Why Didn't Contemporary Saintly Elders Wall Themselves Off?

P. Makris | February 2, 2015

The occasion for writing the following text was the conference (parody) held on November 27 of this year by the Holy Metropolis of Piraeus.

As is well known, proponents of the potential interpretation of Canon 15 of the First-Second Council often use the argument that the contemporary Elders (Paisios, Porphyrios, Iakovos, and others) did not wall themselves off from the heresy of Ecumenism and, by extension, from the respective Patriarchs. This same argument was also presented by one of the speakers at the aforementioned conference, Fr. Ioannis Fotopoulos. With this text, we hope to provide satisfactory answers on this matter and to once again demonstrate the obligatory nature of walling off from the modern heresy of Ecumenism.

The first to use this argument was Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos in his well-known book "The Two Extremes." He attempted to justify (and support) his own lack of walling off by referencing the lack of walling off by Saint Justin Popovich.

More specifically, the justification used by Fr. Epiphanios—and employed by all contemporary advocates of non-walling off—relates to the virtues and gifts of the contemporary Elders. They ask us: How is it possible that these charismatic and virtuous Elders could have been led into error?

We must first understand that whether we choose the path of walling off or not must be based on the timeless faith and tradition of our Church. The stance of any individual, no matter how virtuous, should not be our guide; instead, this role belongs to the timeless faith and tradition of our Church. We cannot base our decision on what this or that Elder did, as this is not relevant to us. What matters is what we will do. We will not have to account to God for the stance taken by any particular Elder but for the stance we ourselves have taken. If the Elders did not follow the timeless faith and tradition of our Church regarding the matter of walling off, that is their concern, not ours, since we will only be held accountable for our own actions, not those of others. We will answer for whether we followed the teachings of the Fathers. Why certain contemporary virtuous figures did not do so is their issue, not ours.

Some raise the objection that the contemporary Fathers did not leave walling off as a legacy.

To this argument, we respond that the Church is not an institution created in the last century for us to evaluate based on such a narrow criterion. The Church acquired visible existence (as it existed eternally in its uncreated nature) on the day of Pentecost. Therefore, if someone wishes to discover the Church's position on this specific matter, they must delve into and investigate the stance the Church has held on this issue since the day of its appearance as a visible institution. Not to mention that one could go even further back to the era of the Old Testament. There, one will find God commanding the Israelites to eliminate from the face of the earth "all the kingdoms of Canaan," precisely so that His chosen people would have no contact with those of other faiths. This command was not upheld by the Israelites, and as a result, they eventually distanced themselves from God due to the influence they received from those peoples. Therefore, whether the contemporary Elders walled off or not is their concern. We must follow the legacy left to us by the Saints throughout the ages and not base our judgment solely on the actions of the contemporary Elders.

If we examine and find that the contemporary Elders differ from the earlier Saints concerning this matter, then we must reject their stance on this issue as incorrect and not follow it. At this point, we must not forget that, according to Holy Scripture, not only these charismatic Elders but even if all the angels from heaven were to descend and teach us, in words and deeds, that those holding heretical beliefs and all those who publicly and synodally violate one or more Gospel commandments should be treated differently than the teaching of the Apostle Paul and the Evangelist John the Theologian, we must not be convinced. Instead, we should hold that the "faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) allows neither addition nor subtraction, not even by one iota or one dot (Matt. 5:18). Thus, some, albeit unintentionally, diminish these charismatic Elders and present them as opposing Holy Scripture and the entirety of Orthodox Tradition.

You often raise the argument: if the Elders were wrong, then how did the Spirit rest upon them, enabling them to acquire the gifts they possessed?

Regarding the gifts, we must respond as follows:

They asked Saint Athanasios the Great, "How is it that some heretics often perform signs?"

He replied: "This should not astonish us. For we have heard the Lord saying that many will say on that day, '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.' For often, it is not the conduct of the wonderworker that accomplishes the healing, but the faith of the person approaching him. For it is written, 'Your faith has saved you.' However, it is also necessary to understand this: that at times, certain individuals of poor faith have offered great labors to God through asceticism, and they have received their recompense in this present age from God—the gift of healings and prophecies—so that in the age to come, they might hear, 'You have received your good things and your labors; now, therefore, nothing remains owed to you.'" (P.G. 28, 665).

Another argument concerns the virtuous life of the contemporary Elders.

To this, we respond as follows: Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer tells us: "Anyone who speaks contrary to what has been ordained, even if he is trustworthy, even if he fasts, even if he practices chastity, even if he performs signs or prophesies, let him appear to you as a wolf in sheep's clothing, working the ruin of the sheep."

With the above, we do not intend to claim that these Elders were not Saints; God forbid. We simply wish to show that our stance does not depend on the position taken by this or that Elder but on the stance that the Church has upheld timelessly on this matter.

Additionally, regarding the issue of the Elders, we must also raise the following objection: besides the charismatic Elders (Porphyrios, Paisios, Philotheos, and others) who reposed in communion with the heresy, there are many other equally significant Elders who reposed separated from the heresy, such as: Elder Ieronymos of Aegina, Saint John the Romanian of Hozeva, Elder Gennadios of Akoumion, Crete (who belonged to the extreme faction of the Matthewite Old Calendarists), Charalambos the Fool-for-Christ of Kalamata, Saint Tarso the Fool-for-Christ, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Saints John Maximovitch and Philaret, Hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad, whose relics are incorrupt, as well as the recently discovered incorrupt relic of Metropolitan Konstantin Essenky, also of the Russian Church Abroad. Many of these are even recognized by the New Calendarists.

To complete the list of charismatic Elders and Saints, we must mention that, in order to demonstrate where the Church is, even the Papists proclaim that they have charismatic Elders and Saints after the schism, as well as miracles that take place within their domain, such as those of Our Lady of Lourdes, and so forth.

We must also take into account the era in which these contemporary saintly figures (Paisios, Porphyrios) lived. Every person is influenced, to some extent, by the time in which they lived. We are living in the last days, where, according to the Saints, good will be called evil and evil good, white will be called black, and black white. To give an example:

"The great ecclesiarch Sylvester Syropoulos describes in his memoirs a remarkable reaction and walling off of the people from the priest of their parish. This priest, out of what we might call simple curiosity, wished to observe how the enthronement of the new Patriarch was conducted. Thus, when Patriarch Joseph passed away during the Council of Florence, the Latin-minded and unionist Metropolitan Metrophanes of Cyzicus was elected at the emperor's urging. At this procession and ceremony, the Latin Bishop Christopher was also present. Syropoulos describes the events and what relates to the priest Theophylact as follows:

'The Metropolitan of Cyzicus, therefore, prepared himself and received the message; he also summoned the Metropolitans of Trebizond and Heraclea to come according to the message, but they did not come. On Wednesday, the day on which the feast of the Holy Resurrection of Christ was celebrated, which was also the fourth of May, he came to the imperial palace and was proclaimed Patriarch by the Emperor. We were also present at the announcement and the proclamation and accompanied him to the Patriarchate. The Latin Bishop Christopher, representative of the Pope, was present along the entire route, remaining on the right side of the Patriarch and not distancing himself from him at all. This caused even greater reproach and aversion toward the Patriarch from the people, as they considered him to be embracing Latinism. The people received the Patriarch's blessing with great displeasure, and some even withdrew so as not to witness his blessing. Let me add a brief account to illustrate the fervent zeal for Orthodoxy of this pious and truly Christian people, which is otherwise charming. A certain priest wanted to see how the proclamation of the Patriarch was conducted; the priest’s name was Theophylact. He borrowed a horse (for he did not own one) and came to the imperial palace. Having seen the proclamation, he came with us all the way to the Patriarchate. Then he returned to his own residence, and at the time of Vespers (for it was the Feast of the Ascension), he rang the church bell, but no one came to his church. Likewise, at Matins, no one came. He also waited during the time of the Divine Liturgy for someone to bring him the Eucharistic gifts, but no one did, and thus he did not celebrate the Liturgy.

Angered, he approached those who usually attended the church and asked why they had not come to church on such a feast day. They replied: Because you accompanied the Patriarch and Latinized. The priest said, How did I Latinize? I went simply to observe the ceremony, which I had never seen before. I neither wore liturgical garments, nor chanted, nor did I perform any priestly act. How then did I Latinize? They replied, But you associated and walked alongside those who Latinized in the presence of the Latin-minded Patriarch, and you received his blessing. At this, the priest became deeply distressed and sought to appease them with sworn promises that he would never again go to the Patriarch or associate with those close to him. Only then was he able to persuade them to return to the church. If this small story has added some flavor to the narrative, it nonetheless provides clear evidence for those who wish to understand the disposition of this most Christian people, by the grace of God, toward preserving the sound doctrines of the Church and how they abhor and reject the spurious and foreign.'" (Sources: Sylvester Syropoulos’ Memoirs as cited in The Timeless Agreement of the Holy Fathers on the Obligation of Canon 15 of the First-Second Council Concerning the Cessation of Commemoration of a Bishop Preaching Heresy in the Church, by Hieromonk Euthymios Trikaminas, p. 554).

This description highlights the stance of the people and their role in the restoration of Orthodoxy. The people not only knew their faith but also understood the position they should take when it was betrayed. That position was walling off.

Let us now consider the other side (the present one) of the coin:

The existence of cases of ecclesiastical communion between Orthodox and heterodox, which we will mention below, demonstrates that "ecumenistic" discordances—similar to those of today—occurred even a few decades before the schism of 1924, without the Fathers breaking ecclesiastical communion with those responsible for such actions…

At the beginning of the 19th century, "there prevailed among many Orthodox clergy and laity a severe ignorance and confusion regarding the relations between Orthodoxy and the heterodox... One of the foreign missionaries, the Greek-speaking Hartley, having established a school in Aegina, preached from the pulpit of the Orthodox church on the island, with the then-Bishop of Talantion, Neophytos Metaxas, among his audience. This same individual, even as Bishop of Attica, maintained close relations with the foreign missionaries, participating in Protestant funerals conducted in Orthodox churches.

"During the reception of Otto, upon his first arrival in Athens, Neophytos, dressed in full hierarchal vestments, even had Protestant pastors in his entourage!

"A Protestant procession, an Orthodox hierarch, and a Papist king formed a composition reminiscent of external ecumenistic unity! Ecumenistic notions were already deeply corroding the Church in Greece."

In 1837, Gregory VI, Patriarch of Constantinople, permitted "blessings to be performed for the Armenians," while in 1874, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople allowed the distribution of the Great Blessing of Water to the aforementioned heretics. In 1879, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople also permitted, by economia, Orthodox priests to "baptize the children of Armenians, administer the sacraments in Orthodox fashion to Armenians at the hour of death as Armenians, and perform their marriages in the absence of a priest" only "in cases of urgent and unavoidable necessity." In other words, "sacramental communion with the Armenians in the Holy Eucharist, Baptism, and Marriage was introduced." Until then, the Orthodox clergy of the Ionian Islands "did not hesitate to baptize the children of the British," "when they had no Anglican priests," and also to officiate at the weddings and funerals of "Roman Catholics (Uniates) in Syria."

The celebration of mixed marriages between Orthodox and heterodox was permitted in the mid-19th century through decisions made by both the Holy Synod of the Kingdom of Greece and the Church of Constantinople.

In 1869, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople also decided that "in the absence of a heterodox priest, heterodox individuals may be buried by Orthodox priests according to a specific established Typikon and may also be interred in Orthodox cemeteries."

"In the year 1863, an Anglican clergyman was admitted to the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist in Serbia, with the approval of the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church." (For further details, see the book Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, The Two Extremes and Vasileios Papadakis, The Schism of Old Calendarist Zealotry.)

The two examples above illustrate how deeply Orthodox ethos has been eroded in recent times. Unfortunately, instead of mourning this fact, some individuals (such as the authors of the aforementioned books, Epiphanios Theodoropoulos and Vasileios Papadakis) use these actions to justify their refusal to wall themselves off. This erosion of Orthodox ethos naturally influenced contemporary Elders as well. Moreover, Elder Paisios himself, in a 1969 letter to Fr. Charalambos Vasilopoulos, confessed: “I would first like to ask forgiveness from everyone for daring to write something, as I am neither a saint nor a theologian.” This demonstrates that the Elder—and, by extension, most Elders—did not place great confidence in themselves (due to their humility) regarding theological issues. It is reasonable to conclude that, in an era when Orthodox ethos had been eroded and views like those of Fr. Epiphanios (concerning a potential interpretation) had become widely known, contemporary Elders would have been influenced by them. Especially considering that Fr. Epiphanios, who was regarded as reliable due to the reputation he had gained, it was only natural that the Elders would place trust in his writings, particularly if they had not studied opposing perspectives.

It would also be wise to take into account the personal passions and fears that may have existed in each Elder and which might have prevented them from walling themselves off. It is well known that Elder Paisios had negative experiences with the zealot monks of Mount Athos when he first went there. The zealots, due to their "zeal not according to knowledge," greatly troubled the Elder and gave him a very negative view of all zealots. This undoubtedly influenced his perspective on the matter of walling off. If, however, the Elder had encountered virtuous zealots, we cannot know what stance he would have taken on this issue. Furthermore, the dire state of the Old Calendarist movement likely served as a significant obstacle for the Elders.

But how could the enlightened Elders have been led into error, some may ask.

First, we must understand that enlightenment does not automatically imply infallibility. In the Orthodox Church, the Saints are not infallible, and many times they have fallen into significant errors. For example, Saint Cyril considered John Chrysostom to be akin to Judas: "Command that the name of John be removed from the list of bishops. For if we consider this to mean nothing, let it not grieve the company of the apostles to have the traitor ranked among them. And if the name of Judas is added, where then will Matthias be placed? Therefore, if no one would remove Matthias to add Judas to the company of the apostles, let it remain and be preserved, I beg you, that after Nektarios of blessed memory, the second place in rank is held by the illustrious Arsakios.” (P.G. 77, 356B).

All this was due to the brainwashing he had undergone from his uncle, the former Patriarch of Alexandria, Theophilos. This demonstrates that our personal experiences and knowledge play a role in such matters.

The story is well-known about the elder who had reached the spiritual level of having angels as co-celebrants in the Divine Liturgy. However, when a deacon once visited the small chapel where the elder served to observe the service, he noticed that it was being conducted according to a heretical typikon. When the deacon pointed this out the first time, the elder ignored him; the second time, he ignored him again. On the third occasion, the elder turned to the angel and asked, "Is what he says true?" The angel replied, "Yes, it is true." The elder then asked the angel, "Why didn’t you correct me?" to which the angel responded, "Because God desires that a person be corrected by another person."

The above story appears to be perfectly aligned with another account found in the Gerontikon, which goes as follows: An elder was trying to find the interpretation of a Scriptural passage. He prayed for days on end but was unable to receive an answer. One day, he decided to visit his neighbor, another ascetic, to ask him. As soon as he set out to go, an angel descended from heaven to provide him with the interpretation. The elder asked the angel, "Where have you been all this time? Why didn’t you come sooner?" The angel replied, "Because God was waiting for you to humble yourself by going to another person."

With the above examples, I want us to understand that God will not send angels from heaven to correct us. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect the Elders to wall themselves off when they were misinformed about something; if there was no one to correct them, how could they have been corrected?

The argument "we do not wall ourselves off because we are waiting for God to enlighten our elders about when they should do it, and we will follow them" is entirely out of place and context. As we have just demonstrated, this will never happen. Christ established teachers in the Church precisely for this purpose. He is represented in His teaching office by those who teach. No one will go directly to Christ to ask Him to deliver a sermon or solve a question, but they will go to those who teach and preach. As we read in 1 Corinthians 12:28–29: "And God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers... Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?" Therefore, let no one expect heavenly illumination or an angel from above to guide them. "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them... If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead." (Luke 16:29, 31).

At a time when no one was found to admonish the Elders, how could they correct their error? However, despite the stereotypes that existed against walling off or ceasing commemoration, we see Elder Paisios breaking these stereotypes. While in 1969 he wrote: "I am of the opinion that it is not good at all to separate ourselves from the Church every time the Patriarch errs. But from within, close to the Mother Church, each person has a duty and obligation to fight in their own way," he eventually demanded and imposed the cessation of the Patriarchal commemoration even in the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita. This demonstrates the obligatory nature of walling off because, if it were optional, he would not have imposed it.

Regarding the above, some might mention the divine illumination received by Apostle Paul, which led him to the truth.

In the case of Apostle Paul, there was divine intervention due to his good disposition. However, we must understand that God does not intervene in all cases. How many other Jews with a good disposition did God intervene for in the same way as He did for Apostle Paul? Unless we are to assume that all the other Jews had an evil disposition.

I believe, based on what I have mentioned, that matters of faith are judged exclusively on the basis of Holy Scripture and the teachings of the Saints, not on charismatic Elders. This is because personal issues and, at times, human exaggerations often come into play—manifested in an unhealthy and imaginative overzealousness, a desire to exalt one’s Elder and prove him to be charismatic, and perhaps even the promotion of these Elders for commercial reasons (e.g., Elder Joseph of Vatopedi, whose sanctity is even questioned by some New Calendarists). Beyond this, God is not obligated, for reasons known to Him, to grant certain gifts to specific individuals. Furthermore, the enduring miracles that take place in Orthodoxy, such as the Holy Fire received by the Orthodox on Holy Saturday in Jerusalem, do not necessarily prove or certify that we are walking correctly in matters of faith.

Brothers, let us remain steadfast in the good confession of our walling off, without judging anyone else for what they have or have not done, because we MUST NOT condemn our fellow human beings but instead walk as God wills.

Let us hold fast to the words of Saint Maximus: "The three youths who did not worship the image did not condemn anyone, even though all others worshipped it. For they did not concern themselves with the actions of others but rather focused on ensuring that they themselves did not fall away from true piety. Similarly, Daniel, when cast into the lions' den, did not condemn those who did not pray to God according to Darius' decree but focused on his own conduct. He chose to die rather than betray God or be scourged by his own conscience for transgressing the natural laws. May God not allow me to condemn anyone or to say that I alone am being saved." (P.G. 90, 121).

For us, the words of Saint Mark of Ephesus are sufficient:

"All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils, and all the divine Scriptures advise fleeing from those of different beliefs and separating from their communion."

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2015/02/blog-post_54.html