On the Heresy of Ecumenism and Economy

ON THE HERESY OF ECUMENISM And Concerning Some Aspects of the Patristic Use of Economia

Fr. Panagiotes Carras, Th.D. | August 24, 1974

 

The holy Apostle commands us, saying “Hold fast the traditions which ye have received” (II Thess. 2:15). By holding fast to the traditions which we have received from our holy Fathers, we remain within the boundaries of our true fatherland, our most holy Church, wherein a man can find liberation from the bonds of Satan and life eternal in the bosom of Abraham.

Satan, in his endeavor to destroy man, has deceitfully attempted to lead Christians away from the holy traditions and, in this manner, to seize them from the sheltering wings of their mother, the holy Church. Once we are separated from the Church, Satan pounces on us and utterly destroys us.

Heresy, the distortion or rejection of the doctrines and way of life left us by the Apostles and Fathers, is Satan’s attempt to draw us out of the Church and to lead us astray. The error of contemporary ecumenism is his most pernicious attempt, because it denies the existence of boundaries to the Church, thus virtually denying the Church’s existence; indeed, Ecumenism denies the existence of truth and so attacks directly the enhypostatic Truth. Ecumenism is not so much a heresy as it is total apostasy, disguised with some elements of supposed religion that have no force or significance.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has espoused Ecumenism, and has slowly and resolutely introduced it into the Local Churches with which it is in communion. The first major step of this infiltration of heresy was brought about by the Pan-Orthodox Conference of sorry memory held in Constantinople in 1923. The heretical nature of this conference has been recognized by many eminent hierarchs and theologians of the Orthodox Church, among them Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky of blessed memory, Archbishop (later Metropolitan) Anastasy, Metropolitan Irenaeus of the island of Samos in Greece, Bishop Nikolai of Ochrid, hierarchs of the Russian Synod Abroad (Metropolitan Philaret, Archbishop John Maximovitch, Archbishop Vitaly, and Archbishop Averky), and of the True Orthodox Church of Greece. This Conference, therefore, has been duly condemned. The Pan-Orthodox conference of 1923 opened the door to Ecumenism and gave occasion to the Patriarchate of Constantinople to develop its heretical influence. In 1924, it accepted the papal calendar and, in this manner, brought violent schism to Greece. Shortly thereafter, under Patriarch Gregory VII, the decree of the council of the Living Church in Russia concerning the deposition of Patriarch Tikhon was accepted (Archbishop [St.] John Maximovitch, “The Decline of the Patriarchate of Constantinople” [The Orthodox Word, July-August 1972]).

Although the Russian Church Abroad cautioned Metropolitan Evlogy about his Ecumenism and support of Bulgakov’s sophiology, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, with open arms, accepted the like-minded Evlogy along with the seminary, theological professors, and clergy who had come under the influence of, and were subsidized by, the YMCA, the Christian Student Movement, the Fellowship of Saints Alban and Sergius, and other ecumenical organizations.

The innovationist Greeks were of one spirit with Evlogy’s group, and in a short time the heretical books of the professors of Saint Sergius were translated into Greek and widely read by the theological students of Greece. Since 1924, the innovationists of Greece have struggled to eliminate true Orthodoxy in Greece. They would have been successful if your Lord [Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal] had not inspired certain zealot monks of Mount Athos to leave their monasteries, and to search out true Orthodox Christians, with whom they established small oases of Orthodoxy in a land which had become a spiritual desert.

The innovationists could not tolerate the existence of true Orthodox communities and sought to destroy them by imprisonment, shaving and unfrocking of clergy and monastics, and the closing of churches. The Greek government would not recognize the weddings performed by true Orthodox clergy, and the children of these marriages were considered illegitimate.

The innovationists of Greece, like their brothers, the so-called Renovationists of Russia, have been waging an unceasing war against true Orthodox Christians for the last sixty years. Just recently, they have forcefully expelled true Orthodox monks from Mount Athos in yet another attempt to

silence the truth. Here in the United States and Canada, when certain priests of the Greek Archdiocese joined themselves to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, they were defrocked by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Since then, constant war has been waged against the parishes of these priests. In a few instances, when certain weak people were persuaded to return to their former delusion, the children that were baptized by true Orthodox priests were rebaptized and the marriages were reperformed, whereas converts formerly baptized by Roman Catholics and Protestants are not baptized when they are received. Priests ordained by Old Calendar bishops in Greece have been reordained both by the hierarchs of the State Church of Greece, and by Archbishop Iakovos of North and South America. There are, on record, such instances in full detail. Yet, Roman Catholic clergy going over to them are received in their clerical rank, without even a renunciation of their former heresy. In the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America, we have such an example in Bishop John Martin, who was received from the Uniates as a fully bona fide priest and within a few weeks, ordained bishop for the Carpatho-Russians, and, within a few months after that, celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood!

The Ecumenists openly proclaim that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church no longer exists and must be reestablished. In their attack against the dogma of the Church, they have not only attempted to destroy the belief in the one Church of Christ, but have also undermined faith in the holiness of the Church by introducing secularism into her life. They have successfully waged war on monasticism to such an extent that there are very few monasteries left under their jurisdiction, and the ones which do remain are constantly harassed. None of their bishops are monks and, for this reason, they strive now to allow bishops to marry and priests to marry a second time. Freemasons are not only permitted to be members of their communities, but in the U.S.A. and Canada, the administration of the local churches is primarily in their hands. Further, many of the clergy, from Patriarch to parish priest, are members of the Lodge. It has always been known that the late Patriarch Athenagoras was a Mason. Upon his death, the Masonic Lodge proudly revealed that he was a 33 Degree leading Mason, and celebrated Masonic memorial services throughout Greece and elsewhere for him. Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis of sorry memory was also a leading Mason and given a Masonic funeral. The present Patriarchs Demetrios of Constantinople and the late Benedict of Jerusalem, as well as the still-ruling Archbishop Iakovos, are known Masons. It is now an accepted custom that the church halls, which are in most instances located in the basement of the churches, are frequently turned into dance halls and taverns where all manner of unseemly behavior can be observed.

Fifty years of heresy has seriously affected those who have remained in communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Now the Patriarchate has announced that they will propose to change the Paschalia, so that they may celebrate Easter with the Protestants and the Roman Catholics, something which is already a fact in Finland. There can be no doubt that the Patriarchate of Constantinople fell into heresy fifty years ago, and that, since then, it has spread this disease in cooperation with the Revisionists of Russia.

We wish, however, to maintain that not all those who continue in communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople are heretics, but some are to be considered in the terms of Saint Athanasius the Great as “those who have been drawn away (ύποσυρέντων = literally “dragged under”) by reason of necessity but have not been destroyed by wrong faith (ἐν τῇ κακοπιστίν)” (Second Canonical Epistle).

In every instance when the Church has been assailed by heresy, we find that many people are swept up by the heresy without actually understanding what is happening. Heresy is always presented as the truth, and in this way, many are misled. This was the case at the time of that truly pernicious heresy, Arianism, concerning which Saint Hilary of Poitiers said, “Multitudes of churches, in almost every province of the Roman Empire, have already caught the plague of this deadly doctrine; error, persistently inculcated and falsely claiming to be the truth, has become ingrained in the minds which vainly imagine that they are loyal to the Faith” (De Trinit. VI, 1).

Confusion was widespread, not only among the simple people, but even among the holy Fathers. To bring just one case as an example, let us look at the condition of the Church of Antioch, where there were two Orthodox bishops, Saints Meletius and Paulinus (the latter a Roman priest consecrated while Saint Meletius was in exile), and thus two Orthodox Churches. Saint Meletius was recognized by Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory the Theologian, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, and the Eastern bishops, whereas Saint Athanasius the Great, the bishops of Egypt, and the Pope of Rome supported Paulinus because they suspected that Saint Meletius was not Orthodox, since he was an adherent of a “Homoiousian” party. Saint Meletius reposed during the Second Ecumenical Council as its president, and yet the schism continued until the year 413.

When we study the history of the Church, we can easily see how people were misled in times of turmoil. The holy Fathers understood the confusion of the times, and even though they themselves would in no way compromise with the Arians, they were willing to show extreme condescension and leniency to those who had been led astray. It is truly amazing to see Saint Athanasius, who had suffered so much at the hands of the Arians and who was so exact in matters of faith, admonishing the Orthodox at Antioch to accept former Arians “as parents do their sons.” Almost forty years after the Council of Nicaea, Saint Athanasius admonished the Orthodox to accept former Arians without imposing a penance, and by simply having them “anathematize the Arian heresy and confess the Faith confessed by the holy Fathers at Nicaea” (Tome to the People of Antioch, 3) because they did not consciously and voluntarily abandon the Church and war against it. The same treatment was afforded to those who hesitated to accept the term “ὁμοούσιος” [homooúsios = of same essence] as applied to our Saviour, and preferred instead the term “ὁμοιούσιος” [homoioúsios = of similar essence].

Ιn his Second Canonical Epistle, Saint Athanasius says that those clergy (bishops and priests) who took leadership in the Arian heresy and, in the words of Balsamon, “championed and assisted impiety,” should be received again into the Church upon their repentance, but “should not be given a place among the clergy,” whereas those clergymen who “were dragged away by reason of necessity and violence,” who, according to Zonaras, “were merely in communion with the heretics but held fast to the [Orthodox] Faith and did not assent to the opinion of heretics” would be forgiven and granted a place among the clergy by way of economia, especially since they purposed to preserve their flocks in this manner from truly heretical clergymen.

In the writings of the holy Fathers, we see that those clergy and laity who were caught up in the confusion of the times were not considered as graceless heretics, but as Christians who had been carried away as if by a great flood (cf. Zonaras, Commentary on the Second Canonical Epistle of Saint Athanasius).

Let us look at another period of turmoil for our holy Church, the time of the Iconoclasts. This time of confusion lasted for over one hundred years. Are we to believe that all those Christians who, out of necessity and coercion, or due to ignorance, were in communion with the heretics, were totally deprived of sanctifying grace? A careful examination of the answers given by Saint Nicephorus the Confessor will lead us to believe that he too accepted the definition given by Saint Athanasius concerning Christians “who have been drawn away by reason of necessity but have not been destroyed by wrong faith.” This is especially true in the light of his answer to Question Eleven, for here he allows Orthodox Christians, when there is no Orthodox priest to be found, to be baptized, tonsured as monastics, and receive holy water blessed on the feast of Theophany by a priest who is in communion with the Iconoclasts, but whose faith is uncorrupted, “so that the people will not remain unenlightened” (Canonical Epistle, Rallis and Potlis, Vol. 4, p. 431). Further testimony to the existence of a special economia for those Orthodox Christians who, due to necessity, communicate with schismatics and heretics is to be found in the instructions given by Saint Theodore the Studite, who permits Orthodox Christians to partake of the Mysteries consecrated by a priest whose local bishop is Orthodox, and yet who, out of necessity, commemorates a heretical metropolitan (cf. Epistles, Bk. 1, 49. PG 99. 1089a).

Again, we are taught by the holy Fathers the combined use of exactness and economia. Saint Nicephorus would not compromise with heresy. He knew that Iconoclasm was heresy and he boldly denounced it as such, even forbidding Orthodox Christians to eat at the same table with Iconoclasts. The price of his exactness was that he reposed in exile. Hand in hand, however, with his exactness, we see his great condescension and economia. This same combination of exactness and economia is to be found from the Apostolic times until our very own days. Saint John Chrysostom, remarking on this combination of exactness and economia as shown by Saint Paul towards those Galatians who had fallen into error concerning the keeping of the Mosaic law, says, “Wise physicians do not cure those who have fallen into a long sickness all at once, but little by little, lest they should faint and die” (On Galatians, Homily IV, chap. 19).

In this same spirit, the great Ecumenical teacher, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who was the first to realize that Theodore of Mopsuestia was the originator of the Nestorian heresy and not Nestorius, in order to facilitate the Eastern bishops to return to the Church, permitted them to commemorate Theodore in the diptychs, provided that they confess the Orthodox Faith. At this time, Theodore had already reposed (cf. Epistle 72, To Proclus of Constantinople, PG 77, 344-345).

Close to our own days, we have the example of the Church of Cyprus which was a Uniate church for over three hundred years due to the Latin domination of the island. The people of Cyprus struggled for three hundred years to remain Orthodox, despite the fact that they were in communion with Rome. Finally, when they were able, they petitioned to be received again into communion with the Orthodox. In 1572, at the Synod of Constantinople called by Patriarch Jeremias “the Illustrious,” attended by Sylvester of Alexandria and Germanus of Jerusalem, the clergy of Cyprus were forgiven and the Synod ordained an Archbishop for the island. In these present times, when the holy Church of our Lord is besieged by that heresy of heresies, Ecumenism-Innovationism, we have before us that great defender of the Apostolic faith, Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow. When His Holiness was confronted with the machinations of the ungodly Renovationists, he boldly renounced them and gave clear directions to those who remained faithful to the Church:

“By all these [anti-canonical] actions they have separated themselves from the body of the Ecumenical Church and deprived themselves of God’s grace which resides only in the Church of Christ; consequently, all arrangements made during your absence by those ruling the Church, since they had neither legal nor canonical authority, are invalid and void, and all the actions and Mysteries performed by bishops and clergymen who have forsaken the Church, are deprived of God’s grace and power; the faithful, taking part in such prayers and Mysteries, shall receive no sanctification thereby, and are subject to condemnation for participation in their sin. We beseech those that consciously or unconsciously, knowingly or ignorantly, have been seduced by the wiles of the present age, and having acknowledged the unlawful authority, have fallen away from the unity of the Church and the grace of God, to confess their sin, to cleanse themselves by repentance, and to return to the saving bosom of the one Universal Church.”

(Concerning the Living Church, Message of July 15, 1923)

The words of the saintly Patriarch Tikhon echo the words of the Apostles and Fathers of our holy Church. He proclaims with exactness the doctrine of the Church, clearly distinguishing error from truth, and yet, with the spirit of economia which he also inherited from the holy Fathers, his language is calculated to soothe the souls of confused Christians. Together with Saint Nicephorus the Confessor he is willing to accept those who have fallen away without imposing any epitimion, in this way applying the words of Saint Paul, “Bear ye one another’s burdens” (Gal. 6:2). It should be noted here that the recognition of the Living Church by several of the ancient Patriarchates in no way gave it validity. In like manner, the recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate today by the rest of “World Orthodoxy” does not make it the legal representative of the Russian Church before God and men. So it was that as locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergius, before his apostasy, wrote concerning the recognition of the Living Church: “if the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem have come into communion with the renovators, be it worse for the Patriarch. Everyone is equal before the Divine law, both Patriarch and laity. When the Patriarch of Constantinople fell away in his union with Rome in the fifteenth century, the Russian Church did not follow after him, and the Roman Catholic priests in Russia did not become in this way Orthodox priests. In exactly the same way, the communion between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the renovators may make the Patriarch nothing but a renovator” (quoted from Religion in Soviet Russia, Emhardt, 1929, p. 145).

In like manner, the recognition by the other Local Orthodox Churches of the Greek innovationists of 1924 in no way alters the fact that they are schismatics. Today, since all the autocephalous Churches are in the camp of the ecumenists and are organic members of the World Council of Churches, even more so, recognition between themselves is no proof of their Orthodoxy. Rather, recognition by these Churches is a witness of un-Orthodoxy. Fr. Justin Popovich, the late confessor of the Serbian Church, writes concerning the “hireling hierarchs” of the Moscow Patriarchate: “They have betrayed the Orthodox faith and have become the most obedient tools of the secular power. What can one say about the Judas-like decision of the Moscow Patriarchate (Dec. 16/29, 1969) concerning intercommunion with the Roman Catholics, in opposition to all the holy dogmas and canons of the Orthodox Church? It testifies that the Russian hierarchy is in a state of terrible spiritual paralysis. And, this being so, can it represent the Orthodox Church of Russia at the proposed ‘Ecumenical Council’? May God not allow such an apocalyptical horror. And the Patriarch of Constantinople? For nearly a decade, he has been scandalizing the Orthodox conscience with his neo-papal behavior in word and deed, denying the unique and saving truth of the Orthodox Church and Faith, recognizing the Roman and other heresies as worthy of the same honor as the Truth, recognizing Rome’s Supreme Pontiff with all his demonic, anti-ecclesiastical pride. And, following the Vatican’s example, he is, with suicidal haste and frivolity, preparing his own so-called ‘Great Pan-Orthodox Council,’ the purpose of which is not the salvation of men and of the world according to the Gospel and Holy Tradition, but clearly a Scholastic and Protestant goal” (quoted from The True Vine, 1972, No. 3).

The Ecumenists-Renovationists are destroying many souls, and the time has come to apply the words of Saint Paul, “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject” (Titus 3:10).