In Protodeacon Andrei Psarev’s
presentation at the Russian Church Abroad's Fourth Pan-Diaspora Council in 2006, “The
Development of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia’s Attitude Toward
Other Local Orthodox Churches and Non-Orthodox Christians,” the following is
stated:
“On the issue
regarding the definition of ecumenism as heresy, the clergy that were accepted
into the jurisdiction of ROCOR thought that ecumenists should be labeled as
heretics and as having lost the grace of the Holy Spirit, and were required to
be subjected to the canonical sanctions which apply to heretics and
schismatics. A resolution to this effect was requested, on behalf of all ‘non-Russian
monasteries, parishes, and laity of ROCOR,’ by Priest Panagiotes Karras, in his
appeal to the Synod of Bishops dated 24 August 1974. The bishops of ROCOR,
however, were ready to anathematize the phenomenon of ecumenism itself, but not
specific people.”
Below is Fr. Panagiotes’
petition, originally addressed to Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada.
* * *
On the Heresy of Ecumenism and
Concerning Some Aspects of the Patristic Use of Economia
Fr. Panagiotes
Carras, Th.D. | August 24, 1974
Presented to
His Eminence, Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada, on the eve of the Third
All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
The holy Apostle commands us,
saying “Hold fast the traditions which ye have received” (II Thess.
2:15). By holding fast to the traditions which we have received from our holy
Fathers, we remain within the boundaries of our true fatherland, our most holy
Church, wherein a man can find liberation from the bonds of Satan and life
eternal in the bosom of Abraham.
Satan, in his endeavor to destroy
man, has deceitfully attempted to lead Christians away from the holy traditions
and, in this manner, to seize them from the sheltering wings of their mother,
the holy Church. Once we are separated from the Church, Satan pounces on us and
utterly destroys us.
Heresy, the distortion or
rejection of the doctrines and way of life left us by the Apostles and Fathers,
is Satan’s attempt to draw us out of the Church and to lead us astray. The
error of contemporary ecumenism is his most pernicious attempt, because it
denies the existence of boundaries to the Church, thus virtually denying the
Church’s existence; indeed, Ecumenism denies the existence of truth and so
attacks directly the enhypostatic Truth. Ecumenism is not so much a heresy as
it is total apostasy, disguised with some elements of supposed religion that
have no force or significance.
The Patriarchate of
Constantinople has espoused Ecumenism, and has slowly and resolutely introduced
it into the Local Churches with which it is in communion. The first major step
of this infiltration of heresy was brought about by the Pan-Orthodox Conference
of sorry memory held in Constantinople in 1923. The heretical nature of this
conference has been recognized by many eminent hierarchs and theologians of the
Orthodox Church, among them Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky of blessed
memory, Archbishop (later Metropolitan) Anastasy, Metropolitan Irenaeus of the
island of Samos in Greece, Bishop Nikolai of Ochrid, hierarchs of the Russian
Synod Abroad (Metropolitan Philaret, Archbishop John Maximovitch, Archbishop
Vitaly, and Archbishop Averky), and of the True Orthodox Church of Greece. This
Conference, therefore, has been duly condemned. The Pan-Orthodox conference of
1923 opened the door to Ecumenism and gave occasion to the Patriarchate of
Constantinople to develop its heretical influence. In 1924, it accepted the
papal calendar and, in this manner, brought violent schism to Greece. Shortly
thereafter, under Patriarch Gregory VII, the decree of the council of the
Living Church in Russia concerning the deposition of Patriarch Tikhon was
accepted (Archbishop [St.] John Maximovitch, “The Decline of the Patriarchate
of Constantinople” [The Orthodox Word, July-August 1972]).
Although the Russian Church
Abroad cautioned Metropolitan Evlogy about his Ecumenism and support of
Bulgakov’s sophiology, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, with open arms,
accepted the like-minded Evlogy along with the seminary, theological professors,
and clergy who had come under the influence of, and were subsidized by, the
YMCA, the Christian Student Movement, the Fellowship of Saints Alban and
Sergius, and other ecumenical organizations.
The innovationist Greeks were of
one spirit with Evlogy’s group, and in a short time the heretical books of the
professors of Saint Sergius were translated into Greek and widely read by the
theological students of Greece. Since 1924, the innovationists of Greece have
struggled to eliminate true Orthodoxy in Greece. They would have been
successful if your Lord [Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal] had not inspired
certain zealot monks of Mount Athos to leave their monasteries, and to search
out true Orthodox Christians, with whom they established small oases of
Orthodoxy in a land which had become a spiritual desert.
The innovationists could not
tolerate the existence of true Orthodox communities and sought to destroy them
by imprisonment, shaving and unfrocking of clergy and monastics, and the
closing of churches. The Greek government would not recognize the weddings
performed by true Orthodox clergy, and the children of these marriages were
considered illegitimate.
The innovationists of Greece,
like their brothers, the so-called Renovationists of Russia, have been waging
an unceasing war against true Orthodox Christians for the last sixty years.
Just recently, they have forcefully expelled true Orthodox monks from Mount
Athos in yet another attempt to
silence the truth. Here in the
United States and Canada, when certain priests of the Greek Archdiocese joined
themselves to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, they were
defrocked by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Since then, constant war has
been waged against the parishes of these priests. In a few instances, when
certain weak people were persuaded to return to their former delusion, the
children that were baptized by true Orthodox priests were rebaptized and the
marriages were reperformed, whereas converts formerly baptized by Roman
Catholics and Protestants are not baptized when they are received. Priests
ordained by Old Calendar bishops in Greece have been reordained both by the
hierarchs of the State Church of Greece, and by Archbishop Iakovos of North and
South America. There are, on record, such instances in full detail. Yet, Roman
Catholic clergy going over to them are received in their clerical rank, without
even a renunciation of their former heresy. In the Greek Archdiocese of North
and South America, we have such an example in Bishop John Martin, who was
received from the Uniates as a fully bona fide priest and within a few
weeks, ordained bishop for the Carpatho-Russians, and, within a few months
after that, celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his ordination to the
priesthood!
The Ecumenists openly proclaim
that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church no longer exists and must be
reestablished. In their attack against the dogma of the Church, they have not
only attempted to destroy the belief in the one Church of Christ, but have also
undermined faith in the holiness of the Church by introducing secularism into
her life. They have successfully waged war on monasticism to such an extent
that there are very few monasteries left under their jurisdiction, and the ones
which do remain are constantly harassed. None of their bishops are monks and,
for this reason, they strive now to allow bishops to marry and priests to marry
a second time. Freemasons are not only permitted to be members of their
communities, but in the U.S.A. and Canada, the administration of the local
churches is primarily in their hands. Further, many of the clergy, from
Patriarch to parish priest, are members of the Lodge. It has always been known
that the late Patriarch Athenagoras was a Mason. Upon his death, the Masonic
Lodge proudly revealed that he was a 33 Degree leading Mason, and celebrated
Masonic memorial services throughout Greece and elsewhere for him. Patriarch
Meletios Metaxakis of sorry memory was also a leading Mason and given a Masonic
funeral. The present Patriarchs Demetrios of Constantinople and the late
Benedict of Jerusalem, as well as the still-ruling Archbishop Iakovos, are
known Masons. It is now an accepted custom that the church halls, which are in
most instances located in the basement of the churches, are frequently turned
into dance halls and taverns where all manner of unseemly behavior can be
observed.
Fifty years of heresy has
seriously affected those who have remained in communion with the Patriarchate
of Constantinople. Now the Patriarchate has announced that they will propose to
change the Paschalia, so that they may celebrate Easter with the
Protestants and the Roman Catholics, something which is already a fact in
Finland. There can be no doubt that the Patriarchate of Constantinople fell
into heresy fifty years ago, and that, since then, it has spread this disease
in cooperation with the Revisionists of Russia.
We wish, however, to maintain
that not all those who continue in communion with the Patriarchate of
Constantinople are heretics, but some are to be considered in the terms of
Saint Athanasius the Great as “those who have been drawn away (ύποσυρέντων = literally
“dragged under”) by reason of necessity but have not been destroyed by wrong
faith (ἐν τῇ κακοπιστίν)” (Second Canonical Epistle).
In every instance when the Church
has been assailed by heresy, we find that many people are swept up by the
heresy without actually understanding what is happening. Heresy is always
presented as the truth, and in this way, many are misled. This was the case at
the time of that truly pernicious heresy, Arianism, concerning which Saint
Hilary of Poitiers said, “Multitudes of churches, in almost every province of
the Roman Empire, have already caught the plague of this deadly doctrine;
error, persistently inculcated and falsely claiming to be the truth, has become
ingrained in the minds which vainly imagine that they are loyal to the Faith” (De
Trinit. VI, 1).
Confusion was widespread, not
only among the simple people, but even among the holy Fathers. To bring just
one case as an example, let us look at the condition of the Church of Antioch,
where there were two Orthodox bishops, Saints Meletius and Paulinus (the latter
a Roman priest consecrated while Saint Meletius was in exile), and thus two
Orthodox Churches. Saint Meletius was recognized by Saint Basil the Great,
Saint Gregory the Theologian, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, and the Eastern bishops,
whereas Saint Athanasius the Great, the bishops of Egypt, and the Pope of Rome
supported Paulinus because they suspected that Saint Meletius was not Orthodox,
since he was an adherent of a “Homoiousian” party. Saint Meletius
reposed during the Second Ecumenical Council as its president, and yet the
schism continued until the year 413.
When we study the history of the
Church, we can easily see how people were misled in times of turmoil. The holy
Fathers understood the confusion of the times, and even though they themselves
would in no way compromise with the Arians, they were willing to show extreme
condescension and leniency to those who had been led astray. It is truly
amazing to see Saint Athanasius, who had suffered so much at the hands of the
Arians and who was so exact in matters of faith, admonishing the Orthodox at
Antioch to accept former Arians “as parents do their sons.” Almost forty years
after the Council of Nicaea, Saint Athanasius admonished the Orthodox to accept
former Arians without imposing a penance, and by simply having them
“anathematize the Arian heresy and confess the Faith confessed by the holy
Fathers at Nicaea” (Tome to the People of Antioch, 3) because they did
not consciously and voluntarily abandon the Church and war against it. The same
treatment was afforded to those who hesitated to accept the term “ὁμοούσιος” [homooúsios
= of same essence] as applied to our Saviour, and preferred instead the term “ὁμοιούσιος”
[homoioúsios = of similar essence].
Ιn his Second Canonical
Epistle, Saint Athanasius says that those clergy (bishops and priests) who
took leadership in the Arian heresy and, in the words of Balsamon, “championed
and assisted impiety,” should be received again into the Church upon their
repentance, but “should not be given a place among the clergy,” whereas those
clergymen who “were dragged away by reason of necessity and violence,” who,
according to Zonaras, “were merely in communion with the heretics but held fast
to the [Orthodox] Faith and did not assent to the opinion of heretics” would be
forgiven and granted a place among the clergy by way of economia,
especially since they purposed to preserve their flocks in this manner from
truly heretical clergymen.
In the writings of the holy
Fathers, we see that those clergy and laity who were caught up in the confusion
of the times were not considered as graceless heretics, but as Christians who
had been carried away as if by a great flood (cf. Zonaras, Commentary
on the Second Canonical Epistle of Saint Athanasius).
Let us look at another period of
turmoil for our holy Church, the time of the Iconoclasts. This time of
confusion lasted for over one hundred years. Are we to believe that all those
Christians who, out of necessity and coercion, or due to ignorance, were in
communion with the heretics, were totally deprived of sanctifying grace? A
careful examination of the answers given by Saint Nicephorus the Confessor will
lead us to believe that he too accepted the definition given by Saint
Athanasius concerning Christians “who have been drawn away by reason of
necessity but have not been destroyed by wrong faith.” This is especially true
in the light of his answer to Question Eleven, for here he allows Orthodox
Christians, when there is no Orthodox priest to be found, to be baptized,
tonsured as monastics, and receive holy water blessed on the feast of Theophany
by a priest who is in communion with the Iconoclasts, but whose faith is
uncorrupted, “so that the people will not remain unenlightened” (Canonical
Epistle, Rallis and Potlis, Vol. 4, p. 431). Further testimony to the
existence of a special economia for those Orthodox Christians who, due to
necessity, communicate with schismatics and heretics is to be found in the
instructions given by Saint Theodore the Studite, who permits Orthodox
Christians to partake of the Mysteries consecrated by a priest whose local
bishop is Orthodox, and yet who, out of necessity, commemorates a heretical
metropolitan (cf. Epistles, Bk. 1, 49. PG 99. 1089a).
Again, we are taught by the holy
Fathers the combined use of exactness and economia. Saint Nicephorus
would not compromise with heresy. He knew that Iconoclasm was heresy and he
boldly denounced it as such, even forbidding Orthodox Christians to eat at the
same table with Iconoclasts. The price of his exactness was that he reposed in
exile. Hand in hand, however, with his exactness, we see his great
condescension and economia. This same combination of exactness and economia
is to be found from the Apostolic times until our very own days. Saint John
Chrysostom, remarking on this combination of exactness and economia as
shown by Saint Paul towards those Galatians who had fallen into error
concerning the keeping of the Mosaic law, says, “Wise physicians do not cure
those who have fallen into a long sickness all at once, but little by little,
lest they should faint and die” (On Galatians, Homily IV, chap. 19).
In this same spirit, the great
Ecumenical teacher, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who was the first to realize
that Theodore of Mopsuestia was the originator of the Nestorian heresy and not
Nestorius, in order to facilitate the Eastern bishops to return to the Church,
permitted them to commemorate Theodore in the diptychs, provided that they
confess the Orthodox Faith. At this time, Theodore had already reposed (cf.
Epistle 72, To Proclus of Constantinople, PG 77, 344-345).
Close to our own days, we have
the example of the Church of Cyprus which was a Uniate church for over three
hundred years due to the Latin domination of the island. The people of Cyprus
struggled for three hundred years to remain Orthodox, despite the fact that
they were in communion with Rome. Finally, when they were able, they petitioned
to be received again into communion with the Orthodox. In 1572, at the Synod of
Constantinople called by Patriarch Jeremias “the Illustrious,” attended by
Sylvester of Alexandria and Germanus of Jerusalem, the clergy of Cyprus were
forgiven and the Synod ordained an Archbishop for the island. In these present
times, when the holy Church of our Lord is besieged by that heresy of heresies,
Ecumenism-Innovationism, we have before us that great defender of the Apostolic
faith, Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow. When His Holiness was confronted with the
machinations of the ungodly Renovationists, he boldly renounced them and gave
clear directions to those who remained faithful to the Church:
“By all these [anti-canonical]
actions they have separated themselves from the body of the Ecumenical Church
and deprived themselves of God’s grace which resides only in the Church of
Christ; consequently, all arrangements made during your absence by those ruling
the Church, since they had neither legal nor canonical authority, are invalid
and void, and all the actions and Mysteries performed by bishops and clergymen
who have forsaken the Church, are deprived of God’s grace and power; the
faithful, taking part in such prayers and Mysteries, shall receive no
sanctification thereby, and are subject to condemnation for participation in
their sin. We beseech those that consciously or unconsciously, knowingly or
ignorantly, have been seduced by the wiles of the present age, and having
acknowledged the unlawful authority, have fallen away from the unity of the
Church and the grace of God, to confess their sin, to cleanse themselves by
repentance, and to return to the saving bosom of the one Universal Church.”
(Concerning the Living Church,
Message of July 15, 1923)
The words of the saintly
Patriarch Tikhon echo the words of the Apostles and Fathers of our holy Church.
He proclaims with exactness the doctrine of the Church, clearly distinguishing
error from truth, and yet, with the spirit of economia which he also
inherited from the holy Fathers, his language is calculated to soothe the souls
of confused Christians. Together with Saint Nicephorus the Confessor he is
willing to accept those who have fallen away without imposing any epitimion,
in this way applying the words of Saint Paul, “Bear ye one another’s
burdens” (Gal. 6:2). It should be noted here that the recognition of the
Living Church by several of the ancient Patriarchates in no way gave it
validity. In like manner, the recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate today by
the rest of “World Orthodoxy” does not make it the legal representative of the
Russian Church before God and men. So it was that as locum tenens,
Metropolitan Sergius, before his apostasy, wrote concerning the recognition of
the Living Church: “if the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem have come
into communion with the renovators, be it worse for the Patriarch. Everyone is
equal before the Divine law, both Patriarch and laity. When the Patriarch of
Constantinople fell away in his union with Rome in the fifteenth century, the
Russian Church did not follow after him, and the Roman Catholic priests in
Russia did not become in this way Orthodox priests. In exactly the same way,
the communion between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the renovators may
make the Patriarch nothing but a renovator” (quoted from Religion in Soviet
Russia, Emhardt, 1929, p. 145).
In like manner, the recognition
by the other Local Orthodox Churches of the Greek innovationists of 1924 in no
way alters the fact that they are schismatics. Today, since all the
autocephalous Churches are in the camp of the ecumenists and are organic
members of the World Council of Churches, even more so, recognition between
themselves is no proof of their Orthodoxy. Rather, recognition by these
Churches is a witness of un-Orthodoxy. Fr. Justin Popovich, the late confessor
of the Serbian Church, writes concerning the “hireling hierarchs” of the Moscow
Patriarchate: “They have betrayed the Orthodox faith and have become the most
obedient tools of the secular power. What can one say about the Judas-like
decision of the Moscow Patriarchate (Dec. 16/29, 1969) concerning
intercommunion with the Roman Catholics, in opposition to all the holy dogmas
and canons of the Orthodox Church? It testifies that the Russian hierarchy is
in a state of terrible spiritual paralysis. And, this being so, can it
represent the Orthodox Church of Russia at the proposed ‘Ecumenical Council’?
May God not allow such an apocalyptical horror. And the Patriarch of
Constantinople? For nearly a decade, he has been scandalizing the Orthodox
conscience with his neo-papal behavior in word and deed, denying the unique and
saving truth of the Orthodox Church and Faith, recognizing the Roman and other
heresies as worthy of the same honor as the Truth, recognizing Rome’s Supreme
Pontiff with all his demonic, anti-ecclesiastical pride. And, following the
Vatican’s example, he is, with suicidal haste and frivolity, preparing his own
so-called ‘Great Pan-Orthodox Council,’ the purpose of which is not the
salvation of men and of the world according to the Gospel and Holy Tradition,
but clearly a Scholastic and Protestant goal” (quoted from The True Vine,
1972, No. 3).
The Ecumenists-Renovationists are
destroying many souls, and the time has come to apply the words of Saint Paul, “A
man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject”
(Titus 3:10).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.