Remaining in Communion with the Ecumenists - Arguments and Counterarguments

IV. Remaining in Communion with the Ecumenists – Arguments and Counterarguments

Chapter 4 of the Romanian work, Orthodox Confession in the Face of the Ecumenist Heresy, by the Orthodox Brotherhood of St. Ignaty Brianchaninov, Chișinău, 2014.

 

We have shown so far the reasons why Ecumenism is a heresy, and not just an ordinary heresy, but the very heresy of heresies; we have also presented the teaching of the Holy Fathers regarding the communion of the faithful with heretics. Nevertheless, although the Church's teaching in this regard cannot be questioned, we encounter the situation where many conservative and traditionalist Orthodox continue to remain in communion with the Ecumenists, thereby legitimizing and justifying them in this way, allowing the spread of this heresy among Orthodox believers.

Without any doubt, such a resolute attitude of the Fathers of the Church toward separating from heresy and heretics has profound spiritual reasons, the most important of which, of course, is the salvation of the soul. But as we can see, such communion also has other consequences, for Ecumenism, being an ecclesiological heresy, corrupts not only the teaching about the Church but also the ecclesiological consciousness of those who reject this teaching, calling it heresy. How else could we explain the fact that many traditionalist Orthodox can be seen claiming that breaking away from heretics is a schism, or that the heresy of the episcopate poses no danger to the Orthodox, or that one must first attain a holy life before confessing the faith, and many other deceptions, which we painfully observe they have fallen into? This is what the life of St. Niketas the Confessor shows us about the work of the deceitful: "Those malicious heretics, seeing that those fathers would rather die than depart from their true faith, found this deception against them, saying: 'We require nothing else from you, but only that you commune in the church with the Holy Mysteries together with Theodotus, the Patriarch, and beyond that do nothing more. Thus you will go freely to your monastery, with your faith and understanding intact.'" – Let us be watchful, brothers, so that we are not deceived in the same way!

We will attempt to refute the most widespread arguments of those who, seeing the work of the Ecumenist heresy and understanding what it means, still seek justifications for remaining in communion with the Ecumenists.

1. "We must remain in the canonical Churches."

From the multitude of arguments brought in favor of maintaining communion with the Ecumenists, I have placed this one at the forefront, as I consider it to be the most harmful and deceptive for Christians, especially since it has a Roman Catholic origin, where the pope remains the "canonical" head of their church without any connection to the faith he confesses. [177]

In the current understanding, the canonical churches are all the local churches that are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and, accordingly, have communion with each other. However, as shown in the history of the Church and in the lives of the Saints, this has often not meant the right confession of these churches. The primary criterion has always been the Orthodox testimony, being in the Truth, and not the antiquity of the episcopal seat or its communions. When Saint Maximus the Confessor was asked: [178]

"Which Church do you belong to? The one of Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these Churches, along with the territories under them, are united. Therefore, if you are a son of the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us without delay, so that you do not find yourself on some strange or new path, which will cause you to fall where you least expect!

“The Saint said:

"The Lord Christ called the Catholic Church the one that keeps the true and salvific confession of faith. For this confession, He called Peter blessed and said that He would build His Church upon this confession."

It is an error to confuse the unity and communion of Local Churches, while neglecting the confession of faith of these churches, with the catholicity of the Church of Christ, for St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: "The Church is called Catholic because it preaches everywhere and completely all the teachings that people need to know, the teachings about the visible and invisible, the heavenly and earthly, because it brings all of mankind to the true faith." [179]

The Church of Rome was also canonical in this sense, which nevertheless did not prevent it from falling into its terrible heresies, just as happened with the so-called canonical Patriarchates during the time of St. Maximus the Confessor or St. Mark of Ephesus.

The confession of the Truth is not only a characteristic of the Church of Christ, but it is the very foundation upon which it was established by the Savior, as St. Maximus the Confessor showed above, and along with him, St. Philaret of Moscow: "The Church is the God-established community of people who are united through the Orthodox faith, the Divine Law, hierarchy, and the Mysteries." [180] And in the same spirit, St. Nikolai Velimirovich: "Who are the members of the Church? Men and women, all those who are united in the true faith." [181] Naturally, the Orthodox Patriarchs have confessed: "The Catholic Church cannot err or be deceived, preaching falsehood in place of the Truth."  [182] And again, St. Philaret of Moscow, together with them: "It can never apostatize, nor err in the truth of the faith or fall into deception." [183]

Canonicity cannot be justified by the apostolic succession of the episcopal seat either, for St. Nikolai of Ohrid says: "Apostolic succession is the preservation of the apostolic teaching by the legitimate hierarchy of the Church and the reception of the grace of the Holy Spirit." [184] And again, St. Philaret: "The Creed, in saying that the Church is Apostolic, teaches us to firmly follow the apostolic teaching and tradition and to avoid that teaching and those teachers who do not base themselves on that of the apostles." [185] St. Gregory the Theologian further explains apostolic succession: "In this, succession must be seen, for unity of thought also unites the [episcopal] thrones, while difference of thought separates the thrones. One is succession in name only, and the other – in essence itself. For the true successor is the one who does not hold to contrary teaching, but preserves the faith unchanged." [186]

So, which church was canonical during the time of Monothelitism: that of St. Maximus or that of the Patriarchs? And during the time of Iconoclasm: that of the Orthodox or that of the persecutors of the holy icons? Without a doubt, such a perversion of the ecclesiological consciousness of Christians is one of the consequences of Ecumenism, one of the marks left by this teaching on the consciences of the faithful.

The purely juridical approach to the canonicity of a local church represents a misunderstanding of Orthodox ecclesiology, for it neglects the right confession of faith, which is a foundational attribute of the Church of Christ.

2. "Separation from the Ecumenists is schism."

Another argument used to justify the abandonment of faith in which a Christian finds himself is the idea that separating from Ecumenist bishops and priests is schism. For, they say, whoever ceases to commemorate his bishop, even if that bishop openly teaches heresies, separates himself from the Church of Christ and becomes estranged from it. The renowned Orthodox "traditionalist" writer, Fr. Epiphanius Theodoropoulos, in his work The Two Extremes: Ecumenism and Zealotry, says: "Schism, dear brothers, is not created by possible deviations from the exact line of the Holy Canons, but by the breaking of communion and connection with the other Orthodox Churches and their anathematizing of you." [187] Elsewhere, he says: "You must reestablish your canonical ties with [the official Orthodox Church], so that you can as quickly as possible be in canonical communion with the Orthodox Church everywhere." [188] These words clearly show the position of this father, which is followed by many Christians today, namely that those who have ceased commemorating their bishop, even for reasons of heresy, and therefore have broken communion with the official Orthodox Church (to which this bishop belongs), have become schismatics and strangers to the Orthodox Church everywhere. In light of this danger, Fr. Epiphanius also tells us how we must oppose the lawlessness and heresy preached by the hierarchs: "Any opposition that does not lead to schism is justified. Blessed are the mouths that protest against the anti-Orthodox actions of the patriarch, and blessed are the writings that condemn his acrobatics in matters of faith. A continuous and relentless fight against the patriarch, YES! Schism, however, NO!" [189]

True are the words of the Apostle, who said that among us there will be false teachers who will secretly bring in destructive heresies (2 Peter 2:1). Such a teacher is this one as well. He denies the teachings of the Fathers and of the entire Church, instead proposing teachings according to his own desires, and even more grievously, many will follow their misguided teachings, and because of them, the way of truth will be blasphemed (2 Peter 2:2). I say this because the teachings of the Church regarding schism and the breaking of communion with a heretical bishop are different from those proposed by this father. Thus, by calling schism what is Orthodox and necessary for salvation, this father places Christians who follow his opinions in a position where they are unable to act in a beneficial and salvific manner.

It is unnecessary to speak again of the fact that the Catholicity and Unity of the Church are of a different nature than that which some insist on presenting — this subject was analyzed in the previous subchapter. Here, we must analyze what a schism truly is and how we should relate to a heretical bishop, that is, a bishop who persists in preaching a heresy condemned by the Fathers and the Church.

The Canons 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople prohibit, under the penalty of deposition, the cessation of the commemoration of the local bishop and the cessation by a bishop of the commemoration of his Metropolitan and Patriarch. In this way, schism is condemned as the separation of the Body of Christ through the anger (fury) of the schismatics. [190] With these canons, the Holy Fathers established that if, from now on, any presbyter or deacon condemns his bishop for some wrongdoing, before synodal judgment and investigation and his complete condemnation, and dares to separate from communion with him and does not commemorate his name in the holy prayers of the liturgies, as handed down by the Church, he is to be deposed and deprived of all priestly dignity. [191] At the same time, the God-loving Fathers, while judging the cessation of the commemoration of a bishop condemned for some wrongdoing before synodal judgment (as addressed in four consecutive canons), take a completely different stance toward a bishop who openly teaches heresies, emphasizing that there is only one valid cause for ceasing commemoration: “And these decisions were made and sealed for those who, under the pretext of certain wrongdoings, separate themselves from their superiors and create schism, breaking the unity of the Church. For those who separate themselves from communion with their superior because of some heresy condemned by the holy councils or the Fathers, that is, from communion with one who publicly preaches heresy and teaches it openly in the Church—such persons will not only not be subjected to canonical censure for separating themselves [192] from communion with one who is called a bishop before synodal investigation, but they will also be deemed worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox. For they have not condemned bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they have not broken the unity of the Church through schism, but have endeavored to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.” [193]

What do we understand from these wise words and commands? First of all, we understand that it is one thing to cease the commemoration of a bishop due to some wrongdoing, and something entirely different when Christians distance themselves from a preacher of heresy. In the first case, the cessation of the bishop's commemoration is forbidden and condemned as schism, while in the latter case, the Christians who cease the commemoration of a heretical bishop are praised, because they have not broken the unity of the Church through schism but have endeavored to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions. The same action (or deed) is condemned in one case and praised in another, the difference lying in the quality and status of the bishop being commemorated. It is not the action itself that is good or bad, but the quality of the action depends on the circumstances under which it is carried out, just as a medicine can be poison for a healthy body but a cure for a sick one. Similarly, the commemoration or cessation of commemoration can be either good or bad, depending on the relationship of the bishop being commemorated with the Church of Christ.

Schism is defined as the breaking of communion with the true Church by ceasing the commemoration of a true bishop, because even in the case of wrongdoing (except for heresies), the bishop remains a true bishop until judged by a council. However, breaking communion with a heretical bishop (a bishop who preaches some heresy condemned by the holy councils or by the Fathers) is the distancing of Christians from one who is called a bishop but is, in fact, a pseudo-bishop and a pseudo-teacher. Therefore, it is the distancing of the Christian from heresy and the public exposure of this fact. It is precisely through this that the Church is safeguarded from schisms, as it is written that such individuals have endeavored to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.

Therefore, it is evident that the cessation of the commemoration of a heretical bishop is not a schism; on the contrary, it is a safeguard against schism. The argument of schism is used to confuse the minds of those who have not thoroughly studied the Church's teachings on this subject, and it relies on an emotional and superficial understanding of the matter. It also draws on the authority of "official theologians" who uphold the traditionalist line and create the appearance of fighting against the Ecumenist heresy but do not allow the cessation of commemoration of heretical bishops, claiming that this would be a schism. In the teachings of such people, there is even more Ecumenism than in the gatherings and symposia of the Ecumenists. Those from there openly reject the Church for the sake of "love" for pagans and their teachings, while these others, dressed in sheep's clothing, pretend to be fighters against lawlessness, twisting the words of the Saints and Scripture, leading many people to destruction. What could be more Ecumenist than when someone who claims to fight Ecumenism is himself sick and poisoned by the plague of heresy, as is evident from his Ecumenist faith?

It is remarkable that those "theologians" who fear so much the cessation of commemoration on the grounds of schism (although in this case it cannot even be called schism) do not concern themselves at all with the fact of knowingly remaining in communion with heresy. Let such people look at what the Saints and God-bearing Fathers say about this: "For those who appear to confess the Orthodox faith but are in union with those who oppose it, if after admonition they do not break this union, you must not only separate from them, but it is not fitting to even call them brothers." [194] Another says: "Woe to those who stain the holy faith with heresies or make any agreement with heretics! Then, from each of us will be required the confession of faith and the unity of Baptism, the faith pure from any heresy, the unblemished seal, and the undefiled garment." [195]

3. "Heretics must first be condemned by an Orthodox council."

Considering the multitude of errors and false beliefs that endanger Christians and divide the Church, it is not surprising that, in defense of their own apostasy, some attempt to invent arguments and justifications, presenting them as Orthodox and pious teachings. And when some of these are exposed, they devise even more clever ones, continuing to hide behind them. Thus, even if at times they agree that the cessation of the commemoration of a heretical bishop is not a schism, they try to distort the teachings of the saints about obedience and the royal path, claiming that the bishop must be commemorated, even if he preaches foreign teachings, until he is condemned by an Orthodox council. Those who act in this way prove to be true wolves in sheep’s clothing. Outwardly, they seem to care for the Church and the salvation of souls, but inwardly, they themselves renounce the faith and encourage others to do the same. Their argument can easily be refuted; what is more difficult to combat is the "good intention" and "care for the Church" professed by these deceivers. It is precisely these latter claims that give rise to many new arguments, strengthening their own apostasy, thereby creating even greater danger for true believers.

Returning to the proposed argument to demonstrate why it is not true that, in order to reject the poison of falsehood and the one spreading it (i.e., to cease the commemoration of a heretical bishop), he must first be condemned by an Orthodox council. This is not true, first of all, because such a statement contradicts the Tradition of the Church and the Holy Canons, especially the one invoked in polemics on this subject, Canon 15  of the First-Second Council of Constantinople, which says: "For those who separate themselves from communion with their superior because of some heresy condemned by the holy councils or by the Fathers—that is, from communion with one who publicly preaches heresy and teaches it openly in the Church—such persons will not only not be subjected to canonical censure for separating themselves from communion with one called a bishop before synodal investigation, but will be deemed worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox." [196] As the canon clearly shows, it is first necessary to condemn the heresy preached by the bishop so that everyone may know that the teaching he spreads is not sound, but soul-destroying, following the word of the Apostle, who says: "But even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed!" (Gal. 1:8). Thus, the criterion for ceasing the commemoration is not the person of the bishop, but the faith preached by that bishop. Therefore, to cease the commemoration, it is necessary for the heresy preached by the bishop to be condemned, not necessarily the heretical bishop himself.

The cessation of the commemoration of a bishop only after synodal condemnation can be permitted only when dealing with a new heresy, about which neither the councils have ruled nor the Fathers have written, and everyone is in ignorance as to whether the teaching preached by him is true or not. When it is evident that it is something new and unclear, they will wait for a council to decide whether that bishop (and his teaching) is Orthodox or not, and then they will cease or not cease his commemoration. However, this would not be done out of economy, obedience, or any other reason, but due to ignorance of the newly emerged heresies and their deceptions. Even in such cases, it is not so much the bishop that is subject to synodal judgment, but the heresy he preaches. He is condemned as a heretic and a preacher of heresy specifically for the awareness of Christians, so that they may flee from him due to his unorthodox faith, and so that he himself may know that, because of the heresy he preaches, he finds himself outside the Church, where there is no place for salvation.

These words from the canon (since it was written against schisms in the Church) can also be interpreted to prevent someone from falsely claiming that a bishop or patriarch is preaching some heresy (when, of course, this is untrue) and then ceasing to commemorate him, which would indeed result in schism. The cornerstone is still the faith preached by the bishop (whether it is Orthodox or unorthodox), and the actions and responses of Christians toward that bishop are derived from this.

But let us see that the situation is different now. The heresy preached by a multitude of bishops, priests, and laypeople is evident and condemned by the Fathers, by Orthodox councils, and everyone is aware that the House is plundered and the thieves are inside it—not just for two or three years, but already for nearly a century. The Fathers are dishonored, the decisions of the Councils are annulled, the holy Canons are rejected, the very faith is mocked, and the holy things are ridiculed. And yet, you say that the falsehood is not evident and that we must wait for a council to decide that what is being done is wrong and that we should protect ourselves from these things and from those who commit them? Hypocrite, how can you twist the words of the canon to cover up your own abandonment? What you say does not correspond to divine decisions, but shows a lack of piety, being a betrayal of the faith in the face of the ravenous wolves. Look, councils have been held, and many Fathers have condemned this teaching, and I believe you understand that the faith is being mocked and salvation endangered, seeing all that has taken place. Everything has been done, yet you have done nothing, and more than that, you hide behind lies, claiming that the heretic must be condemned, when it is not the heretic but the heresy that must be condemned, which has already been done.

But what does the canon say further? It says: "separating themselves from communion with one who is called a bishop even before synodal investigation, they shall be deemed worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox." If the condition of a condemned heresy is first and foremost—meaning if the bishop preaches any known and condemned heresy—separate yourself from him without waiting for a synodal decision, and then not only will you not be reproached by the canon, but you will also be deemed worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox, that is, of those who are on the narrow path of salvation, not among those who abandon the faith and mock the holy things. See what the Saints and God-bearing Fathers tell you through these words of the canon: If you want to be like us, that is, those already saved and honored in Orthodoxy, separate yourself from the one who preaches blasphemy and misleads the people, and do not wait for any council or other decision, for you know that the teaching preached by him is deceitful and a renunciation of the faith.

4. "Separation from heretics is recommended by the canons, but not obligatory."

There are some who, accepting that separation from heretics is not schism, claim that the application of the mentioned canon, which honors someone with the dignity of the Orthodox, is a special and good deed, but in no way obligatory for every Orthodox Christian. This view somewhat corresponds to the truth, as no one is forced to seek the honor of the Orthodox or to be on the path of salvation. These matters pertain to the free conscience with which God has endowed us.

The Savior did not force anyone to follow Him and be saved, but He said, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Mt. 11:28), and elsewhere He says, "See, I have prepared My dinner; My oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding" (Mt. 22:4). You see, the Master of the vineyard did not compel anyone to come to Him, but invited everyone, saying "come," and the Evangelist rightly says, "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Mt. 22:14), and elsewhere He speaks of the chosen ones, "Do not fear, little flock" (Lk. 12:32). This is so not for any other reason than the unwillingness of people to come and fulfill the Lord’s command, for it is written, "But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt. 19:17). So, in saying that it is not obligatory to cease commemorating a heretical bishop, one must be aware that, indeed, this may not be obligatory, but it is necessary and undeniable for those who seek the salvation of their soul, that is, those who seek the honor due to the Orthodox. For if we do not seek to bear the honor of the Orthodox, which is nothing other than right faith and salvation, then what honor are we seeking, and to whom do we wish to resemble?

But if anyone believes that it is an exaggeration to call this canon's directive a commandment, and that the examples brought from the Gospel do not pertain to this subject, let that person's hypocrisy be shamed by the words of the Saints and God-bearing Fathers, for they fulfilled the commandments with their lives, serving as a shining beacon of right faith amidst the swamp of worldly apostasy. So, let us see what the Fathers say about the obligation to break communion with a heretical bishop and teacher. St. Athanasius the Great says: "Flee from those who, pretending not to agree with Arius, actually serve together with those who follow him." [197] St. Gregory the Theologian teaches: "But when it comes to an obvious impurity, it is better to face fire and sword, disregarding the needs of the times and rulers, and generally disregarding everything, rather than to partake in the seed of deceit and to touch those who are infected. The most terrible thing is to fear something more than God, and due to this fear, the servant of truth becomes a traitor to the teaching of faith and truth." [198] And even more than these, St. Basil the Great says: "For those who appear to confess the Orthodox faith but are in communion with those who oppose it, if after admonition they do not break this communion, you must not only separate from them but also should not even call them brothers." [199] These and many other words of the saints were shown in Chapter III, where the topic of communion with heresy is discussed. So, having seen all these things, do not dare to invent lies that it is permissible to remain in communion with heretics, knowing that such union leads to death and eternal perdition.

Similar to the previously mentioned arguments is the claim that it is sufficient merely to confess that Ecumenism is a heresy while not ceasing the commemoration of the bishop. The foolishness of such individuals has reached the point of disregarding both the faith and the Church of Christ, attributing to it false and foreign qualities, thus defiling the Church’s teaching about the Church through their statements. It is to be expected that a heresy which denies the existence of the Church and teaches that not only Orthodoxy is the path of Truth, as Ecumenism does, would also invent teachings according to which the Church is no longer a single body where all are united by one baptism and one faith in one Lord, but rather that each can hold to their own belief, with the bishop on one side and the laity on the other, maintaining only an outward unity. Is this not the essence of Ecumenism and the vile heresy that plagues the Church today?

It is true that such a confession (without the act of renouncing and condemning heresy) is a greater evil than that of the heretics themselves. The latter are darkened by their heresy, but those who believe they are confessing rightly, as if condemning heresy, deceive themselves and, by silencing the voice of their conscience, become participants in the harmful heresy, thus leading even more people into the hell of apostasy from the faith. This is well known in the Church, as seen from the statements above, where the Holy Fathers say we must flee even more zealously from those who claim to confess Orthodoxy yet unite with heretics. St. Basil says that "you must not only separate from them, but it is not fitting to even call them brothers," [200] and St. Theodore the Studite says: "Some have suffered complete shipwreck in matters of faith, while others, even if they have not drowned in erroneous thoughts, still perish due to communion with heresy." [201] Thus, we must understand that it is not enough merely to confess that Ecumenism is heresy; we must also act by separating ourselves from those who preach this heresy and are in communion with those who propagate it. For see what the Holy Apostle James, the brother of the Lord, says regarding those who believe that it is enough to have faith alone: "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead," "You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works," and again, "But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?" (James 2:17-20).

5. "Ecumenism is a private opinion of the bishop and does not affect us."

Just as every work has a beginning and reaches its intended end, so too the work of apostasy and contamination with heresy culminates in unprecedented blasphemies and teachings foreign to a faithful Christian, even though at the start it appeared to be a teaching of love for humanity and truth. Similarly, this ridiculous claim—that the apostasy of a bishop does not endanger the salvation of his flock and that Ecumenism is merely a private opinion of the bishop and does not affect us—can rightly be called the ripe fruit of Ecumenist heresy. Those who believe this can rightly be called the faithful children of heresy, for just as heresy denies the existence of the Church and the truth, which exists only within the Orthodox Church, so too do they dare to disregard the existence of the Church and the entire work of the salvation of mankind. Has it ever been seen anywhere that the Orthodox faith and teaching are so greatly despised, that someone who considers himself Orthodox would ignore both the Church and salvation by inventing such heresies?

Can a leaf exist without a branch, or a branch without a trunk, or a trunk without roots? How, then, can you say that the branch is withered, yet the leaf growing on it remains green and healthy, or that the spring is poisoned, and you, knowing this, drink from it, believing that your right faith will keep you alive through the Lord? Is this not like what the Savior responded to: "You shall not tempt the Lord your God" (Luke 4:12), making yourself guilty and dead through the violation of the commandment you were informed about, just as the one who was cast out of the Garden of Eden?

Thus, this claim not only appears unnatural, but it also contradicts and rejects the Church’s teaching about the Church, bishops, priests, and laypeople, who are all united in a close bond of faith, forming a single body of the Militant Church. St. Cyprian of Carthage, speaking about the mystery of the Church, says: “The bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church.” [202] So, knowing that a heretical bishop is outside the Church, you who are in communion with him—what Church are you in? Elsewhere, the same saint says: “The episcopate is one, and each bishop shares in it fully,” [203] thus it is not possible for each to have their own separate faith when it is known that we are all one (John 17:21), being in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

And to see that the apostasy of a bishop inevitably endangers the salvation of the faithful, listen to what St. Athanasius of Alexandria says: “Let us beware of the deceptive path and remove from ourselves the spiritual eye: if the bishop or priest, being the eyes of the Church, lead an unworthy life and cause scandal, they must be removed from us. It is better for people to gather in churches for prayer without them than, along with them, as with Annas and Caiaphas, to be cast into the fire of Gehenna.” [204] And if it were true that the apostasy of a bishop does not endanger the salvation of the faithful, the Fathers would not have repeatedly stressed that, for our own benefit, we must quickly distance ourselves from communion with such individuals.

6. "A robber council has not yet taken place."

In the struggle against the Ecumenist heresy, a stumbling block for many believers is the so-called Eighth Ecumenical Council, which has already been planned to take place in 2016. It is assumed that at this council, a decision will be made to establish Eucharistic communion between the Orthodox and other confessions, meaning this will serve as a kind of threshold after which communion with Ecumenists will no longer be possible.

Let us consider: do the Ecumenists truly need to hold a council that will be openly a robber council? Indeed, many of them claim that one of the final goals of Ecumenism is the establishment of full Eucharistic communion with various heretics. But what do we see now, before the council in question? Is there already a boundary beyond which an Orthodox Christian cannot go, and has this boundary already been crossed by the Ecumenists, or is it still necessary for this to be exposed in a robber council?

At present, there are already numerous testimonies and documents in which the official Orthodox churches recognize the sacraments of the Monophysites, Catholics, and other heretics. The belief in the same God as the Jews, Muslims, and other pagans is affirmed, and the pope of Rome is commemorated among the bishops in Constantinople—not to mention the multitude of joint prayers with all kinds of confessions and religions. Are these not, indeed, the essence of Ecumenism? And all of this has been done without any great robber council, but rather step by step, so that Christians are gradually deceived, becoming accustomed to and accepting all these horrors as a new normal. The theses of the Ecumenist heresy are already present and active, with Ecumenists openly affirming their heresy, "with uncovered heads," and not only without being punished, but often without even the slightest reaction from the clergy or the laity.

Under these conditions, why would the Ecumenists even need to resort to formal unions, which would only harm them by scattering their flock, when the most important union—the spiritual one—has already been achieved? It is quite possible that the council of 2016 is merely bait for the conservatives who continue to remain under Ecumenist bishops, with the message, "Wait a little longer, for the union will be signed then, and you can apply the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the canons." And as we can see, this bait has so far had the desired effect.

As we have seen from the teachings of the Church, we must guard ourselves and flee from heretics as soon as they begin to preach their heresy and persist in this false teaching. Let us recall the words of St. Theophan the Recluse: "Whether or not an anathema is pronounced upon your teaching and your name, you are already fallen under it when you think contrary to the Church and persist in this thinking." [205]

We do not truly know whether heretical decisions will be made at the 2016 council or if there will be any robber councils organized by the Ecumenists. However, we do know that, even without these potential decisions, there is already a multitude of heretical testimonies made thus far and continuing to be made, all of which are more than sufficient for us to heed the voice of the Fathers and flee from the apostate teachers, to protect our souls from the poison of their destructive heresy.

7. "Communion with Ecumenists must be maintained out of economia."

Economia, being a measure of leniency in the application of the canons, is often cited as a reason for maintaining communion with the Ecumenist heretics.

But beyond certain personal weaknesses, administrative church situations, and so on, can we truly apply economia in matters concerning heresy and those who persist in preaching it?

We find an answer from St. Maximus the Confessor: "If, for the sake of economia, the saving faith is suppressed together with the false faith, then such a form of so-called economia is, in fact, a complete and total separation from God, not a union." [206] Ecumenism is precisely the teaching that seeks to completely suppress Orthodoxy, equating it with all kinds of heresies and paganism. So, what kind of economia can be applied to those who preach such a heresy? "Only then is economia rightly used when the true faith is not harmed," [207] says St. Eulogius of Alexandria.

The proponents of maintaining communion with Ecumenists claim that such economia is applied to preserve the peace of the Church, [208] forgetting, however, that "I do not blame the one persecuted for defending the faith, for the highest and most essential truths, and to tell the truth, I even praise and rejoice with him. For better is a praiseworthy war than a peace that separates you from God." [209] After all the words of the Holy Fathers mentioned, is there any doubt left that such a peace separates us from God?

The Holy Fathers speak of the use of economia in the case of receiving heretics into the Church when they repent, as we demonstrated in Chapter II.5, but never in the case of those who persist in their heresy, as the Ecumenists do.

We consider that such economia not only fails to serve the strengthening of the Truth, but on the contrary, it encourages liars in spreading falsehood, nourishing and supporting them in their lawless work. Even from the actions of Ecumenism, we see that the communion of Orthodox with heterodox does not bring the latter to the path of Truth, but rather strengthens them in their heresies, while distancing the Orthodox from the saving faith. Similarly, the communion of Orthodox with Ecumenists strengthens the latter in their error, while causing the Orthodox to excuse themselves, and not only themselves but also those who preach heresy. These are the ones to whom St. Maximus' words are addressed: "I urge you to be harsh and unyielding toward anything that might aid in the persistence of their foolish faith, for I consider it hatred of men and separation from Divine love to give aid to heretical error, leading to the greater perdition of those who cling to this error." [210]

We do not, in any case, wish to say that, at the expense of economia, we must fully apply akrivia (strictness), but only to remind that "economia is used for a short time, allowing something improper for the continual strengthening of good piety." [211] However, the history of the last century shows us that economia in relation to Ecumenists does not lead to the strengthening of true piety, but on the contrary, we see things going from bad to worse. Ecumenists increasingly allow themselves to openly defame and mock the Church of Christ, while the Orthodox, in the name of so-called economia, make more and more concessions in their favor, thus confirming that "in matters of Orthodox faith there can be no concession. The corruption of the common faith is the common destruction of all. All things concerning the Orthodox faith do not allow for economia." [212]

8. "Many holy fathers did not break communion with Ecumenist hierarchs"

Brothers, far be it from us to deny the spiritual heights attained by anyone or to undermine the honor given to these fathers.

Let us be mindful of the fearful Judgment, where we will stand before our God and give account for all our actions, words, and decisions. On that day, we will be held accountable for what we did or did not do, not for the actions of others. Likewise, no one else will answer for our deeds; the full responsibility will fall upon our own shoulders. Even if the stance of the fathers, to whom this argument refers, is pleasing to God, from all the examples in the Lives of the Saints and their writings that we have received, it is clear that this would happen as an exception, not as a rule that we might mistakenly believe will be accepted in our case as well.

On the other hand, we also have many examples of righteous fathers who fled from communion with the Ecumenists. For instance, numerous fathers on Mount Athos, at various stages of the deepening of Constantinople Patriarchate’s involvement in Ecumenism, broke communion with the patriarch. To this day, the Esphigmenou Monastery remains in such a state. We have the examples of fathers like St. Justin Popović, who in the last years of his life ceased to commemorate the name of the Ecumenist Patriarch German during services, or of Venerable Seraphim Alexiev, who withdrew from all the positions he held in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church after the introduction of the new calendar.

We also have the example of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), which distanced itself from communion with churches involved in Ecumenism. In 1983, the Synod led by St. Philaret (Voznesensky) anathematized this teaching, those who preach it, and—very importantly—those who knowingly remain in communion with the Ecumenists.

Let us also note that all these examples come from a time when the extremes we witness today had not yet been reached. At that time, there were no recognitions of the sacraments of heretics, no interreligious Ecumenism, and none of the other excesses we see now.

 

NOTES

177. Vatican II, Lumen gentium, chapter 22

178. The Life of St. Maximus the Confessor

179. St. Cyril of Jerusalem – Catecheses, 18:23

180. St. Philaret of Moscow – Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, chapter 250

181. St. Nikolai Velimirovich – The Faith of the Saints. Catechism of the Orthodox Church of the East, chapter II.1.10

182. Encyclical of the Orthodox Patriarchs from 1723

183. St. Philaret of Moscow – op. cit., chapter 269

184. St. Nikolai Velimirovich – op. cit., II.1.10

185. St. Philaret of Moscow – op. cit., chapter 273

186. St. Gregory the Theologian – Oration 21: Praise of Athanasius the Great

187. Epiphanius Theodoropoulos – The Two Extremes: Ecumenism and Zealotry, Apologeticum, 2006, p. 31

188. Ibid., p. 33

189. Ibid., p. 45

190. Canon 13 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople

191. Ibid.

192. In other editions of the Pedalion it is written "walling themselves off," in the Russian editions of the Pedalion the phrase reads: "таковые аще и оградят себя от общения с глаголемым епископом," ["Such ones, even if they distance themselves from communion with the so-called bishop"] meaning it specifically refers to separation from the heretical bishop.

193. Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople

194. St. Basil the Great – Patrologia Graeca 160:101C

195. St. Ephraim the Syrian – Homily on the Second Coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ

196. Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople

197. St. Athanasius the Great – Patrologia Graeca, 26:1185D-1188C

198. St. Gregory the Theologian – Oration 6: On Peace

199. St. Basil the Great – Patrologia Graeca 160:101C

200. St. Basil the Great – Patrologia Graeca 160:101C

201. Theodore the Studite – Epistle 15(74). To the Patriarch of Jerusalem

202. St. Cyprian of Carthage – Letter 54

203. St. Cyprian of Carthage – On the Unity of the Church

204. St. Joseph of Volotsk – The Enlightener, Homily 12

205. St. Theophan the Recluse – Manuscripts from the Cell, Homily on the Sunday of Orthodoxy

206. The Acts of the Trial of St. Maximus the Confessor and His Disciples, chapter IV

207. St. Eulogius of Alexandria – Patrologia Graeca 103:953

208. Epiphanius Theodoropoulos – The Two Extremes: Ecumenism and Zealotry, chapter B.2

209. St. Gregory the Theologian – Oration 3: On His Departure to Pontus

210. St. Maximus the Confessor – Patrologia Graeca 91:465C, Letter 12

211. St. Eulogius of Alexandria – Patrologia Graeca 103:954

212. The Life of St. Mark of Ephesus

 

Source: Mărturisire ortodoxă în faţa eresului ecumenist [Orthodox Confession in the Face of the Ecumenist Heresy], by the Orthodox Brotherhood of St. Ignaty Brianchaninov (Chișinău: 2014), pp. 56-74.