To Those Who Slander the Resisters, But Commune with Ecumenists

To Those Who Slander the Resisters, But Commune with Ecumenists: An Anti-Heretical Struggle in Full Communion with Heretics?

The fact that anti-ecumenism is continually being expanded and strengthened on many levels is, indeed, consoling and gratifying. Even our brothers in Christ who still find themselves in the realm of innovation have, despite this fact, severely censured ecumenism, characterizing it as “atrocious syncretism" and “worse than any other heresy," agreeing in no manner with the statements and actions of then· Archpastors in this regard. Paradoxically, however, although they take our Father among the Saints Mark Evgenikos, Archbishop of Ephesus, as then model, they hurl this slogan at us: “A struggle, but one from within," evidently regarding those of us who are not in communion with the ecumenists—whose heresy surpasses that of the Latin-minded unionists of the fifteenth century—as being supposedly “outside those walls of the Church." In our humble opinion, this attitude and such declarations are contradictory to, and wholly at variance with, the “sacred legacy" of Saint Mark of Ephesus. Let us explain in brief, basing ourselves primarily on texts from this Atlas of Orthodoxy.

1. St. Mark maintained a consistent and unwavering stand towards the Latinizers; he would not accept even the slightest hint of communion with them, “not even after death."

• “I neither desire nor accept communion with him (i.e., the Latin-minded Patriarch) or his lackeys in any manner whatsoever, whether during my lifetime or after my death."

• “Just as throughout my life I was separated from them (viz·, the Latinizers), so also at the time of my departure from life, and even after my death, I reject communion and union with them."

• “And I adjure, I command, that none of them should approach either at my funeral or at memorial services for me" and attempt “to concelebrate with our clergy."

• “For it is necessary that they (viz. the Latinizers) be completely separated from us." [1a]

2. St. Mark regarded communion with the Latin-minded unionists as “mixing what cannot be mixed." Now, how did he justify this rigid position?

• “...For I am absolutely convinced that the more I distance myself from him (i.e., the Latin-minded Patriarch) and those like him, the closer I draw to God and all the faithful and Holy Fathers; and to the extent that I separate myself from these people, even so am I united with the truth and the Holy Fathers and theologians of the Church; likewise, I am convinced that those who agree with them distance themselves from the truth and the blessed teachers of the Church." [1b]

3. With the trueness of a Church Father, St. Mark advised the other anti-unionists to act in the same way.

• “I beseech you in your holiness, therefore, to recover your zeal for God, ...and to exhort the Priests of God by every means to avoid communion with him (i.e., the Latin-minded Metropolitan of Athens) and not to concelebrate with him; nor to commemorate him at all, and not to consider this man a Hierarch, but a wolf and a hireling.” [2a]

• “Therefore, brethren, avoid communing with those with whom you should not commune and commemorating those who should not be commemorated." [2b]

• “We should flee from them (viz., the Latinizers) as one flees from a serpent, as from those who are certainly even far worse than sellers and traffickers of Christ." [3a]

• “Flee from them, therefore, brethren, and from communion with them; for such men are false Apostles, workers of deception, who transform themselves into Apostles of Christ." [3b]

4. St. Mark provided the following basis for these exhortations:

• “He who is Latin-minded will be judged with the Latins and will be reckoned an apostate from the Faith." [2c]

• “They (the Latinizers) have dishonored and corrupted the Church by making her mingle with those putrid members who have been cut off from her for many years and who are subject to countless anathemas; and through communion with them (the Latins) they have besmirched the spotless Bride of Christ." [4a]

5. Indeed, what was the stance that the anti-unionist zealots for piety took during that crucial period?

• “The majority of my brothers, taking courage in my exile, censure the villains (i.e.. the Latinizers) and apostates from the right Faith and the decrees of the Fathers, banishing them from all places as scoundrels, suffering neither to Liturgize with them nor even to commemorate them as Christians." [2d]

• “The (Latin-minded) ignoramus (the Prelate) of Monembasia...is neither commemorated by his monks nor in any way thought of as a Christian." [2e]

6. The result of this persistent Patristic resistance against the Latinizers was that the effort towards false union ran aground, in spite of the harsh persecutions against, and exile of, the anti-unionists.

• The Latinizers, “in order to validate the innovation that they have brought about," threaten that “they will soon initiate a persecution of those who fear the Lord, since the latter do not at all accept communion with them." [4b]

• “But (in spite of the restrictions under the Latin-minded Emperor) the word of God and the power of truth are not bound, but rather spread and prosper"; “Be assured that the false union (i.e., of Florence-Ferrara) is presently being destroyed by the Grace and power of God and that the doctrine of the Latins, instead of being confirmed by this false synod, which was always then· (viz·, the Latinizers’) aim, has rather been overturned and refuted, and is everywhere denounced as blasphemous and impious, and those who ratihed it do not dare even to open their mouths in support of it." [2f]

7. St. Mark and the other anti-unionists broke off all communion with the Latin-minded unionists; thus, they proved themselves genuine continuers of the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox, far removed from false dilemmas: whether to resist “from within" or “from without."

They were obedient to St. Cyril of Alexandria, who advised the pious zealots of Constantinople, who were struggling resolutely against the heretic Nestorios (prior to his decisive condemnation), as follows:

• “Preserve yourselves unblemished and untainted, neither communing with the aforementioned (i.e.. Nestorios) nor giving him any heed as a teacher, if he remains a wolf instead of a shepherd"; “We are in communion with the clergy and laity who are separated from him on account of the right Faith, or deposed by him, not confirming his unjust election, but rather praising those who have suffered and saying this to them: ‘If you suffer reproach in the Lord, you are blessed; for the Spirit of power and of God rests in you.’" [5]

They were obedient to canonical order and synodal tradition, which not only does not condemn those who “wall themselves off," even “before a synodal verdict," from heretical pastors, and not only does not consider them to be “outside the walls of the Church," but declares them worthy “of the honor due to those of right belief," [6] because “they have separated not from a Bishop, but from a false bishop and false teacher; they have not created a schism against the Church, but have, rather, delivered the Church from schisms, insofar as they have been able.’’ [7]

8. In conclusion: We call upon our anti-ecumenist brothers who are still in the domain of innovation and have the impression that they are waging “a struggle, but from within," to reply to the following revealing questions; if they reply to them, they will know on their own whether they are following in the footsteps of St. Mark Evgenikos and whether they are truly preserving the “sacred legacy" of his opposition to false union.

• Do they believe that the ecumenists have “dishonored" and “corrupted" [4c] the Church by then· inter-Christian and interfaith activities, and that they have “besmirched" [4d] the spotless Bride of Christ through then hobnobbing with heretics and those of other faiths?

• Do they recognize that the more they avoid communion with ecumenists “as villains and apostates from the right Faith and the decrees of the Fathers," [2g] the more they draw near to and are united with God, the Truth, and the Holy Fathers? [1c]

• Are they concerned about fleeing from communion with ecumenists “as one flees from a serpent," [3c] even at the time of their deaths? [1d]

• Do they take care not to concelebrate [2h] with ecumenists, not to commemorate them, [2i] not to call them “even Christians," [2j] and to banish them “from all places as scoundrels"? [2k]

• Do they regard the ecumenists as “sellers and traffickers of Christ’’ [3d] and “false Apostles," [3e] and as “completely separated" [1d] from the Orthodox both “during their lifetime" and “after death"? [1e]

9. If, finally, our anti-ecumenist brothers in the domain of innovation skirt the problems raised by these questions, thinking that it is possible to wage a struggle for Orthodoxy against heresy, while at the same time remaining in full communion with the panheretical ecumenists, they have, in our humble opinion, lost even a sense of the “walls" of the Church or Truth; in which case, we urge them in a brotherly way to delve afresh into the admonitions of St. Mark and, indeed, into the following concluding words:

• “For the struggle is no longer a matter of words, but of deeds"; “Those who love God must stand valiantly arrayed with then· very deeds, and must be prepared to suffer every peril for the sake of the true Faith and not be defiled by communion with the impious." [4c]

Source: Translated from the Greek by Hieromonk Patapios Agiogregorites from the periodical Ορθόδοξος Ένημέρωσις, No. 23 (January-March 1997), pp. 86-87. English translation published Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 15 (1998), Nos. 1-2.

NOTES

1. St. Mark of Ephesus, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. CLX, cols. 536-537; Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXV, pp. 346-348 (“Apologia Uttered Impromptu at the Time of His Death").

2. Ibid., cols. 1096D-1100A (“Epistle to Hieromonk Theophanes in Evripos").

3. Ibid., cols. 172B and 201CD (“To Orthodox Christians Everywhere on Earth and the Is-

lands," §§ 6 and 7).

• In this famous encyclical, St. Mark, speaking about the Papists, says characteristically that “we have split and cut them off from the common body of the Church"; “We have, therefore, rejected them as heretics, and for this reason we are separated from them"; “They are, then, heretics, and we have cut them off as heretics" (cols. 157B, 160A, and 161A).

4. St. Mark of Ephesus, “Epistle to Hieromonk Theophanes," who lived the monastic life on the mountain called “of Monobyzos," on the island of Imbros, in Archimandrite Andronikos K. Demetrakopoulos (ed.). Orthodox Greece... (Leipzig: 1872), pp. 106-107.

5. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXVII, col. 125BC (Epistle 18: “To the Clergy and Laity of Constantinople").

6. Canon 15 of the First-Second Holy Synod in Constantinople.

7. Monk John Zonaras, in G.A. Rhallis and M. Potlis (eds.). Syntagma ton Theion kai leron

Kanonon, Vol. II (Athens: G. Chartophylax, 1852-1859), p. 694.