Are We
in Alignment with the Church’s Tradition regarding Heresy and the Defense of
the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints? [1]
Bishop Sergios of Loch Lomond (later G.O.C. Bishop of Portland)
As a result of the unprecedented abandoning of the Church’s
historic view of Herself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, [2]
which began to be implemented after the First World War in Constantinople, a
faithful and continuing Orthodox Church emerged after 1924 in Greece among
laymen and clergy and, by 1935, this faithful Church had recruited Hierarchs to
its ranks. [3]
It cannot be overemphasized that while the event that
triggered such a serious reaction as the cessation of Eucharistic communion was
indeed the violent introduction of the contemporary Gregorian calendar in
Greece in 1924, the calendar as such is not the sole source of our dismay.
At the heart of our dismay is the introduction of a
radically-altered doctrine of the Church by the historic Patriarchates, which
effectively replaced the historic creedal belief concerning a one, holy,
catholic and apostolic Church with a radically different doctrine, rooted in
the religious syncretism of the heretical western confessions. This extremist
syncretist doctrine is particularly troubling in its attempt to equate the
Orthodox Church with heretical western confessions who bear little, if any, resemblance
to the faith once delivered to the saints. [4] I repeat: the calendar change
is an issue because it served as a vehicle for a radical, extremist shift in
the doctrine of the Church. The calendar was changed so that the Church might
be changed. The calendar was changed in order to forward an agenda hostile to the
Church. [5] The calendar was used as a Trojan horse by syncretists
within the Greek government working with like-minded men within a Church led by
bishops whom the government had itself put in place.
Brooding over the entire Post-World War One ecclesiastical
crisis is the unstable figure of Meletios Metaxakis, [6] successively Bishop of
Kition (Cyprus), Archbishop of Athens, Patriarch of Constantinople, and
Patriarch of Alexandria, a life-long Freemason, impatient to be rid of what he
saw as the dead hand of Orthodox Tradition, and of its base in the Patristic Consensus.
[7]
The sudden, violent destruction of the Church of Russia by
Marxist atheists after 1917 removed the largest body of theologically
conservative hierarchs from the international counsels of the Church, and eased
the way for the uncritical acceptance of syncretist ideas from the West.
Above all, the syncretist notions of worldwide Freemasonry
seem to have exerted a disproportionate influence over more than a few
hierarchs in the Mediterranean world. This would have a destabilizing effect on
the life and work of the Church in the region, paving the way for the warm
reception of syncretism by some Orthodox hierarchs, whose openness to
syncretism converged with the new political reality brought about by Greek
Prime Minister Emmanuel Venizelos. [8]
At the same time as the compromising of Orthodoxy in
Constantinople, which spread to Greece in 1924, and then to large sections of
the Orthodox world, there emerged a movement amongst Protestants, designed to
implement syncretist ideas within their own denominations, based on their own
theological assumptions. This movement will become the ecumenical movement,
whose chief institutional expressions are the World Council of Churches (est.
1948) and its regional affiliates.
By today, all but two of the historic Orthodox Patriarchates
are members of one or the other of these Protestant-based institutions, or of
both. [9]
In addition to its role among the West’s various religious
bodies, the term Ecumenism now plays a role in secular culture as well. What
seems to be the common element between religious Ecumenism and secular
Ecumenism are such common ideals as tolerance and inclusivism. The familiar
secular rainbow coalitions in North America are expressions of this secular
Ecumenism, and the popularity of these coalitions with syncretist-Ecumenists
reflects the easy interface between the “two Ecumenisms”.
You and I are probably aware that the so-called “ideals” of
syncretist Ecumenism are bogus as such: the tolerance they adore is highly
selective, as is their inclusiveness, since they sharply reject anything that
smacks of traditional Christianity.
I don’t have to rehearse the list of contemporary causes that
deeply motivate these people, covering contemporary sexual, social and
political issues. If anyone wants to verify the bogus quality of their ideals,
just question these causes, citing normative Judaeo-Christian values, and note
how quickly all talk of tolerance and inclusiveness disappears, to be replaced
with dogmatic, hardline secularism.
The Church’s insistence on living in a manner consistent with
normative Orthodox Tradition, instead of paying lip-service to Tradition while
acting in a manner that contradicts it, clearly puts the Church in an
adversarial position with the vast majority of those who today call themselves
Orthodox Christians - but who paradoxically continue to live under the
jurisdiction of Ecumenist hierarchs. And among these people, none seems to take
issue with us more vehemently than the self-styled traditionalists who remain
loyal to their syncretist-Ecumenist bishops despite the inconsistency this
involves. [10]
In connection with this issue, we have to acknowledge a
principle of the canonical order of the Church, which goes against the grain of
contemporary secular values.
This principle has to do with the fact that in the Church,
our faith is not defined by our subjective, personal views. The fact is that
the individual Orthodox Christian is defined by the faith of his Bishop. As my
Bishop believes and teaches, so believe I. This principle is inconsistent
with dominant secular values, especially in the individualistic
English-speaking world. But it is a fact of the Church’s basic constitution,
nonetheless. [11] One of the primary problems created by
syncretist-Ecumenism is that it dismantles the Church’s understanding of the
place of bishops in her life.
Nothing proves this fact better than Canon 15 of the 1st-2nd
Council (861 and 869 A.D.), which decrees that if a Christian hears his bishop
preaching heresy with a “bared head” in the churches, he must flee then and
there. [12] No provision is made for staying and fighting from within.
That very idea is political, and is as inappropriate as it has proved to be
ineffective, in matters of faith and conscience.
Obviously, if the bishop’s faith had nothing to do with me,
why would I be told to flee his jurisdiction when he publicly brandishes his
faith in heresy?
The Church’s concern to correct mistaken views about herself
has been with us from the beginning. Before the “Peace of the Church” initiated
by St Constantine the Great in the 4th century, an entire group collectively
known as the “Apologists” [13] undertook the work of correcting what were, at
times, scandalously mistaken charges against Christianity. Our task today -
drawing attention to the pan-heresy of Ecumenism - and breaking communion with
the Ecumenist Patriarchates, although triggering aggressive and irresponsible
charges against ourselves, constitutes a contemporary Apologetics consistent
with the practice of the Church from the earliest era.
Unlike the primary English use of the term apology, which has
something to do with being sorry, apology and apologetics as technical
Christian terms, from the Greek, mean defense: the defense of Christianity
against Judaism or paganism, for example, or of Orthodoxy against heresy.
In order to assess whether our contemporary practice
regarding heresy is consistent with the Church’s traditional approach, I
thought it might be helpful for all of us who are concerned with these issues
to review the matter as encountered in the New Testament.
Our first text [14] will be very familiar to all of you:
“He [Jesus] asked His disciples,
saying, ‘Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?’ And they said, ‘Some say
that Thou art John the Baptist, some, Elias, and others, Jeremias, or one of
the prophets.’ He saith unto them, ‘But Whom say ye that I am?’ And Simon Peter
answered and said, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,’ And Jesus
answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Which is in heaven.’”
Clearly this is a defining moment in our Saviour’s doctrinal
relationship with His Disciples.
I would suggest that it may be helpful to see this
interrogation as an instance of the issue of Orthodoxy vs heresy. Christ’s
concern is that His Disciples understand His true identity, as opposed to
inauthentic identities. We need the real Christ, not a substitute. Substitute
Christs don’t save.
What I want to emphasize is that the initiative in raising
this doctrinal issue and the Saviour’s insistence that the Apostles get it
right - the initiative in all this is with our Saviour. The issue of true vs
false has been with us from the beginning. This point is critical, as we deal
with attacks against us, above all, by traditionalists in the Ecumenist
jurisdictions.
The current, essentially secular, dismissal of all religious
differences with the irenic, inclusive phrase “Well, it’s all the same God”
looks pretty shallow, in view of the intensity with which our Lord Jesus Christ
takes the matter of doctrinal truth!
Since I’ve mentioned these attacks by self-described
traditionalists who paradoxically remain under the jurisdiction of ecumenist
bishops, this might be a good place to look at some recent attacks, posted to a
popular blog called Monomakhos. [15]
Writing on September 29 of this year [2012], Peter Papoutsis
says that the “old-calendarists” are “fundamentalists and schismatics and NOT
traditional,” and that “fundamentalism” has “nothing to do with traditional
Orthodoxy,” that it is a “heresy” and has “no place in our [meaning, his
Ecumenist] Church.”
The same day, Archpriest John W. Morris, a priest of the
Antiochian Archdiocese, writes - referring to us - “Unfortunately, there are
those who are obsessed with externals and make them the measure of Orthodoxy…
People who make a dogma out of using the Julian Calendar.” He agrees with Peter
Papoutsis: “You are right, most of these people are schismatics.”
The same day, a Father Ambrose posted that he “would make a
distinction between what I call the Greek Old Calendarist mentality, which is
schismatic.”
The matter that for us is central, namely, syncretist
Ecumenism, is not mentioned in these criticisms, (chosen because so typical).
It is as if someone had reviewed Moby Dick, and forgot to mention the
whale! We are routinely dismissed as schismatic, as obsessed with externals and
as having dogmatized an outdated calendar; we are fundamentalists (one of the
most damning words in the Ecumenist vocabulary). But the actual issue that
does motivate us - syncretist Ecumenism - is rarely referred to. This
tactic does not indicate any great desire on our critics’ part to engage in
real conversation.
Since the charge of schism is so routinely leveled against
us, this is a good place to recall the words of our Saviour, found in St.
Matthew’s Gospel: “Not every one that saith unto me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall
enter into the kingdom. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we
not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? And in Thy
name done many wonderful works?’ And then I will profess unto them, ‘I never
knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.’” [16]
I think it is clear enough that the schism that we really do
need to avoid is being in schism from Jesus Christ. The question that I would
direct to these self-styled traditionalists in Ecumenist jurisdictions is: How
can you be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, while
acknowledging the canonical oversight of heretical bishops, who are members of
Synods that are embodied members of the World Council of Churches, and/or of
one of its regional affiliates - or who are in communion with the Ecumenist
Oecumenical Patriarchate?
Moving on, a recent formal statement by the Synod of the
Ecumenist Patriarchate of Constantinople goes even further in attacking
traditionalists, and what is particularly curious is that their Synod directed
its attack against traditionalists within its own ranks, with whom it is
in communion! [17] Patriarch Bartholomew and his Synod describe their own
traditionalist spiritual children as “fanatics” and “bigots”! Well, I suppose
it’s always nice to know where you stand with your Bishop!
The Church is the Body of Christ [18] and therefore, the
questions raised by Christ Himself concerning doctrine, and aimed at his
Apostles, engage the Apostolic Church directly. There is no other way than this
to read the New Testament. This not only allows us, but obligates us to deal
with questions of Who Christ is, what His identity means - and, having grasped
this, we have every obligation to defend what we know, that is, to defend the
fundamental doctrines of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Is this
not what we find the Apostles and their associates doing in the New Testament?
Yes, it is what we find, undeniably!
It is my conviction that our contemporary apologetics in this
age of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism does not make us fanatics, or bigots, nor
does it point to some sort of schismatic personality disorder. It does place us
in direct, organic continuity with the Church’s practice from the New Testament
forward, both in the work of defense, or apologetics, and in the task of
identifying, evaluating, quarantining and rejecting heresy, as we affirm the
Truth. [19]
My second example of the treatment of heresy in the New
Testament comes from St. Paul. In 2 Corinthians, he wrote the following
accusation:
“If he that cometh [to you in Corinth] preacheth
another Jesus Whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another Spirit, Which
ye have not received, or another Gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might
well bear with him [that is, you might agree with him].” [20]
Please note St. Paul’s words in the context of our
examination of heresy, and of the kind of problems heresy creates for the One,
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Please note St. Paul’s point in bringing
up the problem of false teaching from false teachers, and of the bitter fruit
of these falsehoods, the problem of ending up with another Jesus, another
Spirit, another Gospel. Why bring it up - unless accepting some other Jesus,
some other Spirit, some other Gospel affects salvation.
Is our concern today for these matters pharisaical, revealing
some unhealthy need to prove that we are more correct than others, better than
others, “holier than thou”? Does our concern mean that we are fanatics obsessed
with externals, or that we have some kind of schismatic personality disorder -
that we are bigots?
I reject these accusations. I do not understand how anyone,
clothed and in his right mind, [21] can level these accusations. Can it be that
all those self-styled traditionalists in Ecumenist jurisdictions are not asking
questions about Truth?
In fact, I would insist that the canonical order of the
Church, and its Patristic Consensus, point in exactly the opposite direction,
since they, the Holy Fathers, demonstrated great concern regarding these
matters. After all, did not St. Maximos the Confessor (580-662 A.D.), when the
Patriarch of Constantinople embraced heresy, say, “Even if the whole universe
began to commune with the Patriarch, I will not” [22] - and this breaking of
Eucharistic communion with heretical hierarchs was hardly unique to St.
Maximos! He stood with the tradition, not against it!
If the mere fact that we refrain from Eucharistic communion
with the Patriarch of Constantinople (today, an avid syncretist-Ecumenist)
makes us schismatics, we are in very, very good company indeed. But it does
not make us schismatics, since by refraining from communion with heretical
hierarchs, we avoid being in schism from our Saviour, Jesus Christ the Lord.
How else can the canonical order of the Church be understood?
What is at stake here is, after all, simple enough: the bogus
Christ, Who did not die and rise for us, cannot save us. What is at stake
here is our salvation. Christ knew this; the Apostles knew this; the
Fathers of Church knew this, the Martyrs knew this, the Oecumenical and
Regional Synods knew this. We know this. Do the self-styled traditionalists -
who are in communion with Ecumenist bishops - do they not know this?
Apparently, these self-styled traditionalists within the
Ecumenist jurisdictions are prepared to pursue their spiritual lives on the
basis of a glaring contradiction. Their justification for remaining under
Ecumenist bishops is evidently based on the idea that they are fighting from
within. One would have thought that the history of quite a number of
now-depleted American denominations (starting with the Episcopalians and their
famous “Anglican comprehensiveness”), who made fighting from within a battle
cry, would have inoculated any serious Orthodox Christian against the idea.
After all, that battle is over, and we all know who won. How can anyone
possibly square the idea of fighting from within with the actual history of the
Church?
That said, I would concede that fighting from within does
have a legitimate venue. That venue is the arena of politics. One can fight
from within one’s political party for a particular “plank” to be added to, or
removed from, the party platform, for sure.
But in the arena of the Church, I would reject any idea of
fighting from within. I do not think it is appropriate to invoke the political
methodology of Machiavelli or his progeny within the Body of Christ. Nor do the
canons support such an idea. They tell us to flee heretical bishops. There is
no provision for fighting from within.
I believe that to argue otherwise is to misconstrue the
actual canonical meaning of the episcopal ministry in the Church. We do not
privatize nor do we compartmentalize our own individual faith apart from the
faith of our Bishop. I believe that to do this, one effectively detaches
the Bishop from the Church and its faith - from his own distinctive ministry,
in fact.
I believe that the position of men and women today, who call
themselves Orthodox but who elect to remain in communion with Ecumenist
bishops, cannot be sustained on the basis of the doctrinal decrees of the
Oecumenical and Regional Synods, or on the basis of the canonical order of the
Church, or on the basis of the lives of the Saints.
We do not forget the sobering words of our Saviour cited
above: I never knew you. And this, to those who called Him Lord and
worked miracles in His name! If we want to discuss schism, I never knew you
might be a good place to begin.
I repeat: the inconsistency, the contradiction, involved
with the so-called Orthodox traditionalists who remain in communion with
Ecumenist bishops contradict the Church’s understanding of heresy. Is there
any other way to construe this? [23]
Now, if this view ends up having a divisive (schismatic)
impact somewhere, then it does, doesn’t it? If some run after another Jesus,
another Spirit, another Gospel - then they do. The Church will warn; the Church
will explain; the Church will exhort and defend; the Church will continue to
preach a straight line concerning the real Christ, the real Spirit, the real
Gospel. What else would the Church be expected to do?
Will the result of this action exclude someone and create
divisions, that is, schisms? Well, yes, it will. It certainly did in the New
Testament. And take a look at the history of the Church during the crises
provoked by Arianism and Semi-Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism,
Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, the crisis of the encounter with western theology
and anthropology during the era of the Palamite Councils: divisions galore! And
yes, always tragic, but - in the light of man’s God-given freedom - evidently
unavoidable. [24]
I have to say, in our ecumenical age, there are a lot of
people who are a lot more careful about buying a car, or buying a pair of
shoes, or buying a bottle of wine, than they are about buying into their
bishop’s faith - or lack of it!
Continuing our review of Scriptural precedents for the
situation we find ourselves in today, let us turn to a matter as recorded in
St. John’s Gospel [25] that is of critical importance to this question. The
quoted material is extensive, but you are all familiar with the narrative and
will have no difficulty in following our Saviour’s point clearly:
“… my Father giveth you the true
bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven,
and giveth life unto the world. And Jesus said unto them, ‘I am the bread of
life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger: and he that believeth on me
shall never thirst. (…) he that believeth on Me hath everlasting life. I am
that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof,
and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat
of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my
flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove
amongst themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ Then
Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh
of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my
flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the
last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me,
and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This
is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna,
and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the
synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when
they had heard this, said, ‘This is a hard saying, who can hear it?’
When Jesus knew in himself that his
disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, ‘Doth this offend you?
What and if ye shall see the Son of
man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh
profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they
are life. (…)
From that time, many of his disciples
went back, and walked no more with him.
Then Jesus said unto the twelve,
‘Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we
go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou
art that Christ, the Son of the living God.’” [26]
Like the intense moment concerning Christ’s identity in St.
Matthew that we studied earlier (pp. 3-4), so here in St. John we are
witnessing another intense moment in the life of our Saviour and His
interaction with His immediate followers. As in St. Matthew, here again Christ
confronts us with the question of His identity, of Who He is, and the issue is
here, as before, the fundamental issue of truth. And as before, it is Christ
Who raises the question; the question comes to us from our Saviour at the origins
of the Church.
And just as Christ asked the Apostles, He asks us, are we
offended by this truth? Will we also walk away from it? Away from Him?
A burning question.
Or will we make mental compromises and detach Christ from His
real identity - as it is given here, in St. John’s Gospel? Will we fabricate
another Christ Who will be easy on us, and with whom we can live untroubled
lives, a Christ stripped of His genuine identity, and the hard sayings that His
real identity involves?
And is this fabrication of bogus Christs not at the very
heart and core of syncretist Ecumenism? And is this not the explanation of why
we choose to stand outside the communion of all those great, historic
Patriarchates, who today have bought into syncretist Ecumenism, hook, line and
sinker - and who revile and denounce any who question them, as we have seen?
The Church is the Body of Christ: dismantle the foundations
of the Church - by joining her to the World and Regional Councils of Churches -
and one inevitably dismantles the identity of Christ of the Gospels.
The point is clear: If contemporary syncretist Ecumenism
throws its considerable weight behind a left-wing approach to today’s social,
political or sexual issues, supporting - as it unarguably does - a remarkably
left-wing position on such issues as marriage or sexual orientation - as it is
doing - how do you square this with the Christ of the Gospels? You cannot. And
the blunt truth is that this makes mincemeat of the claim by the Ecumenist
Patriarchates that their representatives to the World and Regional Councils of
Churches are there in order to witness to Orthodoxy. What witness would that
be?
For heaven’s sake: the current Patriarch, Bartholomew, in an
interview a few years ago with the San Francisco Chronicle’s star
reporter, Herb Caan, admitted that he supports abortion! [27] Witness to
Orthodoxy? This same Patriarch has decorated two of the most avid pro-abortion
Congressmen in Washington - Senators Paul Sarbanes and Olympia Snowe. [28] And
we are asked to accept that the so-called “Orthodox” representatives to the
World Council of Churches are there to witness to Orthodoxy? Anyone here
interested in a bridge I know about in Brooklyn?
But since the syncretist Ecumenists believe that the secular
agenda is in fact the norm, it means that Scripture has ceased to be normative
for them. This is why they need to fabricate a new Christ. False ideas of
Christ are precisely what Christ spoke out against, as we have seen in the
Scripture quoted earlier. What is going on here?
And this is where we come to the parting of the ways with
syncretist Ecumenism. Have we forgotten St. Paul’s sharp words to his
Corinthians regarding the preaching of another Jesus Whom we have not
preached, and of another Spirit, Which ye have not received, or another Gospel,
which ye have not accepted? Is it even possible that the self-styled
traditionalists fighting from within the communion of syncretist-Ecumenist
bishops do not hear what we hear when we read St. Paul’s urgent warning?
We are not arguing over externals. We just want to hold on to
the real Christ, Who rose from the dead for us and for our salvation. Period.
This is why we will not hold communion with the Oecumenical Patriarch or with
any who hold communion with him. The issue is salvation in Christ. I have to confess, I do not see this
as a fight over externals. Do these self-styled traditionalists see Christ and
salvation as externals?
So, where is this desire on our part to engage in
one-upmanship with non-Orthodox or with self-styled traditionalists fighting
from within Ecumenist jurisdictions? Where is this pharisaical obsession with
externals, this so-to-speak “schismatic personality disorder”, of which we are
accused? What utter nonsense! None of these accusations hits their target, in
fact - and none of them does the accusers any credit.
In the extensively recorded incident from St. John cited
above concerning the Flesh and Blood of Christ, He is dealing of course with
Jews, with their detailed kosher dietary laws, and He is confronting them with
Who He is, what He is up to, what the agenda is. And addressing this group of
kosher Jews, He is speaking about the eating and drinking of His own Flesh and
Blood.
Their reply is an understatement: “This is a hard saying,
who can hear it?” And Christ’s reply to their dismay is: “Doth this
offend you?”
And yes, it did. And we see that the result of proclaiming
this hard truth is that “many of His disciples went back, and walked no more
with Him.”
Is the result of Christ’s truth divisive? Does it show
distinct schismatic tendencies - that is, some inner compulsion to exclude
somebody? Is it intolerant? Is it lacking in Anglican comprehensiveness?
Is our Saviour’s teaching an instance of fanaticism or
bigotry? Fundamentalism, perhaps?
You tell me. But when our Saviour asks, Doth this offend
you?, the “this” that potentially offends is the Truth, however unpalatable
this particular Truth is to those who are about to “no longer walk with Him” -
AND, please note: this is a price our Saviour and the Twelve are fully prepared
to pay for Truth.
This is the scale of what is at stake; this is its sobering
immensity. To put it one way, what is at stake is that you and I never hear our
Saviour say to us, I never knew you.
The question always has to be, is Christ here, or is He
absent? Is the Truth here, or is it not? Here are the real questions. My
parish’s roster of clergy, their skills and shortcomings, the character of our
coffee hour and our programs and the level of preaching and the ease of access
from a major road - all take a back seat to the fundamental questions.
And it is just here, at this very point, that the great
problem of syncretist Ecumenism intrudes itself into local communities. While
the syncretist Ecumenists preach love, dialogue and unity, what they offer, in
fact, is another Christ. Another Spirit. Another Gospel. If we were paying
attention during the reading of the Scriptures cited above, we realize just how
destructive the preaching and accepting of a bogus Christ, a sham Spirit and a
fake Gospel is, in the eyes of the Lord and of St. Paul, among others!
Our issue is not a pharisaical obsession with externals - the
issue is our devotion to Truth, and our faithfulness to Christ.
And it may be relevant to note just how far to the left the
social, political and syncretist agendas of the World Council of Churches and
its regional affiliates are, in fact. In order to square the historic Christ
with the syncretist/Ecumenist agenda, with its extremist, radical views of
contemporary social, political and sexual issues, the Christ they end up with
has lost its Scriptural anchor. They have truly come up with another Christ.
And the Ecumenists call us extremists!
Pardon us if we find both the presence of the so-called
traditionalists in Ecumenist jurisdictions and their justification for their
presence there - their fighting from within slogan… self-contradictory - that
is, saying one thing, but doing just the opposite. And it goes without much
saying that none of these contradictions, these inconsistencies, survives the
Lord’s straightforward command to “let your communication be, ‘Yea, yea’;
‘Nay, nay’: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” [29] Self-contradiction
is not one of the traits recommended to believers!
I end by saying that when our critics decide to discuss the
matter of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, I know very many in our midst who will
volunteer to join that discussion. As God wills, I would be there myself!
And if people call us names - they call us names. Heretics
called the holy Hesychasts “navel-gazers” (omphaloskopoi) in the 14th
century during the encounter between St Gregory Palamas and his western
opponent, Barlaam of Calabria, and in the 19th century, the holy Fathers
concerned for the integrity of the liturgical/mysteriological life, were
derisively called the boiled wheat men (kollyvades); and today they call
us, old calendarists - as if our only issue involved a matter of 13 days! It is
an issue, but it is hardly the only one. Our primary discontent is with the
pan-heresy of Ecumenism itself, “smuggled” into the Church by means of that
unasked-for calendar change.
And the sole purpose of all these pejorative nick-names
hurled at the Church by a long line of heretics over the centuries, was to make
the Orthodox position, and those holding it, appear to be ridiculous!
We can live with name-calling and finger-pointing today, as
did the Fathers in their day. Bless them that persecute you. [30] So, we will
say, May God bless our critics, every last one of them! With apologies for
errors and a lengthy presentation, I thank you for your attention.
[I also thank many thoughtful readers whose criticisms of the
original paper are valued, and often incorporated, in this post-Conference
revision of the original paper. All errors of fact or judgment are mine alone.]
(Revised for printed distribution,
October 16, 2012.)
ENDNOTES
1. The
phrase Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism is from Archimandrite Justin Popovic (+1979),
noted Serbian theologian and ascetic. See his Orthodox Church and Ecumenism,
Lazarica Press, 2000, for context. See also
<http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theo_en/ E3a4012Popovic.pdf>,
“Orthodoxy and Ecumenism: An Orthodox Appraisal and Testimony,” Archimandrite
Justin (Popovic).
2. The
phrase is, of course, from the Nicene Creed.
3. Among the
studies covering this: The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece,
Archbishop Chrysostomos et al., Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies,
1985; The Struggle Against Ecumenism, [Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston],
Holy Orthodox Church in North America, 1998; New Zion in Babylon: The
Orthodox Church in the 20th Century, V. Moss, 2008 (on-line); “The Old
Calendarists,” Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, in Minorities in Greece,
Richard Clogg, ed., 2002; The Old Calendarists and the Rise of Religious Conservatism
in Greece, Dimitri Kitsikis, Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies,
1995. The literature, though extensive, is of uneven quality. The brief essays
by K. Ware and D. Kitsikis are particularly important. The definitive study
remains to be written. Syncretist ideas began to be heard in Constantinople
before Meletios Metaxakis’ reign, in fact: heard, but not yet implemented.
4. Jude 3.
5. The
single best glimpse we have of a smoking gun in connection with the purpose
behind the calendar change is the infamous 1916 letter to Emmanuel Venizelos
from his minister, Andreas Michalakopoulos, cited above in the essay by D.
Kitsikis. Nothing exposes the sinister agenda that overthrew the Church in
Greece more compellingly than this disturbing and Machiavellian political
conspiracy against the canonical integrity of the Church of Greece. One thing
is clear: at a fundamental level, the calendar change had little to do with
calendars as far as those responsible for the change were concerned, and
everything to do with transforming the Greek Church into an erastian Protestant
denomination. See also Struggle Against Ecumenism, pp. 26-27.
6. For a
concise summary of Meletios Metaxakis’ biography, see: Struggle Against
Ecumenism, pp. 29-38.
7. For an
entirely different, positive, view of Meletios Metaxakis and his agenda see A
Quest for Reform of the Orthodox Church: The 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress, by
Antiochian Archdiocese Priest, Fr Patrick Viscuso, InterOrthodox Press, 2006.
Note especially Antiochian Metropolitan Philip Saliba’s assessment of this book
on its back cover.
8. D.
Kitsikis’ essay, cited above, provides a clear view of the matter, with
documentation.
9. See the
World Council of Churches website:
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/handbook/global-bodies-and-mission-communions/
wcc.html?print=1%253Fprint%253D1print%D1%253Fprint%253D1#c23067>. See also <http://www.oikoumene.org/en/
handbook/church-families/orthodox-churches-eastern/dictionary-of-the-ecumenical-movement-eastern-orthodoxy.html>
This list is current.
10. On this
urgent question, see an excellent multi-part presentation on YouTube by Father
Maximos (Marretta), Ekonomos of Ascension Monastery in Bearsville, NY,
at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNI2A45q61c.
11.
Ironically, the early work of John D. Zizioulas, Eucharist – Bishop – Church,
Holy Cross Press, 2001 (in fact, Zizioulas’ Ph.D. dissertation at the
University of Athens in 1965) – remains the best study of the integral bond
between the Bishop, his faith, his Eucharist, and his Church. Zizioulas, now
Metropolitan of Pergamon in the Ecumenical Patriarchate, after years of
teaching academic theology in western universities, has become, sadly, one of
the most Ecumenist hierarchs in that ecumenist Patriarchate.
12. A good
summary of this Council and its significance: is found in the essay, “The Life
of St Photios,” by Fr Justin Popovic, in On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit,
by St Photios of Constantinople, translated by Holy Transfiguration Monastery,
Studion Publishers, 1983, especially pp. 42-55. See also The Rudder,
Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983, pp. 470-471.
13. See Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. Revised, 2005, p. 88.
14. St
Matthew 16:13-17.
15. http://www.monomakhos.com/category/a-michalopulos-blog/
16. St
Matthew 7: 21-23. Again, we are not trying to win an argument here; the Church
does have a clear obligation to raise the questions that guide people to the
Truth, and this Truth is always Jesus Christ the Lord.
18. The full
statement is at
<http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/sunday-orthodoxy-2010>.
18. Cf.
Romans 12:5; i Corinthians 10:17; 1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 4:12; Hebrews
13:3; Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:24.
19. Note St
Paul’s admonition in Titus 3:10.
20. 2
Corinthians 11:4. St Paul accuses his Corinthian Church of being quite capable
of running off after some other Gospel, preaching some other Jesus, some other
Spirit, that contradicts his own apostolic preaching. St Paul is here making
one of the most blatantly anti-ecumenist assertions that occurs in Scripture.
St Paul is not in some kind of competition with other apostolic leaders – he is
not asserting that he is, so-to-speak holier than thou, that is, better than
someone else. His claim needs to be understood clearly: he knows the truth
concerning Christ. St Paul demonstrates no interest at all in inclusiveness, in
tolerance for any other preaching by any other self- appointed “apostles” of
some “other Jesus”, some “other Gospel”, some “other Spirit”. None at all. We
are in something of a “boot camp of the Christian mind”: this is what is true;
that is what is untrue. Choose the truth.
21. St Luke
8:35.
22. http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/saints/maximos_confessor.htm
23. See
again the reference to Father Maximos (Marretta’s) valuable presentation in
footnote 10, above.
24. The
Oecumenical Synods of the Orthodox Church: A Concise History, by Father
James Thornton, Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2007, provides an
excellent summary of these doctrinal struggles.
25. The
narrative begins at St John 6:32.
26. St John
6: 32-33; 35; 47-63; 66-69.
27.
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/a-patriarch-who-generally-speaking-respects-human-life/
28.
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/the-post-orthodox-orthodox/
29. St
Matthew 5: 37. In plain English this reads “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and let
your ‘No’ be ‘No’”, of course. It does not get a lot plainer than this. The
command (and the ethic behind it) covers a state of interior consistency, as do
the Canons of the Church, such as Canon 15 of the 1st-2nd Council, cited above
at footnote 10. The same point is made at St Matthew 6:22, “If… thine eye be
single… But if thine eye be evil…” Double-mindedness, “double-think” are
rejected as “evil”. A Christian does not speak or act with his fingers crossed
behind his back. The normal English term for this state of things is hypocrisy,
of course.
30. Romans 12: 14. Also, Matthew 5: 11-12 and 5: 44.
Source: Orthodox Youth Conference, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, October 6, 2012.
Original
lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GXicy_2ZXE&t=11s
