Dimitris Chatzinikolaou,
former Assistant Professor of the University of Ioannina
1. Introduction
Orthodoxy and Greece are under
attack from all sides, chiefly from within, and specifically by the Ecumenist
“pseudo-bishops” (the term used by the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council)
and the pseudo-politicians. The assaults are fierce and relentless, such as,
for example, the promotion of the deadly “vaccines,” the legalization of the
“marriage” of homosexuals (which constitutes heresy), the imposition of the
iconoclastic heresy of the “ganzoufs” (cf. the recent events in the
“anti-national monstrosity” [promoters of a blasphemous style of art using
disfigured icons, supposedly to present the obscene and the ugly with the aim
that we accept it as beautiful]), digital totalitarianism, the replacement of
the population by Islamist “refugees,” etc. If there existed an Orthodox
Hierarchy in the Church of Greece, none of these things would have happened.
If, for instance, in 2024 it had acted preemptively, as dictated by Game
Theory, and had threatened to excommunicate the MPs who would vote for the
“marriage” of homosexuals, it would not have passed! Not only did it not do
this, but it also receives these heretics into communion, thus placing itself
under the anathema of the Ecumenical Councils, according to the well-known
saying: “he who does not say anathema to heretics, let him be anathema” (Fifth
Ecumenical Council). Furthermore, it preaches old and new heresies and openly
aligns — according to the heresy of Sergianism — with the Fascists who rule the
world and continually strip away fundamental human freedoms, through the
imposition of digital identity and the “personal number,” the imminent
abolition of cash, and the enforcement of the digital euro, supposedly for the
sake of “ease of transactions,” but in reality to fully control everyone and
exclude from everything those who are not “good students” of Satanism, which
they impose! A true Orthodox Hierarchy would stand with the Pauline statement: “Ye
are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men” (1 Cor. 7:23), and
it would overturn all these evils.
Unfortunately, the people do not
react to the apostasy of their “leaders” from God, from Greek ideals, and from
reason itself. They observe the events with bewilderment and, at best, engage
in rallies, article-writing, and other ineffective protests, but not in the
patristic and salvific response, which is walling-off from pseudo-bishops of
the Bartholomew, Ieronymos-type, etc. For during the last approximately 100
years, a swarm of false-speaking and heretical clergy and laity have managed to
convince the uncatechized people that walling-off from them is schism and
heresy! This terrible distortion of the Truth was repeated excessively after
the dethronement of Mr. Tychikos from the Holy Metropolis of Paphos, and the
Ecumenists are now even demanding libelous denunciations against “walling-off”
[sic]! With this monstrous distortion, the Ecumenists reject the
Orthodox dogma of walling-off!
2. The Ecumenists Reject All
the Dogmas of Orthodoxy!
But the Ecumenists do not reject
only the dogma of walling-off—they reject Orthodoxy in its entirety! As they
themselves testify in their official documents (see the Patriarchal Encyclicals
of 1902 and 1920), in speeches, statements, articles, and books, and of course
by their actions, they indirectly yet clearly reject the Symbol of Faith, which
states that the Church of Christ is One, the Orthodox Church. This is evident
from their blasphemous acts, such as:
(1) joint
prayers and concelebrations with heretics;
(2) union
agreements with the Monophysites (Chambésy, 1991) and the Papists (Balamand,
1993);
(3) their
participation in the “World Council of Churches” (W.C.C.), where they have
introduced the Orthodox Church as an equal member, accepting that she is not
complete by herself and will become complete only through union with the
hundreds of heretical “churches” (“Toronto Statement,” 1950);
(4) the official
recognition of these pseudo-churches “by their historical names” (Kolymbari,
2016), e.g., recognizing Papism as the “Catholic Church,” whereas that name
belongs to and describes the Orthodox Church;
(5) the
“lifting” of the 1054 schism (see par. 4B of the official communiqué titled Joint
Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical
Patriarch Athenagoras I,
December 7, 1965,
as well as The New York Times of December 8, 1965, which states that
“the excommunication is committed to oblivion,” i.e., the schism is lifted);
etc.
For this reason, Ecumenism has
been denounced and condemned as a pan-heresy by certain local Synods, such as
that of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad under Saint Philaret (ROCOR, 1983),
by contemporary saints such as St. Justin Popovich (+1979), by many Orthodox
theologians, and others.
Nevertheless, the Ecumenists from
among the Orthodox continue to commit crimes against Orthodoxy! They teach, for
example, that all religions constitute different “paths” that lead to God
(Athenagoras, Bartholomew, Elpidophoros, etc.), thereby insulting, indirectly
but clearly, Christ as a liar and a deceiver—He who taught that He is the only
Way by which man may reach God (John 14:6). They also teach that Christ
allegedly did not possess sinlessness from the beginning, but acquired
it:
“The sinlessness
of the Lord had to be experienced in the most existential way by the faithful
as a moral victory of the God-man, which was achieved step by step through the struggle
and conflict of the two natures and the two wills” (Stylianos “of
Australia,” periodical of the Holy Archdiocese of Australia Voice of
Orthodoxy, vol. 9, no. 12, Dec. 1988; emphasis in the original).
They teach as well that the
“worn-out Greek garments,” i.e., the dogmas of the Trinity of God, His
Incarnation, etc., must be abolished and replaced with new ones that are more
believable to modern man! (Iakovos “of America,” New York Times, September
25, 1967, p. 40.) They further teach that “in the sacred mosques, God is
worshipped through the Quran” (Theodoros “of Alexandria,” 2020; see article
titled Never Has a Greater Blasphemy Been Heard from a Hierarch! The
Patriarch of Alexandria is More Copt and Son of Pan-Religion —
(https://katanixi.gr/perissotero-koptis-para-orthodoxos-o-p/).
(Note: The quotation marks around
the above titles indicate the same meaning as the term “pseudo-bishop” in the
15th Canon of the First-Second Council.)
These constitute only a small
sample of the heresies preached and the blasphemous acts committed by
contemporary “primates” of Orthodox Churches, who not only were not prosecuted,
but rather ensured that those who reproved them for these crimes were the ones
persecuted! As for the “right-believing conservatives,” they continue to
commune with the above-mentioned heretics, continue to be members of the
“W.C.C.,” and fail to denounce in action (through walling-off) the
pseudo-council of Kolymbari, etc. But as is well known, ecclesiastical
communion with heretics means participation in their faith and their crimes
against Orthodoxy. Consequently, all who commune with them are liable for
schism and heresy before a Pan-Orthodox Council — a true one, of course, and
not a false one like that of Kolymbari. Given these facts, it follows that the
Ecumenists from among the Orthodox lie brazenly, such as George “of Cyprus,”
who, like another Caiaphas, tears his garments, claiming he supposedly holds
the Orthodox Faith, and therefore walling-off from him is unjustified!
3. Walling-Off from
Uncondemned Heretics is Dogma
The Church’s teaching on walling-off
from uncondemned Pan-Orthodox heretical “bishops,” even from those of merely
“different opinions”(!), is excellently summarized by Saint Mark of Ephesus as
follows:
“All the
teachers of the Church, all the Councils, and all the divine Scriptures advise
us to flee from those of different opinions and to separate from their
communion.” (P.G., vol. 160, p. 101).
For it is a command of the Lord:
“But he who
enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens,
and the sheep hear his voice… and the sheep follow him, for they know his
voice; yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for
they do not know the voice of strangers” (John 10:2–5).
The Lord has endowed everyone
with the ability to distinguish the true shepherd from the stranger:
“Every man who
has received discernment from God will be condemned if he follows an
inexperienced shepherd and accepts false glory as true. For what communion has
light with darkness?” (St. Athanasius the Great, P.G. vol. 26, p. 1321).
Therefore, whoever pretends not
to perceive the heresies taught by his “shepherd,” even if out of inexperience
or ignorance, and instead of listening to the voice of his conscience and the
Fathers whom God always sends to enlighten the faithful people and to call them
to wall off from such a one, chooses to remain in communion with him—simply
because he has not yet been Synodally condemned—will be condemned. That is,
walling-off from heretical “shepherds” who have not yet been condemned is
obligatory.
This is why the Confessor Saint
Meletios of Galesios, together with his fellow confessor Galaktion, when
standing before the unionist emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos—who tortured them
to compel them to accept the “pope” and commune with the unionists (i.e., the
Ecumenists of that time)—“openly confessed that it is a dogma of the Fathers
not to commune with heresy, even if it has been clearly and evidently condemned
by the Fathers prior to a formal Synodical judgment.” (Dositheos of Jerusalem, Tome
of Joy, p. 573.)
There are, of course, countless
additional scriptural and patristic passages which teach that walling- off from
uncondemned dissenters is a dogma, and therefore obligatory. Let us cite two
more:
(i) “What
fellowship has light with darkness? And what concord has Christ with Belial? Or
what part has a believer with an unbeliever? … Therefore come out from among
them and be separate, says the Lord, and do not touch what is unclean” (2
Corinthians 6:14–18).
(ii) “Those who
pretend to confess the sound faith, yet commune with those of different
opinion, if they do not separate from them after a warning, not only must be
excluded from communion, but must not even be called brothers.” (St. Basil the
Great, P.G. vol. 160, p. 101). Note that St. Basil here is not speaking
of condemned heretics, but of “those of different opinion”!
The conclusion that walling-off
from Pan-Orthodox uncondemned heretics is a dogma has two serious consequences.
First, the labeling of walling-off as a “heresy” by the Ecumenists makes them
heretics also for that additional reason. Second, the characterization of
walling-off as supposedly “optional” by the so-called “Potentialists” likewise
renders them heretics.
4. The Heresy of
“Potentialism”
Concerning the heresy of
“Potentialism,” the “crutch” of Ecumenism, we have written extensively in
previous articles. In brief, this heresy denies the Orthodox dogma of the
obligatory walling-off from Pan-Orthodox uncondemned Ecumenists and teaches the
bizarre dogma that the faithful supposedly can commune simultaneously both with
Orthodoxy (Christ) and with Ecumenism (the Devil) until the Ecumenists are
condemned by a Pan-Orthodox Council! Nearly all the “bishops” and “theologians”
embrace “Potentialism.” This is the reason why Orthodox resistance has
collapsed, and Ecumenism has prevailed over almost the entire Orthodox Church.
The “Potentialists” focus on the
15th Canon of the First-Second Council, which they consider to be “optional,”
and disregard the above crystal-clear teaching of the dogma of walling-off! The
said Canon addresses two categories of clergy who wall off from their superiors
prior to synodal condemnation:
(a) those who
wall off on the pretext of some crime allegedly committed by their superior,
without that superior having publicly preached any heresy; and
(b) those who
wall off because their superior has publicly preached a heresy already
condemned by Synods or by the Fathers.
The Canon states that the first
make a schism, while the second are worthy of honor. It does not address those
who do not wall off. Such persons do not fall under its scope, which is not to
define what must be done in a time of publicly preached heresy. Whoever thinks
that this is the Canon’s subject and attempts to characterize it as either
optional or obligatory is misinterpreting it. One may invoke the Canon in order
to wall off, but one cannot invoke it in order not to wall off!
As historians report (see, for
example, Archimandrite V. Stefanides, Church History: From the Beginning to
the Present, Papadimitriou Publications, 2nd ed., Athens, 1959, pp.
345–349), the First-Second Council (861) was convened for two reasons.
First, because the
already-condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) heresy of iconoclasm
had revived, and the iconoclasts were persecuting the Orthodox, reaching the
point of killing them by the sword during the first session of the Council (Pedalion,
p. 344).
Second, because the Orthodox at
that time were divided into two opposing factions who insulted one another,
deposed one another, and anathematized one another: the “Zealots,” who
supported Ignatios, and the “Politicians,” who supported Photios. The former
were opponents of the nascent revival of letters, while the latter were its
proponents; the former opposed the interventions of the state in ecclesiastical
matters, while the latter supported or at least tolerated them; the former
publicly denounced moral transgressions, while the latter were lenient.
For these reasons, there was
great division, and many mutual depositions and mutual anathemas, and therefore
many acts of walling-off. Consequently, it was at that time a pressing
necessity for the First-Second Council to define when walling-off was permitted
(when it was on account of iconoclasm) and when it was not (when it was on
account of matters such as the revival of letters, morals, etc.).
This was precisely the purpose of
the 15th Canon: it distinguished those who wall off into two categories—some it
praised, others it condemned. It did not deal with those who do not wall off,
since its subject was not what ought to be done in a time of heresy. “Potentialism”—that
is, the claim that the 15th Canon supposedly permits the faithful not to wall
off prior to a synodal judgment from a heresy that is preached “openly and
boldly” and has already been condemned by Fathers or Synods, and to knowingly commune
with it—contradicts the dogma of walling-off and crudely falsifies the said
Canon. So long as this essential fact is not understood—that the Canon’s
subject was exclusively the already-walled-off, in order to end the great
division and turmoil, and not what ought to be done in a time of heresy—and so
long as efforts continue to interpret it either as optional or as obligatory,
it will inevitably continue to be misinterpreted.
5. Summary – Conclusions
Walling-off from “strange
shepherds,” even before they have been condemned Pan-Orthodoxly, is a dogma of
the Faith and, as such, obligatory, whereas “Potentialism” is a heresy. The
Ecumenists, who lately claim that walling-off is a “heresy,” thereby make
themselves heretics also for this additional reason. The conditions set by the
15th Canon of the First-Second Council for walling- off—namely, that the heresy
must be publicly preached and must already have been condemned by Synods or
Fathers—are fulfilled in the case of Ecumenism. For it has been proclaimed
openly and officially for over 100 years by “patriarchs,” “archbishops,” etc.,
on a global level, both in deed and in word, and it has been condemned by
Synods and Fathers, such as by the ROCOR (1983), by St. Justin Popovich, and
others; moreover, the individual heretical doctrines of Ecumenism have been
condemned by Ecumenical Councils.
Consequently, the opponents of
walling-off who claim that this concerns an uncondemned heresy are shamelessly
lying.
Greek source: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2025/07/blog-post_66.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.