The Union with the Monophysites: The Circle of Ecumenism

By Metropolitan Kalliopios (Giannakoulopoulos) of Pentapolis

Translated from the Greek by John Rigas [1]

 

CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND

“Heretics of the world - unite” is the slogan of our times. Ecumenism has succeeded in transforming into involuntary agents people who recently were committed members of the Orthodox Church, such as our new calendar brothers, who in 1924 followed the Latin Church and have since been captured in the nets of that God-despised heresy [i.e., the Latin/papal church]. We, and all the Genuine Orthodox Christians, who follow the patristic calendar, are those who today comprise the Orthodox people of God. It is therefore with a unique sense of sadness that we watch the stumbling of our brothers, and suffer pain because of it. This is why whatever we write in this study is with pain, grief, lament, indignation and distress. It is a protest before God, because nothing can now stop our brothers’ path to destruction.

We, as followers of the traditional patristic calendar did not expect, after the new calendar schism of 1924, to be so quickly vindicated. We do not rejoice at this. Besides, we are a Church which is continually persecuted by the reformed State Church; yet we have our weaknesses, which we must address and is imperative for us to correct. One thing though, we have not committed the betrayal of the Faith. We hold to the confession of the correct Faith, as it was given to us by the holy Fathers of our Church, something which our new calendar brothers have not done and are now not doing, especially the New-Calendarists of Greece, with their some eighty to one hundred bishops, with hundreds of archimandrites and lay preachers, clergymen, monastics and a plethora of theologians. Why? Why? Just as the mythical Circe transformed with her magic wand Ulysses’ men into swine, in the same way now modem ecumenism, the heresy of the Antichrist, “the beast of desolation,” has transformed our Orthodox new calendar brethren into heretics, and now as beings without will, is leading them into union with the other heretics.

Why are we writing all this? Because the New-Calendarists and the Monophysites or Mixophysites are to be very shortly united into one “Church!” Indeed, as this article is being written, (February 1991), in Canberra Australia, a meeting of the “World Council of (Heretical) Churches” is taking place. The New-Calendarists accepted as members of their delegation the Monophysites, who were there with their Pope Shenouda III of the Copts, because the union between the two churches is considered a foregone conclusion. This has come about after the “theological dialogue” which has been taking place between them since 1964 until today, and the dialogue has come to the agreement that the Monophysite “churches” are... Orthodox.

We first read the news announcing the end of the “theological dialogue” between the New-Calendarists and the Monophysites in the official publication of the New-Calendarist State Church, “Church Truth” (EKKLHSIASTIKH ALHQEIA) last November (11-16-1990). Admittedly, we found it difficult to believe. We could not (and still cannot) believe it, because the Monophysites were condemned and anathematized by Ecumenical Synods as heretics. We asked ourselves, is it possible, that at this time it has been discovered, after one thousand five hundred years, that the Orthodox Church unjustly condemned them as heretics and due to some misunderstanding (supposedly) anathematized them? Were the 630 holy and God-bearing Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod who anathematized the Monophysite leaders, Evtychios and Dioskoros (i.e., Eutyches and Dioscorus), wrong in their judgment? And we thought, if all those who proclaim the above are perhaps right, then the Orthodox Church must, on its knees, ask the Monophysites forgiveness for anathematizing them unjustly! In addition, we must cast out from our Church’s life those Synods, the Fourth and all those that followed, which anathematized them. Because, they not only anathematized these leaders and their like-minded supporters, but say that Dioskoros should never hope for reinstatement from the Orthodox Church. Finally, if things are as our New-Calendarist brethren have decided in their “theological dialogue” with the Monophysites, what kind of Ecumenical Synods are these? Throw these kinds of Synods out...!

But it is not like this at all. Fortunately, for us who belong to the Orthodox Church, the reform-minded New-Calendarists are not correct.

Since they are unable to, or do not want to admit this error to themselves, we, the Old-Calendarists, who hold fast to the Traditions of the holy Orthodox Church, and who continue to believe and accept whatever we received from the Holy Fathers of the Church, will tell them as the Holy Fourth Ecumenical Synod declares: “If there be some who for their own reason believe something other than the aforementioned declarations, let them be alien to the Church.”

Now, another question arises, and that is: why do the New-Calendarists do all these things and want to unite with the Monophysites? Naturally, there must be many reasons, the main one being that according to the plans of ecumenism there must begin the creation of the Una Sancta. That is, “The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” which according to them does not now exist, and it must be formed by all the heretics.

But for us Orthodox, not only does the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” exist, not only has it never ceased to exist, not only will it continue to exist, if God wills it, until the end of the world, but exclusive members of this unique Church are only, us, the Genuine Orthodox Christians. This is what we painfully observe:

Although much time has passed (it is already three months since the news of the union between the New-Calendarists and the Monophysites has been made known) there has been no reaction. No one has stopped to ask themselves, upon what basis was this agreement for union founded?

And those officials in authority, let us lend this characterization to the leadership of the new calendar Church, perhaps they did it knowingly? Perhaps they want to verify if, and to what degree their followers, both clergy and laity, who are following them in their mindless course, continue not to be bothered and not have their consciousness raised regarding matters of faith. For them this poll is of great value, because from the moment they ascertain that their members no longer care to be informed, if they will today be united with such and such heretics, then they will be certain that their flock will follow them tomorrow, when they will decide to unite, as a matter of course with the rest, let us say, the Papists.

It is a poll, therefore, that is being taken by those in “authority.” They are just doing their job! What about those “not in authority.” When we say those “not in authority” we mean the rest of the clergy of the New-Calendarists, the monks, and the laity, because this is how this “group” is thought of by their leaders! What are they all doing? Nothing, absolutely nothing, is the answer. They are in a state of theological speechlessness! They are indifferent about matters of faith! They are indifferent to the point of scandal! Here then is the great accomplishment of ecumenism! It has succeeded in making all those that it contaminated indifferent to matters of faith. With what then do they occupy themselves? They argue about which of their archbishops or bishops is more inclined to the former Junta or has more affinity to former Archbishop Hieronymos than the rest. They “bludgeon” each other over this. And as a popular saying goes, “They are arguing over someone else’s haystack.” If they were bishops of the Orthodox Church, they would not run to the courts of Caesar to secure diocesan thrones. Instead, they would attempt to be the first to be relieved of the heavy burden of hierarchal responsibilities, as our holy Fathers did in the past! But they, according to their self-interests, and their stubbornness, fanaticize their followers and wage a campaign of disinformation thereby disorienting their members concerning matters of faith.

Indeed, this is in keeping with protecting the vital interests of ecumenism! Where, then, are the alarms sounding for preaching? Where is the call to spiritual arms from the monastics? Where are the fiery articles of the religious press? Nowhere! Shepherdless are the ranks of the New-Calendarists.

That which the many talented New-Calendarist hierarchs will not do, and the very privileged archimandrites and preachers, the sober and scholarly monks, their most profound thinkers and theologians, will not do, we are compelled to do, us the insignificant, the uneducated, the fools for Christ! But because we have complete knowledge of our humble abilities, we ask for God’s help and mercy, and the understanding of our readers because, indeed, we are not able to undertake such a great task, the task of refutation, and still yet, the revelation of the betrayal by the New-Calendarists regarding the union with the Monophysites.

 

CHAPTER 2

WHO ARE THE MONOPHYSITES?

During the fifth century after Christ, two heresies shook the Church. These were Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Both heresies are Christological in nature, that is, they deal with the person of Christ, the union of His two natures.

Nestorianism taught that we have the union of two persons into one ethical person, which means that we now have two Sons, one as God, and one as man. Therefore, according to them, our most holy Theotokos gave birth to the human Christ, and for that she should not be called Theotokos but “Christotokos!” At this point I think it is useful for me to make a comment and say that this deception is based on the false belief that since Christ was a separately distinct person as man, therefore He fiercely struggled with temptations and in this way, He grew in virtue and holiness! [2]

The reaction to Nestorianism, outside the boundaries which the holy Fathers defined, led to the other extreme, the heresy of Monophysitism. The founder of this heresy was Archimandrite Evtychios of Constantinople, who earlier was a supporter of St. Cyril, the defender of Orthodoxy, in his battles against Nestorios. Evtychios taught the cacodoxy [wicked belief] that the two natures in Christ united into one, that is, they underwent a “mixture,” or a “blending,” or a “commingling”! Therefore, the divine Hypostasis absorbed the human nature! It must be said that the forerunner of the heresy of Evtychios was another heretic, named Apollinaris, who taught the cacodoxy, that Christ, during His Incarnation, did not receive all of our humanity but took only our flesh!

The Endemousa, or Resident Synod, of Constantinople, which convened under the presidency of St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, looked into the cacodoxies of Evtychios in the year A.D. 448. Evtychios, in his defense, said that he believed the Lord to have been begotten of two natures before the union (incarnation), but after the union he confessed one nature! This meant that on the Cross at Golgotha the divine nature “suffered.” What we have here is a “divine suffering” heresy. For this reason, the followers of Evtychios later altered that God-delivered “Trisagion” (Thrice Holy Hymn). After the phrase Holy Immortal, they added the phrase “Which was crucified for us!” This synod, as it was fitting, deposed Evtychios because he was a heretic.

Evtychios was very close to Emperor Theodosios II, whom he persuaded to follow his heresy. The following year, A.D. 449, the emperor called an “Ecumenical Synod” in Ephesus. Its purpose was to find Evtychios innocent and to impose Monophysitism as the correct Faith, which is what happened. The president of the council was primarily the Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioskoros, who was formerly a deacon to his predecessor on the throne of St. Cyril. This Synod declared Evtychios innocent and restored him. At Dioskoros’ urging they named him “Teacher of the Church,” so that he could be held up as an example of Orthodox thought and his false beliefs to be thought of as Orthodox. It proclaimed Monophysitism as Orthodox doctrine. It condemned as a heretic St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, who had found Evtychios guilty with the Resident Synod. The reason why he condemned St. Flavian was because he said, “two natures after the union” and accepted as Orthodox the letters of St. Cyril to Nestorios and the Orientals [wherein St. Cyril confessed two natures in Christ]. Saint Flavian was so brutalized by the hirelings of Dioskoros that after three days he died. Then Dioskoros had his man, Archimandrite Anatolios, enthroned in the Constantinopolitan see, whom he hoped to have as a like- minded hireling and puppet.

This Synod, although it was called “Ecumenical,” was declared heretical by the Orthodox. Saint Leo, Archbishop and Pope of Rome, characterized it as “a Robber Council” and this is how it is known in history until today. The soul of this Robber Council was Dioskoros, who had brought a multitude of like-minded bishops and monastics with him from Egypt, who kept calling out during the council “he who blasphemes Dioskoros, blasphemes God. God has spoken through Dioskoros. They who oppose him are heretics!”

Dioskoros was not only a strong-willed man, but he was also violent, vain, dictatorial, tyrannical and unhesitating. He behaved as a “new pharaoh!” He essentially ruled Egypt, which was a province of the Byzantine Empire, as would a civilian governor. It is said that when he became Patriarch, he relentlessly persecuted the relatives and helpers of his predecessor, St. Cyril, in a most cruel and inhumane way, because the latter did not accept as Orthodox some of Dioskoros’ letters with which he condemned St. Flavian during the Robber Council.

The Orthodox arose in general outcry against the Robber Council. In the meantime, the Monophysite Emperor died and there ascended to the throne St. Markianos, along with St. Pulcheria, who in A.D. 451 convened the Fourth Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, in order to re-establish the Orthodox Faith and bring peace to the Church. The 630 holy Fathers who took part in this Synod denounced the heretical Robber Council, and restored the honored memory of St. Flavian as Orthodox and brought back the orthodox teachings of the Resident Synod of A.D. 448. As a consequence, they deposed Evtychios and condemned his teachings with the vote on the Definition of Faith of this Synod, in which is summarized all the Orthodox teaching of the two natures of the Lord. Indeed, the Orthodoxy of the Definition of Faith was verified miraculously by the incorrupt holy relics of the great holy Martyr Evphemia (commemorated July 11), which was then kept as a treasure in Chalcedon, (now, alas, it is found in the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Church of St. George the Great-martyr in the Phanar.)

The heretics refused to accept the dogma formulated at this holy Synod. Therefore, at the suggestion of Patriarch Anatolios, the Orthodox and the Monophysites would each write down their beliefs and teachings in separate volumes. Both sides would then invoke almighty God to reveal a sign which expressed the true Faith.

Since St. Evphemia was considered the patroness of Chalcedon, it was decided to place the two volumes within her reliquary. Thus, the coffer containing her precious relics, located at the saint’s church outside the walls, was opened. Both books were placed upon the saint’s chest. The reliquary was then closed with the imperial seal. A watch was also set over her relics. All retired to pray for divine intervention.

On the fourth day, after the seal was broken, the reliquary was opened, and all were astonished at the following sight. The book of the heretics, the Monophysites, was found tossed under the saint’s feet. The book of the Orthodox was held in the embrace of Christ’s martyr. This phenomenon caused wonder in all. Thus, the Monophysites were brought to shame, but the Orthodox were strengthened in the Faith and glorified God. This event proved an inspiration to many who were foundering in the Faith, and thus they corrected their erroneous beliefs. [3]

In this Definition of Faith, the holy Fathers also wrote the following: “We too, following the holy Fathers, confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ of all, accordingly teach that He is perfect in His divinity and He is perfect in His humanity... in two natures unconfused, unchanged, undivided, inseparable, Him we acknowledge...”

The Church, in the Dismissal Hymn of the holy service to St. Evphemia included the miracle, that is the verification of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod proceedings as follows:

Thou didst greatly delight the Orthodox, and thoroughly shame the cacodox, O Evphemia, thou beautiful virgin of Christ; the Fourth Synod didst thou validate, with all that the Fathers had well dogmatized. O glorious martyr, do thou beseech Christ God, to grant us His great mercy.

Dioskoros was called by this Synod to give account for himself. The accusations against him referred, along with the matters of faith, to all kinds of iniquities, such as ethical, administrative, canonical, etc. Finally, Dioskoros refused to give account of himself; therefore, the Synod deposed and anathematized him.

These two heresiarchs, Evtychios and Dioskoros, were exiled by the emperor to different parts of the empire, where they died. The followers of Evtychios, who were extreme Monophysites, slowly disappeared. But the followers of Dioskoros, who were more moderate Monophysites not only remained, but increased to such dangerous levels that they were able to wrest whole provinces of the Roman empire, as Byzantium was then known. Some of these provinces were Egypt, Syria, and Armenia.

In Egypt, the followers of Dioskoros succeeded in A.D. 457, on Great Saturday, in murdering the Orthodox Patriarch St. Proterios, and electing their own patriarch, Timotheos Ailouros. From that time on, the Monophysites of Egypt declared open war against the Byzantine Empire. They reached the point that along with rejecting Orthodoxy, they also rejected their national conscience as Romans and united themselves to some remnant of the ancient Egyptians, those who are known until this day as Copts. These apostate Christians from Orthodoxy and Byzantium who mixed with the Copts, later allied themselves with the Arabs and in this way opened the road for the subjugation of Egypt to themselves. By God’s just punishment, they were to pay very dearly for their break from Constantinople.

The Copts of Egypt transmitted their Monophysitism to the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia, which since that time has been deceived by the Monophysites. Today, these two Monophysite or pre-Chalcedonian Churches, the Coptic and the Ethiopian, honor Dioskoros as a saint and insist on circumcision for their members. They include as Holy Scripture in their bible the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Clement. The Ethiopian Church also includes the apocryphal Book of Enoch, the book of the translation to the heavens of Esaias, the revelation of Baruch, and the Apostolic Injunctions, etc.

It should also be noted that, as all the others, Monophysites make the sign of the Cross from left to right, with only one finger, indicating by this their belief in the one nature of Christ.

The one who led this movement in Syria was Petros Knafeus the Monophysite Patriarch [a.k.a., Peter the Fuller of Antioch], who was the first to audaciously add to the Thrice Holy Hymn the phrase, “Which was crucified for us,” in order to make known the “God-suffering” doctrine, which is a basic belief of the Monophysites.

Great help in the organization of this Monophysite church was provided by the heretical Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, Severos, who was also anathematized as a heretic by Ecumenical Synods.

Indeed, Severos held the belief that Christ’s body was corruptible by its nature, and this view is still accepted today by the Coptic and Jacobite “Churches.” In antithesis, the Armenian Church follows Julian of Halicarnassus, who supported the incorruptibility of Christ’s body. The main supporter of this Church was the monk Iakovos Baradeos or Zanzalos (which means poorly dressed) who later became Bishop of Edessa in Mesopotamia. It was from this person’s name that this Church got the name “Jacobite.” These Jacobite Monophysites transmitted their heresy to the Orthodox Church of Malabar, India. Up to that time this Church had been Orthodox, having been established by the Apostle Thomas. The Jacobite and Malabarite Monophysite “Churches,” in contrast with the Coptic and Ethiopian “Churches,” do not impose circumcision. They honor Dioskoros, but reject Evtychios as an extremist. They teach that Christ is one person “Who cometh from two persons”! 

Finally, in Armenia, a large group of Orthodox was deceived by the Monophysites. In this way, there came to exist in Armenia what had happened before in Alexandria and Antioch, two churches. The one Orthodox, whose members were loyal to the Emperor in Constantinople, and for this reason were called Melkites, (from the Arabic meaning “of the King,” this group should not be confused with the present day Uniate Latins of the same name, who originated over 1,000 years later) and the other one, the heretical Monophysite, which still exists until today.

These five Monophysite or “non-Chalcedonian Churches,” in spite of all the differences among themselves, have ecclesiastical relations and comprise the modern Monophysite world, which will unite with the New-Calendarists and will together sing praises and doxologies to the impious Dioskoros as a saint for his crimes against our Faith and family. There will certainly be found hymnographers to compose his musical service.

 

CHAPTER 3

ARE THE MONOPHYSITES HERETICS?

In the theological dialogue which has taken place between the New-Calendarists and the Monophysites, it was agreed that the Monophysites are not heretics – with the understanding that at least not Dioskoros, nor any of his disciples, who established the Monophysite “Churches” – nor are their “Churches,” until this day, heretical.

These are the topics we will look at next:

THE MATTER OF DIOSKOROS

In the theological dialogue which was held between the New-Calendarists and the Monophysites it was agreed that Dioskoros is not a heretic, because as it is mentioned in the Official Minutes of the holy Fourth Ecumenical Synod, St. Anatolios said that “Dioskoros was not defrocked for heresy!” The New-Calendarists base this on the view that Dioskoros accepted the dogmatic formula which St. Cyril of Alexandria accepted concerning the “One nature of the divine Word incarnate.”

Was Dioskoros therefore a heretic, who was justly and correctly condemned by the Fourth (Ecumenical Synod and anathematized by all the later Synods, or was he Orthodox? [4]

1. Dioskoros was a heretic! And here is why.

a) If Dioskoros were Orthodox and did not believe in the one nature of Christ, the Robber Council of Ephesus in A.D. 449 would not have found Evtychios innocent, who publicly was teaching this false belief. Indeed, as we witnessed, it was through Dioskoros’ actions that the Robber Council proclaimed the heretic Evtychios “Teacher of the Church” on whose authority, regarding matters of faith, the faithful could depend on! The holy Fathers, very correctly noted that with this action (that is, proclaiming Evtychios correct) “Dioskoros inflicted harm upon the Faith.” [5]

b) If Dioskoros were Orthodox, he would not have deposed at the Robber Council the most Orthodox St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, who said “two natures after the union,” and he would have accepted as Orthodox the letters of St. Cyril to Nestorios and the Orientals, in which were contained the Orthodox teaching regarding the two natures of Christ.

c) If Dioskoros were Orthodox, he would have permitted the reading of the Orthodox Tome of St. Leo of Rome, even though eight times he promised that it would be read at this Synod, but ultimately it was not read. In this Tome, St. Leo explained in a most Orthodox manner the teaching regarding the two natures of the Lord, something that Dioskoros did not want to hear, because he was fearful that those participating in the Synod, when informed with the truth, would turn from the Monophysite false belief, something which indeed happened after the Robber Council. All the bishops who took part in the Robber Council, except for Dioskoros, when they read the Tome rejected Monophysitism and followed Orthodoxy. [6]

d) At the Fourth (Ecumenical Synod, Dioskoros was under the accusation of heresy, lodged against him by St. Leo of Rome, whom Dioskoros had previously anathematized as a heretic for his Tome. With this accusation Dioskoros was “first judged and deposed as a heretic, since it was evident that he had deposed the most Orthodox St. Flavian as a heretic.” [7]

e) If Dioskoros were Orthodox, he would have come and appeared at the Fourth Ecumenical Synod and would have confessed the Orthodox Faith, or at the very least, he would have rejected Monophysitism in writing.

f) If Dioskoros were not a Monophysite, he would not have written that the blood which was shed by Christ upon the Cross “was by nature God’s and not man’s” [8] something which, without doubt, proves his belief that God suffered.

g) If Dioskoros were not a Monophysite, he would at least have recognized the Definition of Faith of the Fourth (Ecumenical Synod, which in no uncertain terms defined the Christological Dogma regarding the two natures of the Lord. Meletios Kalamaras refers to Dioskoros “as being of the same mind as Evtychios.” [9]

THE OPINION SAINT ANATOLIOS

Let us now come to the opinion of St. Anatolios of Constantinople who took part in the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, and who says that “Dioskoros was not deposed for heresy.” He goes on to say that he was deposed because he was called three times to the Synod and did not come, and was not in communion with Leo of Rome.

1. The New-Calendarist Metropolitan Meletios Kalamaras who took part in the theological dialogue with the Monophysites correctly writes in his noteworthy book, The Fifth Ecumenical Council, that this opinion of St. Anatolios “was a baseless and an unfounded erroneous personal view.” He bases this on the fact that the Council anathematized Dioskoros. Here is what he writes:

“After the vote and the signing of The Definition of Faith, all the holy Fathers cried out, ‘This is what we believe, one Faith, one opinion. All of us agree on this. All of us agreed, gave praise and signed. We are all Orthodox. This is the Faith of the Fathers. This is the Faith of the Apostles. This is the Faith of the Orthodox. Anathema to Nestorios and Evtychios. Anathema also to Dioskoros. The Trinity has cast them down. Those three the Trinity has cast out.’”

After the anathema of Dioskoros, the Synod demonstrated that St. Anatolios’ judgment that “Dioskoros was not deposed for heresy” was an unfounded erroneous personal view. [10]

2. The fact that St. Anatolios states that one of the causes for the deposing was the accusation of not being in communion with St. Leo of Rome in itself proves that the deposing was performed for reasons of heresy.

Saint Leo of Rome, in his Tome, included the Orthodox belief regarding the two natures of the Lord and sent this Tome to the Second Council at Ephesus in A.D. 449 (the Robber Council) to have it read. But as we have said, Dioskoros refused to have the Tome read. During the preparations of the Synod at Chalcedon, Dioskoros anathematized St. Leo as a heretic, because of the contents of the Tome. Saint Leo then accused Dioskoros of heresy, with the consequence being that Dioskoros was not able to take his place and participate in the Council as a delegate, as the other holy Fathers, but had to wait to be called as a defendant. The holy Fathers condemned him for not being in communion with St. Leo. They judged St. Leo as being Orthodox and Dioskoros as a heretic, since he did not accept the Orthodox teaching of the Tome regarding the two natures of the Lord. Therefore, the evaluation of St. Anatolios is incorrect, even though it mentions the events.

3. Even in the writ of accusations against him there were included matters of faith, a little farther down in the Minutes of the Council, as we have said and as we shall see next.

4. The most important piece of evidence that Dioskoros was anathematized are the actual Minutes of the Synod, in which this was discussed and it was stated that Dioskoros is “a heretic,” “a heretical Monophysite,” who “thrice was called by the Synod to account for heresy and criminal acts,” and that “he was deposed for heretical teachings and repented falsely,” and that he is “a supporter of the heretic Evtychios.” [11]

In light of the above it is clear that the 630 Fathers of the holy Fourth Ecumenical Synod believed that Dioskoros was a heretic and that is why they anathematized him. He is thought of as an anathematized heretic by all successive Synods, as we will see next. Where is this erroneous view of St. Anatolios attributed to? Should we suppose that he had a special sensitivity and felt that he had to lighten the burden of Dioskoros, given that he owed his position as Patriarch of Constantinople to him? This does not seem possible, because as the saint’s life indicates, after the Fourth Ecumenical Synod he wrote an encyclical in which he defined the correct Faith and called upon all to anathematize, as teachers of falsehoods, both Evtychios and Dioskoros.

DIOSKOROS AND THE DOGMATIC FORMULA OF SAINT CYRIL

Finally, as for the view that Dioskoros accepted the dogmatic formula which St. Cyril used “regarding the one nature of God the Word incarnate,” we must say that this admission does not relieve Dioskoros from the accusation of heresy. And here is why.

The phrase regarding “one nature of God the Word incarnate” does not belong to St. Cyril of Alexandria. It belongs to the heretic Apollinaris, who was the forerunner of the Monophysites. It is included in Apollinaris’ Letter to Jovian, but which the followers of Apollinaris, in order to deceive the Orthodox, falsely attributed to the great Athanasios. With this phrase it is clear that Apollinaris proclaimed that Christ had only one nature, which united with the flesh of man and not with our complete human nature. Saint Cyril was misled into believing that this dogmatic formula belonged to St. Athanasios, and since he could not conceive that it was ever possible for St. Athanasios to believe a heresy, he interpreted this phrase, in such a way as do the Orthodox! Saint Cyril understood this teaching as meaning that as “in the one hypostasis or the one Person of God the Word is united the divine and human nature,” which is thoroughly orthodox. In this way, this phrase came to have two meanings. On the lips of the heretics, it had a heretical content, while on the lips of the Orthodox it had an Orthodox content, and Dioskoros hid behind this ambiguous dogmatic expression. Why?

Because, as St. Justinian writes in his Confession of Faith: “It is a habit of the heretics, in order to deceive the more simple of the Orthodox, to make use of this pious meaning and explanation, so in this way they can transmit their own falsehood, because these explanations when interpreted and understood correctly in a pious setting are Orthodox, but when badly interpreted and expressed by the heretics, they have an impious heretical content.” [12]

In this way Dioskoros tried to hide his Monophysite beliefs behind this expression with dual meaning “about one nature of God the Word incarnate.” He did not succeed however, because the Fourth (Ecumenical Synod anathematized him as a heretic.

 

CHAPTER 4

THE SUBJECT OF THE MONOPHYSITE “CHURCHES”

Let us now go beyond Dioskoros and examine the situation. Is it perhaps possible that the Monophysites “churches” were and are to this day Orthodox?

Unfortunately, they are not Orthodox, in spite of all that has been decided by the New-Calendarists in “The theological dialogue” with the Monophysites. They are not Orthodox for the following reasons.

A. If the Monophysite “churches” were Orthodox, they would not be commemorating Dioskoros as their saint. If in the Orthodox Church it is not permitted to commemorate in the Diptychs a living heretical bishop, much more so it is not permitted to commemorate him as a saint after he has reposed. Because our saints are for us authorities of Faith in Orthodoxy, they are the infallible guides for our salvation. In this way, for example, when it was verified that Theodore of Mopsuestia had taught heresy, his name was immediately stricken from the Diptychs of those fallen asleep in the Churches of Mopsuestia. [13] “It is alien for the Christians to commemorate heretics in the sacred diptychs” is emphasized at the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, “because it is alien for Christians to accept falsehood (heresy) on the same level as the Orthodox Faith” [14]

Of course, today, when the New-Calendarists trampled upon Ecumenical Synods, it is permitted to commemorate every heretic, such as Demetrios, Parthenios, Iakovos, Stylianos, and others.

Today, the various new calendar ecumenists are even trying to falsify the “List of Saints” with false saints, which their Patriarchates “declare” en masse, because they know that for every Orthodox, the saints are the rule of Faith. If it is proved that some saint is a heretic, then every Christian will be able to follow any heresy he chooses and be able to become... a saint. This does not happen in Orthodoxy; it only happens with the New-Calendarists.

B. All the disciples of Dioskoros who established or organized the so-called pre-Chalcedon or Monophysite “churches,” were fanatic Monophysites, who spoke thus about the Orthodox: “He who says two natures, cut in two; he who says two natures is a Nestorian,” that is, “whoever says that Christ has two natures, cut Him into two pieces, kill Him, because he is a Nestorian”!

Therefore:

A. Monophysite followers of Timotheos Ailouros and Petros Mouggou (i.e., Peter Mongus) in Egypt, immediately after the death of St. Markianos (the emperor), slaughtered the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, the holy Hieromartyr Proterios, inside the Patriarchal Church, while fully dressed in his patriarchal vestments, on February 28, 457. Timotheos was enthroned as patriarch, and using as tools fanatic monks, he unleashes a frightful persecution against those who were delegates at the Orthodox Synod. In A.D. 476, Timotheos presided over a Monophysite Synod in Ephesus, which overturned all the decisions of the Fourth (Ecumenical Synod! Timotheos Ailouros even condemns St. Cyril as a heretic and orders the complete and total destruction of the works of this defender of Orthodoxy. Is it ever possible that the “churches” of these people could be Orthodox?

B. In Antioch, “Patriarch Severos,” as Kalamaras writes again, “verified that many fathers used the term two natures. And faithful to the teachings of Evtychios which states that the Fathers do not have inspiration from God, he believed that every up-to-date contemporary was more credible than those of the past;” [15] that is, he and the test of the Monophysites, as newer “fathers” were superior to the Orthodox Fathers of the Church, who fought the Monophysite heresy.

Something similar is being taught now by a well-known processor of the University of Athens, that is: the increase of God’s revelation with the passing of time! In Antioch also, the Monophysite Patriarch, Petros Knafeus, adulterated the Trisagion Hymn with the God-suffering addition, “He Who was crucified for us.” The New-Calendarists, in order to justify the God-suffering belief of the Monophysites, say that what they really mean in the Trisagion Hymn is only the second person of the Holy Trinity, Christ, and therefore it is not God suffering. But St. John of Damascus refutes them, who wrote a whole work in order to show that this addition to the Trisagion Hymn constitutes heresy. [16]

It is impossible therefore for “churches” such as these, that have as their creed Monophysitism, to be declared Orthodox!

 

CHAPTER 5

ONLY HERETICS CONSIDER THE MONOPHYSITES AS ORTHODOX!

One who is truly Orthodox is obligated to respect and to follow the Faith of the holy Fathers. The Faith of the holy Fathers was stated infallibly in the Synods. Whoever refuses to accept the Faith of these holy Synods is not Orthodox, but a heretic, and is according to blessed Theodosios (Bishop of Canathis) anathematized. “If someone,” he says, “does not accept the holy Synods as they do the four Gospels, let him be anathema!”

Through this theological dialogue the New-Calendarists have accepted that the Monophysites are Orthodox, thereby invalidating decisions of Ecumenical Synods.

Indeed, they proposed that all anathemas of the Ecumenical Synods against the Monophysites be rescinded. Here is what the Ecumenical Synods say about the leaders and followers of Monophysitism:

A. The Fourth (Ecumenical Synods says: “Nestorios and Evtychios anathema...Nestorios, and Evtychios and Dioskoros anathema. The Trinity has cast down these three. The Trinity has cast out these three.”

B. In the Definition of Faith of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod we read: “If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomios, Macedonios, Apollinaris, Nestorios, Evtychios, and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the holy catholic and apostolic Church and by the aforesaid four holy Synods, and if anyone does not equally anathematize all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned, let them be anathema.”

C. In the Minutes of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod which took place in Constantinople in the year 680/681, there was included as a dogmatic matter, the letter of St. Sophronios of Jerusalem, in which the following is mentioned: “Anathema, therefore, and forever cursed from the Holy and Coessential and worshipped Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, are they...Evtychios, Dioskoros the champion and defender of Evtychios, Barsoumas, Zooras, Timotheos called Ailouros, Petros Moggous and Akakios, who contrived the Union (Henoticon – 5th century heretical agreement of Union between Orthodox and Monophysites) for Zenon....”

D. The Quinisext Synod in Trullo in the year 691/2 in its first canon mentions the following: “[M]oreover we confirm that Faith which at Chalcedon, the Metropolis, was set forth in accordance with Orthodoxy by the 630 God-approved Fathers in the time of Markianos, who was our emperor, wrote down in pen and certified the Orthodox Faith, that the one Christ, the Son of God, comprised of two natures and in those two natures glorified in a loud voice handed it down to the ends of the earth. And we confirm that Evtychios the vainglorious... as an abominable infection, was cast out of the Church’s sacred atrium. Together with him the Church cast out Dioskoros and Nestorios; the former for division, the latter for championing and defending confusion (of the two natures of the Lord), both of whom fell away from the divergence of their impiety to a common depth of perdition and denial of God.”

E. In the Definition of Faith of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod we read: “Evtychios and Dioskoros, the calumniators of the divine atrium have been cast out. Along with them we cast out Severos and Petros and their very blasphemous interconnected series. And along with these Origen and Evagrios and Didymus; their methodologies do we anathematize as did the Fifth Synod which convened at Constantinople.

F. In the Synodicon Book of Orthodoxy, which every Orthodox church is obligated to read during the Sunday of Orthodoxy (after 1924 the New-Calendarists stopped reading the contents of this book in their churches) the following are declared: “To those who reject and remove the voices of the Fathers... and more so do not accept the Minutes of the Proceedings of the (Ecumenical Synods, the Fourth we say and the Sixth, ANATHEMA, thrice. To Petros the Knafeus and insane, who says, ‘Holy Immortal Who was crucified for us,’ ANATHEMA! thrice. To Petros, Dellaio the heretic, Evtychios and Sabellios the evil-minded, ANATHEMA! thrice. To Iakovos the Armenian called Zanzalos, Dioskoros Patriarch of Alexandria and Severos the impious... ANATHEMA thrice. To all the Evtychians and Monothelites and Jacobites and Artzibourziter, and simply all heretics... ANATHEMA thrice.”

The Orthodox Church with the above anathemas, which it voiced at the (Ecumenical Synods, considers the Monophysites heretics. The New-Calendarists with their “theological dialogue” have chosen the wrong path to make the pre-Chalcedonians Orthodox. They hid the truth from them! They flattered them! They gave them indulgences without bringing them to repentance. And in this way, they succeeded in achieving a “union with heretics.”

If the Monophysites desire to be informed of the truth, let them learn it then from us, the Genuine Orthodox Christians. The truth is one. There is only one path for them: to become Orthodox. It is dictated by the 95th Canon of the Quinisext (6th) Ecumenical Synod: “As for heretics who are joining Orthodoxy and the portion of the saved, we accept them in accordance with the subjoined sequence and custom... [they must] anathematize their heresy, the Nestorians and Nestorios, and Evtychios, and Dioscorus, and Severus, and the other exarchs of such heresies, and those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies, and thus they are allowed to partake of holy Communion.”

It is self-evident that these heretics, aside from their Monophysite heresy, have acquired in the 1500 years in which they have been in heresy, many other innovations, foreign to the Orthodox Church. All these must be rejected, and they must accept all that our Orthodox Church accepts and confesses in order for us together to cry out “Thus do we believe, thus do we declare, thus do we preach!”

There is no other path to union between the Monophysites and the Orthodox Church. The method of union suggested by the New-Calendarists is a union of all heretics in “the church of evil doers,” the church of ecumenism, which is a “parasynagogue of Satan,” the success of which Meletios Metaxakis, Chrysostom Papadopoulos, Athenagoras, Meliton, worked for, and for which presently Demetrios, Parthenios, Iakovos, Stylianos and the rest of the ecumenical New-Calendarists continue to work.

 

CHAPTER 6

NEW-CALENDARIST ECUMENISM

Ecumenism today has worn out the New-Calendarists. It has led a large portion of their people to theological lethargy. They do not care for, nor do they understand matters of faith. Not only the lay people, but also the clergy and monks of the New-Calendarists are heard to say that they do not concern themselves with these matters. Even their bishops say the same. They relegate these matters to... “specialists.” And who are they? They are certain theologians, university professors or certain bishops.

And these “representatives,” think and decide for themselves. No one checks them. No one cares about what they decide, as they did now with the Monophysites, when they overturned Ecumenical Synods, which infallibly decided that the Monophysites are heretics. Their union with the Orthodox Church can only happen after sincere repentance, with an exposition of Faith in writing, rejecting and anathematizing their heresy.

All who reject the Ecumenical Synods are heretics. They are outside the Church. They are anathematized from the Orthodox Church, which declares:

“Those who reject the voice of the holy Fathers, who at the direction of God have expressed the dogmas of the Church correctly...furthermore we say that those who do not accept the Minutes of the Fourth and Sixth (Synods), Anathema thrice.” (Synodicon of Orthodoxy).

The New-Calendarists for the past sixty-five years now have been trying with their cacodoxy to destroy the Orthodox Church. But our Church has gone through many persecutions and wars of heresy. It has remained unshaken, because it is established upon the Rock of Truth, that is Christ. Only Her enemies have been vanquished. They left and are now gone, just as our persecutors the New-Calendarists will be gone. It is exactly the way that St. Theodosios, Bishop of Canathis, said it, who took part in the Fourth Ecumenical Synod: “If someone attempts at moving the immovable, he is moved not having moved the immovable.”

Let the New-Calendarist theologians have that in mind and let them not blaspheme against the holy Fathers by saying that they unjustly punished and anathematized the heretical Monophysites. Most of all, let the simple people of the New-Calendarists keep this in mind and let them speedily separate themselves from the cacodoxy and heresy which they are following.

New-Calendarism is a schism and a false belief. The correct position for everyone in matters such as these, is a matter of salvation of their soul. Each and every one of us has one and only one soul. Let us be careful, because during that day of judgment no one will be able to, with any exchange, escape from the eternal condemnation of hell, in which there will be a portion for the rejecters of Christ, the heretics, the atheists, and the unrepentant sinners.

I hope that these humble words of mine fall on good earth.

“To those who cast out the voices of the holy Fathers Athanasios, Cyril, Ambrose, Amphilochios the God-inspired, Leo the most holy Archbishop of Old Rome and the rest who at the direction of God voiced the dogmas of the Church correctly, and moreover, do not accept the Minutes to Ecumenical Council, of the Fourth and the Sixth, to those we say, ANATHEMA thrice.

“As the Prophets saw, as the Apostles taught, as the Church received, as the Teachers dogmatized, as the ecumene concurred, as grace shone forth, as falsehood was dissolved, as wisdom presented itself, as Christ rewarded, thus do believe, thus do we declare, thus do we proclaim, this is the Faith of the Apostles, this is the Faith of the Fathers, this is the Orthodox Faith, this Faith has established the Ecumene [i.e., inhabited world].” (The Synodicon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy).

 

Endnotes:

1. Translator’s Endnote: The author of the article was a Metropolitan of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, then under the Presidency of Archbishop Chrysostom II. These Christians, since 1924, have not followed the papal new calendar because they believe that the feasts were given by God to the holy Fathers through the holy Synods and cannot be moved. Furthermore, there are Anathemas against changes in the Church calendar by Patriarch Jeremiah II and the Pan-Orthodox Councils of 1583, 1587, 1593, which should be revered to this day.

2. This perception is clearly Nestorian and it comes directly from their heresiarch Theodore of Mopsuestia! Unfortunately, this heretical perception had been officially adopted by the “Holy Synod” of the new calendar Church of Greece in 1930! It was from there that the blasphemous and anathematized Kazantzakis got it. And finally, it was declared publicly by that insolent New-Calendarist “Archbishop” of Australia, Stylianos Harkianakis, who was officially accused of heresy by Metropolitan Augustine Kantiotis, but alas, the most cacodoxical ecumenically-minded Ecumenical Patriarchate threw the accusation in the trash heap!

3. Taken from “The Life of St. Evphemia,” in The Holy Women Martyrs (Buena Vista, CO: Holy Apostles Convent, 1991), pp. 232–233.

4. The non-Orthodox are attempting to present as Orthodox all the heretics, even Nestorios who they say was not.... a Nestorian! And they ask themselves, “Can it be perhaps that the Church at that time, lacking theological scholarship and research, erred?” (See Meletios Kalamaras, “The Fifth Ecumenical Synod,” p. 36)! While at the same time the non-Orthodox (but unfortunately some Orthodox also) are attempting to make heretics of Orthodox Saints, such as St. Gregory Nyssa who was named by Ecumenical Synods as “Father of Fathers.”

5. See Swartz, Minutes of Ecumenical Councils, 2.1,1, p. 111.

6. See M. Kalamaras, p. 74.

7. Ibid., pp. 74, 75.

8. Ibid., p. 61.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid., pp. 78,79.

11. See P. Karanikola, Keys of the Minutes of the Documents of Ecumenical Synods (Athens, 1986), pp. 25, 137 [in Greek].

12. Mansi 9, 568.

13. In the same way the Sixth Ecumenical Synod removed from the Diptychs Pope Honorios of Rome who had been dead for years, for holding and teaching the Monothelite heresy.

14. See M. Kalamaras, op. cit., p. 107.

15. Ibid., p 83.

16. Migne, P. G. 95:21-62.

 

Source: The Voice of Orthodoxy in America, Vol. 1, No. 2, Mar-Apr 1997, pp. 35-54.