Conclusions concerning Walling-off from the Seventh Ecumenical Council

Adamantios Tsakiroglou | February 28, 2026

[Trans. note: while the author, a historian and philologist, is known to be hostile to the G.O.C., his analysis is quite accurate and timely.]

 

 

I had the joy of reading the work of the theologian Vasileios Touloumtsis entitled: “The Ecclesiological framework and the prerequisites for the acceptance of heretics according to the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Faith as the foundation of the unity of the Church” (Athens, 2022). In this work, apart from the particularly timely observation that without the correct faith unity cannot exist, apart from the crystal-clear timeless ecclesiastical teaching concerning heresies and their treatment and the excellent analysis of the theological issues related to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, I also observed many points which refer to Walling-off as a continuous ecclesiastical practice in times of heresy and to matters related to walling-off, for example Economy and Exactness.

I present these observations immediately below, also citing the relevant passages from the book, so that one may have the possibility of comparison and, should he find any error of mine, may correct me:

Ecclesiastical history shows that no truly pious priest or hierarch decided to agree or compromised with heresy even by economy, nor did he place his signature or agree through silence to any heretical text (see, for example, Kolymbari, Cuba). On the contrary, all severed every ecclesiastical communion with the heretics — in this case, the Iconoclasts (it must be emphasized: before their synodal condemnation) — and reached the point of resigning from their episcopacy, in contrast to those of today who do everything so as not to lose their throne.

It must moreover be emphasized that a patriarchate which was in communion with heretics (again, before their condemnation) was not considered pious. On the contrary, that patriarchate (as well as the hierarchs) which severed communion and promoted the convocation of a council for its condemnation was considered Orthodox.

The chronicler Theophanes … notes the following characteristic things: “And the brave servant of Christ (i.e., Patriarch Germanos), not at all persuaded by his abominable false doctrine (i.e., of the Emperor), having rightly divided the word of truth, renounced the episcopacy, handing over the omophorion and saying, after many instructive words: ‘If I am Jonah, cast me into the sea. For without an Ecumenical Council [to render judgment], it is impossible for me to innovate in matters of faith, O Emperor,’ and having departed … he withdrew in stillness to his ancestral home.” The remaining patriarchates immediately took a stand against the newly appeared iconoclastic decree, condemning Iconoclasm and severing ecclesiastical communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople (p. 27).

When Saint Tarasios was elected and ordained Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Elder Rome had already severed Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople on account of the heresy of Iconoclasm… In the reply letter which Pope Hadrian sends, after expressing his joy … for the commonality of faith which was confirmed by the content of the letter, he simultaneously makes known to him that “our heart was grieved concerning the improper former separation between us,” clearly referring to the Eucharistic separation and lack of communion… He declares his support for the convocation of an Ecumenical Council (p. 223)…

If Tarasios, as Patriarch of Constantinople, were to appear not as one confessing the Orthodox faith, but as a continuer of the iconoclastic heresy, then he could not accept his ordination and consequently be in ecclesiastical communion, since a canonical bishop is the “bishop in communion,” according to St. Basil the Great, that is, the one possessing a common “faith” (p. 259)…

John, however, followed the advice of the civil governor of Caesarea of Palestine, who urged him: “If you wish to act rightly and not be deprived of the episcopacy, let no one persuade you to receive Severus into communion” (p. 311).

Contrary to the slanderous things spread by some, Walling-off is not the product of an ultra-Orthodox stance or mindset. On the contrary, it constitutes a command of the Church which was expressed out of love for God and for man. The purpose of the cessation of ecclesiastical communion with heresy and, through it, the cutting off of the heretics from the ecclesiastical body is primarily not their punishment, but the creation of the possibility for them to repent and be saved, if through error they adhered to heresy. Likewise, the purpose of Walling-off is the salvation of the faithful through isolation and afterwards through the reaping of the unrepentant heretics/tares from the field of the Church by means of a Council. Unity and peace can exist only on the basis of patristic teaching, and only after those participating in heresy sincerely repent. Until then, no [unity and peace]. Moreover, an Orthodox bishop is recognized only as the “bishop in communion,” that is, the bishop who is not in communion with heresy and with whom the Orthodox are in communion. There did not then exist a bishop who was in communion with the Iconoclasts and whom the Orthodox considered pious. This argument also applies to the recognition of schismatics, which has unfortunately now become customary in Orthodoxy, yet without even some repentance on their part. Through their repentance it is shown that not all were heretics, but that many were led astray or deceived. It therefore becomes reasonably understandable that the application of an endless economy neither brings heretics to repentance nor protects the flock, since it continues to remain in communion with them.

The above fact and the manner in which the unity of the Church was divided were demonstrated most clearly during the discussions in the synodal acts of the Council in Nicaea and through the use of the various patristic usages. What emerged, according to the sincere confession of the repentant iconoclast bishops, was that at the council of Hieria there were presented and read… forged letters, or mutilated patristic letters, or misinterpreted evangelical and apostolic passages, or texts cut off from catholicity and their broader context (i.e., as the Ecumenists do, clearly showing that they are heretics and deceivers) (p. 66)…

Ecclesiastical peace certainly does not refer to a peace based on any kind of compromise agreement, but constitutes a consequence of unity of mind in the faith, for this acts not conciliatorily, but therapeutically (p. 248).

The Tradition of the Church is as follows: One is not automatically Orthodox who speaks in an Orthodox manner and in favor of piety, but he who acts in an Orthodox manner, that is, in times of heresy, he who severs communion with heretics and does not commemorate them. The Hierarch does not exist in order to reconcile but primarily in order to heal. Thus, he isolates the diseased members of his flock (that is, those who preach and those who accept heresy) until they either repent and are healed or are cut off synodically from the Church. This isolation takes place through Walling-off and has as its purpose not only the above, but also the protection of the healthy members from the defilement caused by heretical teaching. Whoever thinks that he will not be defiled by communing with heretics is grievously deceived, considering himself stronger than the Christians of earlier times. Naturally, a certain brief economy is justified, but not a prolonged one, for immediately thereafter it is clearly demonstrated that one cannot be both pious and at the same time in communion with heresy.

The Council … referring to the Iconoclasts notes: “in words they fashion piety, but in mind they act wickedly; and with their lips they honor it (the Tradition), but in their heart they stand far from it, not accepting to receive the Tradition which throughout all past time has been upheld by so many saints” (p. 70)…

It is worth noting that for St. Basil the Great the term “canonical” is conceptually identified with the term “in communion,” which means that it is founded upon common faith: … “For if they are in communion with them as Orthodox, for what reason do they proceed against them as heretics? But if they have regarded them as heretics, how do they not avoid their communion?” (p. 71, fn. 140).

Any bishop who is unstable and compromises with what is wrongly established in the Church in order to retain his position is condemned by the Fathers. Now, why contemporary Christians not only do not condemn such bishops, but even hold them up as examples, is nothing other than proof of our decline. It must unfortunately again be emphasized: the instability of today’s ecclesiastical leaders is that which divides the flock, and not the stance of those who desire to rightly divide the word of truth. Therefore, how can communion with them by economy be justified, when it automatically renders us co-responsible for the confusion and division of the flock?

 

St. Basil the Great condemns instability in the faith, which characterized certain “opportunistic” bishops whose constant concern was simply to identify themselves with the prevailing ecclesiastical trends, regardless of whether these expressed interpretative problems or even heretical positions, with the obvious aim of remaining upon their episcopal thrones. He condemns this instability because it creates a climate of unreliability, since it leads the ecclesiastical body into division and threatens ecclesiastical unity (p. 281)…

The indifferent and inconsistent stance of bishops toward the Church does not constitute a neutral condition without consequences. It constitutes an entirely negative stance, which ultimately is responsible as the primary cause of their alienation from the mind and the ecclesiastical life of the Church (p. 318).

And yet, despite all the above conclusions, despite the many ecclesiastical and patristic sources which incontrovertibly prove that, when heresy exists, communion with heretics is not permitted, we close our ears and our eyes and occupy ourselves chiefly with other matters (identities, wars, etc.), invent economies, justifications, and pretexts, and continue our life as though nothing has happened. May this excellent book and the conclusions drawn from it become a starting point for a change of attitude among Christians.

 

Greek source: https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_44.html