Walling-off is Not Schism: Necessary Explanations

Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis

Professor Emeritus at the School of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

 

 

PROLOGUE

The pseudo-council of Kolymbari in Crete, which convened in June 2016, truncated and curtailed, not only did not represent the entirety of Orthodox bishops and faithful, and for this reason does not have a pan-Orthodox character nor does it express the unity of the Church, but primarily did not express the Orthodox mindset of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and offended essential and fundamental dogmas and teachings.

For this reason, it was to be expected that it would not be accepted by the right-believing plenitude of the Church, by clergy and laity, who, applying the canonical tradition of piety, ceased the commemoration of the bishops who signed or accepted its decisions and proceeded to the so-called Walling-off, on the basis of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council (861), which was convened by St. Photios the Great.

This action caused many questions among the faithful who were not informed concerning matters of the faith, and it set in motion persecutions and slanders on the part of certain ignorant or militant-in-the-heresy-of-Ecumenism bishops against the courageous and confessing clergy, who, following the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, are not about to accept the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, now even crowned with conciliar recognition.

With this small booklet in hand from the series Kairos, we provide answers to some of the questions that arise and concern the faithful, but also demonstrate the unjustifiability of the persecutions against those of us who strive to protect the Church from heresies and schisms. Once again, we are faced with the danger of schism, which, however, is created by the supporters of the pseudo-council of Crete and not by those of us who struggle against it. Peace within the body of the Church will not be achieved through persecutions and slanders, but through the rejection by a new Orthodox council of the heretical decisions of the pseudo-council of Crete.

September 2017
Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis

 

A. WALLING-OFF FROM HERESY, NOT FROM THE CHURCH

1. Forbidden and permitted walling-off

Lately, there is frequent mention of “walling-off” and “walled-off” faithful, along with frequent and rather deliberate misunderstanding of the conceptual content of these words. The noun apoteichisis (walling-off) is derived from the verb apoteichizō, which according to dictionaries means to fortify, to enclose with a wall, to erect a partition wall. Therefore, the word apoteichisis also means: enclosure with a wall, fortification. And the wall that one raises in order to defend oneself is called apoteichisma (fortification wall).

It is clear that the use of the word walling-off presupposes that there is some danger, some enemy, from whom one raises a wall for protection. In ecclesiastical language, this concept of walling-off is introduced verbally by the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council under St. Photios the Great (861), where it is absolutely clear and brighter than the sun who the danger is that necessitates walling-off. This is heresy and the heretical bishops.

Specifically, with the two preceding canons, the Council, in order to prevent the creation of schisms, punishes with the severe penalty of deposition, by means of the 13th, the presbyter or deacon who ceases communion with his bishop and does not commemorate his name in the various prayers of the Divine Liturgies before the bishop has been condemned by some council, “before conciliar judgment,” invoking some supposed misdeeds, “crimes,” of the bishop—that is, not matters of faith, but administrative, financial, and other irregularities. The same is repeated by the 14th, which likewise imposes the penalty of deposition on the bishop now, who for the same reasons ceases communion with his metropolitan. The 15th canon has a peculiarity: in its first part it says the same also regarding the metropolitan who ceases the commemoration of the patriarch, under whose jurisdiction he belongs. In the second half of the canon, however, where the concept of walling-off is introduced, the canon proceeds to an exception, on the basis of which clergy of any rank and office may cease communion with their ecclesiastical superior and cease commemorating him; this happens when the bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch preaches and teaches “with bared head”—that is, openly, unabashedly—a heresy which has been condemned by Councils and Holy Fathers, “condemned by the Holy Synods or Fathers.” This cessation of communion and of the commemoration of the bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch even takes place before any council has dealt with the matter, that is, even “before conciliar judgment.”

What is important is that those who wall themselves off from such so-called bishops who preach heresy not only are not subject to the penalties imposed by the previous canons, namely the penalty of deposition, but moreover must be honored with due honor by the Orthodox, because they have walled themselves off – that is, they have separated with the wall of truth – not from bishops, but from pseudo-bishops, and because not only do they not cause schism and divisions, but they hasten, they are eager to save the Church from the schisms and divisions caused by the pseudo-bishops. We present the exact text of the canon, which unfortunately many do not pay attention to and speak from the belly, hastily and without consideration, and afterward we will comment on certain points of it, so that the meaning of walling-off may be clarified –  particularly, from whom, from which persons one walls oneself off; who is the danger, the enemy, for the repulsion of whom one raises the wall, in order to defend oneself and hinder his advance and spread. What emerges from the text? Does one wall oneself off from the Church or from heresy? From true bishops or from pseudo-bishops? Let us carefully reread the text of the 15th canon, which we present immediately:

“The definitions concerning Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans apply all the more to Patriarchs. Therefore, if any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan should dare to separate himself from communion with his own Patriarch, and does not commemorate his name, according to the appointed and prescribed order, in the Divine Liturgy, but does so before his conciliar and final condemnation has been made manifest, he creates a schism; such a one the holy Council has determined to be entirely alien to the priesthood, if he be convicted of having acted unlawfully in this. And these things have been sealed and defined concerning those who separate themselves from their presidents on the pretext of certain accusations, and cause schisms, and disrupt the unity of the Church. For those who, on account of some heresy condemned by the holy Synods or Fathers, separate themselves from communion with their president—that is, when he openly proclaims the heresy and teaches it in church with uncovered head—such persons not only are not subject to canonical condemnation before a conciliar decision, for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called Bishop, but shall also be deemed worthy of proper honor among the Orthodox. For they have condemned not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they have not torn the unity of the Church with schism, but have rather hastened to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”

 

2. Why was the 15th Canon established?

What concerned the Fathers of the First-Second Council at the time it was convened was to prevent the creation of schisms in the body of the Church. The appearance of the great heresies had preceded it, with the last being that of Iconoclasm, which had recently been condemned and defeated with the restoration of the icons (843), and the Church had triumphed. Therefore, they did not want new divisions and disturbances. They foresaw that, since the Devil had not been able to break the unity of the Church through heresies, he would now attempt to strike it by creating schisms, bringing forth administrative, financial, and other scandals of ecclesiastical officials.

The Council states this clearly at the beginning of the 13th Canon: “The most wicked one, having sown the tares of the heretics in the Church of Christ, and seeing these being cut off at the root with the sword of the Spirit, has turned to another method, attempting to divide the Body of Christ by the madness of schismatics.” Thus, as we said before, it legislates through the three canons (13, 14, and 15) that any clergy who turn against the bishop, the metropolitan, or the patriarch, invoking various misdeeds, “crimes,” and cease communion with him as well as the commemoration of his name in the sacred services, even before any synodal decision and condemnation has been issued, must be deposed. In such cases, the cessation of commemoration, the walling-off, is forbidden.

So that it may not be thought that the cessation of commemoration, the walling-off, is entirely forbidden—that it is something that should neither be discussed nor encouraged—and because heresy, as an assault against the faith and the dogmas, is a greater evil and a greater danger to the unity of the Church than schism, for this reason the Fathers of the Council, in the second half of the 15th Canon, determine and establish that the things previously defined—namely, the non-interruption of commemoration—do not apply in the case where the bishop, the metropolitan, or the patriarch preaches heresy. In this case, we must immediately and “before conciliar judgment” wall ourselves off, raise a wall of defense, block off the heresy, and fortify ourselves. Is there, then, any doubt that walling-off is walling-off from heresy and not from the Church, from pseudo-bishops and not from true bishops? Have some bishops and theologians become so completely lost in the haze of Syncretism and Ecumenism, that either through theological ignorance or deliberately, as militants of Ecumenism, they frighten and terrorize clergy and faithful by claiming that the cessation of commemoration supposedly places one outside the Church and leads to schism? Does not the canon say that those who cease commemoration not only are not subject to the penalty of deposition, but should also be honored, because they have not separated from bishops, but from pseudo-bishops, and because they did not cause schism, but are protecting the Church from schisms? Shall we then allow the heretical ecumenists to terrorize us with the supposed danger of schism, and by remaining united with them claim that we are within the Church? Then, by the same logic, being united with the Papists, the Protestants, the Monophysites would also mean being within the Church.

 

3. The position is mistaken: “We remain in the Church; we are not leaving.” Who is it that is leaving?

It is striking that even persons otherwise of Orthodox mindset, and indeed learned bishops, presbyters, and professors, wrongly interpret walling-off as separation from the Church and not from heresy and from pseudo-bishops; they claim and write and preach that “we remain within the Church, we do not wall ourselves off, we carry on the struggle within the Church.”

Thus, they become good collaborators and helpers of the heretical pseudo-bishops, because they do not allow the wall of cessation of communion and commemoration to be raised, with the result that the heresy of Ecumenism for decades now has advanced unchecked, taking hold of persons and institutions, councils, hierarchies, hierarchs, theological schools, while we Orthodox, like lone snipers, fire off a few shots against an enemy and a danger with incomparable superiority in arms and with an asymmetrical threat. But is this not what we have been doing for so many years, postponing the construction of the wall? And should we not now, seeing that the enemy has taken even the last institutional stronghold we possess—the conciliar system through the pseudo-council of Crete—improve our strategy, adapt our command plans, use the weaponry that the Holy Fathers, through Holy Spirit-inspired decisions, have supplied us with? From the fortress of the pseudo-council, thunderbolts and threats are being launched, more and more are being enslaved to Ecumenism and to Pan-religion, joint prayers and ecumenist spectacles are increasing, brazen little bishops and petty theologians distort and deform the word of truth and, like wild beasts, tear it apart, as Saint Gregory the Theologian says [1]—and we are still wondering where the Church is, whether we are within the Church by remaining with the heretics, or whether we are leaving the Church by separating from them? Is it not an established ecclesiological axiom that the Church is where the truth is, and not where there are bishops and heretical patriarchs?

1. Oration 28, Theological Oration 2, 2, EPE vol. 4, p. 36: “But if anyone is a wicked and savage beast, utterly incapable of accepting words, contemplation, and theology, let him not lurk in the forests as a criminal and with evil intent, so as to seize upon some dogma or utterance—suddenly rushing upon it—and tear apart the sound words with his insults; rather, let him stand far off and withdraw from the mountain, lest he be stoned and shattered and perish miserably, being evil.”

 

4. The example of Saint Maximus and Saint Gregory Palamas

I will cite only two testimonies of eminent Saints, Fathers, Teachers, and Confessors, in order to show where the Church is and who it is that departs from the Church—so that the heretical Ecumenists may shut their unbridled mouths and cease terrorizing the uninformed with the scarecrow of schism, and so that our own supporters of silence and quietism may think more carefully and act more boldly and in a manner more in accord with the Fathers, fearing not isolation from men, but isolation from God and the Saints.

Saint Maximus the Confessor, in the 7th century, a simple monk, yet by reason of his immense learning and divine illumination superior and loftier than many patriarchs and bishops, [1] bore almost alone the weight of resistance against the heresy of Monothelitism, which had taken hold of all the patriarchates, and for a time even the Church of Rome—just as now the pan-heresy of Ecumenism has taken hold of the majority of the local churches with its conciliar ratification at the pseudo-council of Crete. Even the emperors had been persuaded that, in order for peace and unity to prevail in both Church and State, Saint Maximus had to cease his opposition, whose theological stance was followed by a large portion of the ecclesiastical body. He was to accept, either through persuasion or by force, the compromising and diplomatic text of the “Typos,” as the document prepared by the theologians of Emperor Constans II, grandson of Heraclius, was called—drawn up in the courts of the palace and the Patriarchate—just like the diplomatic texts prepared by the pseudo-council of Crete, so that we might now unite not with one heresy, but wholesale with all heretics.

The bishops of the then diplomatic theology, sent by the patriarch to the place of Saint Maximus’ imprisonment, tried to intimidate him, saying that through his rigid and unyielding stance against all that had been decided by all the local churches—through his cessation of communion—he was placing himself outside the Church, that he was leaving the Church. The response of the Great Theologian and Confessor is exemplary and perpetually instructive. The Church is not found where those who administer it are—the patriarchs, the bishops, the synods—but where the saving confession of the faith is found. It is not the convener and the convened who legitimize the synods, but “the orthodoxy of the dogmas.”

We present the heroic, confessing text: “Those who had arrived said they had been sent by the patriarch; and they presented the matter to the Saint as it stood: ‘Of which Church are you, they said, O man? For we shall use their own words. Of Byzantium, of Rome, of Antioch, of Alexandria, of Jerusalem? Behold, all of them, together with the provinces under them, have united. If then you also are of the Catholic Church, unite, lest, innovating a foreign path in life, you suffer what you do not expect.’ To whom the blessed one responded, with timely and wise reply: ‘The Catholic Church is the correct and saving confession of the faith, as the Lord said, and it is for this reason that He blessed Peter for his good confession.’” [2] In another place during his interrogation, when the discussion turned to synods and whether their convocation was canonical or not, Saint Maximus stated the essential criterion for a synod to be considered Orthodox. He said that the pious rule of the Church recognizes as holy and valid only those synods which are characterized by the orthodoxy of their dogmas: “The pious rule of the Church knows as holy and approved those synods which have been judged by the orthodoxy of the dogmas.” [3] To the accusation that his stance was causing schism—just as we are now accused who reject the pseudo-council of Crete—he replied in the form of a rhetorical question: “If the one who says what the Holy Scripture and the Fathers teach is rending the Church, what shall he be shown to be committing against the Church who nullifies the dogmas of the Saints, without which the Church herself cannot exist?” [4]

Following the same line, seven centuries later, in the 14th century, the great Hesychast and Confessor, Archbishop of Thessaloniki Saint Gregory Palamas, the incomparably greatest theologian of the second millennium, speaks. With weighty expressions, without the Frankish Western pseudo-courtesies, he rebukes as a liar the Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatios, who had written a letter to Patriarch John Kalekas, in which he affirmed his opposition to Saint Gregory Palamas, a letter full of inaccuracies and falsehoods. In his letter, Patriarch Ignatios, departing from Constantinople, wrote that he was returning to his church, to Antioch, which he had received as an inheritance by the Grace of Christ—just as those today who occupy episcopal, archiepiscopal, and patriarchal thrones think and claim.

He wrote: “Our humility departs to her own church, which by the Grace of Christ she has truly inherited.” Saint Gregory, angered by Patriarch John Kalekas’ support and the unfounded and untheological accusations made against him, first questions what relation, what portion in the Church, what succession and inheritance in the Grace of Christ can this “advocate of falsehood” have—a succession in the Church, which is “the pillar and ground of the truth,” and which remains continually secure and unshakable, firmly established upon that which the truth itself is established. In a striking pronouncement, he says to the heresy-promoting patriarch that he is a stranger to the Church, outside the Church, because “those who are of the Church of Christ are of the truth; and those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ.” The Church is where the truth is; those who are not with the truth are outside the Church. Therefore, they contradict themselves and speak falsely—those who call themselves and one another pastors and chief shepherds when they do not confess the Orthodox faith. For Christianity does not regard persons, but the truth and the precision of the faith: “For we have been taught that Christianity is not defined by persons, but by the truth and accuracy of the faith.” [5]

Is not the boldness, the courage, the firm and unyielding stance of a simple monk, Saint Maximus, and of a simple priest, Saint Gregory Palamas—before he became Metropolitan of Thessaloniki—exemplary and instructive in the face of the all-powerful ecclesiastical and political leadership? Did they have any doubt about where the Church is, about who is departing from the Church and who is causing schisms? Did they not believe that the heretics are the ones departing from the Church, which can be expressed and represented even by a single monk, even by a single priest, when they express and represent the Truth?

 

1. On the life and contest of our venerable father and confessor Maximus, 14, PG 90, 81–84: “For this reason, by every means he stirred them up; he struck them together, he anointed them with words unto courage, he filled them with a nobler spirit. For though they surpassed him in the throne, yet in wisdom and understanding they were lesser and deficient—let alone speaking of the other virtue and the renown of the man in all things. Therefore, they yielded to his words and to his other exhortations and counsels, which were so greatly beneficial, obeying without objection.”

2. Ibid., 24, PG 90, 93.

3. An Explanation of the episode that took place between our master Abba Maximus and those with him and the rulers in the secret council, 12, PG 90, 148.

4. Ibid., 5, PG 90, 117: “As he was saying these things, Menas cried out: ‘By saying these things, you have torn the Church.’ And he said to him: ‘If the one who speaks the things of the Holy Scriptures and of the Holy Fathers rends the Church, then what shall the one who nullifies the dogmas of the Saints be shown to be doing to the Church—without which it is not even possible for the Church itself to exist?’”

5. Saint Gregory Palamas, Refutation of the Letter of Ignatios of Antioch, 3, in P. Christou, Gregory Palamas, Works, vol. II, Thessaloniki 1966, p. 627.

 

5. Steadfast, consistent, and trustworthy is the position of those who struggle

The economical postponement for some years of the cessation of commemoration, with the aim of informing the uncatechized and uninformed Orthodox faithful, does not mean that we will cancel the exactness of those things which the Tradition of the Church and the Holy Canons teach. Already in the Conclusions of the great Inter-Orthodox Scientific Conference organized in Thessaloniki in 2004 by the "Department of Pastoral and Social Theology" of the Theological School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the "Society of Orthodox Studies," we wrote:

"Let it be emphatically declared to the ecclesiastical leaderships that, in the event they continue to participate in and support the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—both inter-Christian and inter-religious—the necessary, saving, canonical, and patristic path for the faithful, both clergy and laity, is non-communion, that is, the cessation of commemoration of the bishops, who thereby become co-responsible and partakers in the heresy and the delusion. This is not a matter of schism, but of a God-pleasing confession, just as was done by the Fathers of old, and in our own days by confessing bishops, among whom the venerable and respected former Metropolitan of Florina, Augustine, and the Holy Mountain." [1]

And in the historic “Confession of Faith against Ecumenism,” which was composed and circulated in 2009 by the “Assembly of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics,” signed by a multitude of hierarchs, hundreds of clergy and monastics, and thousands of faithful, we wrote:

“This pan-heresy (=of Ecumenism) has been accepted by many among the Orthodox: patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, clergy, monastics, and laity. They teach it ‘with uncovered head,’ implement it, and impose it in practice, communing in various ways with the heretics—through joint prayers, exchange of visits, pastoral collaborations—thus essentially placing themselves outside the Church. Our stance, according to the synodal canonical decisions and the example of the Saints, is clear. Each one must take up his responsibilities.” [2]

 

1. DEPARTMENT OF PASTORAL AND SOCIAL THEOLOGY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF THE ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI and SOCIETY OF ORTHODOX STUDIES (organizers), Ecumenism: Origin–Expectations–Disappointments, Proceedings of the Inter-Orthodox Scientific Conference, Ceremony Hall of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, September 20–24, 2004, Theodromia Publications, Thessaloniki 2008, p. 1029.

2. ASSEMBLY OF ORTHODOX CLERGY AND MONASTICS, Confession of Faith against Ecumenism, 2009, p. 25.

 

6. Instead of “walling-off,” it is better to use the term “cessation of commemoration”

It has been shown that the term “walling-off,” although correct and canonical, creates misunderstandings and gives occasion to the ill-intentioned to attribute to it conceptual extensions which it does not possess.

In any case, even within the canon, the main conceptual weight falls on the cessation of communion, of commemoration, which is limited and clear in meaning and does not allow for misinterpretations or extensions.

The concept of the wall allows, for example, the ecumenists to claim that a wall is being raised which separates from the Church, whereas, as we have shown, the wall is raised to separate us from heresy and from the pseudo-bishops. For this reason, the term “walling-off” is not found in theological dictionaries and lists of terms in relevant theological and canonical works. Its use is relatively recent, and instead of it, the term “cessation of communion” and preferably “cessation of commemoration” should be used.

On the Holy Mountain, after the calendar reform and the cessation of commemoration of those who accepted the New Calendar, the distinction was not made between “walled-off” and “non-walled-off,” but between “non-commemorators” and “commemorators.” The terms “commemorators” and “non-commemorators” are fitting even today and make it more difficult for those who wish to present the “non-commemorators” as schismatics, since they do not engage in any schismatic action—they simply do not commemorate heretical or heresy-promoting bishops.

 

 

B. WE WILL NOT CAUSE A SCHISM
(And without the commemoration of the bishop, the Mysteries remain valid)

Certain persons who are moved by love in the Lord toward us clergy in the world who have ceased the commemoration of our respective bishops, but also by a general respect for the struggles on behalf of Orthodoxy—especially those persons who have not known the writer well and have not experienced him personally, so as to interpret correctly his recent action of ceasing the liturgical commemoration of the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, Mr. Anthimos—are troubled by rumors deliberately spread or even by their own mistaken assessments, that Fr. Theodoros is going to cause a schism. They even associate in this direction the words or actions of other persons with whom Fr. Theodoros has cooperated or is cooperating, though he does not in fact agree or collaborate with them in all things, and from this they draw incorrect conclusions.

 

1. What follows from the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council. The Divine Liturgy is not celebrated in the name of the bishop

In order, therefore, to dispel these concerns and to bring peace to the thoughts of some—of the well-intentioned, of course—the following explanations are given: The cessation of commemoration of a heretical or heresy-promoting bishop is prescribed by the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council (861) of St. Photios the Great, when the bishop publicly preaches “with uncovered head,” that is, openly and unabashedly, some heresy condemned by Councils or Holy Fathers. [1] From the canon, the following points arise:

(a) The cessation of commemoration concerns one’s own bishop and not all the bishops of the Church. Each cleric ceases the commemoration of his own bishop.

(b) The cessation of commemoration is neither prescribed nor required to be coordinated, that is, to be done by many or not to be done individually. Even a single presbyter may proceed to the cessation of commemoration.

(c) The bishop whose commemoration is ceased must not simply incline toward heresy, but must also publicly preach the heresy.

(d) This cessation of commemoration is characterized by the canon as walling-off: “walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop.” Walling-off is not something different from the cessation of commemoration. There is no other walling-off apart from the cessation of commemoration, such that some may think they are walling-off without proceeding to the cessation of commemoration.

(e) This walling-off does not cause a schism, because one does not wall oneself off from the Church, but from heresy; [2] one does not wall oneself off from an Orthodox bishop, but from a so-called bishop, “walling themselves off from the so-called bishop,” whom the canon subsequently calls a “pseudo-bishop” and a “pseudo-teacher.”

(f) Those who cease the commemoration of a heresy-promoting bishop do not commit a canonical offense; for this reason, they are not subject to canonical trial and censure, that is, they should not be referred to episcopal or synodal courts.

(g) And not only should they not be referred to courts and punished, but on the contrary, they should be honored, because they protect the Church from schisms and divisions—they do not cause schism. Schisms are caused by the heresy-promoting bishops.

(h) It is not necessary for the heresy-promoting bishop to have been condemned by a Council, so that only after his conciliar condemnation the cessation of commemoration may take place. This is permitted even before the conciliar condemnation, “before conciliar judgment.” The canon is clear, and only the unlearned and unread find it difficult to understand—or some deliberately misinterpret it in order to avoid bearing the consequences it dictates: “Such persons (those who cease the commemoration) not only are not subject to canonical censure, for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before conciliar judgment, but shall also be deemed worthy of the fitting honor by the Orthodox. For they have condemned not bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they have not torn the unity of the Church with schism, but have hastened to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.”

(i) It is a logical, theological, ecclesiological, and legal absurdity to accept that the cessation of commemoration causes schism. Is it possible that the Church itself, through a canon of an official and illustrious council—over which even St. Photios the Great presided, a magnificent teacher, theologian, canonist, jurist, philosopher, along with many other bishops—would be recommending the committing of schism, and indeed not only against the Church, but even against themselves as bishops? The Church, through its councils, seeks to keep its members within its boundaries, protecting them from heresies and schisms. Is it possible that it would say to them, “Cease the commemoration of the bishop and go outside the Church”?

(j) The one who ceases commemoration is applying the canonical directive at the very moment he celebrates the Divine Eucharist, at the moment he serves; this means that the canon allows for the celebration of the Liturgy without the bishop being commemorated. It does not mandate that the one who ceases commemoration must cease to serve, as if the Liturgy is supposedly celebrated “in the name of the bishop,” and that where the bishop is not commemorated, the Mysteries are invalid—according to the unprecedented and erroneous opinion of Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon, for which there is no scriptural or patristic testimony, but only the heretical episcopocentrism and papal-style despotism. Would St. Photios the Great and the other God-bearing Fathers of the First-Second Council ever recommend the invalidation of Mysteries by prescribing the cessation of commemoration? All the Mysteries and the Divine Liturgy are celebrated in the name of the Holy Trinity or in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the bishop. There is no need to expand further on what is self-evident. Let us simply cite what the Apostle Paul says to the Corinthians, who had been divided into factions, placing some apostles-teachers at the head rather than Christ. The Apostle Paul protests, saying that Christ is the head of salvation, who was crucified for us, and that the Mysteries are performed in the name of Christ: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you..." [3] If then the heaven-ascending and God-seeing Paul refuses that the Mystery of Baptism is performed in his name, how much pride and papal arrogance is concealed in Zizioulas’s claim that the Divine Eucharist is celebrated “in the name of the bishop”? The Lord Himself, sending out the disciples to preach, gave them the command to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” [4] And when instituting the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist at the Mystical Supper, He did not say, “You will perform this in your name,” but rather, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” [5] The Divine Liturgy and the other services begin with a Trinitarian invocation: “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” or “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” or “Blessed is our God always…” We do not begin with an invocation of the name of the bishop. Let the indifferent and unread bishops, some of whom cannot even read the homilies others have written for them, take the trouble to look up in a concordance of the New Testament under the word “name” to see in whose name the Holy Apostles invoked when performing miracles. Was it the name of any one of them? Or were all things done “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”, “calling on the name of Christ”, in countless events and circumstances? Moreover, in the prayer of the Cherubic Hymn—“No one bound by carnal desires…”—which the bishop or priest says before the Holy Altar, they confess that Christ is the celebrant of the Mystery: “the One who offers and is offered”, not the bishop or the priest: “For You are the One who offers and is offered and receives and is distributed, Christ our God.” Also, in the short service of the Kairos before the Proskomide, the clergy pray to Christ to send His hand in order for them to perform the bloodless sacrifice: “O Lord, send forth Your hand from Your holy dwelling.” The commemoration of the bishop is done for other reasons, and not because it constitutes an essential element of the Mystery, without which the Mystery is supposedly invalid. In what Orthodox dogmatic theology is this erroneous teaching found? The bishop is commemorated primarily to show that the one commemorating and the one commemorated share the same faith, that they are both Orthodox, that the commemorated holds the same faith as the one commemorating—that they are of the same mind and same belief. We do not deny the important, great, and primary place of the bishop in the Church, as also stated by St. Ignatius of Antioch. But all this is valid when it concerns an Orthodox bishop, and not a pseudo-bishop.

Therefore, the one who ceases commemoration continues to serve and is not subject to “canonical censure,” according to the canon. And if any penalty of suspension or deposition is imposed on him by the competent “ecclesiastical” courts, it is invalid and unenforceable, as it is uncanonical. Woe to us if the Holy Fathers who were persecuted and deposed by heretical synods had obeyed and submitted to the decisions of heretical bishops. Orthodoxy would have been overthrown.

 

1. 15th Canon of the First-Second Council (861): “For those who, on account of some heresy condemned by the Holy Synods or by the Fathers, separate themselves from communion with their president—clearly when he publicly proclaims the heresy and teaches it in the Church with uncovered head—such persons not only are not subject to canonical censure for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before conciliar judgment, but shall also be deemed worthy of the fitting honor by the Orthodox. For they have condemned not bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they have not torn the unity of the Church with schism, but have hastened to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.”

2. See related: Protopresbyter THEODOROS ZISIS, “Walling-Off from Heresy, Not from the Church,” Theodromia 19 (2017), pp. 3–13.

3. 1 Corinthians 1:11–17.

4. Matthew 28:19.

5. Luke 22:20.

 

2. Ecumenism as a Condemned Heresy

The cessation of commemoration of one’s own bishop, then, presupposes his acceptance and proclamation of heresy. Is there today a heresy being preached “with uncovered head,” that is, publicly, openly, and unabashedly? Only those indifferent to the dogmas of the Church and who regard “piety as a means of gain” [1] bury their heads in the sand and do not see that for over a century now, the Church has been being devoured, consciences eroded, bishops, clergy, monastics, professors of theological schools, and theologians swept away by the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—as it was aptly named by the great dogmatic theologian of our Church, Saint Justin Popovich, by Saint Paisios the Athonite, and by many other contemporary Fathers and teachers. Ecumenism falls under the criteria of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, according to which the heresy being preached by the bishop must be “condemned by the Holy Synods or the Fathers.” Apart from the fact that contemporary Holy Fathers have already condemned it, its basic doctrines have been condemned by ancient Saints and ancient synods, and by the Holy Scriptures themselves, because it offends fundamental dogmas of the Church. It is the inclusion of all heresies, which is why it is called a pan-heresy. It does not require extensive theological knowledge and research for someone to characterize as heretical those who do not accept that Christ is the only Savior and Redeemer, according to the teaching of Holy Scripture, testified in many places and in many ways. We cite just one among the countless passages, that of the Apostle Peter during his speech before the council of the Jews, the high priests, and the theologians of that time: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” [2] Does not the Symbol of Faith of the First Ecumenical Council say the same against the heresy of Arius, referring to the God-man Jesus Christ and the salvation through Him: “Who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens…” This fundamental dogma of the uniqueness and exclusivity of salvation in Christ is offended by Ecumenism, which claims that people are saved even in other religions—thus asserting that the Apostle Peter, the entire Holy Scripture, and the whole Patristic Tradition are wrong, all of which teach that “there is salvation in no one else.”

Even the dogma of the Holy Trinity is indirectly offended by Ecumenism, although it does not dare to proclaim this officially, through what is taught by many Ecumenists and by the Second Vatican Council—that the three monotheistic religions, the three Abrahamic religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, believe in the same God. Yet only we believe in the Holy Trinity; the other two religions deny the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—they are Arian and Spirit-fighting, and therefore they do not even believe in the true God, for whoever does not believe in the Son does not believe in the Father either. [3] And as we chant at the end of every Divine Liturgy: "We have seen the true Light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity." It is not superfluous to add that the dogma of the Holy Trinity is also offended by the heresy of the Filioque, that is, the teaching of Papism and of Protestantism that proceeded from it—that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, as the Holy Scripture teaches through the very mouth of Christ, [4] and as the Church dogmatized in the First Ecumenical Council, but also “from the Son” (Filioque), according to the official anti-Lordly and anti-patristic doctrine of the Papists and the Protestants—whom, however, Ecumenism and the ecumenistic pseudo-council of Crete accept as churches, despite the multitude of heresies they teach, aside from the Filioque.

The most glaring error, however, of Ecumenism and of the pseudo-council of Crete is the offense and alteration of the ecclesiological dogma, which holds that the Church is one and not many, and that this one Church has one faith and one Baptism, according to the Pauline saying: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” [5] This dogma of the One Church, with the unity of Faith—meaning the same apostolic and patristic teaching, extending even to the smallest matters, which must remain unaltered and immovable—has been preserved by the Church through the ages since apostolic times. From the beginning of the Church’s life, as is evident in the texts of the New Testament, and until today, there have appeared false teachers and false prophets, as well as pseudo-bishops and pseudo-clergy, who attempt to alter and distort the one Faith of the One Church by introducing their own heretical teachings—essentially preaching a different gospel, “another gospel” [6]—and creating heretical conventicles which they call churches. With great strictness, the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers combat the heresies and condemn them, because those who become entangled in them lose their salvation, being deprived of the saving Grace, which operates only within the Church; outside the Church there is no salvation (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus), according to the well-known and universally accepted saying of Saint Cyprian. In every period of the Church’s life and throughout the entirety of patristic literature, as well as in our liturgical texts, one sees the tireless, vigilant concern of the Church for the combating of heresies, and the toilsome and martyrical struggles of the Holy Fathers—many of whom became martyrs and confessors, pillars of Orthodoxy—in order to preserve the correctness of the dogmas, Orthodoxy itself, and to prevent heresy and delusion from prevailing. It is enough for one to read the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, where all the heretics are named and anathematized. And lest any heresy remain without condemnation, at the end the Church anathematizes in general all heretics: “To all heretics, anathema.”

None of the Holy Apostles nor the Holy Fathers could have imagined that we would reach a point today—within the Church itself, through many bishops, other clergy, and theologians—of tearing down the boundaries of the Church, “the boundaries which our Fathers have set,” [7] and of introducing into the Church all errors and heresies, considering and naming the heresies as churches, as was done by the pseudo-council of Crete. This constitutes an overturning of the Gospel and of the Holy Councils, which condemned the heresies, and an offense against the Holy Martyrs and Confessors.

If one were to add also the synodal acceptance of the common texts of the Theological Dialogues—in which we recognize among the heretical Monophysites, Papists, and Protestants a valid Baptism and Apostolic succession—as well as the synodal approval to intermingle with the Protestants in the so-called “World Council of Churches,” thereby cheapening the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and rendering it a small tile in the poorly crafted mosaic of heresies, one will not find it difficult to conclude that the pseudo-council of Crete has offended the ecclesiological dogma and introduced a new heretical ecclesiology.

 

1. 1 Timothy 6:5

2. Acts 4:12

3. 1 John 2:23: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either.” John 5:22–23: “That all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”

4. John 15:26: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.”

5. Ephesians 4:5

6. 2 Corinthians 11:4: “For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted…” Galatians 1:6: “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.”

7. Proverbs 22:28: “Do not remove the ancient boundaries which your fathers have set.”

 

3. Timely Questions and Problems

There most certainly does exist in our time a condemned heresy—the accursed Ecumenism—which we have briefly described, even if many pretend not to see it, because confronting it entails toil, sacrifices, slander, persecution, and the loss of comfort. Until the pseudo-council of Kolymbari in Crete, Ecumenism was preached "openly and publicly" by individual clergy and theologians, among whom two patriarchs of Constantinople stood out prominently: Athenagoras and Bartholomew. The ecumenistic errors and heretical statements of Patriarch Athenagoras are many, which justifiably led most of the Monasteries of Mount Athos, as well as kelliotes [cell-dwelling] monks—among whom was Saint Paisios—to cease commemorating him, as their ruling bishop, during the years 1969–1972, according to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod (861). Far more numerous are the ecumenistic deviations of Patriarch Bartholomew, compilations of which have been published from time to time in denunciatory texts against him, such as the document by the “Assembly of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics,” titled “The New Ecclesiology of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,” which, apart from the members of the Assembly, was signed by hundreds of clergy and monastics and thousands of lay faithful, but most significantly by nine hierarchs: Ambrosios of Kalavryta and Aigialeia, Andreas of Dryinoupolis, Panteleimon of Antinoe, Seraphim of Piraeus, Pavlos of Glyfada, Ierotheos of Zichna and Nevrokopi, Seraphim of Kythera, Kosmas of Aetolia and Acarnania, and Ieremias of Gortyna. [1] Significant as well is the collection recently published by Archimandrite Chrysostomos Pechos, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Life-Giving Spring in Longovarda, Paros, under the title: “Condemnation of Heterodox Teachings of His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, before the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece.” [2] Several clergy, monastics, and laypersons have also compiled a great number of ecumenistic sayings and actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, which, when published and commented upon, will astonish his uninformed supporters. Therefore, the cessation of commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew should have already taken place many years ago by the Athonite Cenobitic Monasteries and the priest-monks of the kellia [cells] who commemorate him daily in the services as their ruling bishop—according to the canonical and patristic tradition, as well as the Athonite, both old and recent. The same should have been done by the hierarchs of the so-called “New Lands,” following the confessional and courageous stance of the three Hierarchs of the “New Lands” who, along with the Athonite Monasteries, ceased the commemoration of Athenagoras during the years 1969–1972—namely, the ever-memorable Ambrosios of Eleftheroupolis, Augustinos of Florina, and Pavlos of Paramythia. No one punished them then, not even Athenagoras, and no one claimed that the Mysteries they performed for three years were invalid.

If this had been done—if even now some bishops had ceased commemoration—the prospects for the pseudo-council of Crete would have been different. The patriarch would have hesitated to convene the "Council," because he would have appeared as responsible for the unrest among the Church faithful and essentially as one being accused. Thus, Ecumenism would have remained a personal choice and delusion of certain clergy and theologians. Now, after cowardice, hesitation, and supposed pastoral difficulties and consequences, the heresy-promoting patriarch has remained in practice untouchable and unscathed, and with the authority and power he holds, he convened, with few obstacles, the pseudo-council and—when he ought to have appeared as a defendant before an Orthodox synod—he appeared as the accuser of those of us who struggle against Ecumenism, now with even greater audacity in persecuting, slandering, and vilifying the fighters, since the heretical things he said and did are now synodically ratified. We are no longer simply those who question his personal opinions, as we have both the obligation and the right to do, but we are the “disobedient, the schismatics, the rebels, the egoists and infallibles who do not accept what the Church decides in synod,” as the parrots of the Phanar repeat—ignorant and semi-learned bishops and newly ordained theologians who, like wild beasts, devour the word of truth, according to the image of Saint Gregory the Theologian. [3] They forget that the validity of the convocation and operation of a synod does not depend on whether patriarchs and bishops gather and discuss, but on the correctness of the dogmas and decisions and on the continuity with previous synods. [4] The Church is present in the synods of bishops when they follow the truth and Orthodoxy. When they follow and support heresy and delusion, the Church is absent, not to be found there. [5] She is found where the truth is preserved and proclaimed, and therefore it is clear who is inside and who is outside the Church. Numerous councils in ecclesiastical history have been denounced and condemned as robber synods, as pseudo-councils, and as unlawful gatherings. Among them will also be counted the pseudo-council of Crete.

So then, through our inaction, cowardice, so-called pastoral concern and fear, we gave the opportunity to the Ecumenical Patriarch and his like-minded Primates and bishops to convene the "Council," to secure Ecumenism with a synodal seal and synodal signatures. This makes matters worse—much worse—because now Ecumenism is preached "openly," not only by five, ten, or twenty patriarchs and bishops, but by all those who took part in the "Council" and confirmed its decisions with their signatures, as well as by those who accept its decisions and announce them to the flock—even by those who remain silent and neither condemn nor accept them, but "play dumb," as the saying goes. The appropriate stance of bishops toward the "Council" is a clear "yes" or a clear "no." Neither "yes and no," nor silence, because not only does silence mean consent, [6] and according to Saint Gregory Palamas constitutes the third kind of atheism, [7] but already the book of Revelation tells us that on matters of Faith, one may be either cold or hot. Even the cold are tolerated by God—His "stomach" can endure them. But the lukewarm, the accommodating, the diplomats, the "yes and no" types, He cannot endure—He rejects them, He vomits them out: “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” [8]

And since even the Ecumenists do not deny the high level of authority of the “Council,” on the basis of which they consider its decisions binding for all, they are obliged to accept that on this high level of the “Council,” “upon a high and exalted mountain,” on a global, pan-Orthodox level, the pan-heresy of Ecumenism was openly preached and confirmed “with boldness.” And it continues to be preached again and again by those who accept and promote the decisions of the “Council.” Consequently, now it is not only Bartholomew who is subject to the cessation of the commemoration of his name in the sacred services, but also all bishops who collaborated and continue to collaborate in the acceptance, dissemination, and implementation of its decisions.

For this reason, the Athonite Kelliotes Monks acted excellently—unfortunately not the major Monasteries—who, correcting the previous inaction and hesitation, and preserving the dignity of the Holy Mountain as an ark of Orthodoxy, almost immediately after the “Council” ceased the commemoration of the leading figure of Ecumenism and its synodal ratification, the arch-ecumenist Patriarch Bartholomew. The “Assembly of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics,” in a document titled “Open Confession Letter regarding the ‘Council’ of Crete,” which was signed by many agreeing clergy, monastics, and laypeople, supported and praised the Athonite Kelliotes Monks for this action of theirs, because, as we wrote, “their immediate bishop there is the chief architect and preacher of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, ‘with boldness,’ the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, whose name they do not wish to be commemorated in the sacred services. Those who, instead of praising, persecute the monks who uphold the patristic, canonical, and Athonite Tradition commit a great canonical and ecclesiological error.” [9]

This praise of the entirely justified action of the Athonite Kelliotes Monks did not please many traditionalist clergy and theologians, even some members of our “Assembly,” because whatever one praises, one must also apply; yet there is a great distance between theory and words, and action. Up until the “Council” of Crete, our bishops, of the Church of Greece, for the most part did not fall under the scope of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council (861), because they were not preaching the pan-heresy of Ecumenism “with boldness” and openly, as Bartholomew and those with him were doing. It even seemed, through the decisions of the Hierarchy in May 2016, prior to the “Council,” that the unanimous proposals of the Hierarchs were sufficient to dismantle the ecumenist character of the “Council” and to relieve the consciences of the Orthodox. Unfortunately, the Archbishop and the twenty-four (24) member delegation at the “Council” did not prove themselves worthy of the plenary decisions, nor of the expectations of the faithful; they retreated on essential matters and were satisfied with minimal changes to non-essentials, which did not mortally wound the body of Ecumenism, but merely caused some painless scratches, superficial grazes.

We once again placed our hopes in the plenary session of the Hierarchy that convened in November 2016, only to be utterly and tragically disappointed. No evaluation of the “Council” took place, nor any vote on its acceptance or rejection—there was simply discussion and information-sharing based on the highly positive presentation of the Metropolitan of Serres, Mr. Theologos, whose positive assessments and proposals for the pastoral utilization of the “Council’s” decisions were unanimously accepted by all members of the Hierarchy, according to the Press Committee’s “Announcement.” There was no accountability for the reversal, retreat, and abandonment of the decisions of May. Only a few hierarchs protested that the “Announcement” was inaccurate, that no positive or negative decision was made, such as the Metropolitans of Kythera, Mr. Seraphim, and of Aigialeia, Mr. Ambrosios. The protests fell on deaf ears; the Church of Greece, secretly and without related discussion and vote, positively accepted the “Council” of Crete. Is there perhaps anyone who thinks and claims that the Church of Greece should be numbered among the Autocephalous Churches that reject the “Council” and thus increase their number to five (5), with a corresponding decrease of those that accept it to nine (9)?

And it is not enough that the positive stance of the Hierarchy toward the “Council” was essentially obtained through deceit, but what followed was the well-known text of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece “To the People,” titled “On the Holy and Great Council of Crete,” a monument of falsehood and misinformation, with the Synodal Metropolitan of Edessa, Pella, and Almopia, Mr. Ioel, indicated as the author—unless it was altered after its composition, in which case he offered no protest—where the pseudo-council of Crete is accepted “more clearly than the sun,” and the people are simply misinformed and deceived in order to diminish reactions. We will not deal with this text here; many already have, and we ourselves have addressed it in our lesson at the “Archontariki” of Saint Anthony, which was also broadcast online, and we are currently preparing the expanded written form of our critique. The Synodal text was sent to the metropolises with the order to be read in the churches at the end of January 2017; it was read and distributed, though not in all metropolises, at the beginning of February.

Therefore now, as we said, by inevitable logical consequence, it is not only Patriarch Bartholomew who proclaims Ecumenism “with uncovered head,” but also the pseudo-council of Crete, “set on a high mountain,” the highest body of governance and shepherding in the Church, and all those who signed and agreed with its decisions—namely, the overwhelming majority of the bishops of the Church of Greece. Now it is not only the Athonite monks who are justified in ceasing the commemoration of their local bishop, namely Bartholomew, but all the clergy in the territory of the Greek Church. Among these, we hoped, expected, and anticipated—but were disappointed—that some bishops from the Old Lands, “Lower Greece,” would cease commemorating the Holy Synod, so that they would not lie before the Holy Altar when they say during the Divine Liturgy, “of our Holy Synod, which rightly divides the word of truth.” Much more so, with greater reason, this should have been done by the bishops of the New Lands, who lie doubly when they say: “of our Patriarch Bartholomew and of our Holy Synod, who rightly divide the word of truth.” Therefore, applying the 15th canon of the First-Second Council (861), certain clergy ceased the commemoration of the names of their local bishops, who participated in the pseudo-council, such as Makarios of Sidirokastro and Ioannis of Langadas, or who openly supported the “Council,” such as Anthimos of Thessaloniki and who distributed the leaflet “To the People,” and thus also proclaimed “with uncovered head” the heresy of Ecumenism. Metropolitan Theoklitos of Florina is not exempt, whose commemoration was ceased by a number of clergy—primarily because, despite his initial reservations about participating in the “Council” and his refusal to attend, he ultimately accepted its decisions and distributed the leaflet “To the People.” His clergy and a large part of the faithful of his diocese wished him to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, the militant bishop Augustinos Kantiotis, and to be the first to give the signal for Orthodox resistance—especially since, having been long nourished by the fiery Orthodox sermons of the late hierarch, they could not bear, out of love and respect, to hear him as a bishop of the “New Lands” lie by commemorating Patriarch Bartholomew as one who “rightly divides the word of truth.”

We do not claim that all the hierarchs of the Church of Greece are equally responsible for the acceptance of the pseudo-council, nor that there is a complete absence of hierarchs of Orthodox mindset who oppose Ecumenism, and who, for various reasons, are unjustifiably timid and silent. Still less do we claim that we should proceed to a general break of communion with all Orthodox bishops, especially since even the four Churches that did not participate in the “Council” (Antioch, Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia) continue to commemorate, through their Primates, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. The Church has passed through similar situations in its history, with fragile boundaries and indistinct distinctions between Orthodox and heretical bishops, many of whom, upon repentance, joined the Orthodox camp—especially in times of confusion and ignorance of the flock, which must not be left unprotected and unguided in the hands of Ecumenist heretics, lest we lose our connection with it. For this reason, the Fathers accept that there are two kinds of governance in the Church: exactness (akribeia) and economy (oikonomia). Even great zealous Saints, such as Theodore the Studite, in similar critical situations, would temporarily—“for a time”—set aside exactness and apply economy, in order to avoid a greater evil. [10]

The entire Church has not been contaminated by heresy, and the Mysteries are not invalid where bishops inclined to heresy are commemorated, as some claim indiscriminately and divisively. Pastoral discernment and care at present, and according to economy, are reflected in what we agreed upon with the Athonite Fathers a few days before the Conference at Oreokastro, which took place on April 4, 2017—a conference they unfortunately withdrew from at the last moment, siding exclusively with exactness, that is, maintaining that the faithful should attend services only where priests have ceased commemorating, something that creates complex pastoral, ecclesiological, and even doctrinal problems, since it presupposes that a bishop inclined to heresy, even before his synodal condemnation as a heretic, performs invalid and ineffective Mysteries. We will not argue now in support of the contrary; it suffices to say that for centuries the East remained in communion with the West while the Filioque heresy was present there, and more simply, that the Mysteries of those of us who ceased commemorating our bishops were not invalid the previous Sunday when we still commemorated them. Does the 15th canon say anything of the sort—that we cease commemorating because, when we commemorate, the Mysteries are invalid? The agreement we made with the Athonite Fathers, which was unfortunately broken—thus we did not participate in the Oreokastro Conference (April 4, 2017)—stated the following: “It is advised that the faithful avoid attending services where manifest heretical ecumenist bishops and priests serve or are commemorated. They should prefer to go where Orthodox-minded bishops and priests serve, even if, for certain reasons, they have not ceased commemorating—and this according to economy. The best and praiseworthy thing according to canonical exactness is for them to attend services where the heretical-inclined are not commemorated, that is, where priests have proceeded to cease commemoration.”

 

1. See the text in Theodromia 16 (2014) pp. 557–570.

2. See also the text in Theodromia 19 (2017) pp. 18–29.

3. Oration 28, Theological Oration 2, 2, PG 36, 28, EPE 4, 36: “If someone is a wicked and savage beast and completely incapable of the words of contemplation and theology, let him not lurk treacherously and maliciously in the forests to seize upon some doctrine or word, and—having leapt suddenly—tear apart sound words with insults; but let him rather remain far off and withdraw from the mountain, lest he be stoned, crushed, and perish wretchedly as a wicked man. For the true and solid words are stones to the beastly.”

4. Saint Maximus the Confessor, On the Things Done in the First Exile, 12, PG 90, 148:
“The holy and approved synods, which the uprightness of the dogmas has judged, are those which the pious canon of the Church recognizes.” Saint Theodore the Studite, Letter 24 to Theoktistos the Magister, G. Fatouros (ed.), Theodori Studitae Epistulae, vol. 1, p. 66: “But the Church of God has remained unharmed, even if it has been struck by many arrows, and the gates of Hades have not prevailed against it. Nor does it tolerate doing or saying anything contrary to the established rules and laws, even if many shepherds have acted foolishly in many ways and have called themselves the Church of God and cared more about seeming to be above the canons than truly moving according to the canons... A Synod, then, master, is not simply the gathering of hierarchs and priests, even if they be many (for ‘better,’ it says, ‘is one doing the will of the Lord than ten thousand transgressors’), but the gathering in the name of the Lord, in the investigation and observance of the canons... It is not, therefore, master, it is not permitted for either our Church or any other to do anything contrary to the established laws and canons. For if this were granted, the Gospel would be rendered void, the canons made meaningless, and each one, during the time of his own episcopacy, since it is allowed for him to act with those around him as he pleases, would become a new evangelist, another apostle, another lawgiver. But by no means; for we have a command from the Apostle himself that, if someone dogmatizes or commands us to act contrary to what we have received, contrary to the canons of the ecumenical and local councils throughout time, let him be rejected and not considered among the lot of the saints.”

5. Saint Gregory Palamas, Refutation of the Letter of Ignatius of Antioch 3, EPE 3, p. 608: “For indeed those who are of the Church of Christ are of the truth, and those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ; and this all the more so, insofar as they even falsely claim for themselves the name of sacred shepherds and archpastors, and are called so by one another. For we have been initiated not to characterize Christianity by persons, but by truth and exactness of faith.”

6. Saint Theodore the Studite, Letter 43, to Joseph his brother and archbishop, in the above (Fatouros), vol. 1, p. 125: “Silence is a form of consent.”

7. To the Most Pious Monk Kyr Dionysios 5, in Writings of Gregory Palamas, ed. P. Chrestou, vol. 2, Thessaloniki 1966, p. 482: “A third kind (of atheism), not far removed from the aforementioned evil company, is to refuse to speak anything concerning the doctrines about God out of irreverent reverence…”

8. Revelation 3:15–16: “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I would that you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of My mouth.”

9. See Theodromia 18 (2016), pp. 478–487. The citation is on p. 485.

10. See for example Letter 49, To Naucratios, His Spiritual Son, in the above (Fatouros), vol. 1, p. 142: “Thus also among the saints in matters of economia, as with Cyril the Great in this matter; for he certainly endured for a short time the slowness or unready inclination of the Easterners not to regard the truly heretical as heretical. For what else was this interposing, while they preached the faith correctly and in doing so anathematized even the one being commemorated by them? For everyone who is entirely Orthodox, even if not in word, anathematizes every heretic potentially.”

 

4. We have no schismatic plans. We are safeguarding the unity of the Church in the Orthodox Faith.

In conclusion, and in order to refute the malicious slanders and to bring peace to those who are well-intentioned and concerned and wish to know officially, we declare that, knowing how great an evil schism is—which not even the blood of martyrdom can correct—but also how much greater an ecclesiological evil heresy is, which deprives one of salvation, by the cessation of commemoration of the bishops who incline toward heresy, we protect ourselves and the faithful from the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, without creating a schism, without submitting to another ecclesiastical administration, uncanonical, and without commemorating other bishops in the services. As we have stated, we proceeded with pain and sorrow to this action, because our bishops did not understand—either out of ignorance or intention—the canonically and fully ecclesiologically substantiated motives of the cessation of commemoration; they drove us out of the churches in which we served, and scattered our small flock—which is mainly theirs—to the four winds, disheartened and troubled concerning the love of its “shepherds.”

We have done our duty and our conscience is at peace, because we follow the safe path of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, striving against heresies as They did. We will resume the commemoration of the bishops when they publicly condemn the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and renounce the pseudo-council of Crete. Here we stand, and we do not take a step either to the right or to the left. We remain within the safe walls of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as they were defined and built through time by the Holy Fathers, and we tear down the walls of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism. Its champions and supporters create para-churches within the Church by supporting heresies, and they are accountable before the entire assembly of the Holy Fathers and Confessors, who have already set up for them episcopal and synodical tribunals in heaven.

The Church is not expressed either by Bartholomew or by Ieronymos; it is expressed by the consensus of the Fathers (consensus Patrum) and by those who agree with them, and not by those who set up pseudo-councils, modernist, like that of Crete, against the Holy Fathers. We repeat what Saint Theodore the Studite said when a former fellow monk and friend accused him of causing schism. He writes to him, therefore, that he does not tear the body of the Church in any way. And although he is not sinless, nevertheless he is of the same body and nourished by the Church, and he keeps the dogmas and the holy canons. It is those who distort the faith and whose life is disorderly and lawless who trouble and tear the Church: “We are not schismatics, O admirable one, of the Church of God—may we never suffer such a thing—but even if otherwise we happen to be in many sins, we are of the same body and nourished by it, eager to guard the divine dogmas and her canons and decrees. But those who trouble her and tear away from her—the Church which from the beginning of time until now has had neither spot nor wrinkle either in the word of faith or in the rule of the canons—are those whose faith is distorted and whose life is disorderly and lawless.” [1]

 

1. Epistle 28, To Basil the monk, op. cit., (Fatouros), vol. 1, p. 76.

 

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/p-theodoros-zisis-den-einai-schisma-i-apoteichisi-olo-to-vivlio/