The Papal Heresies (Latin False Doctrines) are condemned by many Holy Synods and by the Holy Fathers.

Amid the multitude of erratic outcries that desperately attempt with pompous nonsense to support Ecumenism, the baseless argument is heard that Papism has not been condemned by a Synod (!?). Those who support this obviously possess no knowledge of theology, while at the same time they are entirely ignorant of historical reality.

As a response, we publish an excerpt from the remarkable study of the late Metropolitan Ambrosios of Eleutheroupolis [+1984], which he composed during the period of the ruthless openings toward Papism by Patriarch Athenagoras. The Metropolitan lists a series of Holy Synods that condemned Papism and its delusions. He also mentions names of Saints who clearly regarded Papism as a Heresy (naturally, there has never been a Saint who disagreed on this point).

...Are therefore the heretical teachings of the West “condemned” by Synods or Fathers?

Let us see:

The great Synod of 879 in Constantinople, considered by many as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, having accepted the Creed without the addition of the Filioque, dogmatized:

“We all thus think, thus believe. Those who think otherwise than this or dare to present another creed in place of this, we subject to anathema. If anyone should dare to write down another creed besides this sacred Symbol or to add or subtract from it and should impudently call it a creed, let him be condemned and cast out from every Christian confession. Therefore, if anyone, driven by such recklessness, should dare to compose another Symbol and call it a creed, or make an addition or subtraction to the one handed down to us by the holy and ecumenical great Synod held first in Nicaea, let him be anathema!” (ibid., pp. 263–264).

Behold, therefore, a most severe, most official, most solemn, and of almost Ecumenical character condemnation of the heretical and blasphemous Filioque!

When Pope Sergius IV of Rome used the Creed with the addition of the Filioque (1009), the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius..., by decision of a Synod, erased the name of the aforementioned Sergius of Rome from the diptychs of the Eastern Church; and since then until today no papal name has been placed therein” (Vas. Stefanides, Ecclesiastical History, 1st ed., p. 344).

The names of the Primates of Churches are not, of course, erased due to “local customs,” but because of heresies!

The Latin false doctrines were also condemned by the Synod in Constantinople in 1054, when the definitive Schism took place, which specifically called the “Filioque” not a “local custom,” but a “blasphemous dogma” (ibid., p. 344).

The Latin false doctrines were also condemned by the Synods of 1341, 1347, and 1351 which dealt with Hesychasm.

The Synod in Constantinople in 1440, the Synod in Russia in 1441, the Synod in Jerusalem in 1443, the Synod in Constantinople in 1450, and the Synod in Constantinople in 1484, condemned and rejected the pseudo-synod of Florence, which had accepted the “union” on a false and baseless foundation, namely by not considering the innovations of the West as heresies.

The Synod in Constantinople in 1722 condemns “the dogmas of the Latin false doctrine and perverse thinking” and declares that through them “the Latins deceive the simpler ones, leading them away from the pious Dogmas of the Church of Christ and dragging them miserably into the depths of perdition.” (ibid., vol. II, pp. 823–824).

The Synod in Constantinople in 1727 rejects the heterodox teachings of the Latins, both old and new, and describes them as “long-winded nonsense and inventions of soul-damaging flattery and offspring of a deluded mind” (ibid., p. 867).

The Synod in Constantinople in 1838 harshly condemns the heterodox teachings of Papism as “blasphemies against the Evangelical truth,” as a “Luciferian delusion,” as a “departure from God and from the immaculate and pure Faith of Jesus Christ,” etc. (ibid., pp. 896, 902).

The Synod in Constantinople in 1848 condemns Papism as a heresy! “Of these heresies, which have spread widely—by judgments known to the Lord—over a great part of the inhabited world, one was formerly Arianism, and today it is Papism,” which it characterizes as overthrowing all the Ecumenical Councils through its delusions! (ibid., p. 906).

The Synod in Constantinople in 1895 condemns the heterodox teachings of Papism as “notions of arrogant pride,” as “unlawful and anti-Gospel innovations,” as “essential differences concerning the Faith, relating to the God-given Dogmas of the Faith,” as “anti-Gospel and utterly unlawful,” as “grave and essential differences concerning the Faith,” for the adulteration of the writings of the Ecclesiastical Fathers and the misinterpretation of both Holy Scripture and the Definitions of the Holy Synods; and it concludes: “Therefore, it has rightly been rejected and continues to be rejected, as long as it persists in its delusion” (ibid., pp. 933, 935, 936, 938, 942).

I am asked: Should the Patriarch have first asked me whether I approved of his various actions? Certainly not! Who am I that the Patriarch should ask me? Such a demand would be tragic for me!

Yet I had one demand.

That he should ask the Synods of 867, 879, 1009, 1054, 1341, 1347, 1351, 1440, 1441, 1443, 1450, 1484, 1722, 1727, 1838, 1848, 1895; that he should ask the holy Fathers and the wise Teachers of the Church; that he should ask Saint Photius, the venerable Theophylact, Saint Gregory Palamas, Symeon of Thessalonica, Saint Mark of Ephesus, Eugenios Voulgaris, Nikephoros Theotokis, Saint Nikodemos, Saint Nektarios, and many, many others; that he should ask, much more so, the venerable and divinely-inspired Ecumenical Synods, which through their holy and sacred Canons forbid, under penalty of deposition, every kind of common prayer with heretics, schismatics, or those out of communion—and if all these approved of his actions, his declarations, his common prayers, his general conduct, then indeed—so be it!

No one would have the right to disagree, no one to protest, no one to obstruct. But when His All-Holiness acts contrary to the Synods, to the Fathers, to the Canons—as if all these had no true love and no fervent concern for the fulfillment of the Lord’s request “that they all may be one,” but were instead full of hatred and indifference—then we too are justified (are we justified or obliged, willingly or unwillingly?) to act contrary to His All-Holiness!

For us, above every Patriarch stand the holy Fathers, the venerable Synods, the sacred Canons. And, should we perhaps find ourselves before grievous dilemmas of obedience...

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/06/blog-post_86.html