Learning from the Infallible Teaching of Holy Tradition

LEARNING FROM THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF HOLY TRADITION [2002]

By Hieromonk Theodoretos the Hagiorite

The visit of the Pope to Greece certainly provoked many reactions, so many that had never been observed before, even though severe betrayals of the faith had taken place. We do not criticize this. We are only saddened by the subsequent policy of those who reacted.

They stopped at words. None of them dared to break communion with the Latin-minded Christodoulos and his Synod. And while they declare that "we live in a worse period than the iconoclasm," yet they do not imitate any iconophile confessor! They are content with a few threats and "declarations," like those of the Athonites in 1964. And the worst part! They proclaim that they are imitating all the great confessors of the past, such as Maximus the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, and Mark of Ephesus, who, they claim, fought against heresy from within the Church, just as they are doing now!

Moreover, they are not hesitant to invite the Old Calendarists to come back to the Church and fight with them, but this time from within the Church!

In other words, we have a repetition of the well-known positions of Fr. Epiphanius Theodoropoulos from 1969, which were joyfully followed by the Athonites and the bishops of Greece.

1. The occasion for this article was the talk given in Larissa (March 24) by the well-known professor and priest, Fr. Theodoros Zisis. In this talk, the following "Epiphanius" position prevailed: "Yes, we should react, but never cause a schism. The struggle will take place from within the Church." And this is because, according to Fr. Th. Z., this stance was also maintained by the great confessors of Orthodoxy, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Theodore the Studite, and Saint Mark of Ephesus. We quote his exact words: "We will remain within the Church and fight. What we will never do is tear apart the Church and cause a schism. Neither did Mark of Ephesus, nor Saint Maximus the Confessor, nor anyone else leave the Church. Neither did Saint Theodore the Studite make his own Synods... Let them depose us, let them insult us... We must have a clear conscience that we are following the saints!"

Here, what has been erroneously and sophistically supported by those who wrote before Fr. Th. Z. is being repeated, and we have devoted dozens of pages refuting their mistaken positions. If Fr. Th. Z. had been interested in reading them, he would not now be preaching these completely ahistorical and so offensive statements about the saints. We write this because the aforementioned positions are clearly contrary to the Holy Canons, patristic teaching, and the lives of the three great confessors of the Fathers.

Thus, Canon 15 of the First-Second Council praises those who cut off communion before a conciliar decision from the one preaching heresy, considering them saviors of the Church! And Saint Maximus the Confessor, when asked with which Church he communed, since all were in communion with the heretical Constantinople, replied: "I regard as the Catholic Church the right and saving confession of the faith in Him... which the God of all declared." (P.G. 90, 132). It was enough for him that he held the true faith, without communing with heresy. He was not afraid of the thought of remaining alone. As long as he was with the truth, he was with the Church!

This fear is held by the Papists, who have made the Pope the life-giving center of the Church, from whom all priesthood and grace flow, and among us, by the followers of the "Epiphanius school," who, at the mere thought of not communing with the Roman Patriarchates – even those heretically inclined – are nauseated...

Finally, Saint Theodore the Studite considers it "a betrayal of the Orthodox confession" to remain in communion with one’s heretical bishop! (P.G. 99, 1365 A). He calls another abbot "thrice-wretched" for continuing the "destructive communion" with the iconoclasts, calling him "a model of denial, an encouragement to perdition..." (P.G. 99, 1337 C). And elsewhere, he adds the classic: "For Chrysostom declared loudly that not only heretics, but also those who commune with them, are enemies of God." (P.G. 1049 A). As for Saint Mark of Ephesus, his life and words constitute a true condemnation for those who baselessly claim that after the Council of Florence, he communed with the Latin-minded of Constantinople. Behold his immortal words: "Flee also, brethren, from the communion with the excommunicated and from the commemoration of the uncommemorated. See, I, Mark the sinner, say to you that whoever commemorates the Pope as an Orthodox bishop is guilty of fulfilling all the Latin errors, even to the shaving of the beard, and he who is Latin-minded with the Latins will be judged, and will be considered a transgressor of the faith!" (P.G. 160, 1097 D, 1100 A).

It is deeply sorrowful that Fr. Th. Z. claims "Saint Mark remained with the Latin-minded Patriarch, fighting"! The words of the saint allow for no misinterpretation.

"I was imprisoned by the Emperor. But the word of God is not bound; it runs all the more and prospers, and most of the brethren, trusting in my exile, refute the transgressors and violators of the true faith and the Patristic decrees and drive them away from everywhere like impurities, neither co-serving with them nor commemorating them at all as Christians!" (P.G. 1097 AB).

The anti-patristic position "fighting from within the Church" is an anti-traditional and contradictory slogan, as the true struggle begins when the believer breaks all communion with heresy, so as not to be considered a co-responsible supporter of it, but a true opponent. Then, according to the words of Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, two things happen: Those who react "free the Church from the schism and the heresy of the false bishops," and they themselves are deemed "worthy of the proper honor as Orthodox"! This is the true Orthodox position on the matter; all else is a misinterpretation and willful distortion of it!

2. Towards the end of his speech, being compelled by the audience to also speak about the Old Calendarists, he said the following tragic and false things: "I deeply respect the brothers of the Old Calendar... They should abandon the numerous schisms they have (they have 12 Synods! How many do they have?) and return here to the Church so that we may all struggle together.

"The issue is not whether we are with the old or the new, but whether we will save our soul. And we save our soul within the Church!"

Indeed, we are saved within the Church, since "there is no salvation outside of it," but which Church? The one that communes with heresy? The one that serves liturgies with the Papists? The one that accepts that salvation exists even outside the Church? The one that blasphemes its uniqueness by participating in the World Council of Churches? The one that believes and preaches that the Monophysites, Papists, and Anglicans have divine Grace? Certainly not! A thousand times no! On the contrary, we are saved only when we do not commune with such a Church! Because only then, according to the great Gregory Palamas, are we "of the Church of Christ." Conversely, those who commune with heresy, and as a result, "are not of the truth, nor of the Church of Christ," according to the same saint. (Works, vol. 2, 627).

Many have often criticized the priesthood of the Old Calendarists, but their ordination certificates have fully disproven them. (Cf. Stavros Karamitros: The Ordinations of the Genuine Orthodox Christians from a Canonical Perspective, Athens, 1997, pp. 110).

Their weak point is their divisions, which Fr. T. ridicules. We agree. However, it should not be overlooked that it was the New Calendarists themselves who created the most significant of these divisions in order to dissolve them!

Did divisions not also occur among the Orthodox iconophiles during the iconoclasm period? The great Theodore the Studite writes on this: "Because I learned from the secretary, dear brother, that quarrels have arisen among you... I received this news with sorrow, knowing that it is a seed of the devil that causes schisms even in this healthy part of Orthodoxy. This is a joyous event for the opponents [iconoclasts], who, from our weaknesses, claim that their impiety is justified." (P.G. 1285 D).

So it is now; there may be various Old Calendar Synods, but this does not affect the essence of their entirely traditional struggle, nor does it justify the New Calendarists remaining in their heresy. Let them dare to wall-off, and let them not unite with them. Then, and only then, will they realize how difficult unity is in such struggles. Now, their criticisms resemble the advice of a well-dressed spectator in the stands of a stadium to a sweaty but victorious athlete on the field...

So, the issue is not the multiplicity of Synods in the Old, but the faith of the New Calendarists that is contrary to Orthodox tradition, namely: a) they should never break communion with their bishops, lest they find themselves outside the Church and salvation, and b) the Old Calendarists who dared to do so became schismatics and, consequently, a cautionary example to avoid!

Both positions are entirely anti-traditional, not supported by the teachings of the holy Fathers. I am not referring to the third and serious cause, the lack of militancy and the spirit of sacrifice that characterizes the clergy of the new...

For details, we refer to our following works: "Desert Dialogues on Ecumenism," "Antidote," and "When the Watchmen Betray."

3. Finally, in order to calm down some lively listeners who desired an immediate reaction, he said: "Not all bishops are ecumenists... Mount Athos is still ahead... There are many captains. Don't all of you start acting like captains."

Whom does he consider captains? He wrote it previously in the "Orthodox Press" when he characterized the abbot of Gregoriou Monastery as "wise and a confessor"! (Issue 8.2.).

To commune for thirty years with three heretical patriarchs of Constantinople—Athenagoras, Demetrios, and Bartholomew—and still be a confessor!! This means a lot, which we reserve to comment on in due course. Of course, the stance of the abbot of Gregoriou Monastery is maintained by all the abbots of the Athonite Monasteries, except for the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou. Nevertheless, for Fr. Th. Z., Mount Athos is "still ahead," meaning in the fight against heresy! What a distortion of reality!!

We only see one preeminence and one primacy in the stance of Mount Athos: that it leads in its condemnable communion with the heresy preached by the Phanar, serving as an example of destruction for bishops, clergy, and laity throughout the worldwide Orthodox Church!

In conclusion, I must add that I have no prior animosity towards Fr. Theodoros. On the contrary, through a letter, when he reacted against the Pope, I emphasized to him that "he greatly gladdened the Orthodox" with that behavior. I even visited him and congratulated him in person. However, today I completely disagree with his words, his tactics, and his collaborators. He does not represent our paternal heritage. On the contrary, his words become an obstacle to the souls that thirst for the truth of Orthodoxy. At the same time, he becomes a supporter of the archbishop, whose sole concern is to prevent the growing influence of the Lord’s camp, that of the genuine Orthodox faithful, whom he constantly accuses.

Finally, I believe that extensive study and freedom from prejudice are required for one to faithfully imitate the holy fathers, both in their life and teachings, which I sincerely wish from the heart.

Hieromonk Theodoretos, Athonite

Fifth Sunday of Lent, 2002

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2015/03/blog-post_9.htm