The Holy Apostles Peter and Paul Vis-à-vis Pagan Authorities

Bishop Klemes of Gardikion

[Currently Metropolitan of Larissa and Platamon]

 

 

1. The Church, as the “new creation,” [1] as the “body of Christ,” [2] faithful to Her universal and eternal mission and to Her Theanthropic character, from the outset showed Herself distinct from the spirit of the Roman state. [3] She was and has remained a purely spiritual and religious entity, and not a political movement.

However, in Her advent in history, it was necessary that She be incorporated peaceably into the social environment, for the purpose of transforming and sanctifying it. She was dispersed throughout a world that it was Her calling to conform to the Church, within a universal Empire. This secular power was at times indifferent towards her—this was usually the case—and at times at enmity with Her; and this resulted in difficulties in the shaping of Her relations with the power structures and forces of the surrounding world.

The establishment of relations between the members of the Church and the pagan state was a delicate and difficult matter, for which the Holy Apostles, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, had to formulate various general principles of outlook and behavior toward the state.

Relations between Church and state, we might say, were pro forma, based as they were upon the well-known pithy words of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Gospel: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” [4] What does this saying mean?

To those who posed to Him the question as to whether or not they must pay tribute to Caesar, with the purpose of ensnaring Him, our Lord gave a silencing answer filled with Divine wisdom and inspiration, of value and importance even in our times.

He exhorted subjects to submit to their respective rulers only in that which is required, namely, payment of taxes and, in general, faithful observance and fulfillment of one’s obligations to the civil authorities, without compromise in matters of faith. [5] At the same time, He emphasized the obligation of offering up to God whatsoever belongs to Him, namely, faith, obedience, and adoration. The obligations of subjects toward the state are not necessarily at odds with devotional duties toward the true God. Obligations toward the state and one’s duties before God must be combined, and these two clearly distinct spheres, state and Church, need not be incompatible; because the authority of Caesar, as long as it is not given equal weight, can be considered not contrary to, but consonant with, the order of human affairs permitted by God. [6]

Indeed, in practice, when rulers are good and conscientious, the Lord’s injunction is easily put into practice. However, when bad rulers abuse their authority and show open hostility toward the Divine Law, and when, in general, the civil authorities fight and speak impudently against God, the Church will ineluctably be at conflict with the state, either through passive resistance or overt defiance, that the Divine commandment be neither breached nor trampled upon. [7]

One must not forget that our Lord said also that, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword,” [8] which in this case means that, when the state demands for itself that which is proper to God, then peaceful cooperation and submission to this unlawful demand are no longer permissible. The state is not an illimitable and Divine institution, such that it can place itself on the same level as the Kingdom of God, but a temporal reality, [9] with a mission that is relative rather than absolute, inasmuch as it sees to the administration of human affairs of this transitory life.

2. In view of the foregoing, we may more easily trace the solution that the Holy Apostles—indeed, the chief Apostles Peter and Paul—gave on the issue of defining relations between the Church and the pagan state, and may also correctly grasp its significance.

We may note at the outset that the imperial and polytheistic Roman state showed a general tolerance toward various religions, but a specific kind of religious tolerance. It impressed upon its subjects its organizational structure and its emphasis on establishing justice and on the safeguarding of what was known as the Pax Romana, or the peaceful and undisturbed life of the people under its rule. This was seen as a way to maintain stability, but it was also an impediment to the manifestation of the mystery of iniquity. [10]

However, the Roman state was at the same time inseparably bound up with religion, and the Emperor was deemed worthy of being accorded divine honors on the part of his subjects, since the Romans had inherited and developed the theocratic idea of the divinization of the secular authorities, which was prevalent in the East. [11] This was of course completely unacceptable to Christians, and when an attempt was made to impose emperor- worship on them, they preferred rather to undergo glorious martyrdom.

Within this political and religious context and atmosphere, the Apostle Paul, a Roman citizen who had for the most part gained a rather positive impression of the Roman authorities’ conduct, had recourse to the authorities when he was relentlessly persecuted by the Jews. [12] In so doing, he wished to accomplish something significant that would delineate the [proper] stance toward the civil authorities. Since the Church was in Her infancy and many newly-converted Christians were somewhat hostile toward the pagan state and had revolutionary tendencies—especially on account of economic and social setbacks—the Apostle to the Gentiles was not slow to stress, in his Epistle to the Romans, the Divine provenance of secular authority and one’s duty to submit thereto. [13] For, if there were to be a revolutionary movement against it involving Christians, the penalties and consequences would be frightful. [14] For this reason, the Apostle emphasizes tellingly:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. [15]

In this passage, the Divine origin of secular power is portrayed as deriving indirectly from God, and not, of course, being Divine by nature, since it belongs to the natural order of this world. [16] The existence of authority and power, according to St. Isidore of Pelusium, is “a work of God’s wisdom..., that the world might not descend into chaos.” [17] Hence, the Christian is obliged to submit to it, because it is permitted by God and exists for the sake of order and justice, for the purpose of punishing only transgressors, and not those who keep the law.

However, it is worth noting that it is not the person of the ruler, but the impersonal institution of the state, that draws its authority from God, as an organization necessary for the maintenance and preservation of society; the holy Chrysostomos expresses this lucidly: “He did not say, ‘There is no ruler who is not of God’; rather, it is the act he speaks of, saying, ‘There is no authority that is not of God.’ [18] For, if some “wicked man” (as St. Isidore expresses it) should rise to power by whatever means possible, it does not follow that such an individual has been instated or “ordained” by God! [19] That there should be civil authority, therefore, is a work of God, while the election and instatement of rulers is a human task. This is why, when the persecutions of Christians began after a few years, the first Apologists and Martyrs of the Faith by no means accepted their persecutors as having been instated by God. Furthermore, in the sacred Apocalypse [20] the Roman State, by this time no longer tolerating, but openly and relentlessly persecuting the Church, is identified with the Antichrist.

It is clear that the Apostle Paul respects the state, within the spirit of the Gospels, yet does not treat it as absolute, considering it rather an entity of secondary importance for the present life, because he emphasizes that our true commonwealth is in the Heavens, [21] in the city to come, [22] in so far as, in the Church, we become “fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” [23]

The divine Apostle elsewhere exhorts that prayer be made for all mankind, and especially “for kings and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” [24] For, when the rulers thrive and prosper, the subjects receive benefit, and peace and welfare will prevail.

However, the Apostle Paul, despite all that he asserts, does not pardon the evil and depraved state, supposedly spuming resistance against it, as one might think.

Elsewhere he dissuades Christians from having recourse to secular tribunals to resolve their differences; [25] this clearly signifies resistance against the depraved state, whose juridicial authority he does not acknowledge, [26] or, at any rate, he views it as unworthy and unfit to resolve differences between believing Christians.

Furthermore, in another place he urges the faithful, “Be not ye the servants of men”; [27] i.e., do not trust and obey the commands of ruthless men whose desire it is to divert you from the path of the Lord, [28] even if such disobedience brings penalties.

In yet another place, the Divine Apostle says categorically, “[F]or if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ”; [29] he sacrificed all things in order to be pleasing to God, and not to men opposed to the Divine teaching.

Yet again, “the word of God is not bound,” [30] even if some ruthless secular power desires to silence and eliminate it.

The Holy Apostle also urges his disciple Titus: “Put them [the faithful] in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work”; [31] blessed Theodoretos of Cyrrhos interprets it as follows: “One is not required to obey the rulers in everything; but to offer them tax and tribute and show them due honor, and yet to object forthrightly if they give an impious command.” [32]

All the things that the Apostle Paul mentions in the Epistle to the Hebrews are also well-known as a clear description of the resistance “through faith” [33] of the righteous of old even to the point of martyrdom at the impious commands of oppressive authorities. [34] And the martyric end of the Apostle himself in Rome shows plainly his resistance unto death under the godless secular authority, toward which there can be neither compromise nor acquiescence.

The result, then, is that those who hold secular power are of God only when they fulfill the obligations that He has laid upon them. Only the government that fulfills its intended purpose can be considered to be established by God. When it acts contrary to His Divine Will, it submits to Satan, who boasted to the Lord on the Mountain of Temptation that worldly power had been given to him. [35] Hence, there is required a judgment and decision, made freely according to one’s conscience, [36] as to how much the Divine origin of the secular powers applies in any given place and time. St. Basil the Great summarizes this for us well, saying that the Christian submits only to those higher authorities “in whom no commandment of God is obstructed.” [37]

3. The other leader of the Apostles, the great St. Peter, encourages the same outlook as the foregoing:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well—Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. [38]

It is clear that this is in accord with what the Apostle Paul teaches, except that here the secular powers are characterized as human inventions (human creations), while the Divine Paul views them as deriving from God.

It is worthy of note that the Apostle Peter wrote these things when the Roman state had already begun to persecute the Christian Faith. The Apostle wished nonetheless that the work of evangelization not be hindered by a negative stance toward the government; moreover, he had always before him the eloquent example of the Divine Teacher and Savior, Who surrendered Himself to the Cross with prayer and forgiveness. [39] It still had to become apparent that Christians were neither seditious nor harmful, but willing and peaceable subjects.

Yet, the Apostle Peter’s own example, when, refusing to obey and to stop preaching, he uttered the famous words, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” [40] remained a concise statement of his stance toward every authority that exceeds its bounds in demanding the violation and transgression of the Divine commandments. This is why the exhortation to submit applies only as long as the government does not encroach on the religious conscience of each of its citizens or subjects and does not, in practice or commands, move in the direction of anything contrary to the Divine Teaching. Any unlawful demand that corrupts consciences and tramples upon the Divine commandments is to be met with heroic and resolute refusal and witness. Through his glorious martyrdom, the Apostle Peter amply demonstrated the truth and validity of these views.

4. In summary, we can say, in concord with the teaching of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, that, when the secular state, in its laws and decrees, is found to be in harmony with the Divine Will and justice, then we are obliged to show obedience. When, however, its laws are unjust and clash with the natural law—or, more importantly, with Divine justice—then we must refuse to conform to them. The Christian fears God alone, and not—using Tertullian’s words—His “subordinate”; i.e., the earthly ruler. [41]

Concluding, we would like to show how these ideas are relevant to our day, pointedly stressing the following:

The Church can never—and especially not in our times—remain indifferent toward deplorable social injustice or, more generally, toward the materialistic spirit of self-gratification that impoverishes mankind physically and morally, bodily and spiritually. Indeed, for the sake of securing the benefits of the few and arousing the passions, thousands of innocent souls are becoming the victim of severe poverty and despair, especially in our homeland [Greece]—those around us! But the danger of falling to solutions driven by anger, which, however, lead to nightmarish and pagan totalitarianism or neo-Nazism, is already more than a reality.

It is of the utmost necessity that the Church, by means of its conscientious members, aside from carrying out necessary charitable works, engage in a struggle for the amelioration of corrupt political and social life through the democratic election of genuine Christian rulers who will, as servants of God and in accordance with His Will, [42] use their authority within the political domain, as it has been shaped and as it functions, to counter conditions therein that are unconducive to the Will of God. In the meantime, the misdeeds of evil and unworthy rulers must be censured, not by public ridicule, but by reproving and dissuading them, in that the Body of the Church may be enlightened to resist sinful demands from secular authorities that patently violate the Divine Will. (Take, for instance, the recent abolition of Sunday as a day of rest from work [in Greece].) This does not constitute impermissible political activity and entanglement with non-religious affairs, but a prophetic mission of redemptive significance for man, even if it brings sorrow and anguish, or even martyrdom.

 

Notes

1. Galatians 6:15; II Corinthians 5:17.

2. Ephesians 1:23; Colossians 1:18.

3. See Protopresbyter George Metallinos, “«Εκκλησία καί Πολιτεία» στην ορθόδοξη παράδοση,” in Ή Εκκλησία μέσα στον κόσμο, second edition (Athens: Apostolike Diakonia, 1999), pp. 44-45.

4. St. Matthew 22:21; St. Mark 12:17; St. Luke 20:25.

5. “When you hear, ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,’ know that this refers only to those things that do not violate the faith” (St. John Chrysostomos, “Homily 70, On St. Matthew’s Gospel,”’ §2, Pa- trologia Grceca, Vol. LVIII, col. 656). Shortly before that, our Holy Father writes: “It is possible both to carry out the orders of men and to give to God those things He requires of us” (ibid.).

6. See Archimadrite Antonios G. Kompos [Metropolitan of Sisanion and Siatista], Θρησκευτική και Κοσμική Εξουσία κατά τήν Καινήν Αιαθήκην (doctoral dissertation) (Athens: 1969), pp. 78-81.

7. Ibid., pp. 81-82.

8. St. Matthew 10:34.

9. See Kompos, Θρησκευτική και Κοσμική Εξουσία, p. 88.

10. Ibid., ρρ. 105 and 108, with reference to II Thessalonians 2:3-10.

11. Ibid.,pp. 97-100.

12. Consider the persecutions the Apostle Paul suffered in Paphos, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Jerusalem, Rome, etc. (Acts 13:6ff., 16:35— 40,17:6ff., 18:12-17, 22:25-29, 23:10,17-35, 24:22-23, 25:3-5,11-12, 16-18,21,25-27,26:31-32).

13. Romans 13:1-7.

14. See Kompos, Θρησκευτική και Κοσμική Εξουσία, pp. 106-108.

15. Romans 13:1-7.

16. Kompos, Θρησκευτική και Κοσμική Εξουσία, ρ. 108, η. 309.

17. “Epistle CCXVI, ‘To Dionysios’” (Second Book of Epistles), Pa- trologia Grceca, Vol. LXXVII, cols. 657D-660BC.

18. “Homily XXIII, On the Epistle to the Romans,”’ §1, Patrologia Grceca, Vol. LX, col. 615.

19. “Epistle CCXVI, ‘To Dionysios,”’ cols. 657D-660BC.

20. See chapter 13, in particular.

21. Philippians 3:20.

22. Hebrews 13:14.

23. Ephesians 2:19.

24.1 St. Timothy 2:1.

25. See I Corinthians 6:1-6.

26. See Kompos, Θρησκευτική και Κοσμική Εξουσία, pp. 113-114.

27.1 Corinthians 7:23.

28. St. John of Damascus explains it thus: “The free man will not be free when he is served by men and does everything to please them” (“On the First Epistle to the Corinthians,” Patrologia Grceca, Vol. XCV, cols. 625D-628A).

29. Galatians 1:10.

30. II St. Timothy 2:9.

31. St. Titus 3:1.

32. “Interpretation of the Epistle to Titus,” chap. 3, §1, Patrologia Grceca, Vol. LXXXII, col. 868A.

33. Hebrews 11:33—Trans.

34. See Hebrews 11:35-37,12:3,25,13:6.

35. See St. Luke 4:6.

36. Cf Romans 13:5.

37. “Morals,” Rule LXXIX, chap. 1, Patrologia Gmca, Vol. XXXI, col. 860B.

38.1 St. Peter 2:13-14,17.

39. See Kompos, Θρησκευτική και Κοσμική Εξουσία, ρ. 120.

40. Acts 5:29.

41. See Kompos, Θρησκευτική και Κοσμική Εξουσία, ρ. 135. St. John Chrysostomos comments even more tersely: “Should the king require the citizen to perform some evil deed, full of wickedness, then who is a good and obedient citizen? He who not only does not yield and obey, but also endeavors to dissuade the one who gave the command, even at the risk of his life” (“On Virtue and Vice,” Patrologia Grceca, Vol. LXIII, col. 762).

42. See Kompos, Θρησκευτική και Κοσμική Εξουσία, ρ. 137.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXII (2015), No. 3, pp. 10-18.

Letter of Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos in Support of the Cessation of Communion with Athenagoras and the Other Ecumenists

 

Letter of Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, February 4, 1971.

Yesterday the news was published that two more Hierarchs, Polykarpos of Siatista and Iakovos of Methymna, have ceased commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch, as the Metropolitans Ambrosios of Eleftheroupolis, Augustinos of Florina, and Pavlos of Paramythia had done earlier. It is needless to emphasize that this action of the five courageous Hierarchs is entirely canonical. Apostolic Canon 31 permits clergymen to cease the commemoration of their presiding Bishop if they discern in him an error concerning “piety,” that is, concerning the Orthodox Faith. Moreover, Canon 15 of the so-called First-Second Council not only does not punish, but even considers worthy “of the honor befitting them” those Bishops who, of their own accord and “before a synodal determination,” cease the commemoration of a Patriarch who preaches “with uncovered head,” that is, openly, “a heresy condemned by the holy Councils or Fathers.”

It is well known that Papism and its heretical dogmas were condemned as heresy not only by holy Fathers of the Church, such as Photios the Great, Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus, and others, but also by great Councils convened in Constantinople under Photios and Michael Cerularius, as well as by other later Councils (in Moscow in 1441, in Jerusalem in 1443, in Constantinople in 1484, etc.). It is equally well known that Patriarch Athenagoras treats all these things with utter contempt and, through his public statements, at one time says that “nothing separates us” from the various heresies of the West, and at another characterizes as mere “local customs” the heretical Filioque and the doctrines of Infallibility and Primacy, on account of which Orthodoxy anathematized Papism. Rightly, therefore, and justly, and in accordance with the Holy Canons, did the five Hierarchs cease commemorating him. And the duty of the Holy Synod is not to concern itself with those Hierarchs who observe their episcopal oaths, but with the internal enemies of Orthodoxy, such as the Patriarch, Iakovos of America, Athenagoras of Thyateira, the notorious Meliton, and certain others. And although the justification of lack of jurisdiction might perhaps be advanced in the event of bringing the aforementioned persons to trial, no justification whatsoever exists for our own Church’s continuation of relations with them. The cessation of ecclesiastical communion with them has now become imperative for the Church of Greece. Perhaps, moreover, this measure will bring them to their senses and lead them onto the straight path.

It was sent on February 4, 1971, and published as a letter (not in its entirety) the following day.

 

Source: Αγωνιστικά Μηνύματα, published by Orthodoxos Kypseli, 2018, chapter “The Duty of the Holy Synod,” pp. 9–10. Sourced from Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, Άρθρα – Μελέται – Επιστολαί, vol. III, published by the Holy Monastery of Saint John of Damascus, Athens, 2017.

Greek source online:

https://katanixi.gr/epistoli-p-epifanioy-theodoropoyloy-yper-tis-diakopis-koinonias-me-athinagora-kai-loipoys-oikoymenistes/

The Most Dangerous Passion Is the One We Defend

We prefer pleasant illusions to painful truths.

 

 

Among all the passions that wage war against the human soul, the most dangerous is often not the strongest one, but the one that we refuse to acknowledge. The passion that we defend, excuse, justify, and even cherish is the passion that becomes our master.

Most Christians can recognize obvious sins. They may struggle against anger, lust, pride, envy, or gluttony. They may fall repeatedly and rise again through repentance. Such a struggle, though difficult, is not hopeless. The man who knows he is sick may seek a physician. The soul that recognizes its wounds may cry out to Christ for healing.

The greater danger lies elsewhere.

The greatest danger is when a man ceases to struggle because he has convinced himself that his passion is not really a passion at all.

One man calls his pride “self-respect.”

Another calls his greed “good stewardship.”

Another calls his anger “righteous indignation.”

Another calls his curiosity “being informed.”

Another calls his vanity “self-expression.”

In each case, the passion remains untouched because it has been given a respectable name.

The Holy Fathers teach that self-justification is one of the greatest obstacles to repentance. As long as we defend our sins, we cannot place them before God. As long as we excuse them, we cannot be healed of them. The devil cares little whether a passion is large or small; what delights him is when we embrace it as part of our identity.

The Pharisees were not condemned because they were obviously wicked men. They were condemned because they believed themselves to be righteous. Their spiritual blindness was not merely that they sinned, but that they defended their sins with religious arguments.

This danger confronts every one of us.

The husband who justifies harshness as leadership.

The wife who justifies resentment as wounded dignity.

The Fathers repeatedly teach that the beginning of salvation is self-knowledge. To know oneself truthfully is already to begin walking the path of repentance. Yet this is difficult because fallen man instinctively seeks to protect his ego. We prefer pleasant illusions to painful truths.

How often do we pray for God to reveal our sins? And if He reveals them through a brother, a spiritual father, a spouse, or an unexpected criticism, how often do we receive that revelation with gratitude?

Usually, our first reaction is defense.

We explain.

We excuse.

We justify.

We blame circumstances.

We blame others.

Anything but humble acknowledgment.

Yet it is precisely at that moment that a spiritual battle is taking place.

The question is not whether we have passions. Every human being has passions. The question is whether we love them enough to defend them.

A profound truth is hidden here: the passions that trouble us the most are often not the passions that endanger us the most. The most dangerous passion is often the one that has become invisible because it has become acceptable in our own eyes.

An old spiritual principle says that a thief who hides in darkness is easier to catch than one who disguises himself as a friend. The same is true of the passions. The obvious sin may eventually lead us to repentance. The disguised sin may accompany us to the grave.

A thought expressed in Shakespearean style captures something of this tragic reality:

“The fault, dear soul, lies not within the stars, but in the breast that would not see itself.”

This sentiment reflects a timeless truth. The greatest obstacle to salvation is not what is outside us but what we refuse to acknowledge within us.

The saints became saints not because they believed themselves virtuous, but because they continually discovered new depths of repentance. The closer they drew to the Light of Christ, the more clearly they saw every stain upon their souls.

This is why genuine holiness is always accompanied by humility.

The proud man sees the sins of others.

The humble man sees his own.

The proud man defends himself.

The humble man accuses himself before God.

The proud man seeks justification.

The humble man seeks mercy.

Let us therefore ask ourselves a difficult question:

Which passion do I defend?

Which fault do I excuse?

Which weakness have I renamed a virtue?

If we can answer honestly, we may have discovered the very door through which Christ wishes to enter and heal us.

For the most dangerous passion is not the one that tempts us.

It is the one we have stopped fighting.

Ecumenism: The Overturning of the Gospel

Panagiotis Simatis, Professor of Theology

 

 

On the occasion of the Matins Gospel:

“GOING FORTH” COMPROMISE WITH “ALL NATIONS,” “TEACHING THEM” TO SET ASIDE “ALL THAT I COMMANDED YOU”

The divine Chrysostom points out that, during the days of the great feasts of the Jews, Christ was regularly among the Jews who were streaming into Jerusalem, in order to celebrate with them and, through His miracles and His teaching, to draw the guileless and simple people. For Christ had a greater concern to heal them and to offer them salvation than they themselves desired healing.

“For what reason, then, does Christ continually come to Jerusalem and spend time among the Jews during the feasts? So as to take hold of those who were sick, that He might draw to Himself the guileless multitude? For those who were suffering did not have so great a desire to be delivered from their diseases as the Physician had made it His concern to deliver them from their sickness. Therefore, when their assembly was full, then, coming into the midst, He showed forth the things pertaining to the salvation of their soul.” (St. John Chrysostom, Against the Anomoeans, Hom. 12, and Commentary on John).

There are also people today who would like to find the One Truth, who seek to be healed from the paralysis of every sin and false belief. But the misfortune is that there are no healers! The majority of contemporary shepherds “in the place and type of Christ” have ended up, from being disciples of Christ, as functionaries of sacred rites or a kind of social welfare with a religious gilding, secularized and indifferent to the essence of what Christ came to offer man. There are, certainly, also those spiritual fathers who give all their strength for the guidance of contemporary man, but they fall into another temptation “from the right”: they seem to “show indifference” toward the contemporary heretics “within the walls,” toward the combating of heresy and the return of heretics to the One, Holy, Orthodox Church.

The misfortune, however, is that this apparent “indifference” is not really indifference, but a cowardice to confront the small in number, yet well-organized, ecumenist faction; and consequently it constitutes an acceptance of the conspiracy of silence which the Patriarchate of Constantinople has imposed above all, so that the faithful may not be informed about the heretically inclined policy of the Phanar!!! That is, the spiritual fathers refuse, invoking “discernment,” to approach, preach to, and heal those who have been afflicted by the paralysis of the heresy of Ecumenism, as well as of Papism and of the W.C.C.

Do they perhaps ignore the patristic teaching that heresy constitutes an infectious and incurable disease? “Do not make friendship with heretics, lest you become a partaker in their communion;... for each shall reap what he has sown.” (St. Ephraim the Syrian, On Repentance and Compunction).

“But if in the case of those who err in moral matters the harm is so great, what need is there to speak concerning those who are of false belief concerning God, whom false belief does not allow to be sound even in other matters, once they have been handed over, because of it, to the passions of dishonor?” (St. Basil the Great, Rules Briefly Treated, Question 20).

And: “The false belief of the heretics always goes toward the worse and becomes a greater wound... For this reason, Christians must avoid these and all heretics as pestilences and plagues, lest they also, together with them... be lost.” (St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Interpretation of the Fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, vol. 3, pp. 318–319).

How is it possible, then, that, burying their heads in the sand like an ostrich, the shepherds pass over the harm suffered by the faithful, who are in communion with local heretical ecumenists (whose existence and heresy they are supposedly unaware of) but also the “blasphemy” which consists in the distortion of the Gospel, of Sacred Tradition, and of the dogmatic truth which the Ecumenists commit?

How do they tolerate the invocation of cheap excuses, so as not to name the heretics, and how is it possible that they do not perceive that these “excuses” express the quintessence of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and have been put forward by the Ecumenists themselves?

1) Some spiritual fathers say, for example, that the Patriarch teaches “also” Orthodox things; as though they had never read ecclesiastical history, as though they did not know that most heretics began “in other respects” as Orthodox, apart from the one point which they taught in a false-believing manner; as though they did not know (and had not themselves taught us) that heresy consists in the setting aside of “one jot or one tittle,” according to the teaching of the Lord Himself!

2) They also say (depending each time on whom they are addressing): let us look to ourselves, to purification from the passions (and this is very correct); matters of the Faith and of our relations with heretics are within the competence of the shepherds (this, however, is a great error and a clearly anti-patristic position).

How do the clergy not perceive that in this way they abolish the unity of Orthodox preaching and Orthodox pastoral care? So then, did the Holy Fathers, who inseparably joined Faith and Ethos, who considered progress in the spiritual life inconceivable without the presupposition of the right Faith, without the confession of this Faith and the preservation of the Dogmas unadulterated, even through martyrdom, did all the Saints, then, err? Certainly not.

St. Basil the Great writes: The Lord said:

“‘Going forth, make disciples of all nations, teaching them,’ not to observe some things and neglect others, but ‘to observe all things,’ without overlooking even one small thing ‘of the things commanded,’ since all are necessary for your salvation. But we, having supposed that we have fulfilled one of the commandments somewhere, for I would not say that we have fulfilled it; for all are connected with one another, according to the sound account of the aim, so that in the abolition of one the rest also are necessarily abolished together, do not await wrath for the things passed over, but expect honors for what has supposedly been achieved.” (St. Basil the Great, Moral Discourses, On Virtue and Vice, Disc. 1).

And here lies the whole responsibility, the personal drama, and the fall of contemporary clergymen: while they know these things, they silently accept such anti-patristic “reasonings” and adopt this stance, thus manifestly dividing and abolishing, insofar as it depends on them, the unity of life in Christ, as the unity of Faith and Ethos, which connects us with the age-long Tradition of the Church, hindering, instead of facilitating, our true union with the Lord.

The divine Chrysostom writes:

“For one virtue alone is not sufficient to present us with boldness before the judgment seat of Christ, but much virtue is needed, and varied, and of every kind, and all of it. For hear Him saying to His disciples: Going forth, make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” (St. John Chrysostom, Selections from Various Discourses).

The Pastors officially and, despite the warnings, persistently deny that unity exists where the right Faith is found and ecclesiastical Tradition is applied, that is, in the One, Holy Church, thus allowing the practices of the hundreds of heretical confessions to penetrate the body of Christians, the resultant of which is Ecumenism.

This means that they compromise with heresy and surrender without a fight to the leaders of Ecumenism. In this way, the uncatechized faithful become accustomed to heresy, and the healing of the heretics is hindered.

Yet another setting aside also occurs; they deny a basic Commandment, that of the evangelization of the heterodox, among whom there are many who thirst for the knowledge of true Orthodox life and teaching.

They refuse to address and converse with the ignorant people of the heterodox, as the Lord did, and on the contrary, “with exultant foot,” they have been in dialogue for decades with the leaders and the hardened structures of each heresy, that is, the “high priests,” the “Sadducees,” and the “Pharisees” of our time, who are also their table-companions.

And for decades now they refuse to address and preach Christ to the peoples, because they do not want to spoil relations with the powers of this world, the godless Popes and homosexual priests and priestesses of the heterodox, those who constitute their interlocutors with whom they feast together, who have introduced a multitude of false beliefs (which shall we mention first?), have abolished many of the Commandments of Christ, and show no disposition whatsoever to make amends and to return to the One Church.

They have suffered amnesia and do not remember the Commandment of Christ: “whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”

In other words, they have entrusted the salvation of the heretics to the leaders of the heresies(!), against whom the Lord launched the “woes.” They themselves refuse to imitate Christ, to be present in the places of the simple heretics, to teach that only the Orthodox Church offers true life and salvation, and thus to confess Christ.

And they refuse this because they have agreed with their heterodox interlocutors not to teach the truth of the Gospel, not to call the heretics of the West to salvation! That is, they do the opposite of what Christ taught, Who gave the Commandment to go to all nations, not compromising in matters of the Faith, but preaching “One Faith,” “one Baptism,” “One Church.”

Thus, the Orthodox clergymen themselves, by their institutional, power-wielding presence, hinder those very few Shepherds who persist in an Orthodox manner and try to apply the Commandment of the Word of God for the evangelization of those who do not believe rightly.

Saint Epiphanius, however, writes:

“...He taught them to preach the Kingdom of Heaven in truth, ...and saying ‘make disciples of the nations,’ that is, change the nations from evil to truth, from heresies to one unity, ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ into the dominical naming of the Trinity, ...in order to show from the name that there is no alteration of the one unity. For where those being baptized are commanded by Him to be ‘sealed’ in the name... of the ‘Holy Spirit,’ the bond is not divided nor estranged, having the seal of the one Godhead.” (Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion).

And the ecclesiastical writer Eusebius:

“‘Going forth, make disciples of all nations.’ For the Holy Spirit wills that they carry out the evangelical work with intense and uninterrupted zeal; for by the phrase ‘day unto day,’ He presents this, namely, that they continually proclaim the good tidings of salvation...” (Eusebius, On the Titles of the Psalms, An Interpretation of Certain Ones by Selection).

I am conscious that I am placing responsibility (by what I write, not for the first time) upon respected spiritual fathers. Many times I have asked myself: who am I, that I dare to point out certain omissions of theirs? Yet I feel strongly within myself the conviction that what I write is not my own positions (for then I would not even dare to put them forward) but the Orthodox Tradition.

And although similar thoughts have been written many times, I have not seen any rebuttal. This means that our spiritual fathers either have no answer to the patristic texts that have been cited, or, as teachers, they are indifferent to presenting and teaching the precise and indisputable position of the Church on the matter, and, as shepherds and fathers, to correcting even me with the genuine patristic word, and not with personal opinions that differ from one elder to another, so that I may come to understand, where I am in error, the correct position.

 

Greek source: https://www.agioskosmas.gr/antiairetika.asp?isue=88&artid=4242

Patriarch of Constantinople calls for a “Permanent Pan-Religion Synod”

Dimitrios Lambropoulos, theologian | November 23, 2023

 

 

Patriarch Bartholomew was in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (November 3-6, 2023) where he delivered two talks, the first at the 16th “World Politics Conference” with the general theme “The international system between globalization and disintegration: Which forces will prevail?” His talk was entitled, “Religion: Hope in a changing world”. His second talk entitled, “The compass of conscience: Guiding ethical action in a warming world” was given at the “COP28” conference on the so-called climate change, which had as its general theme, “Stream of Consciousness: Uniting Faith Leaders for Planetary Revival”. How many times has the Patriarch traveled to a rich Arab country to preach Christ?

Religion: The network of politics

The Patriarch stated at the outset that in the context of the present conference, he would not be talking about faith as salvation. He stated,

“The question asked [Which forces will prevail?”] has a broader scope, that of the global future. It concerns the political and geopolitical influence of religion.”

That is, religion can be a mechanism to parallel other institutions, and offer hope:

“If the economy and politics can no longer inspire hope, can we turn to religion?”

He not only equates religion with the secular sphere, but also equates all religions:

“In their teachings and rituals and in the organization of social ties, religions mobilize the wisdom that man has accumulated for millennia.”

He also says,

“Our [diverse] faith traditions share fundamental teachings concerning the spiritual responsibility to care for God’s creation. Our sacred texts command us to protect our common home.”

So according to him, all religions have wisdom, love for God’s creation (even though some believe in “deities” who oppose the Creation) and sacred texts. “Wisdom”, the Patriarch is saying, is human, not divine, as the Apostle says (1 Cor 2:1-16). “Rituals” (read magic) are approved by him as the path of [acquiring] this “wisdom”!

All of these words were spoken for only one purpose: To promote the religions as the healers of the political systems:

“Religions have, in their traditions, the necessary elements to fill the void that has settled in souls. [Religions] can help breathe new life into democratic societies.” (!)

as the following:

“Religious and indigenous communities offer ancient wisdom for sustainable living today; their voices can help transform society.”

So then, according to the Patriarch, is saving a democratic society also a goal of theocratic Islam??

The Patriarch also says that religions have an advantage over secular institutions as mechanisms:

“Religious institutions have the ability to reach, through their teachings, more people than international organizations, think tanks or NGOs.”

That is, it is easy for them to go after people because of what they proclaim, even if it means terrorizing souls or peddling false metaphysical expectations.

The Phanar: The perfect hook

It is easy for one to see that the patriarchal line of reasoning gradually leads the minds of his listeners to his purpose, to demonstrate the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s position and role in this mechanism. The reasoning is plain to see:

“Most religious networks cross continents and borders. Therefore, they form a spiritual structure that can help moderate the forces of separation and division... The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, with its global presence, is a model example of this. Its presence and acceptance could prove particularly beneficial.”

So we see that the universal Orthodox Church is nowhere to be seen, having been replaced by, and only by, the Patriarchate of Constantinople! The Phanar views itself as a multinational company called “Patriarchate Corp.” and not as the Church of the true Faith. As for the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches, they are written off. The reason he wants jurisdiction over the entire Diaspora is not for the canonical reasons he has maintained, but in order to have power which he can use as a negotiating card for his political objectives.

The Patriarchate inserts itself into “world politics” and touts itself as the unifying force of the world, holding in one hand the world roadmap which penetrates the other religions, and in the other hand the “parchments” to support him, which other religious groups involved in inter-religious dialogue initiatives do not possess:

“The long history of coexistence, dialogue and exchanges, not only with Judaism, but also with Islam, is a real advantage the Christian world has.”

and also:

“We remain active participants in the inter-religious dialogue, for the protection of the environment.”

“The new normal” according to Patriarch Bartholomew

It is evident that his dialoguing is conducted for no other reason but to serve the priorities of the political “agenda”: now the environment, now health measures, now the ideology about the “West”, etc. It is not by chance that he refers to: “relations between the West and the rest of the world”. He says, “The Russian invasion of Ukraine and now the terrible war between Hamas and Israel have revealed a growing spiritual divide between these two blocs”. So Russia and Hamas belong to the same side... of “terrorism”?

However, “the big plan” suddenly comes into view with the following revelations in the two talks:

“Leaders of the different religions must coordinate their efforts in order to magnify the beneficial results of their ancestral traditions. This is why interfaith dialogue is necessary.”

and

“Cooperation is the new normal! Like never before, disparate groups are forming alliances to protect civilization and planetary health. ... In order to sustain cooperation between different religions and partners in science and society, we must create a lasting mechanism... that will turn strong intentions into actualized results. Together we are greater from the sum of our parts.”!

Who will be “responsible” for this cooperation? The Phanar itself? “What kind of fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Cor 6:14) Could it be that, if international laws had not been established and if there were no political and military powers, that some [violent] religions would also be “peace-loving”?

The focus of his talks was “cooperation” among religions and the creation of a “permanent mechanism” in order to achieve this cooperation. How will this mechanism be implemented?

First, after we learn to respect or just tolerate people’s freedom to believe even in idols, we will be led to the next step, that of embracing other religions. How else will “cooperation” be possible?

Second, Orthodoxy will be abandoned as a witness to [Jesus Christ who is] the truth and the “Orthodox Church” will be promoted as a procurer of utilitarianism, since the criterion for its contribution will be “global benefit” as defined by the politicians...

Third, who will be the “coordinator” of this mechanism? Is anyone so naïve as to believe that a “permanent synod of religions” will be a neutral and independent body, while “the watchmen have the knowledge” of how all the international organizations function (UN, WHO, NATO, etc.)?

Is bowing to political agendas and promoting them part of the episcopal mission of the Patriarch of Constantinople?

Until now, no one had even thought of such a mechanism, and now all of a sudden Patriarch Bartholomew has this brilliant idea? What does “together we are greater from the sum of our parts” mean? What are the “parts” of the Patriarchate? Does togetherness with other religions surpass the power of God in the Orthodox Church? Is geopolitical influence the only concern of... “a man of God”?

Spokesperson of the USA?

It is dangerous, if not ecclesiastically reprehensible, to give a theoretical foundation to something completely foreign to theology. This reveals, therefore, that an equalizing of everything is being attempted, and not just that, but also the promotion of a pan-religion is being taken to the next level. Interfaith dialogue has been a preparatory stage in order to create the necessary conditions for this “permanent mechanism” proposed by... the “Orthodox” Patriarch! Subsequently, by submitting the religions to each political expediency, direct control of them is given to those who are “responsible”, who will keep their mouth closed when the state gives an order, since the “West” is always on the “right side of history”. For them, this new world religion is also inherently good, because it will be a creation of Antichrist! Whoever does not go along with the para-religion will be labeled as... a terrorist!

When the essentially non-existent hierarchy of the Phanar do not oppose Patriarch Bartholomew’s participating in “conferences of world politics” and his promoting views which they do not approve of, it means that already, nothing is left anymore, whatever it had is gone, not even a reminder that it is a Church!

 

Original Greek source:

https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%e1%bd%81-%ce%ba%cf%89%ce%bd%cf%83%cf%84%ce%b1%ce%bd%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%bd%ce%bf%cf%85%cf%80%cf%8c%ce%bb%ce%b5%cf%89%cf%82-%ce%ba%ce%b1%ce%bb%ce%b5%e1%bf%96-%ce%b4%ce%b9%ce%b1%cf%81%ce%ba%e1%bf%86/

English source:

https://www.orthodoxwitness.org/patriarch-of-constantinople-calls-for-apermanent-pan-religion-synod/

 

1935 Letter from Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) on Non-Concelebration with Sergianist Clergy

 

In 1935, Hieromonk Dimitry (Belfour), a priest under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who had arrived on Mount Athos, approached Hieroschemamonk Ioannikios, the deputy abbot of the Russian Monastery of Saint Panteleimon. An Englishman by nationality and formerly a Catholic priest, he had previously converted to Orthodoxy and placed himself under Metropolitan Eleutherius (Bogoyavlensky), a supporter of Metropolitan Sergius. In connection with this, Hieroschemamonk Ioannikios asked the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia whether it was permissible to concelebrate with such a hieromonk. Metropolitan Anthony replied as follows in a letter dated November 21, 1935:

You ask whether it is possible to serve with the English “hieromonk” who was received into communion by Metropolitan Eleutherius. But since Metropolitan Eleutherius, as well as Bishop Benjamin [Fedchenkov], recognized the Moscow Metropolitan Sergius, while the latter recognized the godless Bolshevik authority and rejoices in its joys and weeps together with it, and since this gentleman... is one of Archbishop Benjamin’s chief collaborators in America and struggles there against our conciliar hierarchy, we have no communion with him. We advise you to act likewise. But should this same Mr. Belfour insist upon serving at all costs, he must be received into communion by the third rite, that is, through repentance, as Catholics are received. In conclusion, I wish you to beware of every counterfeit of Orthodoxy, of the various emissaries in sheep’s clothing from Metropolitan Eleutherius, Benjamin and Co., who speak loudly of the Moscow Patriarchal Church but have nothing in common with it and are, in fact, in the clutches of the Bolsheviks.

Russian source: A. A. Kostryukov, The Russian Church Abroad in 1925–1938, p. 406 / State Archive of the Russian Federation, Fonds 6343, Inventory 1, File 286, fol. 32.

Russian source online:

http://internetsobor.org/index.php/novosti/rptsz/pismo-mitropolita-antoniya-1935-g-o-nesosluzhenii-s-sergianskim-dukhovenstvom

A Statement from ROCOR on the Death of Joseph Stalin, the Executioner of the Russian People

Russian source: Церковная Жизнь, Nos. 3–4, March–April 1953, pp. 63–65.

 

 

The death of Stalin is the death of the greatest persecutor of the Christian Faith in history. The crimes of Nero, Diocletian, Julian the Apostate, and other impious men pale before his terrible deeds. No one can compare with him either in the number of his victims, in his cruelty toward them, or in the cunning with which he attained his aims. All satanic malice seemed to have become incarnate in this man, who, to an even greater degree than the Pharisees, deserves to be called a son of the devil.

An Orthodox Christian is especially horrified by his truly satanic, cruel, and deceitful policy toward the Church.

At first, there was the attempt to destroy her, both through the murder of outstanding pastors and believers and through her internal disintegration by means of artificially created schisms. Then came the coercion of her handpicked leaders to bow down before him and before the entire godless system directed by him. And not merely to bow down, but also to praise the persecutor of the Church as though he were her benefactor, calling black white and the satanic divine before the whole world.

When this most wicked persecutor of the Church was praised during his lifetime by archpastors and pastors who had fallen under the weight of the persecutions, this was a sign of the Church’s greatest humiliation. We could take consolation in the fact that this lie was put to shame by the struggle of countless fearless martyrs and secret Christians who rejected all the temptations of Satan.

The ancient persecutions likewise caused the fall of both hierarchs and laymen. In those times as well, there were people who, being unable to endure torments for Christ, either openly renounced Him or pretended to offer sacrifice to the idols, obtaining by indirect means a certificate attesting that they had offered a sacrifice which, in fact, they had not offered—the libellatici. The Church condemned not only the former, but also the latter for their deceitful cowardice and their denial of Christ—if not in their hearts, then before men.

But the history of the Church knows no other example of the creation of an entire ecclesiastical organization, headed by a Patriarch and a Council, founded upon bending the knee before an open enemy of God and glorifying him as though he were a benefactor. The blood of millions of believers cries out to God, yet the hierarch who calls himself Patriarch of All Rus’ seems not to hear it. He humbly thanks their murderer and the defiler of countless churches.

Stalin’s death brought this temptation to its highest blasphemous manifestation. The newspapers reported not only that Patriarch Alexy had venerated the remains of the godless enemy of Christ, but also that memorial services had been celebrated for him.

Can anything more blasphemous be imagined than a memorial service for Stalin? Can one pray without hypocrisy that the Lord would place the greatest persecutor of the Faith from ages past and enemy of God “in Paradise, where the choirs of the saints and the righteous shine as luminaries”? Truly, this prayer is sin and iniquity not only in essence, but also formally, for Stalin, together with the other People’s Commissars, had been excommunicated from the Church by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, and Patriarch Alexy himself, however much he bowed before Stalin, never dared to declare that this anathema had been lifted from him.

Prayer for the repose with the saints of an unrepentant sinner excommunicated from the Church is a blasphemous heresy, for it constitutes a confession that one can supposedly obtain the Kingdom of God in heaven by persecuting and exterminating His sons on earth in the name of destroying faith in God itself. This is a mingling of the Kingdom of God with the kingdom of darkness. It is no lesser a sin than an open denial of Christ, faith in Whom is thus professed to be unnecessary for participation in His Kingdom.

In this act of the Moscow ecclesiastical authority, the sin underlying it—which our confessors in Russia have so convincingly identified since 1927 and which our Church Abroad continues to denounce to this day—found its most striking manifestation.

 

Online: https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Synod%201953ianv_O%20Staline.htm

On the Unique Nature of Ecumenical Councils

St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite

Source: The Rudder (Pedalion) of the Metaphorical Ship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Christians, or All the Sacred and Divine Canons, by St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, from English translation published by the Orthodox Christian Educational Society, Chicago, 1957, pp. 155-158, footnote 1 to the Prolegomena of the First Ecumenical Council.

 

 

I find some four characteristic features of Ecumenical Council here and there referred to by many authors, and especially by Dositheus (p. 1018 of the Dodecadiblos). Three of them are remote and common, and pertain to some local councils, whereas the other one is the most proximate, and, so to speak, the essential one, the constituent one, and is in fact the peculiar difference which distinguishes all Ecumenical Councils.

Thus, the chief distinguishing feature of all Ecumenical Councils is the fact that they are convoked at the behest, not of the Pope or of such and such a patriarch, but by imperial orders, i.e., at the behest of emperors or kings. This was the case also in connection with the council held in Sardica, which was convoked by Constantius and Constance; and also in connection with the council held in Antioch, which too was convoked by command of Constantius, though for another purpose than that of dedicating the temple in Antioch (Dositheus, p. 183 of the Dodecabiblus).

Second, for the purpose of discussing matters of faith, and consequently to render a decision, and give a dogmatic definition at every one of the Ecumenical Councils (Dositheus, p. 633 of the Dodecabiblus); but this too was the fact in connection with certain local councils, such as that held in Carthage, which created a discussion against the heresy of Pelagius and of Celestius, and laid down dogmatic definitions.

Third, for all dogmas laid down by them and their canons to be orthodox, pious, and in agreement with the divine Scriptures or previous Ecumenical Councils. Wherefore the axiom of St. Maximus uttered in regard to such a case became famous wherein he said: “Pious faith validates the councils held,” and again, “the correctness of dogmas judges the councils.” But this feature too is common to most local councils, with some exceptions.

Fourth and last, for all Orthodox patriarchs and prelates of the catholic Church to agree and to accept everything that has been decreed and ordained by the Ecumenical Councils, either by their personal presence or by their own legate, or deputy, or, in the absence of such a representative, by means of a letter of their own.

This agreement and accord of the patriarchs and prelates of an ecumenical council is, as we have said, the constituent and distinctive characteristic of ecumenical councils. It is constituent because it constitutes them and causes them to be truly ecumenical in correspondence with their name.

It is distinctive because, being observed in no local council, it serves to distinguish ecumenical from local councils. Hence the council held in the days of Copronymus in Blacherna, though called ecumenical by the Iconomachs (or Iconoclasts), was criticized and refused recognition by St. Germanus and Damascenus, and Stephen the younger, and many others, as well as by the Seventh Ecumenical Council in its sixth Act, all of them declaring that without the concurrence of all other patriarchs there can be no ecumenical council, nor can any be called such. For on the part of the Seventh Council Epiphanius said: “How again can it be a great and ecumenical council, when it is one which the presidents of the other churches neither accepted nor agreed to, but in fact dismissed it with an anathema?” (Dositheus, p. 634 of the Dodecabiblus). With nearly the same criticisms St. Maximus criticized the pseudo council of the Monothelete Pyrrhus because he called it an ecumenical council.

I said that the agreement and acceptance by all patriarchs is what constitutes ecumenical councils, and not their personal presence alone, nor their representation by legates or deputies of their own. For in none of the seven Ecumenical Councils was any Pope personally present, while at the Second and Fifth Ecumenical Councils the Popes Damasus and Vigilius were not present either in person or by deputy; yet those Ecumenical Councils remained ecumenical, because the same Popes agreed to all that those councils ordained or prescribed, and with their letters and signatures they accepted them. That personal presence alone or representation by deputy does not constitute ecumenical councils, but rather agreement, is shown by two councils, that held in Sardica, I mean, and that held in Florence. The one held in Sardica, in spite of the fact that it was called ecumenical at the commencement of it (see in its Prologue) and all the patriarchs were present at it, some personally and others by proxy, yet because of the fact that the patriarchs and prelates of the East separated and failed to agree to the things it prescribed, what started as an ecumenical council became in the end and in its affect a local council.

Likewise the council held in Florence, though called ecumenical, yet because of the fact that the legate of the patriarch of Antioch and the deputies of the bishops of the East, and foremost the patriarch of Alexandria, Marcus, I mean, that most holy man of Ephesus, failed to agree to it, what had been an ecumenical turned out a local council in point of fact.

What am I saying “local” for? Why, it was rightly and justly condemned as a pseudo council because it lacked even the third constituent of ecumenical councils. For the definition it set forth was not in agreement with Holy Writ and the other councils. Do you see that a disagreement of some patriarchs makes ecumenical councils local ones? Whereas, on the other hand, agreement of all the patriarchs of an ecumenical council makes even local councils ecumenical and converts them into catholic councils. For the local councils accepted by the Ecumenical Councils, and especially by the Sixth, and their Canons acquired an ecumenical, in effect, and catholic power and dignity.

From these statements which have been made here the definition of an ecumenical council can easily be framed as follows: “An ecumenical council is one that has been convoked by command of an emperor or king, one that has set forth a dogmatic definition concerning faith, and one that ordains or prescribes things which are pious and orthodox and agreeable to the Holy Scriptures and to previous ecumenical councils, and one which all the patriarchs and prelates of the catholic Church have agreed to accept, either by their personal presence or by proxy, or, in the absence of these, by means of their letters and signatures. So every ecumenical council that possesses these characteristic features is in fact the Holy and Catholic Church itself in which in the Symbol of Faith (called the Creed in English) we profess to believe.

Hence arise four other points, according to those versed in theology, to enrich its features. These points are:

First, that of being ever-living and imperishable; for “He will give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever. And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age” (John 14:16; Matt. 28:20; cf. also John 14:26).

Second, that of being infallible and sinless. For the Church, which the Ecumenical Council takes the place of as its personal representative, is a pillar and framework of the truth, according to St. Paul (I Tim. 3:15); accordingly, whatever seems right to Ecumenical Councils seems right also to the Holy Spirit of Truth; for, it says, “He shall teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said unto you” (John 14:26). Which in fact is proved certain in the case of Ecumenical Councils. For if c. VIII of St. Gregory the Miracle-worker says, concerning the local council held in Ancyra, “until such time as something seems right in common to saints met together and before them to the Holy Spirit,” how much more is not this true when said in regard to Ecumenical Councils? which the Holy Spirit Itself supervises and illumines, and will not permit them to err in their decisions? For God inspires His righteousness in innumerable priests gathered in a council, according to the letter of the Council of Carthage addressed to Celestinus.

Third, that of having the supreme and highest office, not only as proposing what is right and just and true by way of advice and compelling those opposed thereto to yield submission, by inflicting upon them proper ecclesiastical penances, and examining and judging them all, including Popes and Patriarchs, and all prelates, clergymen, and laymen in any part of the world whatsoever.

And fourth, that of setting a limit and termination to every question or matter of any kind that may arise or grow up, whether it relate to an individual or have a common effect, and to settle every quarrel and dispute of heretics and schismatics. For the Church is called catholic, says Cyril the patriarch of Jerusalem (in article 18 of his catechism), because she teaches catholically, completely and indifferently, all dogmas that offer men knowledge concerning things visible and invisible. For not the Holy Bible, but the Ecumenical Council is proclaimed by all to be the final judge of ecclesiastical matters, according to c. VI. of the 2nd Ecum. C., whose vote and decision is not subject to appeal to any other higher tribunal. For if an appeal consists in taking a case from one court to some other court that is higher or of greater authority, according to Book IX of the Basilica, Title I, any dubious or uncertain vote of bishops is subject to review by the Metropolitans; and any such vote of Metropolitans is subject to review by the Exarch or Patriarch of the diocese; and that of the Patriarch is subject to review by an Ecumenical Council; and herewith end every appeal and there is a stop to further procedure because there is no higher court than the Ecumenical Council.

But if the court of patriarchs is not subject to appeal, according to the Basilica, and Justinian, and Leo the Wise, yet this is intelligible in view of the fact that one patriarch cannot act as judge of another patriarch and render any decision concerning him, and not on account of the Ecumenical Council, which can review and examine into all matters judged and decided by all Patriarchs and Popes, just as though they had never been decided at all. For even though the vote of the eparch, because of its being exempt from re-examination, is not subject to appeal, yet in spite of this the disputes which the eparch cannot settle are reviewed and decided by the emperor himself.

So that the Ecumenical Council sustains the same logical relationship in the Church (Dositheus, pp. 309 and 384 of the Dodecabiblos) as the Emperor sustains in the State. I said that the final judge in the Church is not the Holy Bible, as Lutherocalvinists claim, but the Ecumenical Council, because in many places divine Scripture speaks obscurely or unclearly, and therefore every one of the heretics can distort the obscure or unclear meaning of the Scriptures in favour of his own heresy, must needs interpret their true meaning because there is no one else that can do this, but the Ecumenical Council.

Another thing that deserves notice is the fact that besides the genuine and catholic books of the Bible, the heretics have dared to inscribe their spurious and heretical books as canonical, and on this account the Ecumenical Council approves those which are genuine, but rejects those which are spurious and apocryphal, as did the Sixth Ecumenical Council in regard to the Apostolical Injunctions, and as did also the First such Council (see also the footnote to Ap. c. LIX).

That is why sacred Augustine, being well aware of this, elegantly stated his opinion (in his Letter 154) in the following words: “I would not have believed in the Gospel had not the trustworthiness of the Church convinced me.” From all that has been said, therefore, it logically is to be inferred that no one can oppose or gainsay the Ecumenical Councils and remain pious and orthodox, but, on the contrary, everybody in general and indiscriminately is under obligation to obey them and to be persuaded by them. For whosoever opposes them and comes into conflict with them is opposing and coming into conflict with the Holy Spirit which speaks through the Ecumenical Councils, and thereby becomes both a heretic and an anathematized wretch, since Pope Dialogus (Book I, Letter 24) anathematizes those who refuse to heed the Ecumenical Councils.

And even the councils themselves anathematize those who refuse to obey them. Why should I say “heretic”? Whoever disobeys the Church is considered a heathen and an impious sinner, and in the place of the Church stands the Ecumenical Council. For “if,” says the Lord, “he disobey the Church, let him be unto thee like a heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:17). For the ultimate vote and decision of the Church is the Ecumenical Council, according to St. Augustine (Letter 162). And this is that same thing which God commanded to be kept in connection with the council of the priests of the old Law. “If,” said He, “there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea.... And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge who shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment: ... thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man who will act with a hand of arrogance, so as not to obey the priest, or the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil one from Israel” (Deut. 17:8-12).

But besides all that we have said we must add the following fact, to wit, that only seven councils have been called ecumenical properly and preeminently, because all of these were assembled and held in accordance with the laws governing ecumenical councils, and because everything that was necessary to knowledge in them was duly ordained. Hence all questions that arise or spring up can easily be settled by reference to what has been ordained by the seven (Dositheus, p. 633 of the Dodecabiblus).

After the Seventh, notwithstanding that other councils were called ecumenical, such as the First-and-Second, and the one held in the temple of St. Sophia (thus styled in English, though the meaning of the name is “Holy Wisdom”), were nevertheless thus called improperly and unwarrantedly, because not one of them was assembled and held in accordance with the laws governing ecumenical councils; wherefore they could not be counted along with the seven Ecumenical Councils and lead to an increase of their number. For the Council called Ecumenical by the Latins, that held against Photius, I mean, was later denounced and outlawed by the Council held in favor of Photius, and was condemned to lose all right to be called even a council at all, though all the seven Ecumenical Councils, by reason of their being ecumenical, are entitled to equal honor.

This first Council however, both because of its ancient date and because of its holiness, has always been and will always remain the original example and model; accordingly it serves as the fundamental idea of all ecumenical councils, and it was imitated by the other councils held after it thenceforth, both as respects addresses and seats and as respects definitions. Accordingly, Dialogus called it the head of all councils; and one thing is uttered by the mouth of everybody, to wit, that what was prescribed in Nicaea must prevail without fail. The Council held in Carthage labored hard both in its records and in its Canons, and it made great efforts also in its letters to Boniface and Celestinus, to prevent their accepting any other Canons than these genuine Canons of the First Council held in Nicaea. Both Athanasius the Great and divine Chrysostom shouted loudly to have no other Canons prevail except the Canons of the Council in Nicaea.