Aristocratic Presbyterianism

Ioannis Rizos | April 18, 2017

(A Neo-Zealot source)

 

In his recent explanatory (online) statements, Fr. Theodoros Zisis, after impressing us with his elevated chair which successfully floated on the black sea of flattery and conceit, also impressed us with his incoherent explanations. From the galley of Gatzea, he descended to the small boat of walling-off, and thought he was speaking to jokester students in the amphitheater, who were awaiting their much-desired grade. Although he himself and his associates ought to give an account for their deeds during the eighteen years of Gatzea, through which he trapped and neutralized the purest and most fervent forces of Orthodoxy, he insatiably announced to us how much he is esteemed and respected (by those like him) within and outside of Greece! And this, indeed, in an unprecedented juxtaposition with the baseness of character of the Athonites and their poverty in flock!

But let us go to the essence of the matter.

Question 1.

Fr. Theodoros stated: "There are also bishops who are Orthodox in mindset even though they have not condemned the [Ecumenist] council of Crete."

For many years they deceived us with the supposed existence of six “Orthodox” bishops, foremost among them Seraphim of Piraeus, who—from pronouncing anathemas against Ecumenism—now offers Bartholomew a mosaic with his portrait and concelebrates with all the chief ecumenist bishops whom he once condemned. So, the new fairy tale is that: “There are also bishops who are Orthodox in mindset even though they have not condemned the council of Crete.” If this is not a fairy tale, then why didn’t he name one of these bishops so we could rush to kiss his feet? And furthermore, is there any example in Church history or in the teaching of the Church in which a bishop is considered to have an Orthodox mindset when he does not condemn a heretical council, Fr. Theodoros Zisis?

Question 2.

Metropolitan Theokletos of Florina has publicly stated that the Papists are not a church. Mr. Theokletos did not consciously attend the council of Kolymbari [Crete] and declared this to his flock in the summer of 2016. Of course, he commemorates and defends Bartholomew with abundant reverences and praises, and naturally, he has not condemned the council of Kolymbari. According, however, to the statement of Fr. Theodoros (from question 1), Mr. Theokletos is “Orthodox in mindset.” If that is so, then why did Elder Maximos, Abbot, and Archimandrite Ignatios of the Holy Monastery of St. Paraskevi of Milochori—close collaborators and supporters of Fr. Theodoros—cease commemoration of Mr. Theokletos? Did they not make a tragic mistake which justly leads them to the penalty of defrocking according to the 13th Canon of the First-Second Council? And then, why did Fr. Theodoros, as an authority in patristics, not protect his close collaborators from the mortal danger?

Question 3.

Fr. Theodoros says that since the heresy has not been synodally condemned, the ecumenists perform valid Mysteries and have Divine Grace, and indeed this is the case. With this exhortation, therefore, he sends the flock to attend church in the temples where supposedly pious priests serve, who nevertheless simultaneously defend and commemorate their bishops, who are loyal praetorians of Bartholomew and of the heresy. But even before Kolymbari, were not these people attending church in those same places? Did nothing change after Kolymbari? And if nothing changed, why did Fr. Theodoros wall himself off? Did he do it because of the spiritual harm of commemorating a heretical bishop, or for other personal reasons? And if he did wall himself off in order to avoid sin and spiritual harm, how does he tell the people to go where he himself refuses to go?

Question 4.

If the people are not harmed by participating in services and Mysteries where bishops are commemorated who have not condemned the pseudo-council of Kolymbari, then why does the Pandektes of Saint Antiochos say: “Not even for a little while do we accept any association with those who are weakened in the faith” [1] … “even if they seem to us very genuine and reputable, we who love the Lord must abhor them”? [2] How much more so when it concerns priests and bishops?

Why does Saint Symeon the New Theologian say: “Any clergyman—whose faith, words, and deeds are not in accord with the teachings of the holy fathers—we must not receive into our house. Rather, we must turn away from him and despise him as a demon, even if he raises the dead and performs countless other miracles”? [3]

Why does Saint Theodore the Studite wonder: “How are they friends of God, those who commune with the heterodox?” [4] And elsewhere, why does he say: “The heretics have completely shipwrecked concerning the faith, while the others, though in thought they were Orthodox, were drowned and lost through communion with heresy”? [5]

Why does the saint elsewhere declare that it is a “betrayal of the Orthodox Confession” for someone to remain in communion with his bishop who holds false doctrines? [6] Why does the divine Chrysostom teach: “Not only if some speak things wholly contrary that overturn everything, but even if they teach the slightest thing contrary, let them be anathematized”? [7]

Why does St. Athanasius the Great teach: “If someone, pretending, confesses the right faith but communes with heretics, you should urge him to abstain from such a thing; and if he promises you that he will cease communion with the heretics—and does so—then regard him as your brother; but if he stubbornly insists, withdraw from such a one”? [8] Why did the Apostles and their disciples avoid even speaking with those who corrupted the truth of the faith, as Saint Irenaeus reports? [9]

Why did Saint Job of Iasi the Confessor say: “Let us not associate with them [the Latin-minded]… We will strive with all our strength not to be defiled by ecclesiastical communion with them and not to partake in their scab or their destructive disease. We will also guard ourselves in every way and completely abstain from their faction”? [10]

Why does Saint Meletios of Mount Galesion say: “The Latins are heretics, and those who commune with them perish…”? [11]

Why does Saint Gregory Palamas say: “It is impossible for someone to be in ecclesiastical communion with the Patriarch [Kalekas] and be Orthodox… whereas he who is walled-off is united with the pious faith”? [12]

Why does Saint Mark say: “Advise the priests of God to avoid in every way ecclesiastical communion with their Latin-minded metropolitan, and neither to concelebrate with him, nor to commemorate him at all, nor to consider him a hierarch, but as a hired wolf! …Therefore, you also, brethren, avoid ecclesiastical communion with the excommunicated and the commemoration of the uncommemorated.… ‘Flee from them, then, brethren, and from communion with them. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.’” [13]

Why does Saint Germanos write to the Cypriot laity regarding separation from their clergy: “…All you who are true children of the Catholic Church, flee with all haste from the priests who have fallen into Latin submission, and neither gather in church with them nor receive any blessing whatsoever from their hands; for it is better to pray to God alone in your homes than to gather in churches with the Latin-minded; otherwise, you will undergo the same condemnation as they”? [14]

And to be brief, why does the Seventh Ecumenical Council decree: “Whoever justifies heresy, let him be anathematized”? [15]

Question 5.

Fr. Theodoros says that the participation of the faithful in divine services and Mysteries performed not by the protagonists of heresy, but perhaps by silent crypto-heretics or clergy and bishops of unknown faith—or even secret supporters of a not-yet-condemned heresy (as he claims Ecumenism is, which is false)—does not spiritually harm the participant.

But obviously then, the priest bears no responsibility, nor does the bishop who supports something heretical but not yet condemned. Then neither does the patriarch bear any responsibility for his heretical positions, since these have not been synodally condemned. So, if no one involved is spiritually harmed and no one is responsible for the spread of false doctrines, why should a council be held to condemn the heresy? If the infiltration of false teaching into the churches does not harm, why should it be condemned? And then again, why did Fr. Theodoros break communion with Mr. Anthimos?

Question 6.

Fr. Theodoros "claims that the obligatory nature of walling-off does not arise from the Canon." [Note: he refers to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council]. In the Prolegomena on the Holy Canons of the Pedalion, Saint Nikodemos, the foremost Canonist of our Church, writes in paragraph 15 that: “The divine canons must be observed by all without alterations. Those who do not observe them are subjected to dreadful penances.” Therefore, all are obligatory. Full stop.
Consequently, the chatter and endless babbling about the optional nature of the 15th Canon is a fallacy. Did Fr. Theodoros not read the Prolegomena? Or did he read them and not like them?

***

Beloved readers, “they see the serpent crawling, leave it be, and turn to follow the traces of its path in order to find what is crawling”!

It is evident that God is gradually depriving us of the visible and tangible supports of the spiritual struggle (priests, bishops, churches, Mysteries) in order to test and reveal which of us follow men blindly and which follow Him.

Who obey the commandments of men, and who follow the saving path of the holy Fathers.

Who nourish their soul with the true teaching and Faith which the Lord delivered, for which He was crucified, and for which the saints were martyred—and who believe in the false doctrines of the false shepherds, the bishops, the spiritual guides, the crowd of elder-worshippers, and the hireling priests, which in recent years the aristocratic Presbyterianism of Gatzea has established.

Fr. Theodoros repeatedly wondered, attempting to demonstrate the supposed absurdity of the Athonites' akriveia: “Well now, are there no Mysteries? Has Divine Grace departed from everywhere? From Bulgaria and from Russia and from Moldova and from Georgia? Has Grace remained only with the Athonites and departed from the Church?”

In the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist, Father Theodoros, which the Lord revealed at the Mystical Supper, both Divine Grace and Judas were present.

The Mystery was holy and undefiled, but for Judas it was the gateway to hell because of his own wickedness. Therefore, stop confusing the simple-minded by saying that the Mysteries performed by the Ecumenists have Grace, in order to lead them to your own conclusions. Of course they have Grace. Only you either do not know or conceal the fact that these Mysteries become condemnation and judgment for those who perform them or receive them, identifying themselves with a Faith and accepting a Faith—the Faith of the bishop whose name is pronounced during his commemoration in the Divine Liturgy—defiled by teachings which the Lord did not teach, and which no one received from the holy Fathers.

“To those who knowingly commune [with heretics], anathema.” [16]

“Let each one understand with his own mind.” (Rom. 15:5)

 

References:

[1] “Not even for a moment did we accept association with them, if we found them weakened [i.e., wavering] in the Faith” and “Those who pretend to confess the sound Orthodox faith, yet commune with those of another mind—such people, if they do not separate after being admonished, not only should be considered excommunicated but not even be called brothers.”
[2] St. Basil the Great, Chapters of the Rules in Summary, question 114.
[3] St. Symeon the New Theologian, Homily 6.
[4] P.G. 99, 1081A.
[5] P.G. 99, 1164A.
[6] P.G. 99, 1365.
[7] St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians.
[8] St. Athanasius the Great, To Those Practicing the Monastic Life…
[9] BEPES 5, 144 [15–22].
[10] Dimitrakopoulos Andreas, History of the Schism…, p. 61.
[11] V. Laurent – J. Darrouzès, Dossier Grec de l’union de Lyon, pp. 554, 558, 559.
[12] Ibid.
[13] To All the Orthodox Christians Throughout the World, §6, in Ioannis Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox and Catholic Church, Athens 1960, vol. A, p. 427.
[14] Joseph Bryennios, Collected Works, vol. B, p. 26.
[15] In the Acts of the Council.
[16] Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

 

Source: http://synaksiorthodoxon.blogspot.gr/2017/04/blog-post_81.html (since deleted)