Walling-off from contemporary delusions

Walling-off from Contemporary Delusions (Responses and Questions)

Nikolaos Mannis | August 26, 2013

On the blog "Private Road," a highly significant article titled "On the delusion of contemporary 'walling-off'" by the theologian-philologist Kostas Nousis was published (in two parts). [1]

This article is highly significant, as we mentioned earlier, because it helps to separate the wheat from the chaff. But let us proceed in order.

The word "ἀποτείχιση" derives from the verb ἀποτειχίζω, which means "to separate (enclose within or without) something with a wall" (Concise Lexicon of the Greek Language by Skarlatos D. of Byzantium, Athens 1839). Thus, when Orthodox Christians speak of walling-off during a time of heresy, they mean their separation from heretics. Separation from heretics is self-evident for all Orthodox Christians in all eras. The only one who attempted not only to disparage it but also to attribute to it a completely different meaning, presenting it as schism, was the late Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, whom Mr. Nousis cites. Fr. Epiphanios was promoted both during his lifetime and after his death as a "new Zonaras," a "great Canonist," and a "giant of Canon Law."

The Orthodox, however, who have never cared about what the world says but about what God says through the Holy Fathers, hold a different view. Nevertheless, we will not elaborate here on the writings of Mr. Nousis (which, as a copy of the arguments of Fr. Epiphanios, have already been refuted many years ago by the late Fr. Theodoretos [Mavros] in his works "Dialogues of the Desert on Ecumenism" and "The Antidote," and which Mr. Nousis, unfortunately, appears to be unaware of). Instead, we will respond to the questions he poses (since he requests it), while also asking him to provide answers to the questions we will pose to him (which, likewise, are not rhetorical).

Mr. Nousis writes: "There is a series of questions (rhetorical only for those who wish to hide from themselves and others) that require answers from today's 'anti-ecumenists' and generally from zealots." We present Mr. Nousis's questions along with our responses.

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: Can the Divine Liturgy be celebrated without the commemoration of the Local Bishop? If yes, is it valid, and under what conditions?

ANSWER: Of course, the Divine Liturgy can be celebrated without the commemoration of the Local Bishop and still be valid (after all, it is through the operation of the Holy Spirit that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, not through the commemoration of the Bishop). A characteristic example of such a case is when the Local Bishop preaches heresy, and therefore his subordinate clergy have ceased commemorating his name. For instance, during the patriarchate of Nestorius of Constantinople, Orthodox clergy ceased commemorating his name and were even punished with deposition. When the Third Ecumenical Council convened, it vindicated the Orthodox priests and punished the heretical Nestorius, who persisted in his delusion.

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: Can a clergyman who has walled himself off voluntarily leave his Bishop and join another or any diocese of his choosing around the world?

ANSWER: A clergyman who has separated himself from his unorthodox Bishop should not join another Bishop but should commemorate during the Divine Liturgy "on behalf of our Archbishop" without mentioning a name, awaiting the decision of a Synod. However, in the case of widespread heresy, he should seek out other Orthodox believers to jointly struggle for Orthodoxy, opposing heresy, bearing witness for the Faith, and striving for the convening of a Great Council that will restore peace to the Church. If, among those struggling Orthodox, there is an Orthodox Bishop who has no communion with the unorthodox, then the clergyman may commemorate his name temporarily (until the convening of a Council).

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: Ultimately, when is an "unjust" ecclesiastical decision considered valid? Can anyone reject it based on their free interpretation or subjective interest?

ANSWER: An unjust decision is invalid, especially if the body that issued it errs in matters of faith. This is evident in the case of those "deposed" by Nestorius, who were not deposed for any transgression but because they rightly separated from him. Therefore, anyone can reject such a decision, particularly when they are deposed for such a reason. In any case, justice will ultimately prevail—whether through a synodal decision in this life or definitively in the life to come. I also cite the words of the late theologian Aristotelis Delimpasis: "This was written by St. Celestine of Rome regarding the heresiarch Nestorius, who punished Orthodox believers in Constantinople who opposed his heresy. Specifically, he stated that Nestorius 'could neither depose nor remove anyone from their position' (Celestine of Rome, Migne PG 4, 1045), because he was a heretic. From when did he lose such a right? From the moment he began proclaiming his heresy: 'from the time he began preaching such [heretical] things' (ibid.). Thus, the condemnatory decision of the heretic Nestorius had no validity, not even temporarily (ibid.)." (Source: "Good Confession" magazine, issue no. 58).

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: If not, does one sin by respecting the decision and striving to overturn it through every other lawful and legitimate means?

ANSWER: St. John Chrysostom teaches that there is both just and unjust deposition (see Pedalion—Interpretation of the 28th Apostolic Canon): "Whoever is deposed out of envy or another unjust cause brings upon themselves a greater reward than that of the priesthood. Therefore, they should rejoice and not grieve. But to those who unjustly deposed them, they bring condemnation." Certainly, one sins if they accept an unjust decision because they contradict themselves by considering their deposition to be just! St. John Chrysostom himself did not accept his "deposition" and continued performing sacred rites in full accordance with the canons.

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: Since the various Shepherds of ours who participate in joint prayers and dialogues for Ecumenism have not been synodically deposed until now, are we defiled by communion with them?

ANSWER: Allow me to reframe the same question (though rhetorically): Since various collaborators of ours who participate in burglaries and bank robberies have not been legally convicted of theft until now, are we at risk by collaborating with them? Therefore, the answer is: Yes, we are defiled, and even more so when we are aware of it.

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: Is the entire Orthodox Church defiled by the aforementioned heresy? If so, where does purity exist, and how and by whom will ecclesiastical healing begin? Who are the "purified" clergy and laity from this illness, and how are they defined?

ANSWER: Certainly, it is defiled to such an extent that the primates of the Local Churches and the vast majority of Local Bishops are bearers of the heresy (this has happened before, e.g., during Arianism or Iconoclasm). Purity of faith exists among those who have no communion with the Ecumenists, and it is from them that ecclesiastical healing will begin, if and when it is God’s will. Therefore, the "purified" from this illness are the clergy and laity who have no communion with those defiled by the heresy.

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: How is it that walled-off clergy and laity follow the New Calendar? If they claim that they are ecclesiologically addressing Ecumenism, why do they not do so by returning to the traditional calendar? In any case, how can they accept the economia of tolerance for the New Calendar while simultaneously rejecting the "ecumenist" actions of today's hierarchs? Unless they do not consider the calendar change to be ecumenism-related, in which case they must sufficiently justify this stance to us.

ANSWER: These are entirely valid questions. However, we will not answer them because we follow the traditional ecclesiastical calendar.

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: Are the contemporary holy elders (at least according to the majority of Orthodox believers) not also defiled by the ecumenist heresy?

ANSWER: Apart from the fact that the acceptance of a person by the majority (especially in an era when we know how public opinion is shaped) has never been a criterion of their sanctity, we cannot answer whether contemporary holy elders (those who are promoted, because there are also other contemporary holy elders who are not promoted) are defiled or not, because we must NOT judge our fellow human beings but proceed as God wills. Concerning this, St. Maximus the Confessor writes: "The three youths who did not worship the image did not condemn anyone, even though all men were worshipping it. For they did not look at the deeds of others, but they focused on ensuring that they themselves did not fall from true piety. Similarly, Daniel, when thrown into the lions' den, did not condemn anyone who did not pray to God, as per the decree of Darius, but focused on himself. He chose to die rather than fall away from God and be scourged by his own conscience for transgressing the natural laws. May God grant me, too, not to condemn anyone or to say that I alone am being saved." (PG 90, 121)

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: How are the gifts of these men, as well as every miracle within the Church (relics, icons, etc.), explained?

ANSWER: Regarding the gifts of these men, we once again have nothing to say, especially when we know that there are "gifted" and "miracle workers" even outside the Church. As to how they are explained and whether the Grace of God is at work, this will be answered by St. Athanasius in the next question.

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: If the Grace of God is not at work in all these things, then what exactly is happening?

ANSWER: St. Athanasius was asked, "How is it that some heretics often perform signs?" He replied: "This should not surprise us. For we have heard the Lord saying that many on that day will say, 'Lord, did we not cast out demons in Your name and perform many mighty works?' And He will say to them, 'Truly, I say to you, I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.' Often, it is not the virtue of the miracle worker that performs the healing, but the faith of the person approaching him. For it is written, 'Your faith has saved you.' Moreover, it is necessary to know this as well: that often some, though unfaithful, have offered great labors to God through asceticism, and they received their reward in this present age from God—the gift of healings and prophecies—so that in the age to come they may hear, 'You have already received your good things and your labors; now, therefore, nothing further is owed to you.'" (PG 28, 665) Thus, the Grace of God, which indeed exists, is directly related to the faith of Christians and does NOT stem from the Ecumenists or those in communion with them.

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: If, however, the Grace of God is indeed at work and the Church is alive, why do some who wall themselves off choose to "detach" from it? And if they do, where exactly do they go and with whom do they align themselves?

ANSWER: Regarding Divine Grace, we have already responded above. Those who wall themselves off from the heretics do NOT detach from the Church but from the heretics. In doing so, they genuinely express the Church, as they do not go anywhere but remain steadfast in what has been handed down. Let us reflect together with the holy Patriarch Meletios Pegas: "When we all rise and stand before the dread judgment seat, whom will the Fathers recognize as their own? Those who have abandoned the patristic faith and traditions, or us, the Orthodox, who have altered nothing in any way?" (Vasileios Knezis).

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: If these elders are considered sanctified and filled with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, why, being in the same ecclesiastical conditions as us, have they not separated themselves, prompted by a corresponding "revelation" of the Holy Spirit?

ANSWER: This has already been answered above. The issue is not what the elders do not do, but what the Fathers (those recognized as holy elders) did.

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: Do those who dare or plan today's cessation of communion not place themselves above these discerning Elders?

ANSWER: Do those who commune with heretics and do not wall themselves off not place themselves above the Saints (recognized Saints) and Fathers, who broke communion with heretics, giving us the example of how we should respond to heresy?

QUESTION by Mr. Nousis: More simply, beyond selective interpretations of the Canons, Scripture, the Fathers, and Church history, on what else do contemporary clerics and laity base their separatist tendencies and actions? And how certain are they that their actions align with the will of God and are not sins?

ANSWER: If the Holy Canons, the Holy Scripture, the Holy Fathers, and Church history are not sufficient as foundations for us, compared to your sole foundation (the elders), we also have one such foundation: our own elders, whom you will not find in newspaper inserts or on major websites but only by praying to the Lord to reveal them to you.

The questions we pose are few because we genuinely wish to engage in dialogue. They are also few so that, should there be a substantive response, Mr. Nousis's intention for dialogue, as well as how he perceives it, may become evident. We therefore await answers to the following only:

1. Is Ecumenism a heresy? If not, why does Fr. Epiphanios, whom you reference in your article, consider it a heresy (specifically calling it "worse than all heresies")?

2. If Ecumenism is a heresy, does not the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council speak about walling off from those who preach it? And if this Canon is at least optional, why are those who make use of it criticized, since even its optional interpretation supports them?

3. Is it possible for a Bishop to be a heretic, or does the mere fact that he is a Bishop exclude this possibility? And if he is a heretic, what should the faithful's stance toward him be according to Orthodox teaching?

Sincerely,
Nikolaos Mannis
Teacher

1. Part 1: https://panagiotisandriopoulos.blogspot.com/2013/08/blog-post_24.html and Part 2: https://panagiotisandriopoulos.blogspot.com/2013/08/blog-post_8241.html

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2013/08/blog-post_26.html