The heretical principle of the "independence" of Orthodoxy in communion with heresy!

Nikos E. Sakalakis | April 5, 2019

 

Undoubtedly, certain "theological" formulations today are regarded as a confession of faith in the Church, without being in absolute relation to what the Church believes and holds and to what constitutes Patristic tradition.

An example is the statements of Fr. Aimilianos of Simonopetra before His Eminence Maximos, who had gone to the Holy Mountain as a Patriarchal exarch, regarding the steadfastness of the reinstatement of the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the punishment of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou.

Fr. Aimilianos: "For this reason, before you, holy president, I confess that my devotion to the Mother Great Church of Christ is such that I would prefer to be in error but to hold firmly to the Holy Mother Church, rather than to be correct independently of her, because I would not have the certainty that I am standing on secure ground" (Proceedings of the Second Session [assembly] of September 28, 1979, p. 2).

In contrast to Fr. Aimilianos, St. Gregory Palamas declares:

"That we believe rightly in God, that is, that we think well and securely and piously concerning Him—whence is the proof for us? From the agreement with our God-bearing Fathers;" that is, "that we believe rightly in God, that is, that we think well and securely and piously concerning Him—whence does the proof come? From the agreement with our God-bearing Fathers" (Homily VIII, E.P.E. 9).

This delusion of Fr. Aimilianos, who desires Orthodoxy as an opposing current to Ecumenism while being in communion with it, is also reflected in contemporary Episcopal, Eldership, and Academic positions. His Eminence Maximos spoke (at that time) to the Holy Community about the promotion of Orthodoxy through Dialogue (instead of the correct [approach], which is reproof). Before he went to the Holy Mountain, he had declared:

"The unity and union of the Churches, which constitutes the final and much-desired goal of the Dialogue, cannot be achieved when each church excludes for itself the possibility of delusion. The conviction of each church that only it possesses the truth and that it is never in error excludes dialogue, and consequently, renders it incapable of seeing the truth clearly. The Dialogue does not seek to impose the truth, but to discover it" (Orthodox Migrant, May 1972, p. 5).

To the ecumenistic–heretical propositions of His Eminence Maximos, the abbots and superiors of the Holy Monasteries of the Holy Mountain did not respond.

Questions: How were they able, in their conscience, to "reconcile" the timeless confessional disposition of the Athonite tradition with the ecumenistic activities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Why this inferiority of the "contemporary" abbots before the ecumenistic arrangements? I believe that, until today, the onslaught—penetration of Ecumenism (a chronic illness) has created altered consciences, which seek to confine within "logical" limits the confessional practice—perspective of the Fathers.

They now adopt/profess the principle (heretical) of the independence of Orthodoxy while in communion with heresy, believing that this post-patristic tactic does not negate the identity of an Orthodox. They are in error!

In reality, all those "anti-ecumenists" who do not follow the practice of the Fathers against Ecumenism believe and accept:

• A "new Church," which constitutes the abolition of the first Orthodoxy, as it was delivered to us by the Apostles and the Fathers.

• They accept and believe in the principle of the independence of Orthodoxy, as an opposing current to Ecumenism, while in communion with it.

• They reinforce the "new" ecumenistic Church, which removes from them the identity of the Orthodox.

Behold the infectious axes of life, which they "baptized" as economy. Before the heresy of Ecumenism, its falsehood, its hypocrisy, and its traps, the contemporary "spiritual fathers" and the people they influence respond:

"Better to be in error within the Church than to rightly define the word of truth outside of her."

This open proclamation of communion with heresy does not constitute patristic teaching, as they claim. No special knowledge of the science of Logic and Theology is required for the faithful to perceive that this is a sophism.

St. Gregory Palamas writes:

"Those who have fallen away from this only and one piety rush into the manifold and multiform course of delusion, with which is naturally united falsehood, which divides the soul from the truly existing things…

For this reason, every heresy contains within itself inconsistency and self-destruction..." (Antirrhetic VI, E.P.E. 6).

In the Philokalia (Volume IV, pp. 61-62, 135), we read:

"The great adversary of the truth, which today draws people to perdition, is delusion. Through this, the ignorance of darkness prevailed in the souls of slothful people and alienated them from God...

In delusion, therefore, these three passions exist:

Unbelief, malice, and slothfulness, one giving birth to the other and being allied together."

By studying the words of the Holy Fathers, we understand—and it is not at all paradoxical—that there exists (today) an escalating neo-patristic effort to withdraw the practice of the Fathers, which is also supported by "spiritual fathers"!

In this ecumenistic effort, the historical/theological basis of the stance of the Fathers against heresies is systematically/methodically disregarded.

For this reason, every anti-ecumenistic effort/tactic, which has no connection with the confession of the Fathers, manifests today heresy, inconsistency, and self-destruction...

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2019/04/blog-post_68.html