Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis
Professor Emeritus at the
School of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
PROLOGUE
The pseudo-council of Kolymbari in Crete, which convened in
June 2016, truncated and curtailed, not only did not represent the entirety of
Orthodox bishops and faithful, and for this reason does not have a pan-Orthodox
character nor does it express the unity of the Church, but primarily did not
express the Orthodox mindset of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
and offended essential and fundamental dogmas and teachings.
For this reason, it was to be expected that it would not be
accepted by the right-believing plenitude of the Church, by clergy and laity,
who, applying the canonical tradition of piety, ceased the commemoration of the
bishops who signed or accepted its decisions and proceeded to the so-called
Walling-off, on the basis of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council (861),
which was convened by St. Photios the Great.
This action caused many questions among the faithful who were
not informed concerning matters of the faith, and it set in motion persecutions
and slanders on the part of certain ignorant or
militant-in-the-heresy-of-Ecumenism bishops against the courageous and
confessing clergy, who, following the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, are
not about to accept the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, now even crowned with
conciliar recognition.
With this small booklet in hand from the series Kairos,
we provide answers to some of the questions that arise and concern the
faithful, but also demonstrate the unjustifiability of the persecutions against
those of us who strive to protect the Church from heresies and schisms. Once
again, we are faced with the danger of schism, which, however, is created by
the supporters of the pseudo-council of Crete and not by those of us who
struggle against it. Peace within the body of the Church will not be achieved through
persecutions and slanders, but through the rejection by a new Orthodox council
of the heretical decisions of the pseudo-council of Crete.
September
2017
Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis
A. WALLING-OFF
FROM HERESY, NOT FROM THE CHURCH
1. Forbidden and
permitted walling-off
Lately, there is frequent mention
of “walling-off” and “walled-off” faithful, along with frequent and rather
deliberate misunderstanding of the conceptual content of these words. The noun apoteichisis
(walling-off) is derived from the verb apoteichizō, which according to
dictionaries means to fortify, to enclose with a wall, to erect a partition
wall. Therefore, the word apoteichisis also means: enclosure with a
wall, fortification. And the wall that one raises in order to defend oneself is
called apoteichisma (fortification wall).
It is clear that the use of the
word walling-off presupposes that there is some danger, some enemy, from
whom one raises a wall for protection. In ecclesiastical language, this concept
of walling-off is introduced verbally by the 15th Canon of the First-Second
Council under St. Photios the Great (861), where it is absolutely clear and
brighter than the sun who the danger is that necessitates walling-off. This is
heresy and the heretical bishops.
Specifically, with the two
preceding canons, the Council, in order to prevent the creation of schisms,
punishes with the severe penalty of deposition, by means of the 13th, the
presbyter or deacon who ceases communion with his bishop and does not commemorate
his name in the various prayers of the Divine Liturgies before the bishop has
been condemned by some council, “before conciliar judgment,” invoking some
supposed misdeeds, “crimes,” of the bishop—that is, not matters of faith, but
administrative, financial, and other irregularities. The same is repeated by
the 14th, which likewise imposes the penalty of deposition on the bishop now,
who for the same reasons ceases communion with his metropolitan. The 15th canon
has a peculiarity: in its first part it says the same also regarding the
metropolitan who ceases the commemoration of the patriarch, under whose
jurisdiction he belongs. In the second half of the canon, however, where the
concept of walling-off is introduced, the canon proceeds to an
exception, on the basis of which clergy of any rank and office may cease
communion with their ecclesiastical superior and cease commemorating him; this
happens when the bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch preaches and teaches “with
bared head”—that is, openly, unabashedly—a heresy which has been condemned
by Councils and Holy Fathers, “condemned by the Holy Synods or Fathers.” This
cessation of communion and of the commemoration of the bishop, metropolitan, or
patriarch even takes place before any council has dealt with the matter, that
is, even “before conciliar judgment.”
What is important is that those
who wall themselves off from such so-called bishops who preach heresy not only
are not subject to the penalties imposed by the previous canons, namely the
penalty of deposition, but moreover must be honored with due honor by the
Orthodox, because they have walled themselves off – that is, they have
separated with the wall of truth – not from bishops, but from pseudo-bishops,
and because not only do they not cause schism and divisions, but they hasten,
they are eager to save the Church from the schisms and divisions caused by the
pseudo-bishops. We present the exact text of the canon, which unfortunately
many do not pay attention to and speak from the belly, hastily and without
consideration, and afterward we will comment on certain points of it, so that
the meaning of walling-off may be clarified –
particularly, from whom, from which persons one walls oneself off; who
is the danger, the enemy, for the repulsion of whom one raises the wall, in
order to defend oneself and hinder his advance and spread. What emerges from
the text? Does one wall oneself off from the Church or from heresy? From true
bishops or from pseudo-bishops? Let us carefully reread the text of the 15th
canon, which we present immediately:
“The definitions concerning
Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans apply all the more to Patriarchs.
Therefore, if any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan should dare to separate
himself from communion with his own Patriarch, and does not commemorate his
name, according to the appointed and prescribed order, in the Divine Liturgy,
but does so before his conciliar and final condemnation has been made manifest,
he creates a schism; such a one the holy Council has determined to be entirely
alien to the priesthood, if he be convicted of having acted unlawfully in this.
And these things have been sealed and defined concerning those who separate
themselves from their presidents on the pretext of certain accusations, and
cause schisms, and disrupt the unity of the Church. For those who, on account
of some heresy condemned by the holy Synods or Fathers, separate themselves
from communion with their president—that is, when he openly proclaims the
heresy and teaches it in church with uncovered head—such persons not only are
not subject to canonical condemnation before a conciliar decision, for walling
themselves off from communion with the so-called Bishop, but shall also be
deemed worthy of proper honor among the Orthodox. For they have condemned not
Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they have not torn the
unity of the Church with schism, but have rather hastened to rescue the Church
from schisms and divisions.”
2. Why was the
15th Canon established?
What concerned the Fathers of the
First-Second Council at the time it was convened was to prevent the creation of
schisms in the body of the Church. The appearance of the great heresies had
preceded it, with the last being that of Iconoclasm, which had recently been
condemned and defeated with the restoration of the icons (843), and the Church
had triumphed. Therefore, they did not want new divisions and disturbances.
They foresaw that, since the Devil had not been able to break the unity of the
Church through heresies, he would now attempt to strike it by creating schisms,
bringing forth administrative, financial, and other scandals of ecclesiastical
officials.
The Council states this clearly
at the beginning of the 13th Canon: “The most wicked one, having sown the
tares of the heretics in the Church of Christ, and seeing these being cut off
at the root with the sword of the Spirit, has turned to another method,
attempting to divide the Body of Christ by the madness of schismatics.”
Thus, as we said before, it legislates through the three canons (13, 14, and
15) that any clergy who turn against the bishop, the metropolitan, or the
patriarch, invoking various misdeeds, “crimes,” and cease communion with him as
well as the commemoration of his name in the sacred services, even before any
synodal decision and condemnation has been issued, must be deposed. In such
cases, the cessation of commemoration, the walling-off, is forbidden.
So that it may not be thought
that the cessation of commemoration, the walling-off, is entirely
forbidden—that it is something that should neither be discussed nor
encouraged—and because heresy, as an assault against the faith and the dogmas,
is a greater evil and a greater danger to the unity of the Church than schism,
for this reason the Fathers of the Council, in the second half of the 15th
Canon, determine and establish that the things previously defined—namely, the
non-interruption of commemoration—do not apply in the case where the bishop,
the metropolitan, or the patriarch preaches heresy. In this case, we must
immediately and “before conciliar judgment” wall ourselves off, raise a wall of
defense, block off the heresy, and fortify ourselves. Is there, then, any doubt
that walling-off is walling-off from heresy and not from the Church, from
pseudo-bishops and not from true bishops? Have some bishops and theologians
become so completely lost in the haze of Syncretism and Ecumenism, that either
through theological ignorance or deliberately, as militants of Ecumenism, they
frighten and terrorize clergy and faithful by claiming that the cessation of
commemoration supposedly places one outside the Church and leads to schism?
Does not the canon say that those who cease commemoration not only are not
subject to the penalty of deposition, but should also be honored, because they
have not separated from bishops, but from pseudo-bishops, and because they did
not cause schism, but are protecting the Church from schisms? Shall we then
allow the heretical ecumenists to terrorize us with the supposed danger of
schism, and by remaining united with them claim that we are within the Church?
Then, by the same logic, being united with the Papists, the Protestants, the
Monophysites would also mean being within the Church.
3. The position is
mistaken: “We remain in the Church; we are not leaving.” Who is it that is
leaving?
It is striking that even persons
otherwise of Orthodox mindset, and indeed learned bishops, presbyters, and
professors, wrongly interpret walling-off as separation from the Church and not
from heresy and from pseudo-bishops; they claim and write and preach that “we
remain within the Church, we do not wall ourselves off, we carry on the
struggle within the Church.”
Thus, they become good
collaborators and helpers of the heretical pseudo-bishops, because they do not
allow the wall of cessation of communion and commemoration to be raised, with
the result that the heresy of Ecumenism for decades now has advanced unchecked,
taking hold of persons and institutions, councils, hierarchies, hierarchs,
theological schools, while we Orthodox, like lone snipers, fire off a few shots
against an enemy and a danger with incomparable superiority in arms and with an
asymmetrical threat. But is this not what we have been doing for so many years,
postponing the construction of the wall? And should we not now, seeing that the
enemy has taken even the last institutional stronghold we possess—the conciliar
system through the pseudo-council of Crete—improve our strategy, adapt our
command plans, use the weaponry that the Holy Fathers, through Holy
Spirit-inspired decisions, have supplied us with? From the fortress of the
pseudo-council, thunderbolts and threats are being launched, more and more are
being enslaved to Ecumenism and to Pan-religion, joint prayers and ecumenist
spectacles are increasing, brazen little bishops and petty theologians distort
and deform the word of truth and, like wild beasts, tear it apart, as Saint
Gregory the Theologian says [1]—and we are still wondering where the Church is,
whether we are within the Church by remaining with the heretics, or whether we
are leaving the Church by separating from them? Is it not an established
ecclesiological axiom that the Church is where the truth is, and not where
there are bishops and heretical patriarchs?
1. Oration 28, Theological Oration 2, 2, EPE vol. 4, p. 36: “But
if anyone is a wicked and savage beast, utterly incapable of accepting words,
contemplation, and theology, let him not lurk in the forests as a criminal and
with evil intent, so as to seize upon some dogma or utterance—suddenly rushing
upon it—and tear apart the sound words with his insults; rather, let him stand
far off and withdraw from the mountain, lest he be stoned and shattered and
perish miserably, being evil.”
4. The example of
Saint Maximus and Saint Gregory Palamas
I will cite only two testimonies
of eminent Saints, Fathers, Teachers, and Confessors, in order to show where
the Church is and who it is that departs from the Church—so that the heretical
Ecumenists may shut their unbridled mouths and cease terrorizing the uninformed
with the scarecrow of schism, and so that our own supporters of silence and
quietism may think more carefully and act more boldly and in a manner more in
accord with the Fathers, fearing not isolation from men, but isolation from God
and the Saints.
Saint Maximus the Confessor, in
the 7th century, a simple monk, yet by reason of his immense learning and
divine illumination superior and loftier than many patriarchs and bishops, [1]
bore almost alone the weight of resistance against the heresy of Monothelitism,
which had taken hold of all the patriarchates, and for a time even the Church
of Rome—just as now the pan-heresy of Ecumenism has taken hold of the majority
of the local churches with its conciliar ratification at the pseudo-council of
Crete. Even the emperors had been persuaded that, in order for peace and unity
to prevail in both Church and State, Saint Maximus had to cease his opposition,
whose theological stance was followed by a large portion of the ecclesiastical
body. He was to accept, either through persuasion or by force, the compromising
and diplomatic text of the “Typos,” as the document prepared by the theologians
of Emperor Constans II, grandson of Heraclius, was called—drawn up in the
courts of the palace and the Patriarchate—just like the diplomatic texts
prepared by the pseudo-council of Crete, so that we might now unite not with
one heresy, but wholesale with all heretics.
The bishops of the then
diplomatic theology, sent by the patriarch to the place of Saint Maximus’
imprisonment, tried to intimidate him, saying that through his rigid and
unyielding stance against all that had been decided by all the local
churches—through his cessation of communion—he was placing himself outside the
Church, that he was leaving the Church. The response of the Great Theologian
and Confessor is exemplary and perpetually instructive. The Church is not found
where those who administer it are—the patriarchs, the bishops, the synods—but
where the saving confession of the faith is found. It is not the convener and
the convened who legitimize the synods, but “the orthodoxy of the dogmas.”
We present the heroic, confessing
text: “Those who had arrived said they had been sent by the patriarch; and
they presented the matter to the Saint as it stood: ‘Of which Church are you,
they said, O man? For we shall use their own words. Of Byzantium, of Rome, of
Antioch, of Alexandria, of Jerusalem? Behold, all of them, together with the
provinces under them, have united. If then you also are of the Catholic Church,
unite, lest, innovating a foreign path in life, you suffer what you do not
expect.’ To whom the blessed one responded, with timely and wise reply:
‘The Catholic Church is the correct and saving confession of the faith, as the
Lord said, and it is for this reason that He blessed Peter for his good
confession.’” [2] In another place during his interrogation, when the
discussion turned to synods and whether their convocation was canonical or not,
Saint Maximus stated the essential criterion for a synod to be considered
Orthodox. He said that the pious rule of the Church recognizes as holy and
valid only those synods which are characterized by the orthodoxy of their
dogmas: “The pious rule of the Church knows as holy and approved those
synods which have been judged by the orthodoxy of the dogmas.” [3] To the
accusation that his stance was causing schism—just as we are now accused who
reject the pseudo-council of Crete—he replied in the form of a rhetorical
question: “If the one who says what the Holy Scripture and the Fathers teach
is rending the Church, what shall he be shown to be committing against the
Church who nullifies the dogmas of the Saints, without which the Church herself
cannot exist?” [4]
Following the same line, seven
centuries later, in the 14th century, the great Hesychast and Confessor,
Archbishop of Thessaloniki Saint Gregory Palamas, the incomparably greatest
theologian of the second millennium, speaks. With weighty expressions, without
the Frankish Western pseudo-courtesies, he rebukes as a liar the Patriarch of
Antioch, Ignatios, who had written a letter to Patriarch John Kalekas, in which
he affirmed his opposition to Saint Gregory Palamas, a letter full of
inaccuracies and falsehoods. In his letter, Patriarch Ignatios, departing from
Constantinople, wrote that he was returning to his church, to Antioch, which he
had received as an inheritance by the Grace of Christ—just as those today who
occupy episcopal, archiepiscopal, and patriarchal thrones think and claim.
He wrote: “Our humility
departs to her own church, which by the Grace of Christ she has truly
inherited.” Saint Gregory, angered by Patriarch John Kalekas’ support and
the unfounded and untheological accusations made against him, first questions
what relation, what portion in the Church, what succession and inheritance in
the Grace of Christ can this “advocate of falsehood” have—a succession in the
Church, which is “the pillar and ground of the truth,” and which remains
continually secure and unshakable, firmly established upon that which the truth
itself is established. In a striking pronouncement, he says to the
heresy-promoting patriarch that he is a stranger to the Church, outside the
Church, because “those who are of the Church of Christ are of the truth; and
those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ.” The Church
is where the truth is; those who are not with the truth are outside the Church.
Therefore, they contradict themselves and speak falsely—those who call
themselves and one another pastors and chief shepherds when they do not confess
the Orthodox faith. For Christianity does not regard persons, but the truth and
the precision of the faith: “For we have been taught that Christianity is
not defined by persons, but by the truth and accuracy of the faith.” [5]
Is not the boldness, the courage,
the firm and unyielding stance of a simple monk, Saint Maximus, and of a simple
priest, Saint Gregory Palamas—before he became Metropolitan of
Thessaloniki—exemplary and instructive in the face of the all-powerful ecclesiastical
and political leadership? Did they have any doubt about where the Church is,
about who is departing from the Church and who is causing schisms? Did they not
believe that the heretics are the ones departing from the Church, which can be
expressed and represented even by a single monk, even by a single priest, when
they express and represent the Truth?
1. On the life and contest of our venerable father and
confessor Maximus, 14, PG 90, 81–84: “For this reason, by every means he
stirred them up; he struck them together, he anointed them with words unto
courage, he filled them with a nobler spirit. For though they surpassed him in
the throne, yet in wisdom and understanding they were lesser and deficient—let
alone speaking of the other virtue and the renown of the man in all things.
Therefore, they yielded to his words and to his other exhortations and counsels,
which were so greatly beneficial, obeying without objection.”
2. Ibid., 24, PG 90, 93.
3. An Explanation of the episode that took place between
our master Abba Maximus and those with him and the rulers in the secret council,
12, PG 90, 148.
4. Ibid., 5, PG 90, 117: “As he was saying these things,
Menas cried out: ‘By saying these things, you have torn the Church.’ And he
said to him: ‘If the one who speaks the things of the Holy Scriptures and of
the Holy Fathers rends the Church, then what shall the one who nullifies the
dogmas of the Saints be shown to be doing to the Church—without which it is not
even possible for the Church itself to exist?’”
5. Saint Gregory Palamas, Refutation of the Letter of
Ignatios of Antioch, 3, in P. Christou, Gregory Palamas, Works, vol.
II, Thessaloniki 1966, p. 627.
5. Steadfast,
consistent, and trustworthy is the position of those who struggle
The economical
postponement for some years of the cessation of commemoration, with the aim of
informing the uncatechized and uninformed Orthodox faithful, does not mean that
we will cancel the exactness of those things which the Tradition of the Church
and the Holy Canons teach. Already in the Conclusions of the great
Inter-Orthodox Scientific Conference organized in Thessaloniki in 2004 by the
"Department of Pastoral and Social Theology" of the Theological
School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the "Society of
Orthodox Studies," we wrote:
"Let it be emphatically
declared to the ecclesiastical leaderships that, in the event they continue to
participate in and support the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—both inter-Christian and
inter-religious—the necessary, saving, canonical, and patristic path for the
faithful, both clergy and laity, is non-communion, that is, the cessation of
commemoration of the bishops, who thereby become co-responsible and partakers
in the heresy and the delusion. This is not a matter of schism, but of a
God-pleasing confession, just as was done by the Fathers of old, and in our own
days by confessing bishops, among whom the venerable and respected former
Metropolitan of Florina, Augustine, and the Holy Mountain." [1]
And in the historic “Confession
of Faith against Ecumenism,” which was composed and circulated in 2009 by the
“Assembly of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics,” signed by a multitude of
hierarchs, hundreds of clergy and monastics, and thousands of faithful, we
wrote:
“This pan-heresy (=of Ecumenism)
has been accepted by many among the Orthodox: patriarchs, archbishops, bishops,
clergy, monastics, and laity. They teach it ‘with uncovered head,’ implement
it, and impose it in practice, communing in various ways with the
heretics—through joint prayers, exchange of visits, pastoral
collaborations—thus essentially placing themselves outside the Church. Our
stance, according to the synodal canonical decisions and the example of the
Saints, is clear. Each one must take up his responsibilities.” [2]
1. DEPARTMENT OF PASTORAL AND SOCIAL THEOLOGY OF THE
THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF THE ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI and SOCIETY OF
ORTHODOX STUDIES (organizers), Ecumenism:
Origin–Expectations–Disappointments, Proceedings of the Inter-Orthodox
Scientific Conference, Ceremony Hall of the Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, September 20–24, 2004, Theodromia Publications, Thessaloniki
2008, p. 1029.
2. ASSEMBLY OF ORTHODOX CLERGY AND MONASTICS, Confession
of Faith against Ecumenism, 2009, p. 25.
6. Instead of
“walling-off,” it is better to use the term “cessation of commemoration”
It has been shown that the term “walling-off,”
although correct and canonical, creates misunderstandings and gives occasion to
the ill-intentioned to attribute to it conceptual extensions which it does not
possess.
In any case, even within the
canon, the main conceptual weight falls on the cessation of communion, of
commemoration, which is limited and clear in meaning and does not allow for
misinterpretations or extensions.
The concept of the wall allows,
for example, the ecumenists to claim that a wall is being raised which
separates from the Church, whereas, as we have shown, the wall is raised to
separate us from heresy and from the pseudo-bishops. For this reason, the term “walling-off”
is not found in theological dictionaries and lists of terms in relevant
theological and canonical works. Its use is relatively recent, and instead of
it, the term “cessation of communion” and preferably “cessation of
commemoration” should be used.
On the Holy Mountain, after the
calendar reform and the cessation of commemoration of those who accepted the
New Calendar, the distinction was not made between “walled-off” and
“non-walled-off,” but between “non-commemorators” and “commemorators.” The terms
“commemorators” and “non-commemorators” are fitting even today and make it more
difficult for those who wish to present the “non-commemorators” as schismatics,
since they do not engage in any schismatic action—they simply do not
commemorate heretical or heresy-promoting bishops.
B. WE WILL NOT
CAUSE A SCHISM
(And without the commemoration of the bishop, the Mysteries remain valid)
Certain persons who are moved by
love in the Lord toward us clergy in the world who have ceased the
commemoration of our respective bishops, but also by a general respect for the
struggles on behalf of Orthodoxy—especially those persons who have not known
the writer well and have not experienced him personally, so as to interpret
correctly his recent action of ceasing the liturgical commemoration of the
Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, Mr. Anthimos—are troubled by rumors deliberately
spread or even by their own mistaken assessments, that Fr. Theodoros is going
to cause a schism. They even associate in this direction the words or actions
of other persons with whom Fr. Theodoros has cooperated or is cooperating,
though he does not in fact agree or collaborate with them in all things, and
from this they draw incorrect conclusions.
1. What follows
from the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council. The Divine Liturgy is not
celebrated in the name of the bishop
In order, therefore, to dispel
these concerns and to bring peace to the thoughts of some—of the
well-intentioned, of course—the following explanations are given: The cessation
of commemoration of a heretical or heresy-promoting bishop is prescribed by the
15th Canon of the First-Second Council (861) of St. Photios the Great, when the
bishop publicly preaches “with uncovered head,” that is, openly and
unabashedly, some heresy condemned by Councils or Holy Fathers. [1] From the
canon, the following points arise:
(a) The cessation of
commemoration concerns one’s own bishop and not all the bishops of the Church.
Each cleric ceases the commemoration of his own bishop.
(b) The cessation of
commemoration is neither prescribed nor required to be coordinated, that is, to
be done by many or not to be done individually. Even a single presbyter may
proceed to the cessation of commemoration.
(c) The bishop whose
commemoration is ceased must not simply incline toward heresy, but must also
publicly preach the heresy.
(d) This cessation of
commemoration is characterized by the canon as walling-off: “walling
themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop.” Walling-off is
not something different from the cessation of commemoration. There is no other
walling-off apart from the cessation of commemoration, such that some may think
they are walling-off without proceeding to the cessation of commemoration.
(e) This walling-off does not
cause a schism, because one does not wall oneself off from the Church, but from
heresy; [2] one does not wall oneself off from an Orthodox bishop, but from a
so-called bishop, “walling themselves off from the so-called bishop,”
whom the canon subsequently calls a “pseudo-bishop” and a “pseudo-teacher.”
(f) Those who cease the
commemoration of a heresy-promoting bishop do not commit a canonical offense;
for this reason, they are not subject to canonical trial and censure, that is,
they should not be referred to episcopal or synodal courts.
(g) And not only should they not
be referred to courts and punished, but on the contrary, they should be
honored, because they protect the Church from schisms and divisions—they do not
cause schism. Schisms are caused by the heresy-promoting bishops.
(h) It is not necessary for the
heresy-promoting bishop to have been condemned by a Council, so that only after
his conciliar condemnation the cessation of commemoration may take place. This
is permitted even before the conciliar condemnation, “before conciliar
judgment.” The canon is clear, and only the unlearned and unread find it
difficult to understand—or some deliberately misinterpret it in order to avoid
bearing the consequences it dictates: “Such persons (those who cease the
commemoration) not only are not subject to canonical censure, for walling
themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before conciliar
judgment, but shall also be deemed worthy of the fitting honor by the Orthodox.
For they have condemned not bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers,
and they have not torn the unity of the Church with schism, but have hastened
to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.”
(i) It is a logical, theological,
ecclesiological, and legal absurdity to accept that the cessation of
commemoration causes schism. Is it possible that the Church itself, through a
canon of an official and illustrious council—over which even St. Photios the
Great presided, a magnificent teacher, theologian, canonist, jurist,
philosopher, along with many other bishops—would be recommending the committing
of schism, and indeed not only against the Church, but even against themselves
as bishops? The Church, through its councils, seeks to keep its members within
its boundaries, protecting them from heresies and schisms. Is it possible that
it would say to them, “Cease the commemoration of the bishop and go outside the
Church”?
(j) The one who ceases
commemoration is applying the canonical directive at the very moment he
celebrates the Divine Eucharist, at the moment he serves; this means that the
canon allows for the celebration of the Liturgy without the bishop being
commemorated. It does not mandate that the one who ceases commemoration must
cease to serve, as if the Liturgy is supposedly celebrated “in the name of the
bishop,” and that where the bishop is not commemorated, the Mysteries are
invalid—according to the unprecedented and erroneous opinion of Metropolitan
John Zizioulas of Pergamon, for which there is no scriptural or patristic
testimony, but only the heretical episcopocentrism and papal-style despotism.
Would St. Photios the Great and the other God-bearing Fathers of the
First-Second Council ever recommend the invalidation of Mysteries by
prescribing the cessation of commemoration? All the Mysteries and the Divine
Liturgy are celebrated in the name of the Holy Trinity or in the name of
Christ, and not in the name of the bishop. There is no need to expand further
on what is self-evident. Let us simply cite what the Apostle Paul says to the
Corinthians, who had been divided into factions, placing some apostles-teachers
at the head rather than Christ. The Apostle Paul protests, saying that Christ
is the head of salvation, who was crucified for us, and that the Mysteries are
performed in the name of Christ: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified
for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized
none of you..." [3] If then the heaven-ascending and God-seeing Paul
refuses that the Mystery of Baptism is performed in his name, how much pride
and papal arrogance is concealed in Zizioulas’s claim that the Divine Eucharist
is celebrated “in the name of the bishop”? The Lord Himself, sending out the
disciples to preach, gave them the command to baptize in the name of the Holy
Trinity: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” [4] And when
instituting the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist at the Mystical Supper, He did
not say, “You will perform this in your name,” but rather, “Do this in
remembrance of Me.” [5] The Divine Liturgy and the other services begin
with a Trinitarian invocation: “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit” or “In the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit” or “Blessed is our God always…” We do
not begin with an invocation of the name of the bishop. Let the indifferent and
unread bishops, some of whom cannot even read the homilies others have written
for them, take the trouble to look up in a concordance of the New Testament
under the word “name” to see in whose name the Holy Apostles invoked
when performing miracles. Was it the name of any one of them? Or were all
things done “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”, “calling on the
name of Christ”, in countless events and circumstances? Moreover, in the
prayer of the Cherubic Hymn—“No one bound by carnal desires…”—which the
bishop or priest says before the Holy Altar, they confess that Christ is the
celebrant of the Mystery: “the One who offers and is offered”, not the
bishop or the priest: “For You are the One who offers and is offered and
receives and is distributed, Christ our God.” Also, in the short service of
the Kairos before the Proskomide, the clergy pray to Christ to
send His hand in order for them to perform the bloodless sacrifice: “O Lord,
send forth Your hand from Your holy dwelling.” The commemoration of the
bishop is done for other reasons, and not because it constitutes an essential
element of the Mystery, without which the Mystery is supposedly invalid. In
what Orthodox dogmatic theology is this erroneous teaching found? The bishop is
commemorated primarily to show that the one commemorating and the one
commemorated share the same faith, that they are both Orthodox, that the
commemorated holds the same faith as the one commemorating—that they are of the
same mind and same belief. We do not deny the important, great, and primary
place of the bishop in the Church, as also stated by St. Ignatius of Antioch.
But all this is valid when it concerns an Orthodox bishop, and not a
pseudo-bishop.
Therefore, the one who ceases
commemoration continues to serve and is not subject to “canonical censure,”
according to the canon. And if any penalty of suspension or deposition is
imposed on him by the competent “ecclesiastical” courts, it is invalid and
unenforceable, as it is uncanonical. Woe to us if the Holy Fathers who were
persecuted and deposed by heretical synods had obeyed and submitted to the
decisions of heretical bishops. Orthodoxy would have been overthrown.
1. 15th Canon of the First-Second Council (861): “For
those who, on account of some heresy condemned by the Holy Synods or by the
Fathers, separate themselves from communion with their president—clearly when
he publicly proclaims the heresy and teaches it in the Church with uncovered
head—such persons not only are not subject to canonical censure for walling
themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before conciliar
judgment, but shall also be deemed worthy of the fitting honor by the Orthodox.
For they have condemned not bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers,
and they have not torn the unity of the Church with schism, but have hastened
to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.”
2. See related: Protopresbyter THEODOROS ZISIS, “Walling-Off
from Heresy, Not from the Church,” Theodromia 19 (2017), pp. 3–13.
3. 1 Corinthians 1:11–17.
4. Matthew 28:19.
5. Luke 22:20.
2. Ecumenism as a
Condemned Heresy
The cessation of commemoration of
one’s own bishop, then, presupposes his acceptance and proclamation of heresy.
Is there today a heresy being preached “with uncovered head,” that is,
publicly, openly, and unabashedly? Only those indifferent to the dogmas of the
Church and who regard “piety as a means of gain” [1] bury their heads in
the sand and do not see that for over a century now, the Church has been being
devoured, consciences eroded, bishops, clergy, monastics, professors of
theological schools, and theologians swept away by the pan-heresy of
Ecumenism—as it was aptly named by the great dogmatic theologian of our Church,
Saint Justin Popovich, by Saint Paisios the Athonite, and by many other
contemporary Fathers and teachers. Ecumenism falls under the criteria of the
15th Canon of the First-Second Council, according to which the heresy being
preached by the bishop must be “condemned by the Holy Synods or the
Fathers.” Apart from the fact that contemporary Holy Fathers have already
condemned it, its basic doctrines have been condemned by ancient Saints and
ancient synods, and by the Holy Scriptures themselves, because it offends
fundamental dogmas of the Church. It is the inclusion of all heresies, which is
why it is called a pan-heresy. It does not require extensive theological
knowledge and research for someone to characterize as heretical those who do
not accept that Christ is the only Savior and Redeemer, according to the
teaching of Holy Scripture, testified in many places and in many ways. We cite
just one among the countless passages, that of the Apostle Peter during his
speech before the council of the Jews, the high priests, and the theologians of
that time: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other
name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” [2] Does not
the Symbol of Faith of the First Ecumenical Council say the same against the
heresy of Arius, referring to the God-man Jesus Christ and the salvation
through Him: “Who for us men and for our salvation came down from the
heavens…” This fundamental dogma of the uniqueness and exclusivity of
salvation in Christ is offended by Ecumenism, which claims that people are
saved even in other religions—thus asserting that the Apostle Peter, the entire
Holy Scripture, and the whole Patristic Tradition are wrong, all of which teach
that “there is salvation in no one else.”
Even the dogma of the Holy
Trinity is indirectly offended by Ecumenism, although it does not dare to
proclaim this officially, through what is taught by many Ecumenists and by the
Second Vatican Council—that the three monotheistic religions, the three Abrahamic
religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, believe in the same God.
Yet only we believe in the Holy Trinity; the other two religions deny the
divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—they are Arian and Spirit-fighting,
and therefore they do not even believe in the true God, for whoever does not
believe in the Son does not believe in the Father either. [3] And as we chant
at the end of every Divine Liturgy: "We have seen the true Light, we
have received the heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the
undivided Trinity." It is not superfluous to add that the dogma of the
Holy Trinity is also offended by the heresy of the Filioque, that is,
the teaching of Papism and of Protestantism that proceeded from it—that the
Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, as the Holy Scripture teaches
through the very mouth of Christ, [4] and as the Church dogmatized in the First
Ecumenical Council, but also “from the Son” (Filioque), according to the
official anti-Lordly and anti-patristic doctrine of the Papists and the
Protestants—whom, however, Ecumenism and the ecumenistic pseudo-council of
Crete accept as churches, despite the multitude of heresies they teach, aside
from the Filioque.
The most glaring error, however,
of Ecumenism and of the pseudo-council of Crete is the offense and alteration
of the ecclesiological dogma, which holds that the Church is one and not many,
and that this one Church has one faith and one Baptism, according to the
Pauline saying: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” [5] This dogma of
the One Church, with the unity of Faith—meaning the same apostolic and
patristic teaching, extending even to the smallest matters, which must remain
unaltered and immovable—has been preserved by the Church through the ages since
apostolic times. From the beginning of the Church’s life, as is evident in the
texts of the New Testament, and until today, there have appeared false teachers
and false prophets, as well as pseudo-bishops and pseudo-clergy, who attempt to
alter and distort the one Faith of the One Church by introducing their own
heretical teachings—essentially preaching a different gospel, “another
gospel” [6]—and creating heretical conventicles which they call churches.
With great strictness, the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers combat the
heresies and condemn them, because those who become entangled in them lose
their salvation, being deprived of the saving Grace, which operates only within
the Church; outside the Church there is no salvation (extra Ecclesiam nulla
salus), according to the well-known and universally accepted saying of
Saint Cyprian. In every period of the Church’s life and throughout the entirety
of patristic literature, as well as in our liturgical texts, one sees the
tireless, vigilant concern of the Church for the combating of heresies, and the
toilsome and martyrical struggles of the Holy Fathers—many of whom became
martyrs and confessors, pillars of Orthodoxy—in order to preserve the
correctness of the dogmas, Orthodoxy itself, and to prevent heresy and delusion
from prevailing. It is enough for one to read the Synodikon of Orthodoxy,
where all the heretics are named and anathematized. And lest any heresy remain
without condemnation, at the end the Church anathematizes in general all
heretics: “To all heretics, anathema.”
None of the Holy Apostles nor the
Holy Fathers could have imagined that we would reach a point today—within the
Church itself, through many bishops, other clergy, and theologians—of tearing
down the boundaries of the Church, “the boundaries which our Fathers have
set,” [7] and of introducing into the Church all errors and heresies,
considering and naming the heresies as churches, as was done by the
pseudo-council of Crete. This constitutes an overturning of the Gospel and of
the Holy Councils, which condemned the heresies, and an offense against the
Holy Martyrs and Confessors.
If one were to add also the
synodal acceptance of the common texts of the Theological Dialogues—in which we
recognize among the heretical Monophysites, Papists, and Protestants a valid
Baptism and Apostolic succession—as well as the synodal approval to intermingle
with the Protestants in the so-called “World Council of Churches,” thereby
cheapening the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and rendering it a
small tile in the poorly crafted mosaic of heresies, one will not find it
difficult to conclude that the pseudo-council of Crete has offended the
ecclesiological dogma and introduced a new heretical ecclesiology.
1. 1 Timothy 6:5
2. Acts 4:12
3. 1 John 2:23: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the
Father either.” John 5:22–23: “That all should honor the Son just as
they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father
who sent Him.”
4. John 15:26: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall
send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father,
He will testify of Me.”
5. Ephesians 4:5
6. 2 Corinthians 11:4: “For if he who comes preaches
another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit
which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not
accepted…” Galatians 1:6: “I marvel that you are turning away so soon
from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is
not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel
of Christ.”
7. Proverbs 22:28: “Do not remove the ancient boundaries
which your fathers have set.”
3. Timely
Questions and Problems
There most certainly does exist
in our time a condemned heresy—the accursed Ecumenism—which we have briefly
described, even if many pretend not to see it, because confronting it entails
toil, sacrifices, slander, persecution, and the loss of comfort. Until the
pseudo-council of Kolymbari in Crete, Ecumenism was preached "openly
and publicly" by individual clergy and theologians, among whom two
patriarchs of Constantinople stood out prominently: Athenagoras and
Bartholomew. The ecumenistic errors and heretical statements of Patriarch
Athenagoras are many, which justifiably led most of the Monasteries of Mount
Athos, as well as kelliotes [cell-dwelling] monks—among whom was Saint
Paisios—to cease commemorating him, as their ruling bishop, during the years
1969–1972, according to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod (861). Far
more numerous are the ecumenistic deviations of Patriarch Bartholomew,
compilations of which have been published from time to time in denunciatory
texts against him, such as the document by the “Assembly of Orthodox Clergy and
Monastics,” titled “The New Ecclesiology of the Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew,” which, apart from the members of the Assembly, was signed by
hundreds of clergy and monastics and thousands of lay faithful, but most
significantly by nine hierarchs: Ambrosios of Kalavryta and Aigialeia, Andreas
of Dryinoupolis, Panteleimon of Antinoe, Seraphim of Piraeus, Pavlos of
Glyfada, Ierotheos of Zichna and Nevrokopi, Seraphim of Kythera, Kosmas of
Aetolia and Acarnania, and Ieremias of Gortyna. [1] Significant as well is the
collection recently published by Archimandrite Chrysostomos Pechos, Abbot of
the Holy Monastery of the Life-Giving Spring in Longovarda, Paros, under the
title: “Condemnation of Heterodox Teachings of His All-Holiness the
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, before the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of the
Church of Greece.” [2] Several clergy, monastics, and laypersons have also
compiled a great number of ecumenistic sayings and actions of the Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew, which, when published and commented upon, will astonish
his uninformed supporters. Therefore, the cessation of commemoration of
Patriarch Bartholomew should have already taken place many years ago by the
Athonite Cenobitic Monasteries and the priest-monks of the kellia
[cells] who commemorate him daily in the services as their ruling
bishop—according to the canonical and patristic tradition, as well as the
Athonite, both old and recent. The same should have been done by the hierarchs
of the so-called “New Lands,” following the confessional and courageous stance
of the three Hierarchs of the “New Lands” who, along with the Athonite
Monasteries, ceased the commemoration of Athenagoras during the years
1969–1972—namely, the ever-memorable Ambrosios of Eleftheroupolis, Augustinos
of Florina, and Pavlos of Paramythia. No one punished them then, not even
Athenagoras, and no one claimed that the Mysteries they performed for three
years were invalid.
If this had been done—if even now
some bishops had ceased commemoration—the prospects for the pseudo-council of
Crete would have been different. The patriarch would have hesitated to convene
the "Council," because he would have appeared as responsible for the
unrest among the Church faithful and essentially as one being accused. Thus,
Ecumenism would have remained a personal choice and delusion of certain clergy
and theologians. Now, after cowardice, hesitation, and supposed pastoral
difficulties and consequences, the heresy-promoting patriarch has remained in
practice untouchable and unscathed, and with the authority and power he holds,
he convened, with few obstacles, the pseudo-council and—when he ought to have
appeared as a defendant before an Orthodox synod—he appeared as the accuser of
those of us who struggle against Ecumenism, now with even greater audacity in
persecuting, slandering, and vilifying the fighters, since the heretical things
he said and did are now synodically ratified. We are no longer simply those who
question his personal opinions, as we have both the obligation and the right to
do, but we are the “disobedient, the schismatics, the rebels, the egoists and
infallibles who do not accept what the Church decides in synod,” as the parrots
of the Phanar repeat—ignorant and semi-learned bishops and newly ordained
theologians who, like wild beasts, devour the word of truth, according to the
image of Saint Gregory the Theologian. [3] They forget that the validity of the
convocation and operation of a synod does not depend on whether patriarchs and
bishops gather and discuss, but on the correctness of the dogmas and decisions
and on the continuity with previous synods. [4] The Church is present in the
synods of bishops when they follow the truth and Orthodoxy. When they follow
and support heresy and delusion, the Church is absent, not to be found there.
[5] She is found where the truth is preserved and proclaimed, and therefore it
is clear who is inside and who is outside the Church. Numerous councils in
ecclesiastical history have been denounced and condemned as robber synods, as
pseudo-councils, and as unlawful gatherings. Among them will also be counted
the pseudo-council of Crete.
So then, through our inaction,
cowardice, so-called pastoral concern and fear, we gave the opportunity to the
Ecumenical Patriarch and his like-minded Primates and bishops to convene the
"Council," to secure Ecumenism with a synodal seal and synodal
signatures. This makes matters worse—much worse—because now Ecumenism is
preached "openly," not only by five, ten, or twenty patriarchs and
bishops, but by all those who took part in the "Council" and
confirmed its decisions with their signatures, as well as by those who accept
its decisions and announce them to the flock—even by those who remain silent
and neither condemn nor accept them, but "play dumb," as the saying
goes. The appropriate stance of bishops toward the "Council" is a
clear "yes" or a clear "no." Neither "yes and
no," nor silence, because not only does silence mean consent, [6] and
according to Saint Gregory Palamas constitutes the third kind of atheism, [7]
but already the book of Revelation tells us that on matters of Faith, one may
be either cold or hot. Even the cold are tolerated by God—His
"stomach" can endure them. But the lukewarm, the accommodating, the
diplomats, the "yes and no" types, He cannot endure—He rejects them,
He vomits them out: “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot; I
would that you were cold or hot. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither
cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” [8]
And since even the Ecumenists do
not deny the high level of authority of the “Council,” on the basis of which
they consider its decisions binding for all, they are obliged to accept that on
this high level of the “Council,” “upon a high and exalted mountain,” on a
global, pan-Orthodox level, the pan-heresy of Ecumenism was openly preached and
confirmed “with boldness.” And it continues to be preached again and again by
those who accept and promote the decisions of the “Council.” Consequently, now
it is not only Bartholomew who is subject to the cessation of the commemoration
of his name in the sacred services, but also all bishops who collaborated and
continue to collaborate in the acceptance, dissemination, and implementation of
its decisions.
For this reason, the Athonite Kelliotes
Monks acted excellently—unfortunately not the major Monasteries—who, correcting
the previous inaction and hesitation, and preserving the dignity of the Holy
Mountain as an ark of Orthodoxy, almost immediately after the “Council” ceased
the commemoration of the leading figure of Ecumenism and its synodal
ratification, the arch-ecumenist Patriarch Bartholomew. The “Assembly of
Orthodox Clergy and Monastics,” in a document titled “Open Confession Letter
regarding the ‘Council’ of Crete,” which was signed by many agreeing clergy,
monastics, and laypeople, supported and praised the Athonite Kelliotes
Monks for this action of theirs, because, as we wrote, “their immediate bishop
there is the chief architect and preacher of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, ‘with
boldness,’ the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, whose name they do not wish to
be commemorated in the sacred services. Those who, instead of praising,
persecute the monks who uphold the patristic, canonical, and Athonite Tradition
commit a great canonical and ecclesiological error.” [9]
This praise of the entirely
justified action of the Athonite Kelliotes Monks did not please many
traditionalist clergy and theologians, even some members of our “Assembly,”
because whatever one praises, one must also apply; yet there is a great
distance between theory and words, and action. Up until the “Council” of Crete,
our bishops, of the Church of Greece, for the most part did not fall under the
scope of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council (861), because they were
not preaching the pan-heresy of Ecumenism “with boldness” and openly, as
Bartholomew and those with him were doing. It even seemed, through the
decisions of the Hierarchy in May 2016, prior to the “Council,” that the
unanimous proposals of the Hierarchs were sufficient to dismantle the ecumenist
character of the “Council” and to relieve the consciences of the Orthodox.
Unfortunately, the Archbishop and the twenty-four (24) member delegation at the
“Council” did not prove themselves worthy of the plenary decisions, nor of the
expectations of the faithful; they retreated on essential matters and were
satisfied with minimal changes to non-essentials, which did not mortally wound
the body of Ecumenism, but merely caused some painless scratches, superficial
grazes.
We once again placed our hopes in
the plenary session of the Hierarchy that convened in November 2016, only to be
utterly and tragically disappointed. No evaluation of the “Council” took place,
nor any vote on its acceptance or rejection—there was simply discussion and
information-sharing based on the highly positive presentation of the
Metropolitan of Serres, Mr. Theologos, whose positive assessments and proposals
for the pastoral utilization of the “Council’s” decisions were unanimously
accepted by all members of the Hierarchy, according to the Press Committee’s
“Announcement.” There was no accountability for the reversal, retreat, and
abandonment of the decisions of May. Only a few hierarchs protested that the
“Announcement” was inaccurate, that no positive or negative decision was made,
such as the Metropolitans of Kythera, Mr. Seraphim, and of Aigialeia, Mr.
Ambrosios. The protests fell on deaf ears; the Church of Greece, secretly and
without related discussion and vote, positively accepted the “Council” of
Crete. Is there perhaps anyone who thinks and claims that the Church of Greece
should be numbered among the Autocephalous Churches that reject the “Council”
and thus increase their number to five (5), with a corresponding decrease of
those that accept it to nine (9)?
And it is not enough that the
positive stance of the Hierarchy toward the “Council” was essentially obtained
through deceit, but what followed was the well-known text of the Holy Synod of
the Church of Greece “To the People,” titled “On the Holy and Great Council of
Crete,” a monument of falsehood and misinformation, with the Synodal
Metropolitan of Edessa, Pella, and Almopia, Mr. Ioel, indicated as the
author—unless it was altered after its composition, in which case he offered no
protest—where the pseudo-council of Crete is accepted “more clearly than the
sun,” and the people are simply misinformed and deceived in order to diminish
reactions. We will not deal with this text here; many already have, and we
ourselves have addressed it in our lesson at the “Archontariki” of Saint
Anthony, which was also broadcast online, and we are currently preparing the
expanded written form of our critique. The Synodal text was sent to the
metropolises with the order to be read in the churches at the end of January
2017; it was read and distributed, though not in all metropolises, at the
beginning of February.
Therefore now, as we said, by
inevitable logical consequence, it is not only Patriarch Bartholomew who
proclaims Ecumenism “with uncovered head,” but also the pseudo-council of
Crete, “set on a high mountain,” the highest body of governance and shepherding
in the Church, and all those who signed and agreed with its decisions—namely,
the overwhelming majority of the bishops of the Church of Greece. Now it is not
only the Athonite monks who are justified in ceasing the commemoration of their
local bishop, namely Bartholomew, but all the clergy in the territory of the
Greek Church. Among these, we hoped, expected, and anticipated—but were
disappointed—that some bishops from the Old Lands, “Lower Greece,” would cease
commemorating the Holy Synod, so that they would not lie before the Holy Altar
when they say during the Divine Liturgy, “of our Holy Synod, which rightly
divides the word of truth.” Much more so, with greater reason, this should have
been done by the bishops of the New Lands, who lie doubly when they say: “of
our Patriarch Bartholomew and of our Holy Synod, who rightly divide the word of
truth.” Therefore, applying the 15th canon of the First-Second Council (861),
certain clergy ceased the commemoration of the names of their local bishops,
who participated in the pseudo-council, such as Makarios of Sidirokastro and
Ioannis of Langadas, or who openly supported the “Council,” such as Anthimos of
Thessaloniki and who distributed the leaflet “To the People,” and thus also
proclaimed “with uncovered head” the heresy of Ecumenism. Metropolitan
Theoklitos of Florina is not exempt, whose commemoration was ceased by a number
of clergy—primarily because, despite his initial reservations about
participating in the “Council” and his refusal to attend, he ultimately
accepted its decisions and distributed the leaflet “To the People.” His clergy
and a large part of the faithful of his diocese wished him to follow in the
footsteps of his predecessor, the militant bishop Augustinos Kantiotis, and to
be the first to give the signal for Orthodox resistance—especially since,
having been long nourished by the fiery Orthodox sermons of the late hierarch,
they could not bear, out of love and respect, to hear him as a bishop of the
“New Lands” lie by commemorating Patriarch Bartholomew as one who “rightly
divides the word of truth.”
We do not claim that all the
hierarchs of the Church of Greece are equally responsible for the acceptance of
the pseudo-council, nor that there is a complete absence of hierarchs of
Orthodox mindset who oppose Ecumenism, and who, for various reasons, are
unjustifiably timid and silent. Still less do we claim that we should proceed
to a general break of communion with all Orthodox bishops, especially since
even the four Churches that did not participate in the “Council” (Antioch,
Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia) continue to commemorate, through their Primates, the
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. The Church has passed through similar
situations in its history, with fragile boundaries and indistinct distinctions
between Orthodox and heretical bishops, many of whom, upon repentance, joined
the Orthodox camp—especially in times of confusion and ignorance of the flock,
which must not be left unprotected and unguided in the hands of Ecumenist
heretics, lest we lose our connection with it. For this reason, the Fathers accept
that there are two kinds of governance in the Church: exactness (akribeia)
and economy (oikonomia). Even great zealous Saints, such as Theodore the
Studite, in similar critical situations, would temporarily—“for a time”—set
aside exactness and apply economy, in order to avoid a greater evil. [10]
The entire Church has not been
contaminated by heresy, and the Mysteries are not invalid where bishops
inclined to heresy are commemorated, as some claim indiscriminately and
divisively. Pastoral discernment and care at present, and according to economy,
are reflected in what we agreed upon with the Athonite Fathers a few days
before the Conference at Oreokastro, which took place on April 4, 2017—a
conference they unfortunately withdrew from at the last moment, siding
exclusively with exactness, that is, maintaining that the faithful should
attend services only where priests have ceased commemorating, something that
creates complex pastoral, ecclesiological, and even doctrinal problems, since
it presupposes that a bishop inclined to heresy, even before his synodal
condemnation as a heretic, performs invalid and ineffective Mysteries. We will
not argue now in support of the contrary; it suffices to say that for centuries
the East remained in communion with the West while the Filioque heresy was
present there, and more simply, that the Mysteries of those of us who ceased
commemorating our bishops were not invalid the previous Sunday when we still
commemorated them. Does the 15th canon say anything of the sort—that we cease
commemorating because, when we commemorate, the Mysteries are invalid? The
agreement we made with the Athonite Fathers, which was unfortunately
broken—thus we did not participate in the Oreokastro Conference (April 4,
2017)—stated the following: “It is advised that the faithful avoid attending services
where manifest heretical ecumenist bishops and priests serve or are
commemorated. They should prefer to go where Orthodox-minded bishops and
priests serve, even if, for certain reasons, they have not ceased
commemorating—and this according to economy. The best and praiseworthy thing
according to canonical exactness is for them to attend services where the
heretical-inclined are not commemorated, that is, where priests have proceeded
to cease commemoration.”
1. See the text in Theodromia 16 (2014) pp. 557–570.
2. See also the text in Theodromia 19 (2017) pp.
18–29.
3. Oration 28, Theological Oration 2, 2, PG 36, 28,
EPE 4, 36: “If someone is a wicked and savage beast and completely incapable of
the words of contemplation and theology, let him not lurk treacherously and
maliciously in the forests to seize upon some doctrine or word, and—having
leapt suddenly—tear apart sound words with insults; but let him rather remain
far off and withdraw from the mountain, lest he be stoned, crushed, and perish
wretchedly as a wicked man. For the true and solid words are stones to the
beastly.”
4. Saint Maximus the Confessor, On the Things Done in the
First Exile, 12, PG 90, 148:
“The holy and approved synods, which the uprightness of the dogmas has judged,
are those which the pious canon of the Church recognizes.” Saint Theodore the
Studite, Letter 24 to Theoktistos the Magister, G. Fatouros (ed.), Theodori
Studitae Epistulae, vol. 1, p. 66: “But the Church of God has remained
unharmed, even if it has been struck by many arrows, and the gates of Hades
have not prevailed against it. Nor does it tolerate doing or saying anything
contrary to the established rules and laws, even if many shepherds have acted
foolishly in many ways and have called themselves the Church of God and cared
more about seeming to be above the canons than truly moving according to the
canons... A Synod, then, master, is not simply the gathering of hierarchs and
priests, even if they be many (for ‘better,’ it says, ‘is one doing the will of
the Lord than ten thousand transgressors’), but the gathering in the name of
the Lord, in the investigation and observance of the canons... It is not,
therefore, master, it is not permitted for either our Church or any other to do
anything contrary to the established laws and canons. For if this were granted,
the Gospel would be rendered void, the canons made meaningless, and each one,
during the time of his own episcopacy, since it is allowed for him to act with
those around him as he pleases, would become a new evangelist, another apostle,
another lawgiver. But by no means; for we have a command from the Apostle
himself that, if someone dogmatizes or commands us to act contrary to what we
have received, contrary to the canons of the ecumenical and local councils
throughout time, let him be rejected and not considered among the lot of the
saints.”
5. Saint Gregory Palamas, Refutation of the Letter of
Ignatius of Antioch 3, EPE 3, p. 608: “For indeed those who are of the
Church of Christ are of the truth, and those who are not of the truth are not
of the Church of Christ; and this all the more so, insofar as they even falsely
claim for themselves the name of sacred shepherds and archpastors, and are
called so by one another. For we have been initiated not to characterize
Christianity by persons, but by truth and exactness of faith.”
6. Saint Theodore the Studite, Letter 43, to Joseph
his brother and archbishop, in the above (Fatouros), vol. 1, p. 125: “Silence
is a form of consent.”
7. To the Most Pious Monk Kyr Dionysios 5, in Writings
of Gregory Palamas, ed. P. Chrestou, vol. 2, Thessaloniki 1966, p. 482: “A
third kind (of atheism), not far removed from the aforementioned evil company,
is to refuse to speak anything concerning the doctrines about God out of
irreverent reverence…”
8. Revelation 3:15–16: “I know your works, that you are
neither cold nor hot. I would that you were cold or hot. So then, because you
are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of My mouth.”
9. See Theodromia 18 (2016), pp. 478–487. The citation
is on p. 485.
10. See for example Letter 49, To Naucratios, His
Spiritual Son, in the above (Fatouros), vol. 1, p. 142: “Thus also among
the saints in matters of economia, as with Cyril the Great in this matter; for
he certainly endured for a short time the slowness or unready inclination of
the Easterners not to regard the truly heretical as heretical. For what else
was this interposing, while they preached the faith correctly and in doing so
anathematized even the one being commemorated by them? For everyone who is entirely
Orthodox, even if not in word, anathematizes every heretic potentially.”
4. We have no
schismatic plans. We are safeguarding the unity of the Church in the Orthodox
Faith.
In conclusion, and in order to
refute the malicious slanders and to bring peace to those who are
well-intentioned and concerned and wish to know officially, we declare that,
knowing how great an evil schism is—which not even the blood of martyrdom can
correct—but also how much greater an ecclesiological evil heresy is, which
deprives one of salvation, by the cessation of commemoration of the bishops who
incline toward heresy, we protect ourselves and the faithful from the
pan-heresy of Ecumenism, without creating a schism, without submitting to
another ecclesiastical administration, uncanonical, and without commemorating
other bishops in the services. As we have stated, we proceeded with pain and
sorrow to this action, because our bishops did not understand—either out of
ignorance or intention—the canonically and fully ecclesiologically
substantiated motives of the cessation of commemoration; they drove us out of
the churches in which we served, and scattered our small flock—which is mainly
theirs—to the four winds, disheartened and troubled concerning the love of its
“shepherds.”
We have done our duty and our
conscience is at peace, because we follow the safe path of the Holy Apostles
and the Holy Fathers, striving against heresies as They did. We will resume the
commemoration of the bishops when they publicly condemn the pan-heresy of
Ecumenism and renounce the pseudo-council of Crete. Here we stand, and we do
not take a step either to the right or to the left. We remain within the safe
walls of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as they were defined
and built through time by the Holy Fathers, and we tear down the walls of the
pan-heresy of Ecumenism. Its champions and supporters create para-churches
within the Church by supporting heresies, and they are accountable before the
entire assembly of the Holy Fathers and Confessors, who have already set up for
them episcopal and synodical tribunals in heaven.
The Church is not expressed
either by Bartholomew or by Ieronymos; it is expressed by the consensus of the
Fathers (consensus Patrum) and by those who agree with them, and not by
those who set up pseudo-councils, modernist, like that of Crete, against the
Holy Fathers. We repeat what Saint Theodore the Studite said when a former
fellow monk and friend accused him of causing schism. He writes to him,
therefore, that he does not tear the body of the Church in any way. And
although he is not sinless, nevertheless he is of the same body and nourished
by the Church, and he keeps the dogmas and the holy canons. It is those who
distort the faith and whose life is disorderly and lawless who trouble and tear
the Church: “We are not schismatics, O admirable one, of the Church of God—may
we never suffer such a thing—but even if otherwise we happen to be in many
sins, we are of the same body and nourished by it, eager to guard the divine
dogmas and her canons and decrees. But those who trouble her and tear away from
her—the Church which from the beginning of time until now has had neither spot
nor wrinkle either in the word of faith or in the rule of the canons—are those
whose faith is distorted and whose life is disorderly and lawless.” [1]
1. Epistle 28, To Basil the monk, op. cit.,
(Fatouros), vol. 1, p. 76.
Greek source:
https://katanixi.gr/p-theodoros-zisis-den-einai-schisma-i-apoteichisi-olo-to-vivlio/
