Our Struggle Against the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism

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

1979 Letter of Metropolitan Philaret of New York to Metropolitan Epiphanios of Kition

(Kindly shared by Stavros Markou. Translated the original Russian, slightly corrected.)

 

President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

15/28 [19]79

#77

75 East 93rd St.

New York. NY 10028

 

To: His Eminence, the Most Reverend Metropolitan Epiphanios of Kition

Your Eminence,

At the last meeting of the Synod of Bishops, we read the letter of Your Eminence with the appeal for peace. We thank you for your zeal. Your disposition answers the commandment of God which promises blessedness to the peacemakers. Truly, what can be more desirable than peace and unity between the Holy Churches of God who are concerned with keeping unwavering fidelity to the Holy Orthodoxy of our Fathers!

It is probably known to Your Eminence that we have always been eager to maintain this peace, and we have written several times about it to our Greek brother-Bishops since we have accepted them into our communion of prayer. If this has not been achieved, the reason was not the lack of care for it on our part, but because our Brothers were more preoccupied with looking for reasons for separation than they were interested in fighting together with us against the spreading of antichristian modernistic and ecumenical ideas in our contemporary society. On one occasion, it happened because of a disagreement with our practice in receiving those who join the Orthodox Church, in another case owing to the full disrespect of Church canons regulating the relations between sister-Churches.

You are right when you point out that “independence" should be replaced by good relations. Unfortunately, however, we see that our Greek brothers not only began to reject the principle of oikonomia in Church administration, which was so vividly expressed by St Basil the Great in his first canon, so full of wisdom and love, but we are also accused for those decisions in which we were following his instructions in regard to those who came to the Holy Church, and those who are in danger of being seduced into the modem ecumenical heresy

There is no difference between us in the confession of the holy dogma of the Church but having a different flock than the Greeks and living in different conditions, we as spiritual physicians find it necessary to apply other medicine in treating its ills, using therapy in cases where you see no other means but surgery. We are acting this way according to the instructions of Canon 102 of the 6th Ecumenical Council. For several hundred years, there existed a difference between the Russian and Hellenic Churches in the practice of reception of converts from heresies, and this did not cause any disunity. So why introduce it now into our life, already difficult enough for the maintaining of pure Orthodoxy?

In some respects, Your Eminence has given the right definition of the ground for the separation between the Churches; however, it seems there is not sufficient information about the life of our flock and its relationship with the surroundings. On the other hand, as far as we know, the “Andreyans" have not fulfilled the decision conditioning their acceptance into communion with us. Namely, the prayer of absolution was not read over other Bishops and clergymen.

We do not accuse any of our brothers, defending the traditions of our Fathers and keeping the old calendar, of violating dogmatic adherence to Orthodoxy, and we were not the first to terminate the unity which was coming into existence. With those whom you call adherents of Auxentios, our relationship has been spoiled by their hasty ordinations. On the other hand, we know of statements against us from some zealots in Greece. Then discord began to arise as a result of hasty consecrations of which the necessity and canonicity were not understandable to us. We therefore found it better for the cause of Orthodoxy to keep away from any participation in the life of the Greek Church faithful to the Old Calendar until their life follows a normal course, and hasty uncanonical ordinations are discontinued, including those of our own former clergymen, and the acceptance of those who separated from us out of pride and suspicions of our failing in Orthodoxy [cease], already defended by us from long ago as far as we have the strength and ability in this world of apostasy.

For the sake of peace, we do not wish to argue with anyone, but we pray that the Lord would strengthen all the defenders of Orthodoxy, giving them the necessary wisdom and strength indwelling in their hearts, peace and common love.

With those thoughts, we ask for holy prayers of Your Eminence and remain your devoted Brother in Christ,

Metropolitan Philaret

The Uprising of the Greek-American Community of Astoria

Theodore Kalmoukos, Editor of The National Herald

November 13, 2025

[Comment: It’s a shame when the only things that cause “uprisings” in the New Calendarist Church are financial, not spiritual or theological…]

 

I ask in advance for the understanding of our readers for this personal reference, and I wish to begin this analysis by saying that the uprising of the Greek-American community of Astoria against the Archbishopric’s tactics of imposition and “seizure” of the community and school of St. Demetrios Cathedral in Astoria found me in Greece attending to family matters. I also wish once again to thank all those who wrote to ask why I had not commented earlier.

Because of constant travel, an unending pace, and limited internet access, I was unable to respond sooner. I do so now to state, first and foremost, that this outburst of devout and dedicated Greek Americans, faithful to the Church and to Greek education, was entirely expected.

People have grown weary and exhausted by the endless, unfulfilled, and repetitive promises that lead nowhere. They are tired of seeing the appointment of inept and uninformed individuals to crucial positions within the community that, together with its school, was until a few years ago the pride of Hellenism in New York and, by extension, in America.

Undoubtedly, the uprising of Astoria, as it will go down in history, despite Archbishop Elpidophoros’ desperate attempts to dismiss it as “fake news,” only deepened the panic and disrepute surrounding him. Our people possess reason, discernment, and intelligence. They see and understand far more than he, his paid courtiers, and his tragicomic “messengers” acting as pitiful defenders can imagine. One need only have a single conversation with Greek Americans involved in the Astoria uprising to understand much. It is that simple.

Elpidophoros himself returned to the “scene of the crime” for the feast of St. Demetrios and once again repeated the same myths about “fake news,” seemingly unaware that he was insulting the intelligence of the people of the parish and the broader Greek-American community, and proving once again the narrow mindset he brings to the proud and unyielding Hellenism of America, a mindset that brings shame to both the Church and the community.

Let it be said, however, that the dark and decaying condition in which our ecclesiastical life has fallen is not solely the fault of Elpidophoros, who is, after all, what he is, as described two years ago in an interview with The National Herald by his former professor from Thessaloniki, lest we forget.

I would dare to say what so many are saying everywhere, in the Phanar, in Greece, and in Europe, that the chief person responsible for the degradation of the Archdiocese of America is Patriarch Bartholomew himself. He knows everything, sees, hears, and is informed, even by Archon orders, yet chooses to feign ignorance.

What truly seems to matter is not the well-being of the Church or the Greek-American community, but money. Yes, money above all. For years, the Archdiocese of America has been regarded as Orthodoxy’s “goldfish,” or, if you prefer, its “picky bag,” serving “the needs of the Mother Church, philanthropic and otherwise.” Meanwhile, our own parishes, schools, and institutions are left to crumble. Yet Elpidophoros is not to blame for finding wealth and luxury and growing comfortable, nor are his “collectors.”

The blame lies with us, the faithful, the parish members who keep giving instead of tending first to our own household.

At the most recent meeting of the Archdiocesan Council, it was reported that the Archdiocese’s finances are so strong that a multimillion-dollar surplus has accumulated. It is therefore time for the parishes to cut in half their mandatory financial contributions to the Archdiocese, or better yet, to decide for themselves how much they can afford to give, rather than being dictated to from above.

It is a shame and an injustice that our people in the parishes grill souvlakia, lambs, pigs, and other roasts, sweating over the fire at their Greek festivals, only for the proceeds to be sent to the Archdiocese so that Elpidophoros and his entourage can make their frequent trips to Constantinople, delivering their “offerings” and flattering the aging Patriarch with claims that all is well in America. To the point where Bartholomew reportedly tells other hierarchs that Elpidophoros is “envied,” and therefore “persecuted.” Incredible, isn’t it?

But the uprising of Astoria pulverizes all such pitiful excuses and proclaims clearly that a famine is coming. Do you understand?

 

Source: https://www.thenationalherald.com/the-uprising-of-the-greek-american-community-of-astoria/

Anti-Ecumenist Exhortations of Elder Philotheos Zervakos (+1980)

 

The Apostle Paul, the mouth of Christ, commands: Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. In circumstances in which our Holy Orthodox Faith is scorned and insulted, reproof is permitted—even righteous indignation, most righteous indeed—whereas silence is forbidden. But even the reproof must be done with discernment and prudence, not with agitation and excessive anger; it must be done with divine wrath, for our God also says, Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.

God does not abandon His Church, and those who war against her He will humble and crush like vessels of a potter; and blessed are those who will remain faithful unto death to the Orthodox faith, to the Orthodox confession.

I believe and hope that the Founder of the Church, the Leader of our salvation, mighty and powerful in wars, will crush all those who war against His Bride, the Church, the pure and undefiled one, which He cared for with His Precious Blood, as vessels of a potter, and will preserve and save Her pure. As for you who remain, stand well, stand with fear, stand manfully, and do not bend the knee to the antichrist Pope and to his followers, the papist-loving ecumenists—Athenagoras, Iakovos of America, Meliton of Chalcedon, and the rest of the cowardly and traitorous. Stand until the end, until death, that you may receive the incorruptible crown in the heavens.

For union to take place with the Papists and the Pope, the Pope must repent and return to the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which Christ delivered to us through the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils. The Pope has schismed and is obliged to return to the one faith, which they falsified—both in the one baptism, which they abolished and replaced with sprinkling and pouring of water—and in the dogmas and holy traditions, which they utterly scorned. And if they desire dialogues and discussions, these must take place upon the Symbol of Faith, and within ten minutes. Do you agree? Do you renounce your delusion and your heresies? Do you return to God and to the Holy Church? We accept you. Do you not accept? Then go where the Holy Apostles, the Holy Fathers, and the Seven Ecumenical Councils send you: to anathema!

Arise, O Chrysostoms, Gregories, Germanoses, Tarasioses, Nikephoroses, Photiuses, and the rest, ancient and more recent Holy Patriarchs of Constantinople, who were sacrificed on behalf of your sheep, to see who now occupies your Throne! You, as good Shepherds, sacrificed your souls for your very own sheep, whereas the present ones sacrifice the sheep for themselves and open the gates and invite the wolves to enter and to devour the sheep.

From where has the patriarch fallen into such a descent, that he voluntarily strives to deliver his flock to the wolves to be devoured? The cause is pride—the root and cause of all sins, of all evils, of all heresies, of misfortunes and sorrows—and more than all misfortunes and sufferings, the deprivation of the grace of God.

The wolf-shepherds, false teachers, false prophets, and false-christ heretics were cast far away from the flock of Christ by the Holy Fathers—the imitators of the Chief Shepherd Christ and successors of His disciples—the good, true, and divine shepherds who convened the venerable and holy Seven Ecumenical Councils, and, as unrepentant, they delivered them to eternal anathema.

 

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/antioikoymenistikes-ypothikes-g-filo/

 

A Miracle Which Confirms the Traditional Church Calendar

A Revelation of the Theotokos to the Virtuous Monk Boris (Nicholas in Schema) of the Holy Monastery of Valaam (†7 May 1969)

 

The Editors of the American Orthodox periodical, The Orthodox Word, recently visited the renowned Russian Monastery of Valaam, on Lake Ladoga, where Hieromonk Kensorin offered them the handwritten autobiography of his Elder, Father Boris (Nicholas in the Great Schema), which they published in English translation (The Orthodox Word, Vol. XXVII, Nos. 5-6 [160-161] [September-December 1991]).

Now, who was Father Boris? This holy Elder, whose life was filled with miracles, was born on 22 July 1876, After many tribulations, in 1900 he entered the Holy Monastery of Valaam, where he became distinguished for his virtue and ascetic labors.

A group of ascetics and confessors in this monastery, under Hieromonk Michael (†1962), remained faithful to the traditional Church Calendar, a stand which they took, indeed, at the cost of hardships and indignities.

In 1940, they left the Monastery of Valaam and went to the monastery of the same name on Finnish territory (New Valamo), where they stayed until 1957. Thereafter, they asked to return to their original monastery. However, instead of this, they were transferred to the Holy Monastery of the Pskov Caves, where they lived, until their repose, in its underground caves.

Certain members of this group had already (in 1926) come from Valaam to Czechoslovakia, where they joined the Brotherhood of St. Job of Pochaev (the Vladimirova Monastery) or placed themselves at the service of the Ecclesiastical Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which still had its headquarters in Serbia (Sremski Karlovci). The most famous of them, Father Philemon, reposed in sanctity at the Holy Trinity Monastery, in Jordanville, U.S.A., in 1956.

The very striking miracle which we have published in what follows constitutes the fourteenth chapter of the autobiography of the venerable Monk Boris (Nicholas in Schema).

***

 

On September 25, 1925, there was a division of people in Valaam as to the “old” and “new” style calendars.

They began to force us to go to the new style. Many of the brothers remained true to the old style.

Legal proceedings began. The church administration arrived; there was a court with Abbot Paulinus in charge. They began to summon the brothers one by one, and many were expelled from the monastery.

Then my turn also came. I went into the room, and there sat Abbot Paulinus with others from the church administration.

Father Abbot said, “Here is a slave of God; ask him.” One of them said that he would speak and that everything should be recorded.

They asked, “Do you accept Fr. Paulinus as Abbot?” “Will you go to church services according to the new calendar?”

I could not answer this question; it was as if my tongue had become paralyzed. They hesitated and said, “Well, why aren’t you answering?” I couldn’t say anything. Then they said: “Well, go on, slave of God, and think this over.”

I began to pray to the Mother of God, my “Surety,” in my heart. “Tell me and indicate my life’s path: Which side should I go to, the new or old style? Should I go to the cathedral or somewhere else?” And I, the sinful one, prayed to the Mother of God during my obedience in the kitchen.

When I finished my evening obedience, I went to my cell and thought in the simplicity of my heart, “Why don’t you answer me, Mother of God?” But the grace of God did not abandon me, a sinner. He wants salvation for all.

Suddenly the cathedral appeared before me, the same as it is: the same height, length and width. I was amazed at this miraculous apparition—how could it enter my small cell? But my inner voice said to me: “Everything is possible with God. There is nothing impossible for Him.”

“Well,” I thought, “one must go to church in the cathedral according to the new style.” Then, as I was thinking thus, a blue curtain came down from above, in the middle of which was a golden cross. The cathedral remained behind the curtain. I remained on this side.

The cathedral became invisible to me, and the inner voice said to me: “Go to the old style and hold to it.”

And I heard a woman’s voice coming from above the corner: “If you want to be saved, hold fast to the traditions of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers.”

And then the same thing was repeated a second time, and the third time the voice said: “If you want to be saved, keep fast to the tradition of the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers, but not these ‘wise’ men.”

After this miracle, everything disappeared and I remained alone in my cell. My heart began to rejoice that the Lord had indicated the path of salvation to me, according to the prayers of the Mother of God. And ever since that time, I remember this great miracle for the salvation of man.

 

Source: Agios Kyprianos, No. 252 (January-February 1993), pp. 102-103. Translated into English by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, CA.

Are the Terms "Christian" and "Orthodox" Accurate in Our Times?

by Archbishop Averky of Syracuse & Holy Trinity Monastery (+1976)

 

 

Until recently, the concepts and terms "Christian" and "Orthodox" were unambiguous and meaningful. Now, however, we are living through times so terrible, so filled with falsehood and deception, that such concepts and terms no longer convey what is significant when used without further clarification. They do not reflect the essence of things, but have become little more than deceptive labels.

Many societies and organizations now call themselves "Christian," although there is nothing Christian in them, insofar as they reject the principal dogma of Christianity -- the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as do several of the newest sects, to which the very spirit of true Christianity, which follows so naturally and logically from the teaching of the Gospels, is generally quite foreign.

Of late, the term "Orthodox" also has ceased in large measure to express what it should, for even those who in fact have apostatized from true Orthodoxy and become traitors to the Orthodox Faith and Church continue to call themselves "Orthodox."

Such are all the innovators, who reject the true spirit of Orthodoxy, all those who have started down the path of mutual relations with the enemies of Orthodoxy, who propagandize for common prayer and even liturgical communion with those who do not belong to the Holy Orthodox Church. Such are the "renovationists" and contemporary "neo-renovationists", the "neo-Orthodox" (as some of them openly style themselves!), who are clamoring about how essential it is to "renew the Orthodox Church", about some sort of "reforms in Orthodoxy", which allegedly has become "set in its ways" and "moribund." They harp on such things instead of focusing their prayerful attention on the truly essential renewal of their own souls and the fundamental reform of their own sinful nature with its passions and desires.

They insistently proclaim union with heretics, with non-Orthodox, and even with non-Christians. They proclaim "the union of all," but without the unity of spirit and truth which alone makes such union possible.

Such, for example, in our days are the Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople, who in the past recognized the "Living Church" in Soviet Russia as legal and now recognize the Pope of Rome as the "head of the whole Christian Church," and even admit the Papist Latins to Holy Communion without their first being united to the Holy Orthodox Church.

Such are all those who actively participate in the so-called Ecumenical Movement, which is striving so blatantly to create some sort of new pseudo-church out of all the denominations now existing.

Such, too, are those many others who are not completely faithful to our Lord and Savior and His Holy Church, but serve His vicious enemies or please them in one way or another by helping them to realize their anti-Christian goals in a world which has turned away from God.

Who will dare to deny us our lawful right not to recognize such people as Orthodox, even though they may persist in using that name and in bearing various high ranks and titles?

From church history we know that there have been not a few heretics and even heresiarchs of high rank who were solemnly condemned by the Universal Church and removed from their offices.

But what do we see today?

This, sadly, is an age of unlimited concessions and sly collaboration, when even the most scandalous heretical actions or statements disturb hardly anyone. Very few react to this manifest apostasy from Orthodoxy as they should, and as for condemning these new heretics and apostates -- there is no point in even thinking about it. Today everything is permitted for everyone and nothing is prohibited for anyone, except in cases where someone is personally hurt, offended and insulted when their own folly is pointed out. Oh, in such cases, this is unforgivable! Then threats make their appearance, based on those forgotten canons, which otherwise are "obsolete, outdated and unacceptable" in our advanced, progressive age!

That is the kind of moral disintegration, of real spiritual monstrosity, that faces us.

The truth is readily ignored and brazenly flouted, while evil, just as readily, celebrates its triumphant victory and gloatingly mocks the truth which it has overthrown and trampled upon.

Is it possible to reconcile one's conscience to this contemporary situation?

Can one close one's eyes to all these lies and falsehoods and calmly act as if one saw nothing wrong?

Only individuals whose consciences are burned out or completely lost can do so! That is why it is more than strange to hear some, imagining themselves to be Orthodox, call the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, "Old Believer," "schismatic,"  "retrograde," "obscurantist," and so on, simply because we will not walk in step with these times and dare not to apostatize in anything from Christ's Gospel and the original teaching of the Holy Church, and therefore consider it an obligation of conscience to condemn this clear and obvious evil of contemporary life which has already penetrated into the Church.

In fact, it is not we who are schismatics, but all those who follow the spirit of these times and by that act cut themselves off from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, apostatizing from the apostolic faith, from the faith of the Fathers, from the Orthodox faith, which established the whole world. These people are obviously hurtling over the precipice of apostasy -- into the abyss of perdition, together with the whole contemporary world, burying themselves in their apostasy from the life-creating God.

Do you hear the Apostle's divinely inspired words, modernists, attempting to distort Christ's Gospel and become so readily and zealously "conformed to this world," evil and alluring as it is?

We readily accept your indictment that we are "old believers," considering it an honor to our traditionalism; but how does your Christian conscience get on with your innovating, which overthrows essentially the ancient, true faith and Christ's unchanging Church?

Was it not the Apostle who warned all Christians:

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God" (Rom. 12:2).

We are "old believers", but not schismatics, for we have never cut ourselves off from the true Church of Christ.

We are in union with our Head, Christ the Savior, with His holy Disciples and Apostles, with the Apostolic Fathers, with the great Fathers and Teachers of the Church, and with the great luminaries and pillars of the faith and piety of our Fatherland, Holy Russia. But you are in union with some sort of innovating, self-appointed teachers, whom you advertise everywhere so unlawfully and obstinately, disparaging and at times even daring to criticize the genuine luminaries of our Holy Church, who have pleased God and been glorified in many ascetic struggles of piety and miracles throughout the course of Her two-thousand-year history.

This being the case, which of us is really the schismatic?

Of course it is not those in the spirit of traditional Orthodoxy, but those who have apostatized from the true faith of Christ and rejected the genuine spirit of Christian piety; even though all the contemporary patriarchs, who have altered our age-old, patristic Orthodoxy, may be on the latter's side, as well as the majority of contemporary, so-called Christians.

Indeed, Christ the Savior did not promise eternal salvation to the majority, but, quite to the contrary, He promised it to His "little flock," which will remain faithful to Him to the end, in the day of His Glorious and Terrible Second Coming, when He will come "to judge the living and the dead."

"Fear not, little flock," He said, painting the frightening picture of the last times of apostasy from God and persecution of the Faith before our mind's eye, "For it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom" (Luke 12:32).

This is why all we have said above prompts us to re-examine the terminology that has been accepted up to the present. It is insufficient in our time to say only "Christian" -- now it is necessary to qualify this by saying "true-Christian." Similarly, it is insufficient to say "Orthodox" -- it is essential to emphasize that one is not referring to an innovating modernist "Orthodox", but to a true Orthodox.

All genuine zealots of the true faith, serving Christ the Savior alone, have already begun to do this, both those in our Fatherland, enslaved by ferocious enemies of God, where zealots depart into the catacombs like the ancient Christians, as well as in Greece, our brother nation, where the "Old Calendarists" not only refuse to accept the new papal calendar, but also reject all innovations of any kind. They have a special veneration for that champion of Holy Orthodoxy, St. Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus, thanks to whose steadfastness the impious Union of Florence with papal Rome in 1439 failed.

In our firm stand for the true Faith and Church, it is essential only to avoid everything personal -- pride and self-exaltation, which inevitably lead to new errors, and eventually even to a fall; we have already witnessed this in several cases. It is not ourselves we should praise, but the pure and immaculate Faith of Christ. No fanaticism is admissible here because it is capable of blinding the spiritual eyes of such who are "zealous not according to knowledge." Rather than confirming one in the Faith, this blind fanaticism can sometimes lead one away from it.

It is important to know and to remember that a true Orthodox Christian is not someone who just accepts the dogmas of Orthodoxy formally, but a person who, as our great Russian hierarch St. Tikhon of Zadonsk taught so beautifully, thinks in an Orthodox way, feels in an Orthodox way, and lives in an Orthodox way, incarnating the spirit of Orthodoxy in his life. This spirit -- ascetic and world-renouncing, as is clearly set forth in the Word of God and the teachings of the Holy Fathers -- is most sharply and boldly denied by the modernists, the "neo-Orthodox," who want in everything to keep step with the spirit of this world lying in evil, whose prince, in the words of the Lord Himself, is none other than the devil (Jn. 12:31). Thus, it is not God Whom they desire to please, but the "prince of this world", the devil; and thereby they cease to be true Orthodox Christians, even if they call themselves such.

If we consider this more seriously and deeply, then we will see that this is precisely the case and that modernism with its innovations is leading us away from Christ and His true Church.

Let us be horrified at how rapidly apostasy has proceeded, although the modernists do not see it or feel it, inasmuch as they themselves are taking an active part in it.

And so let us not fear to remain in the minority -- far from all their high-sounding titles and ranks. Let us always remember that even Caiaphas was a high priest of the true God, and to what depths he sank -- to the horrible sin of deicide!

While living in this world which has apostatized from God, let us strive not for specious human glory and cheap popularity, which will not save us, but only to be within Christ's "little flock."

Let us be True Orthodox Christians, not modernists!

 

Source: Orthodox Life, Vol. 25, No. 3 (May-June 1975), pp. 4-8.