For those resisting Ecumenism “from within”…

Questions for the digitally “talkative” and supposedly pious clergy that must be answered, if indeed they care for the flock and its salvation.

The discussion about piety, heresy, and impiety without the names of the heretical and impious constitutes a cover-up of the guilty and a struggle without substance—in other words, an omelet without eggs.

"If you know how to test trees by their fruits—what they are by nature, by taste, by wholesomeness—much more ought you to test the Christ-traders by their works, for though they wear the veil of piety, they possess a diabolical soul. And if you do not gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, why do you suppose that you can hear anything good from transgressors or learn anything useful from traitors? Therefore, turn away from them as Arabian wolves, as thorns of disobedience, as thistles of injustices, and as evil trees."

—St. Athanasius the Great, On False Prophets, BEPES 33, 197

 

 

By Adamantios Tsakiroglou

 

It is now, unfortunately, entirely evident and manifest to all that many “pious” clergymen—especially those who present themselves as teachers in newspapers, conferences, and on social media (Facebook, Instagram, etc.)—speak with pompous, often “cultured” expressions about the Church, Orthodoxy, delusion, and heresy, yet always speak generally and vaguely about the serious phenomena ravaging the Church, without naming the guilty party—i.e., they conceal the names.

Thus:

they speak about heresy and do not name the heretic,

they speak about secularization and do not name the secularized,

they speak about apostasy and do not name the apostate,

they speak about blasphemy and do not name the blasphemer,

they speak about post-patristic theology and do not name the post-patristic clergy and theologians,

they speak about scandals and do not name the scandal-makers.

They “artfully” forget that the issue at hand is no longer whether the heresy of Ecumenism exists. This is accepted by all conscious Orthodox Christians for decades now, with first among them all the Saints of the last 70 years.

They also forget that what is essential and urgent is not so much the dissemination of information about some phantom of Ecumenism and apostasy, expressed moreover with lofty and at times deliberately obscure theological terms—terms which most do not understand, having been left uncatechized by their spiritual guides for quite some time.

What is sought and important is that the flock learn who these clergymen—priests and bishops—are who teach falsely and thus lead the uninformed flock into delusion. The flock must also learn why the Holy Synod and each respective bishop do not call to order the clergy who distort the faith, and, if they do not amend themselves, why they are not punished, as the ecclesiastical laws prescribe.

Those who know both the guilty parties and the reason they are not punished, but remain silent, maintaining a stance of informal omertà, have no excuse and are guilty—because by their stance they demonstrate that, although they are shepherds, they do not care for the flock.

They conceal from the flock—that is, from the Church (for the Church is not only the cassock-wearers, and the temples are not their private property)—that heresy, secularization, and betrayal are incarnate; they have names and personal existence; they have a plan, premeditated actions, and deliberate decisions. For this reason, the Fathers of the Church always named the heretics and advised the faithful to distance themselves from them as quickly as possible, if they wished to be saved.

The Fathers of the Church did not organize conferences, nor did they speak on Facebook or TikTok to stir emotions and receive praise—commonly, likes. They did not constantly write supposedly theological articles that were vague and general, in order to tickle ears. They did not conceal names. On the contrary, clearly and at tremendous cost (condemnations, exiles, etc.), they told the faithful who (and this must be emphasized: even before their synodal condemnation) were the Christ-traders, the impious clergy, the guilty and heretical ones, the wolves in sheep’s clothing. They did not protect them with their silence under the pretense of some supposed piety, but named them plainly and with all severity, because their concern was for the flock—not for their personal promotion:

St. Athanasius the Great: “For when certain people, having observed you, the faithful in Christ, gathering and communicating with them, will certainly suppose that such a thing is of no consequence, they will fall into the mire of impiety. In order, then, that this not happen, be willing, beloved, to turn away from those who openly hold impious views, and guard yourselves from those who claim not to believe the teachings of Arius, yet nonetheless communicate with the impious. And especially those whose mindset we reject—it is proper to flee from communion with them.” (TLG, Athanasius Theol., Epistula ad monachos (2035: 055); Patrologia Graeca 26, col. 1185, line 41 – col. 1188, line 30)

St. Basil the Great: “Only do not be deceived by their false words, as they proclaim a correctness of faith. For such men are Christ-traders and not Christians, since they prefer what is always profitable to them in this life over the life lived in truth.” Fr. Theodoros Zisis, in his book On Holy Disobedience (p. 30), writes about St. Basil that “he advises the clergy of Nicopolis to have no communion whatsoever with the Philaretan bishop Fronton; he essentially incites them to disobedience—holy and divine disobedience. He especially calls their attention to the fact that they must not be deceived by the appearance that such men supposedly possess correctness of faith.”

St. John Chrysostom advised the faithful Christians in his letters: “For I too have heard about that fool Arsacius, whom the queen set upon the throne, that he oppressed the brethren and the virgins who did not wish to commune with him. And many of them, on account of me, even died in prison. For that wolf in sheep’s clothing, who bears the appearance of a bishop but is in fact an adulterer—as a woman is called an adulteress who, while her husband is still alive, joins herself to another, so also is this man an adulterer—not of the flesh, but of the spirit.” (EPE 38, p. 240) And: “My master Paeanius has informed me that the presbyters of his district of Pharetros are present there, who declared to us that we should not commune, nor have anything in common with the opponents, nor associate with them, nor communicate with them.” (EPE 37, p. 430)

St. Euthymios the Great, addressing Empress Theodora: “Do not commune any longer with Dioscorus, but with Juvenal of Jerusalem.” (The Struggles of the Monks, p. 100)

St. Isidore of Pelusium: “Why are you astonished that an entire city is punished because of the sin of one man—something you know happened also in the time of David? Do not, therefore, defend the wicked deeds of the so-called bishop Eusebius, for on account of him the altar has been deprived of its ministers and the city of its inhabitants. For it is just that those who, without proper judgment, appointed the unworthy one should reap the fruits of their labors, since they dishonored virtue and preferred such manifest wickedness.” (Letter 39 to the monk Eusebius)

And Eusebius as well, a layman and later Bishop of Dorylaeum, in his public declaration against the not-yet-condemned Patriarch Nestorius, wrote among other things:

“Protest publicly presented by the clergy of Constantinople and made known in the Church, asserting that Nestorius is of one mind with Paul of Samosata, who was anathematized one hundred and sixty years ago by the Orthodox bishops.” “I adjure the recipient of this paper by the Holy Trinity to make it known to bishops, presbyters, deacons, readers, and laypeople dwelling in Constantinople, and furthermore to produce an equivalent copy for them (that is, to transcribe it), for the purpose of exposing the heretic Nestorius, that he is of one mind with the anathematized Paul of Samosata, who was condemned one hundred and sixty years ago by the Orthodox bishops…” (It must be emphasized here that this declaration by a layman, made prior to the synodal condemnation of Patriarch Nestorius, is addressed to all members of the Church—even to the laity—a fact which refutes today’s accusations regarding the arrogance of the laity and bears witness to the responsibility we all have in times of heresy.)

After these patristic proofs against the modern concealment of names, we pose the following questions, which must be answered by the pious clergy (but also theologians), if they truly care about the salvation of the flock:

What can be accomplished by informing people about a vague and invisible Ecumenism, a vague and invisible impiety, when its actual teachers and chief instigators are being concealed?

How is heresy, secularization, and apostasy to be fought, when the faithful—left uninformed by their shepherds—are abandoned, desolate, to regard as right-believing and to “commune” with the heretical Bishop and Patriarch, whom the Holy Fathers, as we saw above, adorned with so many descriptive expressions such as “fool,” “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” “serpent,” “adulterer”?

Why, fathers, instead of supporting, do you publicly accuse—using dreadful charges such as “scandal-makers, schismatics, zealots, deluded, sowers of discord,” etc.—those who are doing precisely what the Church has always done in times of heresy, and what you yourselves ought to be doing, but are not—namely, the public naming of those responsible for the dreadful and inconceivable things taking place in our Church? Is it perhaps in order to prevent them from following the Saints and from opposing what you are doing—for reasons which we may surmise and you know—namely, the refusal to distance yourselves from such false shepherds until their synodal condemnation?

Do you not see that what is needed is the specific identification of heresy and its combat? And the combat against heresy, according to the timeless ecclesiastical and holy Patristic Tradition, is, first of all, the exposure of the names of the Ecumenists, who deceitfully sow their heretical teachings and, like chameleons, at times preach them, at times conceal them; at times alter them, at times expand them; at times appear as traditional Orthodox, and at times as progressives. Secondly, it is their isolation, and finally—if they do not repent—their synodal condemnation.

If you do not answer the above questions, as you are obliged to, you present yourselves as lacking brotherly love, for you allow the heretics to persist in their delusion unrestrained, and you leave the flock helpless, to be led to perdition.

 

Greek source: https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_53.html