The Position of Ecumenists (among the Orthodox) in the Church

 The Position of Ecumenists (among the Orthodox) in the Church

Nikolaos Mannis | December 27, 2013

In the general question "Are heretics inside or outside the Church?", there is no unqualified answer because the meaning of the word "heretic" must first be defined.

In ecclesiastical terminology, the word "heretic" is used with two meanings:

a) According to the literal sense of the word, essentially, a heretic is someone who distorts, even in the slightest, the Orthodox Faith. As St. Basil the Great writes (in the Second Canon of his Canonical Letter to Amphilochius): "Those who are completely separated from and alienated from this faith are called heretics." This is interpreted by

• Aristinos as "a heretic is one who is foreign to the faith," and "heretics are those who have entirely alienated themselves from faith in God."

• St. Nikodemos as "they are called heretics, whose difference from the Orthodox is immediate and direct concerning the faith in God, that is, those who are separated from the faith and doctrines of the Orthodox and completely remote from them."

In this sense, Ecumenists are certainly heretics.

b) However, according to the qualified meaning of the word (from the perspective of Canon Law), a heretic is someone who has been condemned and anathematized by the Church, as we read in the Sixth Canon of the Second Ecumenical Synod: [1]

"We call heretics those who have been previously excommunicated by the Church and those who have been anathematized by us afterwards." This is interpreted by:

• Zonaras as "it calls everyone heretics who glorify doctrines contrary to the Orthodox faith, whether they were excommunicated long ago or recently, whether they participate in ancient heresies or new ones."

• St. Nikodemos as "heretics, those who deviate from the doctrines, both those who were anathematized by the Church long ago and those who are currently anathematized by us."

There is no doubt that a heretic (according to the second meaning) is outside the Church since the Church has excommunicated, anathematized, and, in short, cut them off as a rotten and incurable member.

Based on the above distinction of meanings, it is now easy to understand the terms "uncondemned-condemned" and "potential-actual" heretics since they refer to the second meaning (similar use of the term "schismatics" was made by the former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos Kavourides - as we will discuss in detail in another article - but due to a lack of ecclesiological knowledge, extremists accused him of being a supporter of Ecumenism).

However, immediately a more specific question arises: "Are heretics, before their synodal condemnation (like the Ecumenists), inside or outside the Church?" In other words, are they self-condemned, as some brothers claim, [2] or does a synodal judgment need to be pronounced for them to be considered outside the Church?

The answer is straightforward if we understand heresy as what it essentially is: a sin (and specifically the greatest sin, blasphemy against God).

As sin, heresy "separates every man from the Church" (Mansi, 12, 1022) and deprives the one who consciously accepts it of the PERSONAL Divine Grace (which every Orthodox person receives through Baptism). In this sense, the heretic is essentially "outside the Church," just as every member of the Church who falls into a mortal sin (e.g., fornication, adultery, murder, blasphemy, etc.) is also "outside the Church." Therefore, indiscriminate heretics are outside the Church as individuals. However, the Mysteries performed by the clergy who are heretics, before they are condemned, have the same validity as the Mysteries performed by a sinful clergyman or a blasphemer; that is, they are VALID because the Mysteries are accomplished by the Grace of God and not by the worthiness or unworthiness of the clergyman. In other words, the additional Grace of the Priesthood can only be removed (hence deposition) by the one who gave it, namely the Synod of bishops. [3]

From the perspective of Canon Law, for a doctrine to be characterized as heresy and a member of the Church to be considered a heretic - and thus to establish the crime of heresy and be excommunicated from the Church - the following conditions must be met:

"1) It must be manifested externally, either in writing (through books, etc.), orally (through preaching, etc.), or by action (omission or addition of phrases or symbolic gestures in the Liturgy, etc.) (i.e. the heresy of Ecumenism has certainly been manifested). [4]

2) It must be intentional and deliberate because heresy is not committed by mistake or innocent error (i.e., in the case of Ecumenism, there is certainly intent and purpose).

and

3) The perpetrator must persist in his error because the one who is deceived is not considered a heretic as long as he repents and renounces his false beliefs. However, if someone remains in error and does not reject it even after being advised, it is sinful and demonic, as it demonstrates arrogance and insult against the Holy Spirit" (i.e., Ecumenists, however, have not yet been tried, so as to be admonished and to reveal their persistence in error).

(from Ecclesiastical Law by Meletios Sakellaropoulos, Athens, 1898, p. 428)

Similarly, the canonist Bishop Nikodim Milaš, in the chapter on general ecclesiastical offenses (Ecclesiastical Law, Athens, 1906, p. 698), provides the following definition of heresy:

"Heresy is the deliberate and obstinate rejection of a doctrine defined by the Church or the acceptance of a doctrinal teaching that is erroneous and already condemned by the Church. The ecclesiastical penalty for this is anathema."

And St. Nikodemos says: "It is the characteristic of heretics to persist stubbornly in their heresy" (Synaxarion, Vol. 2, p. 256).

Significant remarks on the subject are also made by the canonist Metropolitan Meletios Sakellaropoulos:

"As for the punishment of heretics, the Church rightly judged strictly and almost in the same manner as apostates, for it considered that apostates, having denied the Christian faith, were deprived of the benefits of divine grace and thus caused harm only to themselves. Heretics, however, while still being members of the Church (editor's note: that is, before they are condemned), through their false doctrines become dangerous, transmitting them to the other members and thereby risking the overturning of the entire edifice of Orthodoxy. One does not err in calling heresy the ultimate betrayal against Orthodoxy.

"It should be noted that here we are referring to those heretics who, having previously been Orthodox, fell into heresy, and not to those who were born into a heresy, for the latter do not initially have knowledge of their error. However, if they subsequently come to understand the truth of the faith and its teaching, they are accepted by the Church under certain conditions and formalities, as is mentioned in the matter of baptism."

From all of the above, we conclude that there is a process by which a member of the Church who accepts a heresy can be expelled from it. And for the one who accepts the heresy to be placed outside the Church (not personally but institutionally), they must either openly depart from it (creating or joining an existing schism, such as the papal church) or, in the case where heresy does not organize itself schismatically but exists within the Church, be excommunicated by the competent Church authority, namely the Synod of the successors of the Apostles, that is, the living Bishops, IF THEY DO NOT REPENT.

Conclusion:

The heretic who has not voluntarily separated from the Church is not placed outside it because of the heresy but because of their impenitence.

Therefore, the convocation of a Synod is necessary, which, after admonishing them, will excommunicate them from the Body of the Church as rotten members persisting in their error.

Until then, the only right Orthodox Christians have against their heretical leaders is to cease communion with them, for which they are even praised because their stance preserves the Orthodox Faith. 

If the heretic was cut off from the Church by the proclamation or acceptance of their heresy, there would be no reason to convene a Synod, as the Church does not judge or anathematize those who are already outside of it.

Otherwise, for example, the Church would have anathematized Buddhists or Muslims.

Furthermore, the Ecumenists from within the Orthodox Church present themselves as Orthodox, act as Orthodox, and present their teachings as Orthodox. They do what the Arians, Monophysites, and Iconoclasts did (the most characteristic examples). All the aforementioned ancient heretics who sprouted as weeds within the fence of the Church did not say, "We are Arians" or "We are Monophysites," but they said, "We are Orthodox." This is exactly what the Ecumenists say today. This point is crucial and must be carefully considered.

Therefore, it is necessary to convene a Great truly Pan-Orthodox Synod [5] that will deal with the condemnation of Ecumenism, admonish the Ecumenists who have deviated from Orthodoxy, and anathematize them, persisting in this heresy. For this purpose, our struggle must be directed.

The reception of the still undiscerning heretical Ecumenists and those communing with them into the unaltered, genuine Orthodox must be guided by the interests of the Church, that is, to take place unimpeded, with the sole condition being the CONFESSION of the Orthodox Faith (through repentance), as was characteristically practiced by Saint Athanasius the Great, who even accepted condemned — but repentant and confessing Orthodoxy — Arians as clergy (a fact that brought him into conflict with the zealous without knowledge Lucifer of Cagliari, as we will discuss in detail in another article).

Rebaptisms, chrismations, laying on of hands, etc., for the still undiscerning Ecumenists from among the Orthodox, BUT ESPECIALLY FOR THE SIMPLE BELIEVERS WHO COMMUNE UNKNOWINGLY WITH THEM, beyond the fact that they are not attested in Ecclesiastical History, also constitute, among other things, an obstacle for those who wish to cease communion with the heretics and return to the unaltered and salvific Faith of our Christ, the Apostles, the Fathers, and all the Saints of God.

NOTES:

[1] In this sense, it is also used by the Fifth Ecumenical Synod: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Origen, along with their impious writings, and all the other heretics condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and by the aforementioned holy four synods, and those who think or continue to think like the aforementioned heretics and persist in their own impiety, let such a person be anathema..." (Fifth Ecumenical Synod 553 AD - Vlasios Feidas, Ecclesiastical History, Volume I, page 721, Athens 1992).

[2] They use the term "self-condemned" by the Apostle Paul to support their position that no Synodical Judgment is required. However, the Apostle Paul is clear: when is a heretic self-condemned? After the first and second admonition! As is known, the main work of a Synod is admonition. St. Nikodemos interprets: "Therefore, when such a person persists in his error after the first and second admonition, then he is self-condemned and without excuse" (The 14 Epistles of Apostle Paul, Volume III, Venice 1819, p. 248).

[3] "Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has been blasphemed by him, appointed through this present holy synod that Nestorius be alienated from the episcopal office and from every assembly of the clergy" (P.G. 86, 2429).

[4] Patriarchal Encyclical (1920), Calendar Reform (1924), Participation in the World Council of Churches (1948), Lifting of Anathemas (1965), etc.

[5] The Ecumenists have been seeking to convene a "Pan-Orthodox" Synod for years.

Greek source: http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2013/12/blog-post_27.html