The case of Fr.
Nikolaos Manolis and Fr. Theodoros Zisis
Panagiotis Simatis |
May 28, 2017
[The following article is dated – some of the addressed
clergy have fallen asleep – but the critiqued anti-patristic understanding is
still held by many nominal "confessors." Written by a new calendar neo-zealot theologian who fell asleep in 2023.]
It is a distressing thing to
expose unsound teachings of men whom, until recently, we praised as fighters in
this unprecedented struggle against the Pan-Heretical Ecumenists. But again, it
is our duty in the days we are living in not to permit the distortion of our
Holy Patristic Tradition, insofar as we understand it.
Unfortunately, “again and again,”
certain anti-Ecumenists—and recently the trio of priests who have lately walled
themselves off (Fr. Theodoros Zisis, Fr. Nikolaos Manolis, and Fr. Photios
Vezynias)—have expressed positions contrary to our Holy Tradition regarding the
matter of separation from the heretical Ecumenists. From time to time, we have
touched upon their unsound positions with brief comments, but instead of this
criticism prompting them to reflect and helping them to examine the matter more
deeply, it caused them to expose themselves even more and—to justify their
positions—to argue with claims that distance them even further from Orthodox
Tradition!
Since, therefore, these positions
are being repeated and they seek to impose them as teaching in the Church, we
shall examine them today in a more extensive text, because our stance toward
the heretics has salvific consequences—it is related to the Orthodox confession
that the Lord demands from the faithful—and it is not an academic-theological
issue unrelated to the salvation of our souls, which we can bypass or defer for
resolution in the future. Heresy is here, now, and not tomorrow. More
precisely: it has been present here for decades and is continually expanding.
The three aforementioned
fathers—who brought us joy some months ago by ceasing the commemoration of
their bishop—now assert positions which, in essence, nullify the very purpose
for which walling off (or cessation of commemoration) is undertaken. Since, as
they say, the walled-off clergy have no church in which to serve, they may go
and attend services in other churches where the heretical bishop from whom they
have walled themselves off is commemorated!!!
This, however, is an unsound
position, since it is contrary to the teaching of the Saints. And
unfortunately, this is what they advise the faithful to do, even presenting
themselves as an “infallible guide”!!! For they say: yes, indeed, Exactness
dictates that we should not attend services where the heretical bishop is
commemorated, but the Church—apart from Exactness—also uses Economy, which is
likewise a lawful path.
These positions are unprecedented
and novel, and are not found in the Orthodox ecclesiastical Tradition.
Separation from the Bishop is not merely a protest, as they claim, but, having
a salvific character, it is an act of distancing oneself from the defilement
brought about by heresy. As for Economy, it is not applied in such cases, but
pertains to other situations and under different conditions, as ecclesiastical
history and the example of the Saints show us. Economy is essentially a form of
illegality, a temporary deviation from the Canons, carried out in order to
address a particular case or situation, and it cannot overturn the reasons for
which Exactness was established—that is, it cannot grant an indulgence for the
violation of Commandments and Holy Canons!
The aforementioned fathers are
also involved in the discussion on the validity of Mysteries. Their argument
is: since the Mysteries performed by a heretic who has not been condemned are
valid, then we may, until the heretics are deposed, commune with them and
receive divine Grace through them. However, the Holy Canons and the teaching of
Holy Scripture and the Saints do not approach the matter from this perspective.
Separation from heretics is commanded regardless of the validity or invalidity
of the Mysteries, because what defiles is heresy and communion with heretics.
Nor are we taught that we must first secure a Bishop or priest to perform the
Mysteries for us and then depart from heresy, for heresy (whether condemned or
not) defiles and leads to perdition. That is why the Orthodox Tradition,
through the mouth of the Evangelist John, teaches: Flee far from the heretics;
and not only to avoid sacramental-ecclesiastical communion with them, but not
even to say “rejoice” to them! And Fr. Theodoros Zisis himself, addressing the
Metropolitan of Thessaloniki: “By agreeing with the Ecumenists, you are
hindering the salvation of souls” (https://katihisis.blogspot.gr/2017/02/blog-post.html).
We shall demonstrate all this,
not by referring to Patristic texts of our own choosing or to our own studies,
but to a book by one of the three fathers themselves, Fr. Theodoros Zisis,
which was written in recent years and makes use of abundant and indisputable
Patristic examples.
Before that, however, it is
necessary to present some excerpts from a recent unsound sermon delivered about
a month ago (April 30, 2017, here) by Fr. Nikolaos Manolis.
He said: He ceased commemorating
“our metropolitan, who continues to lie to the people every Sunday during the
Liturgy, commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, with the false
declaration to the people and to God that he rightly divides the word of truth.
The patriarch, who in these days has done all the disgraceful things one could
do… Metropolitan Anthimos, by commemorating the patriarch and declaring that
(the Patriarch) rightly divides the word of truth, this is a teaching of Mr.
Anthimos that proves he is ‘openly’ preaching heresy, since he recognizes the
Ecumenical Patriarch as rightly dividing the truth.”
We have an obligation, therefore,
“as priests to follow the Canons and also to give direction to the flock that
follows us and to those who trust us, as to which path they should follow… It
is the priest who ceases commemoration, not the laity; for it is the priest who
liturgically commemorates the bishop. By ceasing the commemoration, he can do
two things. Exactness requires that he not participate at all in services where
the name of the bishop is commemorated, (and Economy allows) that we may go to
those churches (where Anthimos is commemorated) to attend the services…”
[Ed. note: Fr. Nikolaos does not
explain to us, nor does he theologically or ecclesiologically demonstrate, why
he and his flock may attend services at the church of the priest who
commemorates Mr. Anthimos—whose commemoration he and his spiritual children
have, at the same time, ceased! Fr. Nikolaos assures us that Mr. Anthimos
“preaches heresy ‘openly,’ since he recognizes the Ecumenical Patriarch as
rightly dividing the word of truth,” and the Patriarch is the chief leader of
the Pan-heresy and, as such, is preaching heresy “openly”! And since Mr.
Anthimos is a heretic because he commemorates a heretic, then what is the
priest who commemorates Anthimos? Does he not “also continue to lie to the
people every Sunday at the Liturgy,” commemorating and presenting as Orthodox
the heretical Metropolitan Anthimos? Is he not defiled through communion with
the heretical Anthimos? By communing with or commemorating a heretic (according
to the Holy Fathers), do we not show by this commemoration and declare that we
have the same faith as the one we commemorate and commune with? Are we not
defiled (according to the Holy Fathers) by participating in the Divine Liturgy
of one who embraces heresy, when we knowingly do so? Does not Saint Theodore
the Studite say that even the mere commemoration of a heretical bishop
constitutes defilement and deprives one of Orthodoxy, while ecclesiastical
communion with heretics separates us entirely from Christ? (Letter 174).
Does not Saint John Chrysostom
say that “not only the heretics, but also those who commune with them are
enemies of God”? (Letter 39). Does not Saint Athanasius the Great (to mention
only these) say that we must avoid not only the heretics but also those who
have communion with them? (Letter 160).]
“Personally, I, along with Fr.
Theodoros,” (continues Fr. N. Manolis), “tell our spiritual children, who are
unable to do otherwise…, to attend services in churches where the most
traditional priests serve (the pious priests), even if they commemorate… I even
demonstrated this with my own presence—twice after ceasing commemoration I went
to the church (!!!)—in order, with my presence, to show that I have no
difference in faith from Fr. Antonis [ed. note: who, however, Father,
commemorates the heretical Anthimos of Thessaloniki!]. I have cut off communion
and have no spiritual relationship with my bishop, who is an Ecumenist. But
that does not mean that the Liturgy performed by Anthimos lacks Grace. That is
why I even allow my own spiritual children (to attend Liturgies in which the
names of heretics are commemorated). I have not told my children by force, ‘do
something else.’ If I were to say that by force, then I would be a
blasphemer(!). I speak with boldness. Because then I would be denying that the
one who moved me to this step, I took was the Grace of God. If I didn’t do it
last year, I didn’t do it because I didn’t have that much Grace. I didn’t have
that much Grace. Now, the abundant Grace has come and led me to this. So, if I
acknowledge that there was Grace—which I read within myself and study—then how
can I say to my neighbor, grab him by the collar and say, ‘come (wall yourself
off)’? That is, shouldn’t Grace first come to him? Shouldn’t it act? Yes, I
will help. With knowledge, with information, with my life and with my prayer.
That’s why it’s good that you consult me. I speak to all and give direction to
all.”
[Ed. note: That is to say,
Father, a) Instead of you observing Exactness and setting the example for your
spiritual children—always under the condition, of course, that they wish to
follow you—you teach them Economy as an… equal path! b) You say that you did
not understand what our Holy Patristic Tradition teaches on the matter, that
you did not benefit from the Grace hidden in the writings of Scripture and the
Saints, but waited first to be given a special revelation, a Grace from above.
And you tell us that you first “received” this revelation in 2001 with the
coming of the Pope (as you say in the video), but you did not make use of it.
Now, however, you have received it again, and so you proceeded to cease
commemoration. And you tell us that you are an “infallible guide,” in order to
prompt us to follow you! What can one even begin to say in response to such a
teaching of yours?
So then, in order for someone to
keep the Commandments, he must wait to receive a “special” Grace from God? Is
the Grace hidden in His Commandments not sufficient? Is the simplest thing not
enough: the keeping of the divine Commandments, which from the Old Testament
already advise us to separate ourselves from the heretics? Is it not enough to
follow them, while of course invoking help from on high?
Are you saying, then, that those
who do not separate from the heretics are not themselves to blame, but it is
Divine Grace that has not yet been sent to them? Is Grace not given to all?
Does Divine Grace not urge all of us to keep the Commandments? Do you not
believe that Grace is given to all, and that some accept it while others reject
and do not receive it?
And furthermore: what paradoxical
claims are these that you express, Father? You say that the pious priests—to
whom you send your spiritual children to commune—even though they commemorate
heretical Ecumenists, receive Divine Grace to be pious, but do not receive
Grace to separate from the Ecumenists? What sort of teachings are these, Father
Nikolaos? You tell us that the “pious” priests to whom you send the faithful do
not wall themselves off because they have not yet received Grace?]
Fr. N.M. continues: A certain “Fr. Nikolaos has seven children;
Fr. Ioannis has five. It is not easy (for them to cease commemoration), because
they are being threatened regarding their salary, etc. They are waiting (for
the Grace in order to wall themselves off), and they themselves acknowledge
that it is a matter of Grace…
“So then, both—the one who
attends traditional priests who commemorate, and the one who, by himself,
decides with the blessing of his elder to follow a strict line and to attend
services only with priests who do not commemorate—must intensify their personal
effort in seeking, finding, and accepting God Himself, in order to escape the
danger of delusion. For this, an infallible guide is needed. Glory be to God,
before us stands Fr. Theodoros Zisis. God has raised up a luminary with a
patristic spirit, a contemporary Father, to set forth this line, the Orthodox
one. And we, his fellow travelers in this effort—both I and Fr. Photios—can
give you the guidance you need, because alone you will go astray. With an
infallible guide, then—and I include myself among them, because I follow an
infallible Father—we will lead you to a safe harbor…”!
We say the same to the people
(continues Fr. Nikolaos). “Because the people cannot do what we are doing. I
have the capacity, the experience, the knowledge to do what I am doing. It’s
been two months now that I have not attended church in a temple, but I have
made the ‘house church.’ I have the means, though—the knowledge, the will. The
people? Very few know what to do… But the rest of the people, who do not know,
say: how will I celebrate Pascha, where will I go to church, how will I receive
Communion… Ideally, I myself should perform some Liturgy somewhere… But for the
people who cannot accept these things and do not know them… what should they
do? Here the Church provides the solution of Economy (until the time comes when
each one will find another way out): to go and attend services in churches
where the bishop’s name is commemorated, because the Mysteries are valid.”
[Ed. note: As we explained above,
the Fathers do not examine the question of the validity of the Mysteries when
heresy is present—something that Fr. Nikolaos either ignorantly or deliberately
introduces into the discussion, as do the other two walled-off priests who walk
with him. Here, however, we must also point out that Fr. Nikolaos presents
himself as one richly endowed with divine Grace—unlike others! You stated, Father,
that you have the “qualifications” that others do not! And those others,
in fact, who criticize you—and because they criticize you—you have twice called
them possessed by demons! You decided this on your own and discerned it—you, who are full of Divine Grace!
But how is it possible, you who
are “full of Divine Grace,” to now be teaching the above unsound doctrines? You
tell us that it is not enough to read Holy Scripture and to desire to keep
God’s Commandments. Only if we feel Divine Grace flooding us, as you did, then
we ought to keep God's Commandments! So we must wait for some years, and when
Divine Grace finally comes, then we should separate ourselves from the
heretics—but again, only when we
ourselves decide? Before receiving a special revelation (as you did), we
should not wall ourselves off—even if we have the Gospel Commandments? Even if
all our Patristic Tradition teaches this? This is one heretical teaching.
But you teach yet another
heretical view. And how is it, then, that you,
full of Divine Grace, teach heresies? You teach that we can commune without
fear with the heretics and among the heretics—until they are condemned—even
though we know they are heretics.
Really? Have you not read that the Saints teach us to flee from heretics just
as one flees when he sees a snake or a wolf nearby? Do the Mysteries of
not-yet-condemned heretics, Father, impart Grace also to those who knowingly
receive them, while knowing well that they are heretics? Are they not
spiritually darkened? And now—whom should we listen to? You, who say these
things? Or the Saints, who say the opposite? Or do you perhaps have more Grace
than the Saints?]
These things with regard to your
recent sermon.
And now let us see what Fr.
Theodoros Zisis tells us in his book “Evil
Obedience and Holy Disobedience” (2006), because what he said a decade
ago—at the time when he was an active university professor—overturns your
positions, as well as the positions that Fr. Theodoros himself now teaches!
Fr. Theodoros Zisis (Th.Z.)
writes that “St. Athanasius the Great went so far as to consider that, in cases
of unworthy, evil shepherds who scandalize by their behavior, it is better for
the faithful to gather in oratories—that is, in churches—by themselves, without
bishops and priests, rather than to be led together with them into the gehenna
of fire” (p. 25). Therefore, as you see here, it is absolutely clear that the
Saint does not teach us (in contrast
to your unsound teaching, that of the three fathers) that we must first find
priests to administer the Mysteries to us and then separate from the unsound ones! Nor does he teach that until
we find such priests, we may go and commune with evil or unsound priests!
Also, in his Apologetic Memorandum to Metropolitan Anthimos of Thessaloniki
(1/2/2017), [1] he says that “those who introduce heretics into the Church and
pray together” with those who “like irrational beasts kick against the holy and
sacred things” are not pious. “And St. Athanasius the Great specifically says
that the vision refers to the Arians, and by extension, of course, to heretics
of all ages.”
Fr. Theodoros Zisis (Th.Z.) now
(together with the other two priests) gives different counsel—anti-patristic
and contrary to salvation! Now he has invented Economy! Now he says that if
there are no anti-Ecumenist priests who have ceased commemorating the heretical
Bishop, the faithful should not remain alone, without Mysteries, but that it is
preferable for them to receive them from “pious” shepherds! And whom does he
consider pious? Those who, out of fear, cowardice, or indifference, accept the
unsound Council of Crete, Ecumenism, the bishops who accepted the Council and
commemorate the pan-heresy patriarch Bartholomew! “Who hath bewitched you,” Fr. Theodoros, Fr. Photios, and Fr.
Nikolaos?
But the Saint (as also all the
Saints) gives the matter salvific dimensions. He teaches us that communion with
evil shepherds leads “to the gehenna of fire”! So then, for such a matter, what
Economy do you dare to teach,
fathers?
Fr. Theodoros Zisis wrote that St. Athanasius the Great advised the
faithful: “If therefore, brother, you see someone who has a modest and solemn
appearance, do not pay attention to the fact that he is clothed in sheep’s
wool, that he bears the name of presbyter or bishop… but examine his deeds
carefully: whether he is prudent, whether he is hospitable, or loving… If his
belly is his god, if he is diseased for money and makes merchandise of
godliness, leave him… What do you suppose you will hear that is good from
transgressors? Turn away from them as from wolves” (pp. 26–27).
The same applies in the second
text of St. Athanasius: communion with heretics is described as communion with
wolves! And how much of a shepherd is he who sends his flock into the mouths of
wolf-bishops?
And further on, Fr. Th. Z.,
interpreting once again the words of St. Athanasius, tells us: When some
addressed St. Athanasius concerning the fact that St. Basil the Great avoided
calling the Holy Spirit “consubstantial,” St. Athanasius, after explaining to
them that St. Basil held this stance for reasons of Economy, goes on to say
that “if there truly were something suspect, then they do well to resist” (pp.
28–29)—even against St. Basil the Great! How much more now, when the
Ecumenists, through a Council, have officially endorsed confirmed heresies and
not mere suspicions!
Next, again, Fr. Th.Z. presents
to us the teaching and stance of St. Basil the Great toward the pro-Ecumenists
of his time—the pro-Arians. These men (Fr. Th.Z. explains), St. Basil “does not
even regard as bishops, and he advises the clergy of Nicopolis to have no
communion whatsoever” with one of them, the pro-Arian bishop Fronto; he
essentially incites them to disobedience—holy and divine disobedience. He even
warns them to be cautious not to be deceived by the fact that they appear to
have correctness of faith (“those who claim to have the rightness of faith—for
such men are traffickers in Christ”) (pp. 30–31).
And yet Fr. Th.Z. still
recommends to us, as a lion, Seraphim of Piraeus, who “claims to have the
rightness of faith,” but communes with the leader of the pack of wolves—the
Patriarch—and even sends him a gift-note: the portrait of Mr. Bartholomew,
which was made with the money of the Orthodox faithful and without their
knowledge!!!
And further on, he quotes the following:
“I do not know such a one to be a bishop, nor would I count him among the
priests of Christ, who, by the hands of the profane, has been placed in a
position to destroy the faith under the pretext of defending it.”
And these things, Fr. Th.Z.
notes, he writes “without having the approval of his superior ecclesiastical
authority, of the patriarch or the synod; he addresses himself to clergy of
another diocese…” “This is my judgment. But you, if you share any part with us,
will of course think the same; if, however, you have determined otherwise, each
is master of his own opinion—we are innocent of this blood” (p. 31).
Fr. Th.Z., however, acts
differently. Instead of walking in and advising according to Exactness, instead
of urging the faithful toward it and, like St. Basil the Great, holding
accountable those who do not follow it, he teaches communion with heretics as
the normative path, claiming that Economy supposedly permits it! Even though
St. Basil teaches that we should not even shake hands with them: “not to admit
any into communion, nor even to receive the laying on of their hand” (p. 32).
St. Basil the Great, then, along
with all the Saints, does not recognize the obvious heretic—who through his
unsound doctrines destroys the faith—making no distinction between a condemned
or an uncondemned heretic. He likewise views the relationship with heretics in
terms of salvation, and for this reason concludes: we have given you the proper
counsel; if you do not follow it, “we are innocent of this blood”!
Unfortunately, however, the trio
of fathers teaches otherwise! They teach that we should go and commune from the
Bishops (and the “pious” priests who neither oppose nor object to the decisions
of the heretical–robber Council of Crete!).
And Fr. Th.Z. concludes his remarks
on St. Basil the Great as follows: “From all this (which he previously
mentions), we are taught by St. Basil the Great that no matter how genuine and
devout someone may be, no matter how high the office he may hold—if he hinders
us from keeping the commandments of God or urges us to do what God forbids, we
are obliged to reject him and to abhor him” (p. 37). And let us again recall
from Scripture: one commandment is “Come out from among them”; another is “Do
not even say ‘rejoice’ to them”; a third is “I will not enter into the church
of the evildoers.” (here: https://katanixis.blogspot.gr/2017/03/blog-post_418.html)
Therefore, Fr. Theodoros, while
here you tell us that we must abhor the one who urges us to do what God
forbids, today, together with the other two fathers, you teach us to go and
commune from Ecumenists!
Next, Fr. Th.Z. presents to us
another Saint—St. Maximus. He writes: “In the time of St. Maximus, the heresy
of Monothelitism had prevailed everywhere, just as now, unfortunately, the
pan-heresy of Ecumenism prevails everywhere. In the powerful Church of
Constantinople, before the emperor and the Patriarch who supported the heresy,
all the bishops showed obedience; the only one disobedient was a monk, St.
Maximus, who was certainly regarded as a troublemaker and disobedient—just as
the clergy who now oppose Ecumenism are accused of supposedly disturbing the
flock with their conferences and their words” (pp. 39–40).
Only, what you wish to present,
Fr. Theodoros, is not true. Because the Saint did not stir the waters so much
with his protest, but primarily through his complete—and not halfway—walling
off. That is what “disturbed” the
imperial court and the Patriarchs. That is why they begged or threatened him to
become “in communion,” that is, to be in ecclesiastical communion with
them—with what they considered the canonical and institutional Church—to stop his
full cessation of commemoration! But as you yourself wrote, the Saint did not
grant them that favor. St. Maximus did not regard the Patriarchs and Bishops of
his time as the Church, and he taught that the Church exists where “the one and
the truth” is found—not where the institutional Church is, with its
gold-embroidered vestments, miters, and croziers! All who teach or accept
heresy, or who remain silent and commemorate such ones, are not the true
Church.
And Fr. Th.Z., in the
continuation of his book, presents to us the well-known event: The Saint “is
rebuked by the Patriarch and threatened with punishment because he does not
obey the Church” (p. 40). He is rebuked because he has ceased commemoration
with all the patriarchates and communes with none. And Fr. Th.Z. presents him
to us as an example to imitate! Only that he
himself does not imitate him, and instead teaches—and leads the faithful as
well—not to follow St. Maximus the Confessor, but to practice “evil obedience”
and to follow Fr. Theodoros, Fr. Nikolaos, and Fr. Photios, who in turn teach
the contrary: that it is not possible for the faithful to be deprived of the
Mysteries, and for that reason they must receive them—even if they are offered
by clergymen who have not walled themselves off, who do not condemn Ecumenism
and the Council of Crete, and therefore do not
confess the Orthodox Faith! But St. Maximus preferred not to commune—not with
pan-heretical Ecumenists (the term is yours)—but not even with ordinary heretics, such as the Monothelites!
(Though, of course, heresy is heresy, whether great or small).
These things are confirmed by Fr.
Th.Z., as he also presents the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas (p. 41), who,
according to Fr. Th.Z., “writes even more strictly (than St. Maximus) that
those who accept the truth of the Church belong to the Church; those who do not
obey the truth of the Church do not belong to it—they refute themselves, even
if they call themselves shepherds and chief shepherds” (p. 41). And he
continues: “Peace is not good when it separates us from God—that is, when we
agree and ally ourselves over matters that are contrary to the will of God” (p.
41), just as those now do who signed the heretical Council of Kolymbari, and
those who do not oppose it, but liturgically commune with, and receive
communion from, those who accept that Council and Ecumenism.
Fr. Th.Z. insists on extolling
St. Maximus and emphasizes the “responsibility that lies, in the defense of the
faith, primarily of course with the clergy, but also with the monastics and the
laity” (p. 42). If, then, St. Maximus and St. Gregory Palamas are honored and
held up as examples of responsibility to be imitated, Father, why do you not do
what the Saints did? Even if you are practicing Economy with your flock
(without having the right to dispense “mass” economy!), since communion with
heresy defiles and no economy prevents or removes this defilement which results
from communion with heretics—do you not consider that, in doing so, you are
endangering the salvation of souls? And ultimately, why do you not wall yourself off properly and in an Orthodox manner, as
the Saints did, as St. Maximus did, but instead go and attend services where
heretics are commemorated?
But Fr. Theodoros also speaks
specifically about economy—clearly
against the actions of today’s Fr. Th.Z.! Back then he wrote: “The reply of St.
Maximus was decisive, according to which, in matters of faith, there is no room
for Economy or compromise; heresy is a novelty, and those who attempt to
beautify it with economies are false teachers and deceivers; such men we must
not obey, but flee from, distance ourselves from, so that we may not appear, by
our association, to partake in their evil” (pp. 45–46). Which means that the
Saints teach us that even if it were possible that we ourselves might not
suffer harm by communing with heretics, nevertheless, we scandalize other
weaker brethren and present association with heretics as harmless—thus
contributing to their gradual familiarity with heresy!
The greatest error of Fr. Th.Z.
is in the case of St. Theodore the Studite. While in a recent interview Fr.
Th.Z. refers to St. Theodore dismissively as a zealot—maliciously identifying
him with the Athonite fathers who have fully walled themselves off, whom he
also disparagingly calls zealots—in his book he praises the Saint and presents
him as an example! Let us then see what Fr. Th.Z. wrote at that time in his
book regarding St. Theodore the Studite:
St. Theodore the Studite did not
cease commemoration over a condemned heresy, but over an unlawful marriage—not
only ceasing commemoration of the priest who performed it, but also of all who
were in communion with him. He writes: “The second marriage of the emperor,
blessed by the presbyter Joseph with the tolerance of the patriarch, St.
Theodore did not consider a marriage but an ‘adulterous union,’ and the one who
blessed it not a priest but an ‘adulterer.’” He broke ecclesiastical communion
both with the adulterous celebrant and with those who communed with him, and
although this reaction of his had terrible consequences both for himself and
for the monastic brotherhood of the renowned Studion Monastery, it was because “he
placed above all, as the first priority, the defense of the evangelical truth,
the corruption of which has the gravest consequences upon the spiritual life of
men and their salvation” (pp. 47–48). So then, heresy, Fr. Th.Z., Fr. Photios,
Fr. Nikolaos, gravely harms our spiritual health and is related to our
salvation—and yet you send your spiritual children (out of so-called pastoral
concern, and while vainly promoting yourselves as “infallible” guides of the
faithful!!!) into the mouth of the wolf—do you leave them in the hands of the
heretical Anthimos?
“And just as St. John of Damascus, also a simple hieromonk,
theologically guided the Church to the triumph of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council (787), so too did St. Theodore contribute decisively …to the triumph of
Orthodoxy” (pp. 48–49). So then, behold—at that time St. Theodore was not a
zealot!
And continuing regarding the
stance and positions of St. Theodore the Studite, Fr. Th.Z. writes:
“Let us point out that the Holy Fathers are absolutely right in
teaching complete strictness and the prohibition of the slightest concession in
matters of faith and life, dogma and morals. This strictness preserved our
faith unchanged by innovation and genuine…” (p. 49).
So then, Fr. Th.Z., at that time
you praised strictness, while now, instead of strictness, you prefer
economy—even in the gravest matters, namely, unsound doctrines that the
heretics have secured through a Pan-Orthodox Council!
Today, you wrote (that is,
already from 2006 when you authored your book, but even earlier), there is
observed an “almost total dominance in the administrative Church and in the
theological schools of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism,” which leads “to the
rejection of what has been handed down, even of the Gospel itself, to a
dogmatic minimalism, with the result that the dogmatic teaching of the Church
is scorned through the justification of heresies and delusions…” (p. 49).
“If the ecclesiastical leaders… had reacted as St. Theodore the Studite
did, we would never have reached the recognition and sanctification not only of
second, but even of third marriages… St. Theodore not only did not consent to
nor agree with the emperor’s second marriage…, but immediately rebuked the
transgression and broke communion with the emperor and the patriarch, because
this act, as he says, overturns the Gospel and the holy canons, constitutes a
distortion of the immutable commandments of God, presents them as alterable and
changeable, and consequently presents even God as mutable and alterable” (pp.
50–51). Now, if we were to draw a parallel with present events, Father, would
we not say that—if at least since 2006—you had proceeded with the cessation of
commemoration (which we had jointly resolved, with applause from around a
hundred priests, monastics, and laymen) at the Monastery of Melissochori, we
would never have reached the recognition of the heterodox as “Churches” at the
Council of Kolymbari, nor the further spread of Ecumenism?”
Instead of “the bad example of the emperor taking effect, it was the
boldness and militant spirit of St. Theodore that served as an example to
bishops, presbyters, and monks, who, having recognized that his stance was in
accordance with the Gospel, excommunicated those within their own jurisdiction
who did similar things and disgraced the Christian tradition” (pp. 51–52).
“Addressing even the indifferent monks, who valued more their
monasteries and the peaceful life within them—and for this reason hesitated to
join the struggle for the truth, as sadly also happens in many cases today—he
places the monks before their responsibilities, especially concerning the bad
example they set for the laity… ‘It is not the work of a monk to tolerate in
the least the innovation of the Gospel, lest, by becoming a model to the laity
of heresy and of communion with heretics, they be held accountable for their
destruction’” (pp. 53–54).
And while here you say these
things, how is it that you three—Fr. Theodoros—were demanding from the Athonite
monks to do the opposite? You should have agreed upon the truth, upon
Exactness, and from there onward, freely, whoever wished could follow.
Fr. Th.Z. continues: St. Theodore
teaches what monks must do in times of heresy. That they should not prefer to
retain possession of monasteries… “Remaining in monasteries and holding
monasteries and positions of abbacy, while there is a struggle for the truth,
constitutes a betrayal of the faith and entails the danger of the soul’s
perdition… It is not enough to be Orthodox inwardly; we must also prove it
outwardly” (p. 54). So then, the Saint, according to Fr. Th.Z., not for some
blatant heresy, not for the eschatological pan-heresy of Ecumenism, but for the
contempt of a Gospel commandment, “calls for disobedience and the cessation of
commemoration of the collaborating clergy,” and not only of the ringleader!
Because “heresy is not the Church; heretics and those in communion with them
are not the Church” (p. 55). Yet now, he has invented Economy to replace Exactness,
and attends services at wealthy monasteries whose abbots not only did not
abandon their monasteries, but still commemorate the arch-heresiarch! How can
he attend such services with those who, according to his own teaching, betray
the faith? And how can Fr. Th.Z. permit the faithful to make use of economies,
when the Saint—whom he brings forward as an example—does not pardon them, but
rather considers that in so doing the faith is betrayed? The duty of the
priest, the one sent by God, is to proclaim His will. What each believer does,
and what God’s judgment will be for the shortcomings of each one of us—that
does not belong to the shepherd. Of course, he must counsel and support each
believer, assist him in his weaknesses, instruct him—but he must not direct him to apply economy in
matters of faith, teaching him that either Exactness or Economy are both
correct and canonical paths!
“Not only are we not obliged to obey clergy who teach and dogmatize
innovations, but neither should we accept them as clergy at all, ...‘nor count
him among the lot of the saints,’ and this, ‘we have as a command from the
Apostle himself’” (p. 55). And of course, we are bound to maintain the same
stance toward those who accept and commune with such a one, as he writes above.
But also in footnote 57 (pp. 55–56), Fr. Th.Z. is clear. The Saint
recommends that we avoid “heresy—that is, the heretics—not even to commune with
them, nor to mention them in the most devout monastery during the Divine
Liturgy, for the greatest threats have been pronounced by the Saints against
those who condescend to it, even to the point of sharing a meal.” Moreover,
from other similar references it becomes evident that St. Theodore does not
understand the cessation of communion simply as “some kind of rebuke and
disapproval of the act” or as something “merely ceremonial,” as is claimed in
the doctoral dissertation of Mr. V. Tsingos, but rather as the cessation of the liturgical commemoration
of the bishop’s name… “As soon as we are able, we will attempt to clarify
this matter more fully, by interpreting the few points which led Mr. V. Tsingos
astray, in light of the many that support the cessation of liturgical
commemoration” (p. 56).
Fr. Th.Z. then presents to us the
common stance of the fathers from the time of St. Theodore the Studite, who,
when confronted with the Iconoclast emperor Leo V the Armenian’s demand to
accept heretical positions (p. 60), not only rejected those heretical positions,
but also stated that: “it is neither good nor in accordance with Holy
Scripture” even “to sit together and discuss with you,” since you hold such
unsound positions. “Even to sit in council with you, while you hold such views,
we would consider far from good and indeed dangerous; for let the divine David
now speak in unison with us, saying that one ought not to sit in the assembly
of vanity, nor enter in with the lawless, nor go into the church of the
evildoers or be gathered together with them” (p. 60). “That is why we must
distance ourselves” from the heretics (concludes St. Theodore, and Fr.
Theodoros presents himself in agreement), “as much as possible, and if it can
be helped, not even meet with them” (p. 611).
So then, not even to meet with
them, Fr. Theodoros, Fr. Nikolaos, and Fr. Photios—and certainly not to manage
things by economy in such a way that we end up even commemorating them or
receiving communion from the hands of heretics and evildoers!
And when the emperor, enraged,
asked St. Theodore the Studite, “So then, today you are casting me out of the
Church?” the bold confessor replied, “I am not casting you out—but the Apostle
Paul is… And rather, you yourself, O Emperor, have already placed yourself
outside the Church by what you have done,” and, “If you wish to return and to
be found within the Church, align yourself and stand with those who profess the
truth.” And Fr. Th.Z. concludes: “This dialogical exchange is especially
significant, because it answers the question of who is cut off from the Church:
those who do not obey heretical and heresy-bent bishops—or those who are cut
off from the truth of the Gospel and the dogmas of the faith?” (p. 63).
After all this, Father—things which
you yourself have written, not we—do you now come and speak to us about
Economy? Did you not know back then that Economy exists? Can we be in the
Church and in the Truth while commemorating heretics and heresy-bent clergy,
who even teach and establish the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, which (according to
the much-praised by you late Fr. Athanasios Mitilinaios) appears to be the
final great heresy in history—the eschatological heresy—which no Ecumenical
Council will ever come to condemn?
But Fr. Th.Z. also presents us
with yet another example, one that fits precisely with our own time. He writes:
“Those Latin-minded Orthodox,
equivalent to today’s Ecumenists, after the return of the Orthodox from
Florence and the triumphal reception of Saint Mark by the faithful in
Constantinople—so that he would not be an obstacle to the implementation of the
decisions of the uniate, robber council—isolated him by exiling him to the
island of Lemnos. What then should Saint Mark have done? Should he have obeyed
the Latin-minded Patriarch Metrophanes and his successor Gregory and continued
to commemorate them in the holy services…? Those who ignore the evangelical and
patristic truth and strictness and prefer to be pleasing not to God but to men,
that is what they would recommend. But instead, the wise in divine matters and
unwavering in disposition Hierarch and Confessor not only ceased himself from
having ecclesiastical communion with the Latin-minded Ecumenists, but also gave
orders… that they should inform the patriarch not to send his own bishops or
clergy or any who had communion with him to take part in his funeral, lest it
be assumed that he accepted communion with him even secretly. He emphatically
declares that he does not want to have communion with the Latin-minded either
in life or after death, because he is convinced that the more he distances
himself from the patriarch and his like, the more he draws near to God!” (pp.
69–70).
1. Every year, when you preside over the festal Vespers of
Saint Anthony, you remind us that you translated the Life of the Saint written by St. Athanasius the Great, a fervent
opponent of the heresy of Arius. It seems, however, that you either did not pay
attention to the vision of Saint Anthony concerning the heretics of all times,
or you have forgotten it after so many years. Saint Anthony, then, saw around
the Holy Altar mules standing and kicking—kicking the Holy Table:
“For I saw the Lord’s Table, and around it were standing
mules, encircling it on all sides and kicking at the things within, as if it
were the kicking of senseless, unruly beasts. Indeed, I felt great distress,”
he says, “for I heard a voice saying: ‘My altar shall be abhorred.’ These
things the elder saw, and after two years came the present assault of the
Arians.” Saint Anthony himself interpreted the vision, saying that it signified
that the Church would be handed over to men who are like irrational beasts: “Wrath
is about to overtake the Church, and it is about to be handed over to men who
are like irrational animals.” And St. Athanasius specifically says that the
vision refers to the Arians, and by extension, of course, to the heretics of
all ages: “Then we all realized that the kicks of the mules foretold to Anthony
what the Arians now irrationally do, like beasts.”
Who, then, truly honors the holiness of the Church? Those who
introduce heretics into the Church and pray together with them—while these,
like irrational beasts, kick against the sacred and the holy things—or those
who protest and grieve and are distressed and weep like St. Anthony the Great,
just as all of us were grieved, Your Holiness, when you recently led the
Armenian Patriarch into the sanctuary of the Church of St. Gregory Palamas and
he venerated the Holy Altar? What benefit is there in having translated the Life
of St. Anthony the Great? (“By agreeing with the Ecumenists, you obstruct the
salvation of souls,” February 1, 2017,
https://katihisis.blogspot.gr/2017/02/blog-post.html).
2. Protopresbyter John Romanides states: "Where the
Orthodox dogma is absent, the Church is not in a position to determine the
validity of the Mysteries. According to the Fathers, Orthodox dogma is never
separated from spirituality. Where there is erroneous dogma, there is erroneous
spirituality, and vice versa. Many separate dogma from piety. This is a
mistake. ‘Even the mere commemoration of a heretical bishop constitutes
defilement and deprives the one who commemorates him of Orthodoxy, while
ecclesiastical communion with heretics completely separates us from Christ’ (Epistle 174).
According to St. John Chrysostom, not only the heretics, but
also those who commune with them are enemies of God (Epistle 39), while according to St. Athanasius the Great, we must
avoid not only the heretics but also those who have communion with them (Epistle 119).
The reception of the Eucharist from the heretical
pseudo-church, which has torn the Body of the Church (Epistle 62), has been cut off from the Body of Christ and subjected
to eternal anathemas (Epistle 129);
it is not the Body of Christ (Epistle 197),
but a communion of the adversary (Epistle
534), a poisonous bread and a venom that darkens and kills the soul (Epistle 24). ‘Just as light is separated
from darkness, so also is the Orthodox Communion from that of heretical
communion: the one enlightens, the other darkens; the one unites with Christ,
the other with the devil; the one gives life to the soul, the other kills it’ (Epistle 233)."
For the one who partakes of it is disinherited from Christ
like Judas and becomes a partaker with those who handed over the Lord to be
crucified (Epistle 244).
Just as the Divine Bread, when received by the Orthodox,
makes all those who commune into one body, so also the bread of heresy—since it
causes those who commune in that way to have fellowship with each other—makes
them one body opposed to Christ (Epistle
154).
Moreover, the temple that is defiled by heretics is no longer
a holy house of God, but a profane dwelling, as St. Basil the Great says, since
the angel who was present in it—just as he is in every Church—withdraws from it
on account of the impiety of the heretics.
For this reason, neither is the sacrifice that is performed
within it acceptable to God.
And hear Him who says: "He
that sacrificeth an ox, as if he slew a dog" (Epistle 24).
…According to the Divine Canons, even feasting together with
heretics is forbidden (Epistle 119)
and with those who have communion with them (Epistle 115).
When someone has ecclesiastical communion with heresy, he
cannot become a friend of God, but remains His enemy—even if he were to offer
all the money in the world.
But why speak only of communion?
Even if one eats or drinks or forms friendships with
heretics, he is accountable (Epistle 32).
Christianity consists of faith and works; if either of the
two is lacking, the other does not benefit the one who possesses it (Epistle 28).
Christ is Risen!
Monk Makarios of Koutloumousiou
Greek source:
https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2017/05/blog-post_416.html
