurrected God-Man. Through His Resurrection, He revealed to us the whole mystery of our salvation. Salvation means to be guaranteed immortality and eternal life for the body and for the soul. But how do we succeed in this? Only in the life of the God-Man, in the life of the Resurrection, through the Resurrected Christ.

For us Christians, life on this earth is a school in which we learn how to secure for ourselves immortality and eternal life. For of what benefit is this life, if we cannot attain to eternity within it? But for a man to be resurrected with Christ, a man must first die with Him and live the life of Christ as his own. If he does this, then on the Day of Resurrection he may say, along with St. Gregory the Theologian: "Yesterday I was crucified with Christ, today I am glorified with Him; yesterday I died with Him, today I am given life with Him; yesterday I was buried with Him, today I rise with Him "

And in a few single words we may summarize the four Gospels of Christ: "Christ is Risen! He is Risen Indeed!" In each of these words one can find the Gospel of Christ, as in the four Gospels one may find all of the knowledge of the whole of God's world, both known and unknown. And when the feelings of man, along with all of his thoughts, are centered on the thundering din of the Paschal greeting, "Christ is Risen!", then the joy of immortality moves all things, and all things in rejoicing proclaim the Paschal miracle: "Indeed He is Risen."

Yes, Christ is indeed risen! and a witness of this is you; I am a witness; every Christian is a witness of this, beginning with the Apostles and reaching up through the Second Coming. Because only the power of the Resurrected God-Man Christ can give —and continually gives now and will continually give in the future— the power to each Christian, from the first to the last, to conquer all that is mortal, and by this death itself; all that is sinful, and by this sin itself; and all that is demonic, and by this the devil himself. For simply by His Resurrection, the Lord, in the most convincing way, showed and proved that His life is Eternal Life; His love, Eternal Love; His good, Eternal Good; His truth, Eternal Truth; and His joy, Eternal Joy. He also showed and demonstrated that all of these things He gives, in His incomparable love of mankind, to every Christian in every age.

With regard to these things, there is not a single event, not only in the Gospels, but in the entire history of the human race, to which greater testimony has been given, in a manner so forceful, so unimpeachable, and so undisputed, than the Resurrection of Christ. Without doubt, Christianity, in all of its historical reality, in all of its historical force and omnipotence, has been established on the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, that is, on the Hypostasis of the God-Man Christ in Eternal Life. And to this all of the long and ever-miraculous history of Christianity bears witness.

Indeed, if there is one fact with which one could summarize all of the events in the life of Christ and of the Apostles, and more generally in all of Christianity, that event would be the Resurrection of Christ. Moreover, if there is a reality which summarizes all of the realities of the New Testament, that reality would be the Resurrection of Christ. And finally, if there is one miracle in the Gospels which can be said to summarize all of the miracles reported in the New Testament, that miracle would be the Resurrection of Christ. For only within the light of the Resurrection are the person of Jesus Christ and His work made miraculously known. Only within the light of the Resurrection are the miracles of Christ, all of His truths, all of His words, and all of the events of the New Testament fully explained.

Up to the time of His Resurrection, the Lord taught about eternal life; but in the Resurrection, He shows us that He Himself is Eternal Life. Up to the time of His Resurrection, He taught about the Resurrection from the dead; but in the Resurrection, He showed that He Himself was indeed the resurrection of the dead. Up to the time of His Resurrection, He taught that belief in Him took one from death to life; but in His Resurrection, He showed that He Himself had conquered death and had thus assured those afflicted by death of passage from death to resurrection. Yes, O indeed, yes: the God-Man Jesus Christ, by His Resurrection, showed and demonstrated that He is the only true God, the only God-Man among all humankind.

And something further: without the Resurrection of the God-Man, it would be impossible to explain the witness of the Apostles, or the martyrdom of the Martyrs, or the confessions of the Confessors, or the holiness of the Holy, or the ascetic labor of the Ascetics, or the wonders of the Wonder-Workers, or the faith of the Faithful, or the love of those of love, or the hope of the hopeful, or the prayer of the prayerful, or the repentance of the repentant, or the mercies of the merciful, or any Christian virtue or labor. Had the Lord not risen as the Resurrected One and had He not filled His Disciples with life-giving power and miraculous wisdom, what could have brought these cowardly and fugitive men together, giving them the courage and the strength and the wisdom so fearlessly to preach and to confess the Resurrected Christ and to go with such joy even to death on His behalf? And if the Resurrected Savior did not fill them with His divine power and wisdom, how could they have ignited in the world the inextinguishable fire of the New Testamental Faith, these simple, unlearned, and poor men? If the Christian Faith were not a faith in the Resurrection and, as a consequence, in the Eternally-Living and Life-Giving Lord, who would have been able to inspire the Martyrs in the feat of martyrdom, the Confessors in the feat of confession, the Ascetics in the feats of asceticism, the Unmercenaries in the feat of penury, the Fasters in their feats of abstinence, and any Christian in any Christian feat?

Thus it is that all of these things are true for me and for every human being —through the Resurrection of Christ. The Wondrous and Sweet Jesus Christ, the Resurrected God-Man, is the only Being under the heavens in whom man here on earth can conquer death and sin and the devil and come to blessedness and immortality —becoming a partaker, indeed, of the Eternal Kingdom of the Love of Christ. For the human being, the Resurrected Christ is the all in all throughout mankind: all that is Beautiful, Good, True, Precious, Harmonious, Sacred, Wise, and Everlasting. He is all of our Love, all of our Truth, all of our Joy, all of our Life, the Eternal Life unto all the sacred eternities and infinities.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. IV (1987), No. 2, pp. 38-43.

Witness to the Ethos of Orthodoxy or Syncretistic Coexistence?

Having your way of life upright among the nations, that they may, having witnessed your good works, glorify God.” (I Peter 2:12)

 

 

In our days, we are reexperiencing in our lives and are faced, as Christians, with an historic challenge, a social phenomenon, which had been intensely experienced by early Christianity: a globalized environment.

Peoples, races, and languages, civilizations, nations, and religions all make up the multiform context in which the pious by now daily move, and they are developing a dialogue of life, in practice, with the heterodox and those of other religions and nations.

The ecumenists, who are alienated from the Orthodox, no less than the worldly-minded politicians and intellectuals, attempt in various ways to impose their own rules, in order for this unavoidable dialogue of life to succeed.

Their endeavor is always made with the prospect of a peaceful coexistence and an unhindered share in the goods of an earthly chiliastic paradise; but—and why not?—also with the prospect of a convergence and a syncretistic synthesis, whereupon our attitude towards the Truth and our relation to it would ultimately be such that no one would be bothered.

* * *

Pious Orthodox Christians, however, “walking in the Spirit,” [1] have, as steady guides in their earthly journey towards the Eighth Day, not the shepherds who are turning the Church into a mere religion, but rather the divinized members of the Body of Christ, the God-bearing and light-bearing Apostles, Fathers, and Teachers.

On this point, the Holy Apostle Peter emphatically exhorts us not to forget a fundamental rule, as we find ourselves among our contemporary “nations” of many kinds and names: a “right way of life.” [2]

The Chief Apostle reminds the pious, who live together with unbelievers, the impious, unorthodox, heretics, and the heterodox, “to have right behaviour in their relations with others and a virtuous life,” and “to be adorned with evangelical manners and Christian virtues.” [3]

This Divinely-blessed “right way of life”—that is, Christian dignity and a conscientious behaviour and conduct on the part of the Faithful—, as a witness to the ethos of Orthodoxy, draws the particular attention of those alienated from the Church and, in consequence, impels them to knowledge of the Truth and the true God.

The Holy Apostle Peter’s exhortation towards a “right way of life” clearly echoes the words of our Saviour:

“Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father Who is in Heaven.” [4]

This fundamental truth concerning the spiritual and missionary power of a “right way of life” was proclaimed by St. John Chrysostomos with particular emphasis:

“No one would be an idolator if we were true Christians: if we kept Christ’s commandments when we are wronged and our property is stolen; if we blessed when we are abused; if we did good when we suffer hardships. No one would be such a brute, that he would not hasten to piety if we kept to this approach.” [5]

* * *

The luminary of Athos, St. Nicodemos, relates the following wondrous, charming, and edifying “story recounted by many trustworthy people,” and which is a perfect commentary on the aforementioned teaching of the Apostle:

There were two neighbouring villages in Asia Minor, one of which was entirely made up of Turks without Christians, while the other was entirely made up of Christians.

Now, these Turks were very brutal and inhuman, and greatly tyrannized the Christians. By Divine wrath, a deadly illness broke out in the Turkish village alone. Almost everyone, young and old, men and women alike, was bedridden.

A most virtuous and God-fearing Christian, then, who was the eldest among them, took compassion on the Turks upon seeing them in such a miserable state. Thus, gathering together all of the Christians, he advised them all to forget the Turkish acts of tyranny against them and to agree to visit them in their illness, thereby keeping the Lord’s commandment, which says: “Love your enemies and do good unto them.” Advising them in this way, he persuaded them. They all went to the village and, entering the Turks’ homes, took care of them and were in attendance on them until they recovered.

Then the Turks, seeing such great kindness and forgiveness on the part of the Christians, marveled that they had such a Faith and such a God that taught them not to return evil for evil. Wherefore, having assembled and discussed the matter, all in common accord were baptized and became Christians.

Behold how the Christians’ “right way of life” convinced an entire village to believe in Christ and, subsequently, to glorify Him.” [6]

 

NOTES

1. I St. Peter 2:11.

2. I St. Peter 2:12.

3. St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, Commentary on 1 St. Peter 2:12.

4. St. Matthew 5:16.

5. St. John Chrysostomos, First Homily on 1 St. Timothy, § 3, Patrologia Græca, Vol. LXII, col. 551

6. St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, Commentary on the Seven General Epistles, note 2 (Venice: 1806), pp. 99-100.

 

Original Greek source: Ἃγιος Κυπριανός, No. 332 (May-June 2006), pp. 289-290.

English source: The Shepherd: An Orthodox Christian Pastoral Magazine, June 2011, pp. 3-5.

Archimandrite Sergius Aleksiev: Christianity and Orthodoxy

 

As far back as the earliest Apostolic times, Christ’s disciples were known as those who “call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Corinthians 1:2; cf. Acts 9:14, 21). From the very beginning, the Holy Apostles were persecuted as those who “teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18; cf. 5:28). They rejoiced when they suffered from persecution and violations “for His Name’s sake” (Acts 5:41). In consequence of this, by the end of the first decade after the foundation of Christ’s Church, “the disciples were called Christians” (Acts 11:26). This appellation was given to them first at Antioch, and probably by the local Gentiles, which implies that Christianity was no longer recognized as a Judaic sect, but as a distinct religious teaching. [1] Later, St. Cyril of Jerusalem observes, in his Tenth Catechetical Homily (Chapter XVI): “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, honored us to call ourselves Christians,” [2] whereas St. Athanasios the Great, in his First Homily against the Arians (Chapter II), states that “through Christ we are, and call ourselves, Christians.” [3]

It seems that this name quickly acquired public recognition, since even in the last half of the first century, the Roman historian Tacitus, in his work The Annals (Book XV, Chapter XLIV), when discussing Rome’s destruction by fire under the Emperor Nero, tells us that the Emperor blamed for this those “called by the people Christians [christianos].” Further on, he explains: “...the originator of that name, Christ [Christus], was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate, the procurator, under the reign of Tiberius.” [4]

Thus, all subsequent persecutions by the pagan authorities against the disciples of Christ were under the banner of the struggle against Christianity as such. Referring to this fact, St. Peter the Apostle writes: “If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; ...yet if any man suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (I St. Peter 4:14, 16). As we see from the extant testimonies of the Martyrs, Christ’s Martyrs, when summoned to court, were accused specifically as Christians, which they professed themselves to be. The instance of the Holy Martyr Lukian of Antioch is rather typical. He suffered in one of the last persecutions of the early fourth century. Before breathing his last, he cried three times: “I am a Christian.” [5]

However, as is well known, along with the external enemies of Christianity—Jews and pagans—various internal enemies—false teachers and heretics—appeared as early as the Apostolic times. They considered themselves Christians and surreptitiously replaced the Truth of Christ with an heretical fallacy. St. Paul refers to these people as “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (II St. Timothy 3:5), and advises his disciple Timothy to turn away from such people. Likewise, St. John the Theologian writes: “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us: for if they had belonged to us, they would no doubt have remained with us” (I St. John 2:19). He explicitly calls these people “antichrists” (2:18) and commands True Christians not to greet them or to receive them in their houses (II St. John 10-11).

During subsequent centuries, we observe the same clear-cut line of demarcation between authentic Christianity and false Christianity. For example, St. Justin the Philosopher (†166), a Christian apologist of the second century, notes in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew that, “there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and confessing the crucified Jesus to be the Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrine, but that of the spirits of error.” St. Justin contrasts these false Christians with the “disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ” (Chapter XXXV). [6]

In the third century, the ecclesiastical writer, Clement of Alexandria, states that, unlike beasts of burden, which labor out of fear, “those who call themselves orthodox (ὀρθοδοξασταί) should do good deeds in full consciousness of what they do” (Stromata, I, 9). [7] This is the first occasion in ancient Christian writings that we encounter the term “orthodox,” whereby we specifically denote our Holy Faith today. [Incidentally, let us point out that the Slavonic word for “Orthodoxy,” “Православие,” does not convey precisely the meaning of the Greek word “ὀρθοδοξία.” The Greek word consists of the adjective “ὀρθός” (“right” or “true”), the root “δοξ” and the ending “ία.” The noun with the same root, “δόξα,” derives from the verb “δοκέω” (to “think,” “consider,” or “look upon”). It is for this reason that the primary meaning of δόξα is “thought” or “opinion”; hence, the secondary meaning: “to hold a good or bad opinion of somebody,” “fame,” or “ill will.” (See M. Bailly, Dictionnaire Grec-Français, Paris, 1910, pp. 528, 531-532). Therefore, in view of the primacy and original meaning of the word “δόξα,” “ὀρθοδοξία” is properly translated as “right thinking” or “right opinion,” not “true glory,” as the Slavonic would suggest.]

After the fourth century, the term “Orthodoxy” is most often used in the writings of the Holy Fathers of the Church to signify the true doctrine of Christ, as opposed to heretical teachings. St. Athanasios of Alexandria, who is frequently called the “Father of Orthodoxy,” writes in his History of the Arians (Chapter LXXVIII): “The Arians, usurping the magnificent name of the Saviour, like pagans desecrated the whole of Egypt by forcibly introducing there the heresy of Arios. For Egypt was the only place at that time which had preserved the competency of Orthodox doctrine (τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας).” [8] In another of his writings, On Definitions, St. Athanasios defines the true Christian as one of orthodox or “correct” belief: “The Christian is a true spiritual home of Christ, which is built on good deeds and right doctrines (δογμάτων ὀρθῶν).” [9]

According to the historian Gelasios of Cyzicus (Church History, II, 33), the First Ecumenical Synod in Nicæa, which condemned the heresy of Arios, circulated in 325 A.D. “a Synodal Epistle...to the Holy Churches of God in the whole subcelestial world—to the clergymen and laymen of the Orthodox Faith (τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως).” [10] In reference to the same Synod in Nicæa, St. Germanos, Patriarch of Constantinople, observes, in his treatise On the Heresies and the Synods (Chapter XIV), that “...after the detailed dogmatic elucidation and investigations that took place there, the doctrine of the Orthodox (τὸ δόγμα τῶν ὀρθοδόξων) was reconfirmed with even greater power.” [11]

In reference to the Second Ecumenical Synod (381), Blessed Theodoret explicitly cites, in his Church History (V, 9), the title of the Synodal Epistle sent by the “Holy Synod of the Orthodox Bishops (τῶν ὀρθοδόξων ἐπισκόπων) who had assembled in the great city of Constantinople....” [12]

The great defender of Orthodoxy against the Nestorian heresy in the fifth century, St. Cyril of Alexandria, in one of his epistles to Nestorios, exhorts the latter to call the Holy Virgin the “Mother of God” and thus, by the “preservation of right thinking (ὀρθὴν...δόξαν), to serve the common faith in peace and concord.” [13] Likewise, in a letter of defense against his accusers, St. Cyril writes: “I have set forth the doctrine of the true faith (τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως) to those who were tempted by the interpretations of Nestorios.” [14] Similarly, in the eighth century, the great Church hymnographer, St. John of Damascus, in his dogmatic Theotokion (in the third tone) against the heresy of Nestorios, beseeches the Most Holy Virgin to intercede before Jesus Christ our Lord and “...to save the souls of those who confess her as Mother of God in an Orthodox way (ὀρθοδόξως).”

St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, a great Confessor and a champion against the Eutychian heresy of the Monophysites, writes to St. Leo, Pope of Rome: “...As we witnessed the way that the Orthodox faith was violated and the heresies of Apollinaris and Valentinus were revived by Eutyches, it became necessary to declare this in order to preserve the people.” [15]

At the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in Chalcedon (451), as witnessed by the Acts of the Synod, when the epistle of St. Leo the Pope against the teaching of the Monophysites was read, the honorable Bishops exclaimed: “This is the Faith of the Fathers, this is the Faith of the Apostles.... This is the way the Orthodox (οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι) believe. Anathema to those who do not believe in this way.... We, the Orthodox, think thus....” [16]

The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, convened in Constantinople in 680 against the Monothelite heresy, stated: “For a long period of time, this Synod has investigated the issue of our pure Christian faith..., and the dissension regarding Orthodoxy (περὶ τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας) that had somehow arisen was overcome by relying on the dogmas of truth” [17] (“τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως τὴν ἀλήθειαν...τὴν ὑγιῆ ὀρθότητα τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως”).

In like manner, the Fathers of the last, the Seventh, Ecumenical Synod, which was assembled in Nicæa, in 787, against the heresy of the Iconoclasts, after confirming the decisions of the six previous Ecumenical Synods, stated, in the first act of the Synod, that according to ancient tradition, delivered through the Holy Apostles and their successors, the Holy Fathers, “...those who are converted from some heresy to the Orthodox (ὀρθόδοξον) confession and the Tradition of the Ecumenical Church should deny in writing their [former] heresy and confess in writing the Orthodox Faith (τὴν ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν).” [18]

A liturgical service for the recanting of their heresies by those “who come back to the Orthodox (ὀρθόδοξον) and true faith” was composed in the ninth century by St. Methodios, the Patriarch of Constantinople. During his time, a perfect peace settled over the Church of Christ, after the reign of tumultuous heresies, over which Orthodoxy finally triumphed. An anonymous hagiographer, himself St. Methodios’ contemporary, cites the restless labors of the latter, by which he struggled “to abolish heresy from his flock as a plague and to implant a firm and Orthodox faith (ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν) in every soul.” [19] It is thus quite natural that the feast of the triumph of Orthodoxy over heresy, which was introduced into the Church in 842 through the initiative of St. Methodios the Patriarch, was called the “Feast of Orthodoxy,” “ἑορτὴ τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας,” which has been celebrated annually, even to the present day, on the First Sunday of Great Lent: The Sunday of Orthodoxy.

Therefore, the Feast of Orthodoxy is like a stamp that seals and confirms the dogmatic activity of the Church of Christ as Orthodox, in her struggle against heresy. It was, furthermore, during the epoch that led up to this feast that St. John of Damascus wrote a famous treatise, in which he systematically presents the doctrine of the Church, expressed in her struggle against heresy during the age of the Ecumenical Synods and as it was clarified by the Holy Fathers. He has rightly called this major treatise of his “A Precise Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως).” [20]

In this way, the Church of Christ that struggled for the triumph of Orthodoxy against heresy came to be called the Orthodox Church. This accentuates the fact that it is the lawful inheritor and faithful protector—both in letter and in spirit—of the true teachings of Christ and the Apostles; i.e., of the Orthodox faith, elucidated by the Holy Fathers and confirmed by the Seven Ecumenical Synods. Since the truth is only one, just as only one straight line connects two points—man and God—, all other religious communities, which have deviated from the Orthodox Church of Christ, must not be called “Orthodox,” but should be characterized as “heterodox” (“thinking differently”), by virtue of having distorted the Gospel of Christ and joined to it “another gospel” (see Galatians 1:6). Such is the confession of the Roman Catholics, who fell away from Orthodoxy, initially, because of the arbitrary act of adding the expression “and from the Son” (Filioque) to the eighth article of the Nicæan-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith (Creed) and, later, on account of a number of innovations of more or less importance, introduced throughout the centuries and even up to our own time.

By the same token, the Protestant confession, encompassing all of its innumerable denominations, also betrayed Orthodoxy, following still a different path. It denies, in principle, the authority of Holy Tradition, of the Ecumenical Synods, and of the Holy Fathers, acknowledging, instead, the ascendency of the human mind and personal interpretation. [21]

Attempts to minimize the apostasies of the heretics by dismissing them as deviations motivated by human ambition, or “mistakes on both sides,” are entirely irrelevant. In fact, there may well have been some practical and tactical mistakes on both sides, caused by human pride and a craving for power. However, such human weaknesses and acts neither justify false teachings nor obfuscate the objective truth of Orthodoxy. Despite common human fallibilities of all kinds, the whole body of the unorthodox denominations will prove false; while Orthodoxy will shine ever brighter, and will attract, by this, all True Christians. For Orthodoxy has from the very beginning preserved the Divine, soul-saving truths of Christianity and was called by the Divinely inspired Apostle of the Nations, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (I St. Timothy 3:15). St. Isidore the Pelusian (fifth century), a man of wise and keen mind, after having proved that the love of power is the cause of multifarious heresies, observed: “...but if it were removed from men, then there would be good hope that all, unanimously and in an orthodox way (ὀρθοδόξως), would gather around the Divine Gospel” (Book IV, Letter 55). [22]

From our foregoing historical review, it logically follows that Orthodoxy is not just one of the many forms of Christianity, along with the legitimate existence of other, non-Orthodox forms of Christianity; our Orthodox Faith is Christianity itself, in its most pure and one and only authentic form. When juxtaposed to Orthodoxy, all of the rest of the so-called Christian denominations are essentially alien to true Christian—that is, Orthodox—spirituality and the essence of the Faith.

Until this very day, the Orthodox Church has remained the only lawful inheritor, protector, and confessor of the true teachings of Christ, the Apostles, and the Holy Fathers, as they are confirmed by the Seven Ecumenical Synods and sealed by the celebration of the Feast of Orthodoxy. That is why the Patriarchs of the East wrote in 1723, in their “Epistle on the Orthodox Faith,” the following words: “The dogmas and the doctrines of our Eastern Church, examined already in ancient times, were correctly and piously set forth and confirmed by the Holy and Ecumenical Synods; we are not permitted to add or remove anything from them. Thus, those who wish to be in concord with us on the Divine dogmas of the Orthodox Faith need simply follow and humbly obey, without further examination or inquiry, what is set forth and decreed by the ancient tradition of the Fathers and confirmed by the Holy and Ecumenical Synods, since the time of the Apostles and their successors, the Divine Fathers of our Church.” [23]

That great Saint of our Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the venerable Metropolitan Clement (Drumev) of Tirnovo—Confessor, champion, and Martyr for Orthodoxy—, during the time of Stambolov’s dictatorship, said, in a famous sermon delivered on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in 1893: “The true Faith of Christ is not, and cannot be, anything else but our pure, Holy Orthodox Faith.... Our Orthodox Faith is the true word of God, the pure truth of God, the great power of God—power that is both invincible and beneficial to all true believers.” [24]

 

NOTES

1. Bishop Michael, Commentary on the Epistles, Vol. I (Kiev, 1897), p. 279 [in Russian].

2. Migne, Patrologia Graeca [PG], Vol. XXXIII, Col. 681.

3. Ibid., Vol. XXVI, Col. 16.

4. This reference from Tacitus’ The Annals can in no way be considered a subsequent Christian addition, since, as the citation itself confirms, he was a pagan writer who expressed unrestrained hostility towards Christians. He calls them “hateful because of their dishonor (per flagitia invisos)” and characterizes Christianity as “a pernicious superstition (exitiabilis superstitio).” Such expressions are typical of the spirit of a hardened pagan and pessimist like Tacitus.

5. Lives of the Saints, October 15 (Old Style).

6. PG, Vol. VI, Col. 549.

7. Ibid., Vol. VIII, Col. 744.

8. Ibid., Vol. XXV, Col. 788.

9. Ibid., Vol. XXVIII, Col. 549

10. Ibid., Vol. LXXXV, Col. 1340.

11. Ibid., Vol. XCVIII, Col. 52.

12. Ibid., Vol. LXXXII, Col. 1212.

13. Ibid., Vol. LXXII, Col. 41.

14. Ibid., Vol. LXXVII, Col. 59.

15. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. LIV, Col. 744.

16. Mansi, Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum (Paris—Leipzig, 1901), Vol. VI, Col. 957.

17. Ibid., Vol. XI, Cols. 246, 280.

18. Ibid., Vol. XII, Actio prima.

19. PG, Vol. C, Cols. 1257, 1300.

20. “Ἀκριβὴς ἔκθεσις τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως.”

21. Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), The Distortion of Orthodox Truth in Russian Theological Thought (Sofia, 1943), p. 213 [in Russian].

22. PG, Vol. LXXVIII, Col. 1108.

23. Orthodox Christian Catechism (Sofia, 1930), pp. 210-211 [in Bulgarian].

24. Spiritual Culture, Nos. 20-21 (1924), pp. 155, 163.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XV (1998), No. 4, pp. 3-8.