Disciples at the Infallible School of Holy Tradition

Hieromonk Theodoretos (Mavros) the Hagiorite | Fifth Sunday of Great Lent, 2002

[Note: This article was directed toward Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, who then advocated the so-called "resist from within" position. However, since the 2016 Pseudo-Council of Crete, he has advocated a cessation of commemoration from the Ecumenists in Greece (without a full breaking of communion). Yet his previous stance, rightly condemned as anti-patristic, is still maintained by many "conservative" voices in Official Orthodoxy]

 

The pope’s visit to Greece [in 2001] is indeed a fact that provoked many reactions—so many as had never before been recorded, even though very grave betrayals of the faith had taken place. We do not censure this. We are only grieved by the subsequent stance of those who reacted.

They stopped at words. None of them dared to break communion with the Latin-minded [Archbishop] Christodoulos [of Athens] and his Synod. And while they proclaim that “we are living in a worse period than Iconoclasm,” nevertheless they do not imitate any confessor of the icons! They are content with a few threats and “proclamations,” like those of the Athonites in 1964. And worse still! They declare that they are imitating all the great confessors of the past, such as Maximus the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, Mark of Ephesus, who, as they claim, struggled against heresy from within the Church, just as they are doing now!

They also do not hesitate to invite the Old Calendarists to return once again to the Church, so that they may struggle together with them—but this time from within the Church!

In other words, we have a repetition of the well-known positions of Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos from 1969, which the Athonites and the bishops of Greece followed with much delight.

1. The occasion for the present article was the lecture given in Larissa (March 24) by the well-known professor and priest Fr. Theodoros Zisis. Dominating it is the following "Epiphanian" position: "Reaction—yes, but never schism. The struggle will take place from within the Church." And this because, according to Fr. Theodoros., this stance was also maintained by the leading confessors of Orthodoxy—Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Theodore the Studite, and Saint Mark of Ephesus. We quote his very words: "We will remain within the Church and struggle. What we will never do is tear the Church and cause a schism. Neither Mark of Ephesus, nor Saint Maximus the Confessor, nor anyone left the Church. Neither did Saint Theodore the Studite and make his own Synods… Let them depose us, let them revile us… Let us have our conscience at peace that we are following the saints"!

Here is repeated what was erroneously and sophistically supported by those who wrote before Fr. Theodoros, to whom we have devoted dozens of pages, refuting their mistaken positions. If Fr. Theodoros had had the interest to read them, he would not now be preaching these entirely ahistorical and so offensive things concerning the saints. We write this because the above-mentioned positions of his are clearly contrary to the holy Canons, the patristic teaching, and also the life of the three foremost Confessor Fathers.

Thus, the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, praising those who break communion—before a synodal decision—with one who preaches heresy, considers them saviors of the Church! And Saint Maximus the Confessor, when asked with which Church he communes, since all were in communion with the heretical Constantinople, answered: “The Catholic Church is the right and saving confession of faith in Him… this the God of all has declared.” (P.G. 90, 132). It sufficed for him that he held the right faith, not communing with heresy. He was not frightened by the thought of perhaps remaining alone. As long as he was with the truth, he was also with the Church!

This fear is held by the Papists, who have made the pope the life-giving center of the Church, from whom all priesthood and grace proceed—and likewise among us by the followers of the “Epiphanian school,” who, even at the mere thought of not being in communion with the Greek Patriarchates—even if they are heretical—are seized with nausea…

Finally, Saint Theodore the Studite considers it a “betrayal of the Orthodox confession” for someone to remain in communion with his heretical bishop! (P.G. 99, 1365 A). He even calls another abbot “thrice-wretched” for continuing the “pernicious communion” with the iconoclasts, describing him as “a model of denial, an exhortation to perdition…” (ibid., 1337 C). And elsewhere he adds the classic statement: “For Chrysostom has declared with great and loud voice that the enemies of God are not only the heretics, but also those who commune with such as these.” (1049 A). As for Saint Mark of Ephesus, his life and words are a true battering ram against those who baselessly claim that after the Council of Florence he was in communion with the Latin-minded of Constantinople. Behold his immortal words: “You also, brethren, flee from communion with the excommunicated and from the commemoration of those who are not commemorated. Behold, I, Mark the sinner, say to you, that whoever commemorates the pope as an Orthodox hierarch is guilty of fulfilling all the things of the Latins, even to the shaving of the beard, and the Latin-minded shall be judged with the Latins and shall be reckoned as transgressors of the faith”! (P.G. 160, 1097 D, 1100 A).

It is most grievous that Fr. Theodoros claims that “Saint Mark remained with a Latin-minded patriarch” while struggling! The saint’s words allow for no misinterpretation whatsoever.

“I have been confined by the Emperor. But the word of God is not bound; rather, it runs swiftly and is prospered, and most of the brethren, emboldened by my exile, cast reproaches upon the wretched and transgressors of the right faith and the paternal ordinances, and drive them away from everywhere as filth, neither tolerating to concelebrate with them, nor in any way commemorating them as Christians”! (ibid., 1097 AB).

The anti-patristic position “struggle from within the Church” constitutes an anti-traditional and self-contradictory slogan, since the real struggle begins from the moment the faithful cut off all communion with heresy, so that they may no longer be considered accomplices and supporters of it, but true opponents of it. Then, according to the words of Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, two things occur: those who react “free the Church from the schism and heresy of their false bishops,” and they themselves are deemed “worthy of due honor as Orthodox”! This is the Orthodox position in this matter; all else constitutes a misinterpretation and a deliberate distortion of it!

2. Toward the end of his lecture, compelled by the audience to speak also about the Old Calendarists, he said the following tragic and untrue statements:

“I deeply respect the brethren of the Old Calendar… Let them leave behind how many schisms they have (they have had 12 Synods! how many do they have?) and let them return here to the Church, and let us all struggle together.

“The issue is not whether we are with the Old or the New [Calendar], but whether we will save our soul. And we save our soul within the Church”!!!

Indeed, we are saved within the Church, since “outside of her there is no salvation,” but which Church? The one that is in communion with heresy? That concelebrates with the Papists? That accepts salvation exists even outside the Church? That blasphemes against her uniqueness through her participation in the World Council of Churches? That believes and proclaims that the Monophysites, Papists, and Anglicans possess divine Grace? Certainly not! A thousand times no! On the contrary, we are saved only when we do not commune with such a Church! For then we are, according to the great Gregory Palamas, “of the Church of Christ.” On the contrary, those who commune with heresy and thus “are neither of the truth nor of the Church of Christ,” according to the same saint. (Complete Works, vol. 2, p. 627).

Many have often criticized the priesthood of the Old Calendarists, but their ordination documents have completely refuted them. (Cf. Stavros Karamitsos: The Ordinations of the G.O.C. from a Canonical Perspective, Athens 1997, pp. 110).

Their weak point is their divisions, which Fr. Th. mocks. We agree. However, it must not be overlooked that it was the New Calendarists themselves who created the most significant of these divisions, in order to dissolve them!..

Were there not also observed divisions within the body of the Orthodox iconophiles during the time of Iconoclasm? The great Theodore the Studite writes on this matter:

“Because I learned from the grammateus, O dear brother, that disputes have arisen among you… I received this news with sorrow, knowing that these are sowings of the Devil, which cause schisms even within the healthy part of Orthodoxy. This is a cause for joy to the adversaries [= the iconoclasts], who from our own weaknesses claim that their impiety stands justified.” (1285 D).

So also now: there may be various Old Calendar Synods, but this does not touch upon the essence of their thoroughly traditional struggle, nor does it provide justification for the New Calendarists to remain in heresy. Let them dare walling off, and let them not unite with them. Then—only then—will they realize how difficult unity is in such struggles. At present, their criticisms resemble the admonitions of a well-dressed spectator in the stands to a sweat-drenched yet victorious athlete on the track...

The issue, then, is not the multiplicity of Synods among the Old Calendarists, but rather the belief of the New Calendarists—which is contrary to the Orthodox tradition of faith—that: a) one must never break communion with their bishops, because they will be found outside the Church and salvation, and b) the Old Calendarists who dared to do so became schismatics and are therefore an example to be avoided!..

Both positions are completely anti-traditional, unsupported by the sources of the holy fathers. I do not even refer to the third and serious reason—the lack of zeal in struggle and of a spirit of sacrifice—which characterizes the clergy of the new [calendar]…

For further details, we refer to our following works: “Dialogues of the Desert on Ecumenism,” “Antidote,” and “When the Watchmen Betray.”

3. Finally, in order to calm certain fervent listeners who desired an immediate reaction, he said: “Not all bishops are ecumenists... Mount Athos is still at the forefront... There are many captains. Don’t all try to be captains.”

Whom he considers captains he had previously written in the Orthodoxos Typos, when he characterized the abbot of the Monastery of Gregoriou as a “wise man and confessor”! (Issue 8.2.)

To commune for thirty years with three heretical patriarchs of Constantinople—Athenagoras, Demetrios, and Bartholomew—and still be called a confessor!! This says quite a lot, which we reserve to comment on shortly. Certainly, the stance of the abbot of the Monastery of Gregoriou is maintained by all the abbots of the Athonite monasteries, except that of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou. Nevertheless, for Fr. Th.Z., Mount Athos is “still at the forefront,” meaning in the struggle against heresy! What a distortion of reality!!

We recognize one priority and one primacy in the stance of Mount Athos: that it leads in the condemned communion with the proclaimed heresy of the Phanar, serving as a model of perdition for bishops, clergy, and laity of the Orthodox Church throughout the world!

In closing, I must add that I have no prior conflict with Fr. Theodoros. On the contrary, in fact, through a letter of mine, when he reacted concerning the pope, I emphasized to him that “he greatly gladdened the Orthodox” with his conduct at that time. I even visited him and personally congratulated him. Today, however, I fully disagree with his words and approach, as well as with his collaborators. He does not express our patristic inheritance. On the contrary, his discourse becomes an obstacle to souls who thirst for the truth of Orthodoxy. At the same time, however, he becomes a supporter of the archbishop, whose one concern is to prevent the growth of the Lord’s encampment—the gathering of the genuine Orthodox—whom he continually accuses.

I believe, finally, that thorough study and freedom from prejudices are required in order to faithfully imitate the holy fathers, both in their life and in their teaching, which I sincerely and wholeheartedly pray for.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2015/03/blog-post_9.html