The Boundaries of the Church: A Brief Discourse on Contemporary Ecclesiological Heresies

Nikolaos Mannes [1]

 

“The Church of Christ is an assembly of people baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and united one with another through the confession of the same Faith and through communion and participation in the Mysteries, under the protection of genuine and canonical Bishops, who recognize as their one and only Head our Lord Jesus Christ” (Metropolitan Meletios [Metros] of Athens, †1714)

 

Heresies, as teachings that distort the Truth of Orthodoxy, are divided into two categories, corresponding to their provenance. They may derive from and be expounded either by persons belonging to groups already cut off from the Church (e.g., those embracing the heresies of the Gnostics, Chiliasts, etc.) or by persons existing within the bosom of the Church, primarily clergy, [2] such heresies being touted, in this case, as Orthodox positions (it was in this manner, for example, that the teachings of Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism were first set out).

In this article, I have put forth a brief assessment of contemporary ecclesiological heresies belonging to the second category, which is, as one can understand, the more perilous, since, aside from the distortion of Orthodox doctrine occasioned by the proclamation of these heresies, there is also the danger of the apostasy of part of the flock of the Church and the creation of new schisms. As an example, one need only recall the losses that Monophysitism inflicted on the Orthodox Church by the schismatic and heretical bodies—the so-called “Pre-Chalcedonian Churches”—that it spawned: those of the Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians, Indians, and other of our erstwhile Orthodox brethren whom it plundered by way of its misbeliefs.

And whereas in the past these heresies were Trinitarian or Christological (that is, they pertained to the dogma of the Holy Trinity or to the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ), today these heresies are ecclesiological; that is, they pertain to the Church of Christ and Her boundaries. The principal heresies among these are ecumenism and those heresies generated thereby or formed in tandem therewith: [3] Matthewitism, Episcopocentrism, and Sergianism. I will speak about all of these straight away.

Ecumenism: A Broadening of the Boundaries

A great many informative articles have been written about ecumenism, and its teachings have been condemned as heretical both by contemporary Fathers and Teachers and by Synods (such as the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in 1983).

Ecumenism has the peculiarity of belonging to both of the aforementioned categories. That is to say, it is a heresy that has been, and is, expressed both by persons belonging to groups outside the Orthodox Church (Protestant or Roman Catholic ecumenism) and by persons who formally exist within the Church (Orthodox ecumenists).

This heresy broadens the boundaries of the Church, which, in its estimation, comprises the Western and the Eastern (the genuine historical) Church (the two lungs theory) or, beyond that, all “churches,” as branches of it (the branch theory), if not the totality of all the “baptized”—and sprinkled—(baptismal theology), while the most extreme of its devotees include even those of other religions, and not necessarily only monotheists!

It is precisely on account of this broadening of the Church’s boundaries [dismissing doctrine and dogma as secondary and as impediments to unity(!)—Trans.] that ecumenism is called a pan- heresy, since it accords legitimacy to all heresies. Its ideological affinity with Freemasonry is obvious: the two greatest Orthodox exponents of this heresy (Patriarchs Meletios Metaxakes and Athenagoras Spyrou) were Masons of the highest degree.

By precipitously placing inside the saving Ark of the Church those who are voluntarily broken off from Her, or who refuse to be incorporated into Her, the ecumenists advance the image of an unjust God, Who does not respect the sovereignty of His creatures and deprives man of the principal gift that He has bestowed on him, that is, free will, while they represent themselves—and blasphemously so—as being putatively more charitable than God!

Matthewitism: A Constriction of the Boundaries

At the polar opposite of the heresy of ecumenism we have an ecclesiological heresy which constricts the boundaries of the Church. We characterize this heresy as Matthewitism, [4] since Bishop Matthew (Karpathakes) of Bresthena was its first and chief exponent. However, its exponents are not solely (or necessarily) Matthewites (and naturally we are not speaking of the simple faithful who follow their leaders out of innocent zeal), but also non-Matthewites (such as, for example, in the past, Mother Magdalene the nun [5]).

The principal characteristic of this heresy, which developed within the ranks of the Old Calendarists, is the theory concerning the automatic excision from the Church of all transgressors (be it a simple believer or even an entire Synod of a local Church) and the non-necessity of a Synodal verdict about a transgression. Thus, according to Matthew, by virtue of the calendar innovation of 1924, both “the Churches that accepted this innovation became schismatic,” [6] as well as “those local Churches that concelebrate and in general pray with the innovating Churches.” [7] Indeed, this theory concerning automatic excision from the Church was considered a sine qua non, with the force of dogma (they called it an “Orthodox Confession”), with the result that all those who would not accept it were stigmatized as non-Orthodox, its adherents regarding even their brother Old Calendarists who rejected it as “outside the Church,” denouncing them in 1937, creating the notorious Matthewite Schism! Belief in this heretical theory concerning automatic excision from the Church leads to an unprecedented constriction of Her boundaries, as has been noted in a pertinent article on the subject. [8]

By arbitrarily cutting off from the saving Ark of the Church all those who, in their opinion, have fallen into some heresy, real or imaginary (in order to justify the new schisms that have emerged in their ranks, they have contrived “neo-Iconoclasm,” “ecclesiomachy,” “Christomachy,” and other “heresies”), the Matthewites, themselves, also introduce the image of an unjust God,Who has actually failed in His saving work (away with such blasphemy!),since Matthewitism, by its unjustified, automatic excisions, deems ostracized from the Church a multitude of faithful who are not aware of various ecclesiological deviations, whether because they repented at the ninth or eleventh hour, or by reason of illiteracy or a lack of intellectual capacity, or, finally, on account of circumstances of age (e.g., under eighteen [the age of independent consent]), and who, practically speaking, are incapable of understanding what is going on in the Church, to the extent that they could be held accountable. This is why a Synodal diagnosis and verdict are imperative, so that all might come to know who the heretics are and who the ones creating schisms are. [9]

St. Chrysostomos (Kabourides), the former Metropolitan of Phlorina, among others, wrote against Matthewitism.

Episcopocentrism: Transposing the Boundaries

Episcopocentrism, as a heresy, was expounded chiefly by Father Epiphanios Theodoropoulos [10] and arose as a reaction to Matthewitism (which it dubs “Zealotry,” including therein, however, other teachings that are in every way correct, such as keeping one’s distance from uncondemned heretics). It is the most dangerous ecclesiological heresy of our time, along with ecumenism, to which it renders sterling service.

This heresy transposes the boundaries of the Church from the Truth of the Faith to the persons who administer it, regarding as evidence that one is “within the Church” the fact that one is in communion with those in authority at all times, even if they are heretics, though on the grounds that they have not been officially cut off from the Body of the Church.

This ecclesiological heresy is in direct contradiction both to the teaching of the Church as expressed through the Synods and the Holy Fathers and to the practice of the latter and also of all Orthodox at a time when heresy makes itself manifest within the bosom of the Church.

For the Saint s, evidence that one is essentially within the Church is the Truth of one’s Faith, [11] that is, the Orthodoxy of his Confession. [12]

Thus, Orthodox who break communion with those in authority, when the latter have fallen into heresy, in no way regard themselves, and never have been regarded, as “outside the Church.” [13]

This unheard-of teaching of communion with Hierarchs who are uncondemned heretics invalidates the entire Orthodox struggle that always preceded the Synodal condemnation of a heresy, which struggle delivered the Church from the divisions and schisms that heresy inflicted on Her. [14]

This heresy has, unfortunately, incapacitated a large segment of those who, in all other respects, have an Orthodox mentality, but who for decades have not dared to do the obvious (that is, to break ecclesiastical communion with those who preach heresy), out of fear of finding themselves “outside the Church.” [15]

The ever-memorable contemporary Father of the Church, Father Theodoretos (Mavros), in particular wrote illuminating works against this heresy.

Sergianism: Distorting the Boundaries

The name “Sergianism” is a neologism coined by the contemporary Russian Confessor Boris Talantov. [16] This heresy (which took its name from Patriarch Sergius [Stragorodsky] of Russia, who in 1927 submitted to the atheistic régime of the Soviet Union) distorts the boundaries of the Church through the rejection of a courageous Confession of Orthodoxy in practice, since it uses deceptive measures as a means, supposedly, of safeguarding the Church; that is, Her administrative external structure. [17]

Thus, we have what is nominally a local Church that is recognized as official by the militantly anti-ecclesiastical régime to which it belongs, but which in essence does not constitute part of the Church of Christ, since it does not confess the Truth of the Faith, but accepts and serves falsehood, error, and the lawlessness of the anti-Christian state.

Although Sergianism was born in countries that were once communist, it is a heresy that disfigures the Church, even today, in the so-called neoliberal capitalist states in which the local Churches, thanks to their recognition by atheist states (as legal entities in public law [18]) remain silent in the face of the passage of increasingly anti-Christian laws (the legalization of adultery, abortion, homosexual civil unions, atheistic education, “anti-discrimination” restrictions, electronic surveillance, etc.), out of fear that, if they react, their recognition and the privileges accorded them will cease.

In an important ecclesiological declaration of the free and (still) surviving Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, it is aptly observed that Sergianism, “having long ago incorporated within itself a worldly spirit, unscrupulousness, deception, and a pathological servility towards the powerful of this world, continues to betray the Church, now no longer for fear of reprisals from atheistic rulers, but for the sake of self-serving and secularist motives and under the cloak of supposed canonicity, still peddling the freedom of the Church in exchange for gaining the friendship of the powerful of this world, with all of the concomitant material benefits and, to be sure, prestigious social status.” [19]

It is the duty of a future authentic Major Synod of the Orthodox (which will condemn the false Synod of Crete) to refute the aforementioned teachings, thereby safeguarding the flock of the Church from false teachers who have introduced pernicious heresies. [20]

 

NOTES

1. Mr. Mannes, gifted with a deep understanding of the Church’s theological and ecclesiological teachings, is a Greek educator and prolific religious writer. He lives and teaches in Athens, where he and his wife and children are active in the life of the Genuine (Old Calendar) Orthodox Church of Greece.

2. St. Meletios the Confessor of Mt. Galesion [ca. 1209-1286] observes “that Shepherds [i.e., Bishops] are accountable for heresies and every sort of evil.” [This reference is by no means an assault on the charismatic oversight of the Church by its Bishops, but addresses the abuse thereof—Trans.]

3. It should be noted that ecumenism is reminiscent of Arianism, in terms of the turmoil that it provokes in the Church, since that heresy lasted for many years and became the cause of other heresies, and even of those ostensibly opposed to it (Apollinarianism, Luciferianism, Pneumatomachianism, etc.). [The turmoil spawned by Arianism was also at times literal, fueled as it was by extreme emotionalism and an appeal to popular sentiment, just as ecumenism is marked by a sometimes saccharine display of religious enthusiasm in music fests, liturgical dance, the celebration of pagan rites, etc.—Trans.]

4. This heresy could be characterized also as “extreme Zealotry.” The late Father Seraphim (Rose) of Platina aptly calls it “super-correctness” [a term that he took from the late Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle—Trans.].

5. Abbess of the Convent of the Ascension in Kozani, Greece († 2006). A twentieth-century Greek monastic firebrand who wrote numerous popular invectives, including an opprobrious condemnation of St. Nectarios of Aegina.

6. Encyclical of Matthew of Bresthena (September 21, 1944). “Schismatic” is here understood to mean “actually schismatic,” that is, already cut off from the Church of Christ, not “potentially schismatic,” as St. Chrysostomos the New held, that is, subject to trial at a competent Major Synod for causing schism.

7. Ibid.

8. “Ἡ Ἀπόρριψη τῆς Συνοδικῆς Kρίσεως εἶναι πλάνη ποὺ ὁδηγεῖ σὲ ἀδιέξοδο” (Rejection of a synodal judgment is an error that leads to an impasse),

http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.gr/2016/03/blog-post_4.html

9. At this time, there are in Greece and in the rest of the world ecclesiastical communities, though few in number (and not necessarily defining themselves as Matthewites) possessed by the principles of this heresy, which define themselves as the Church, a fact which clearly shows that such a view is heretical and springs forth from pride cloaked in zeal.

10 The term “Episcopocentrism” (despotic rule by the Church’s Masters, or Bishops) is preferable to “Epiphanism,” since it today has evolved even further through the teachings of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon [Patriarchate of Constantinople], now its leading exponent. Through his writings, Father Epiphanios served, and serves, this heresy very well, chiefly through his theory concerning officers and footsoldiers in the Church, depriving the latter of the indisputable right to resist and protest when the Faith is in crisis, and, as well, through his blasphemous and potentially destructive view of the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Synod. However, it is Metropolitan John who has elevated the administrative jurisdiction of the Bishop in the affairs of the Church to a “dogma of dogmas,” in conformity with the model of Papocentric power (a recent example being the behavior of Metropolitan Theokletos of Phlorina towards Father Paisios Papadopoulos). [The author is not questioning, here, proper episcopal authority and oversight of the Church, but is, rather, contrasting “Epiphanism” and “Episcopocentrism” with the charismatic quality that empowers a true Shepherd and Master.—Trans.]

11. “Those who belong to the Church of Christ belong to the Truth; those who do not belong to the Truth do not belong to the Church of Christ either; and all the more so, if they speak falsely of themselves by calling themselves, or calling each other, holy pastors and hierarchs. For it has been instilled in us that Christianity is characterized not by persons, but by the truth and exactitude of Faith” (St. Gregory Palamas, “Refutation of the Letter of Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch,” §3, in Panagiotes K. Chrestou (ed.), Γρηγορίου τοϋ Παλαμά Συγγράμματα [The works of Gregory Palamas], Vol. II [Thessalonike: 1966], p.627).

12. “[Christ called] the Catholic Church the correct and saving Faith in Him” (St. Maximos the Confessor, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XC, col. 132A).

13. “Eustathians” under the Arian-minded Bishops of Antioch, Orthodox under Nestorios of Constantinople, St. Maximos the Confessor and those with him under Monothelitism, Iconodules under Iconoclasm, anti-unionists under the false synods of Lyons and Ferrara-Florence, et al.

14. It is for precisely this reason that the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Synod praises those walled off from such heretical pseudo-Bishops, for “they have been sedulous to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.”

15. Moreover, this heresy has influenced a segment of Orthodox newly walled off from ecumenism, who think that the struggle against heresy stops simply at walling off and that any further action, such as the consecration of Orthodox Bishops, constitutes “schism” and “forming a new Church,” thereby accepting as “canonical” Bishops who have fallen into heresy and from whom they are walled off!

16. He died in 1971, from maltreatment, in a prison hospital in the Soviet Union.

17. The connection between Episcopocentrism and Sergianism is therefore evident.

18. Metropolitan Polycarp (Lioses) of Siatista (†1996) wrote prophetically that the official Church, by virtue of its constitutional charter and its transformation into a legal entity in public law (1969) “formally and decisively cut off the Head of the Church, which is Christ, and put in His place the law of the State, which, as the head of a legal entity, the ‘Church of Greece,’ will henceforth steer the Church, as its head, in whatsoever direction it wishes, and even to its dissolution” (Metropolitan Polycarp Lioses of Sisanion and Siatista, Ἡ Ἐκκλησία τοῦ Χριστοῦ θεοσύστατον ἵδρυμα καὶ οὐχὶ Nομικὸν Πρόσωπον Δημοσίου Δικαίου [The Church of Christ is a divinely constituted foundation and not a legal entity in public law] [Athens: 1969], p. 37).

19. “The True Orthodox Church and the Heresy of Ecumenism: Dogmatic and Canonical Issues,” http://hsir.org/p/be.

20. Cf. II St. Peter 2:1.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 34 (2017), No. 1, pp. 3-10.