Friday, October 3, 2025

Fraudulent machinations within the realm of the ecumenist delusion

Archimandrite Pavlos Dimitrakopoulos, Theologian

October 2, 2025 | Kythera

 

 

The distortion of the truth of the Gospel is without doubt one of the most useful tools of the heretics for the advancement of their delusion. Especially within the realm of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, the most dreadful heresy that has appeared to this day in the historical course of our Church, as we have often pointed out in our publications, the law of distortion tends to prevail everywhere—a fact which the faithful people of God experience daily.

Clergy of all ranks, as well as laity, corrupted by the poison of delusion, “being darkened in their understanding and alienated from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18), and “understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7), do not hesitate to resort to fraudulent machinations and to distort passages from Holy Scripture—without, of course, being able to support their erroneous interpretations by the holy Fathers of our Church. Thus, the God-inspired word of the Apostle is fulfilled in them: “Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame” (Jude 13).

It is important to emphasize in this case that the repentance of these people is extremely difficult, if not impossible, given that the pride and egoism by which they are possessed darken their soul and do not allow them to realize the delusion in which they find themselves, so as to repent. And if it so happens that they are also Bishops, then the evil takes on tragic proportions, for these tragic episcopal figures become the cause of the destruction of other souls as well. And then the God-inspired word of Scripture finds full application: “They be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14).

Such being the case, the things we shall note below are not addressed to these victims of heresy, for whom the word of the Apostle applies: “A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition, reject” (Titus 3:10), but rather to the faithful people of God, and their purpose is to strengthen them in the truths of the Gospel.

Another aim of ours is to make clear to the largely un-catechized (and thus unsuspecting) people of God the destructive influence exercised by these tragic persons, who serve up the ecumenist delusion camouflaged with the golden veneer of truth. Furthermore, we seek to provide the faithful members of the Church with all those elements that may help them discern the true shepherds from the false ones, according to the word of the Lord: “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:16).

From the long-standing experience of over twenty years that I have acquired through my engagement with the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, a first general observation which I hereby offer is the fraudulent machination of inversion. That is, the attempt by these individuals to portray those who denounce and overturn their delusions with passages and testimonies from Holy Scripture and the holy Fathers as supposedly being the ones in delusion and heresy, while they present themselves as guardians of Orthodoxy. And when we invite them to inform us which heretical teachings we have allegedly expressed, they have nothing clear and specific to respond with. Finding themselves at an impasse, they resort to insults and slanders. I could cite countless examples. I shall limit myself, for the sake of brevity in space and time, to mentioning the recent example of His Eminence Metropolitan Ieronymos of Larissa, who did not hesitate to accuse me with the gravely serious charge of being a “promoter and advertiser of every heresy and religion as though it were ‘truth,’” along with other similar accusations which I omit. And when, in my reply, I requested that he inform me which are the heresies and religions I supposedly promote and advertise, he was unable to respond in his subsequent published text entitled “The dog returned…”. He simply resorted to a new torrent of insults and slanders.

Another machination, particularly concerning Bishops, is their anxious effort to promote their episcopal office by every means, in order to justify their doctrinal errors and their trampling upon the Holy Canons—especially since they know that they will never be summoned to give account before earthly episcopal courts. By virtue of their episcopal authority, they speak from a position of power as if infallible. They invent foolish and simplistic arguments in order to demonstrate that they have not violated the Holy Canons. And when someone dares to rebuke them and silences them, they rage and gnash their teeth, being possessed by frenzy and hatred against him. They launch attacks with gravely serious accusations, and since they cannot substantiate them, they resort to a torrent of insults and slanders, showing complete disregard for the grave scandal they cause to the faithful people of God by what they say and do.

Among the passages from Holy Scripture which they enlist in order to justify the insults to which they resort is the pericope referring to the stern words of rebuke that Christ addressed to the Scribes and Pharisees shortly before His Passion (Matt. 23:13–36). They even invoke the passage of Paul’s defense before the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 23:1–5), in order to counter the just reproof they receive when someone dares to rebuke them for the unlawful or heretical things they say and do. Let us, however, proceed in order.

First, let us clarify who the Scribes and Pharisees of Christ’s time were. They were the religious leaders of Judaism (along with the High Priests, who held exactly the same views)—the spiritual guides of the people—whom Christ, however, characterized as “blind leaders.” They were the ones who not only did not believe in Christ as the expected Messiah, but also hated Him unto death. They accused Him before Pilate as a “perverter of the people” (Luke 23:1), a “deceiver” (Matt. 27:63), etc., in order to obtain His death sentence. They were the first great distorters of the truth concerning the Person of Christ, and thus the first great heretics to appear in the life of the Church—perhaps even greater than Arius himself. For while Arius denied the Divinity of Christ, he never went so far as to insult Christ by calling Him a “perverter” or a “deceiver.” These, however, not only reviled Him thus, but also crucified Him, rejecting in its entirety His Messianic mission.

By reproving the Pharisees—and indeed most sternly—Christ is essentially reproving the greatest heretics of His time, giving all of us an example to imitate, according to the God-inspired word of the Apostle: “leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps” (1 Peter 2:21). According to the Apostle Peter, Christ left us a perfect example to imitate, so that we may walk precisely in His footsteps. The duty to reprove heresy is also emphasized by the Apostle Paul: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Therefore, the reproof and refutation of heterodox positions or violations of the Holy Canons is by no means condemnation—as we are ignorantly, recklessly, and foolishly accused—but rather an imperative duty that proceeds from the very conduct of Christ. Naturally, no one is exempt from such reproof—not even Bishops. Hence, His Eminence of Larissa is in grievous error when he invokes the stern rebukes of Christ and the dreadful “woes” He addressed to the Scribes and Pharisees in order to justify the gravely serious accusations, insults, and slanders he hurled against me, while at the same time being unable to demonstrate in what sense I am supposedly a “promoter and advertiser of every heresy and religion as though it were ‘truth.’” The “woes” of Christ support the just reproof which we exercised regarding specific heterodox positions of his and violations of the Holy Canons—and in no way do they support his own insults and slanders.

The same applies to the word “Satan” which He spoke to Peter. In this case, Christ reproves Peter most sternly, because Peter (albeit in ignorance) was attempting to prevent Christ from His path toward the Passion and to thwart the plan of the Divine Economy in the Flesh. Just as Christ reproved the Pharisees because of the delusion in which they were found, so also does He reprove Peter, because he too was now in a state of delusion. The only difference is that Peter afterward understood his delusion and repented, whereas the Pharisees remained unrepentant.

Let us now come to the other passage invoked by His Eminence of Larissa—the incident of Paul’s defense before the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 23:1–5)—to which he resorts in order to salvage the authority of his episcopal dignity, of which he boasts, considering himself to stand “in the type and place of Christ.” In this matter, let us note that a Bishop indeed stands “in the type and place of Christ” when he embodies in his life the virtues of Christ, and especially the queen of virtues—humility. Otherwise, he stands “in the type and place” of the old Adam, the common forefather of us all. In this context, the question arises: Is it fitting for a Bishop to boast that he stands “in the type and place of Christ” when he happens to be burdened with violations of the Holy Canons, which have been pointed out both by us and by the Coordinating Committee of the Faithful of the Holy Metropolis of Peristeri? Or would it not be more fitting for him to weep and mourn, seeking the mercy of God?

Concerning the incident mentioned by Luke in the Acts (23:1–5), namely Paul’s defense before the Jewish Sanhedrin, we observe the following: Paul, not having recognized the High Priest of the Jews, protests against him with the phrase, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall,” because he had ordered him to be struck. “And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people” (Acts 23:4–5). This is the incident invoked by His Eminence of Larisa, protesting that I allegedly insulted, reviled, and slandered him. However, as I have already demonstrated above, the most just reproof which we exercised concerning specific heterodox positions of his and violations of the Holy Canons can in no way be considered an insult, but rather a necessary duty. If the claim of His Eminence of Larisa is valid, then we must also accuse Christ Himself of having acted inappropriately and of having sinned by launching those dreadful “woes,” “blind guides,” “whited sepulchres,” etc., against the religious leaders of His time—the Scribes and Pharisees. We must likewise accuse the holy Protomartyr Stephen of the same sin, for having spoken in such terms, ignoring the “Thou shalt not speak evil” of Acts, when he addressed the High Priests and members of the Jewish Sanhedrin during his defense with such stern expressions: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). Nevertheless, the “Thou shalt not speak evil” of Acts is neither in opposition to nor does it annul Christ’s “woes” or the “stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart” of Saint Stephen, for both are valid. And this is because in certain cases the “Thou shalt not speak evil” of Acts applies, and in others the “woes” of Christ and the “stiffnecked” of Saint Stephen. Unfortunately, His Eminence of Larisa was unable to discern this essential distinction, with the result that he believes he is entitled to insult everyone by virtue of his episcopal office, while anyone who dares to reprove him for heterodox teachings and violations of the Holy Canons falls into the sin of “Thou shalt not speak evil” of Acts.

In conclusion, we call the faithful people of God to sobriety, vigilance, and watchfulness, as we all recognize that we are living in an inverted and perverted world, into which the law of distortion has deeply penetrated—even within the sphere of the Church. Only through sobriety and vigilance, and through unceasing prayer (so as to receive illumination from above), will one be able to discern the true shepherds from the false shepherds—allying himself with the former and distancing himself from the latter. Reliable criteria by which he may distinguish the one from the other are their fruits, according to the word of the Lord: “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:16).

Blessed repentance to all, and a good struggle.

 

Greek source:

https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%CE%B4%CF%8C%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%B5%CF%82-%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%B8%CE%BF%CE%B4%CE%B5%CF%8D%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%82-%CE%BC%CE%AD%CF%83%CE%B1-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF-%CF%87%CF%8E%CF%81%CE%BF-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-%CE%BF/

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Prayer is not the most important thing!

“It is not a great thing for your mind to be with God; but it is a great thing to see yourself beneath all creation.”     Exhausted,...