Who Are “Within the Church”? An Exchange Between Fr. Theodoretos (Mavros) and theologian Nikolaos Sotiropoulos

(From the Greek periodical, The Hagiorite, written and published by the ever-memorable Hieromonk Theodoretos [Mavros], Issue 8, September–October 1994 edition.)

 

 

 

A few months ago, the well-known spiritual father of the Sinai desert, Fr Adrian, repudiated the ecumenism of the New Calendar and joined the Church of the Old Calendar, after having ascertained in practice as well the erroneous teachings of today’s bishops of “Orthodoxy.” This, as was natural, did not please many New Calendarists, both clergy and lay theologians, since it calls their course into question and leaves them exposed before their spiritual children, who will rightly wonder what is happening.

For this reason, the periodical The Cross published an extensive comment (Aug. 1994, p. 134), observing with regard to Fr Adrian that “he did not exhaust all the means available.” In the writer’s opinion, before breaking communion with the Church of the New Calendar, he ought “to have sent circular letters to Christians throughout the world, in which he would have denounced the drift toward ecumenism of those persons who ought to have been guardians of the Orthodox faith.” The writer’s proposal concerning written protest had been employed extensively by those who, for many years, had struggled against erroneous teaching, and it produced no result; only the breaking of communion troubles them and exposes them. Thus, Fr Adrian preferred the path of action. To this end, he visited Australia and Canada, where the Greek diaspora flourishes, in order to denounce the heresy. The result? He was immediately expelled by the “Orthodox” archbishops and bishops of those regions!

For this reason, having perceived that they had by now become hardened, in the words of the divine Paul, he decided to safeguard himself by walling himself off and joining the ranks of the Old Calendarists.

Saint Theodore the Studite, whom The Cross cites as a struggler “within the Church,” applied an economy that was sufficiently strict even in the matter of the emperor’s unlawful marriage alone, breaking communion with all those chiefly responsible for the adulterous union and with those in communion with them. During the period of the Iconoclast heresy, however, the break in communion was universal: no Iconophile communed with the Iconoclasts, since the opposing sides were clearly divided, and everyone who confessed faith in and reverence for the holy icons was relentlessly persecuted. This was the situation in the Church of Byzantium. There were, however, other Local Churches and Patriarchates that did not participate in the heresy and that remained in communion with the Iconophiles.

Today, however, matters are far worse than during the Iconoclast period. The Pentarchy of the Patriarchates and all the Autocephalous Churches are in communion and cooperate with one another, persecuting those who resist the heresy of Ecumenism. Consequently, the only path remaining for anyone who wishes to remain uninvolved in the heresy and in condemned communion is the path of walling-off and communion with the Churches of the Old Calendar. The venerable tradition of Orthodoxy and the sacred Canons approve the above stance, regarding those who act in this manner as “worthy of honor”!

Unfortunately, the editors of The Cross, despite all that has been written over the course of thirty years, persist in maintaining that they can be Orthodox, like the confessors of the past, while at the same time remaining in communion with all the Churches that teach error or are in communion with such error! They call this a struggle “within the walls of the Church,” whereas it means precisely the opposite: they are within error and outside the truth! There were also certain abbots in the time of Saint Theodore who, possessing their monasteries and commemorating the heretics, thought that they were doing something pleasing to God and exercising discernment, just as the editors of The Cross do. To them the Venerable Father wrote:

“And now permit me, most honored Father, to speak more freely. You are not without responsibility simply because you were arrested by the emperor’s men and nevertheless remained free... If, after your arrest, your reverence suffered none of the things mentioned above [that is, the torments to which the faithful were subjected], forgive me, but you were deceived, brother. And do not justify yourself to me by saying that you are preserving the churches and the sacred images in the temples unharmed, as well as the commemoration of the Patriarch. Others who have fallen babble the same things. These things cannot be preserved unless there has been a betrayal of the Orthodox confession. For, I ask you, what benefit is there if we, who are called and are the temple of God, have been destroyed [through failure to confess the faith], while we take care of lifeless temples?… Alas! Others are dying, others are being exiled, others are being scourged, others are being imprisoned; others are being given refuge by the mountains, the deserts, the rocks, and the caves; and we, remaining in our homes, imagine that we shall remain unharmed. By no means…”

“I have said these things out of love for you and as a reminder that those who act in this way are deserving of punishment…” (P.G. 99, 1365 A–C).

And to Abbot Theophilos:

“...And you, most wretched man, having been ensnared by soul-destroying communion and remaining in that place of destruction—for so it should be called, and not a monastery—say that all is well... And what brethren have you preserved, when you have corrupted them through your destructive communion, even if you have kept them supplied with food? A scandal to the world, an example of denial, an incitement to perdition, flesh and not spirit, darkness and not light...” (Ibid., 1337 C).

Behold how the true Fathers of the past thought and acted, and above all the great Theodore, whom Fr Justin Popović regards as the “fearless confessor of the theanthropic truths.” Blessed are those who humbly imitate his course; truly wretched, however, are those who distort his words in order to justify their remaining in the heresy...

* * *

“Who Are ‘Within the Church’?”

(From the periodical, The Cross, Issue no. 391, November–December 1994)

 

The Old Calendarist hieromonk Fr Theodoretos Mavros criticized our comment entitled “He Did Not Exhaust the Means Available” (August 1994 issue, p. 134). That comment concerned the well-known spiritual father of the Sinai desert, Fr Adrian, who abandoned that spiritual outpost and joined the respected Old Calendarist group of Fr Cyprian of Phyle and Oropos. His criticism was published in the periodical The Hagiorite (Issue 8), which he himself publishes, under the title “Who Are ‘Within the Church’?”

In this text, Fr Theodoretos, using excerpts from letters of Saint Theodore the Studite, attempts to demonstrate “who are within erroneous teaching and outside the truth.” And, in his opinion, these are those of us who follow the New Calendar.

At first, we thought of replying on the theoretical level. Since, however, every argument admits of a counterargument, we avoided that temptation. Besides, toward the end of the above-mentioned text, Fr Theodoretos himself refutes what he has written, since, in support of his assertions, he cites the opinion of the great Serbian theologian of our century, the blessed Fr Justin Popović, writing as follows: “Behold how the true Fathers of the past thought and acted, and above all the great Theodore, whom Fr Justin Popović regards as the ‘fearless confessor of the theanthropic truths.’”

An Answer to Himself

It would perhaps be sufficient to stop here and not continue developing our thoughts, since the passage just quoted constitutes, for those who know the persons and circumstances involved, an answer by Fr Theodoretos to himself. For those, however, who are unfamiliar with Fr Justin Popović, we note the following. Fr Justin Popović had studied the Fathers of the Orthodox Eastern Church as deeply as very few others had, and Saint Theodore the Studite in particular. And since the ever-memorable Father united theory and practice in his life, we would have expected him to have walled himself off and to have had no communion either with the Patriarchate of the Serbian Church or, consequently, with the other Patriarchates. Nevertheless, he did not wall himself off, but fought his battle within the bosom of the Church, being among the first to combat the heresy of Ecumenism and to characterize it as a “pan-heresy.” Are we to suppose that Fr Justin failed to understand the deeper meaning of the words and deeds of Saint Theodore the Studite, that “fearless confessor of the theanthropic truths”? We dare not even whisper such blasphemy.

Then the Lord also granted our Church men endowed with spiritual sight, among whom were the ever-memorable Elders Porphyrios and Paisios. These grace-filled Elders never advised those who followed the New Calendar to wall themselves off, “safeguarding themselves through walling-off and joining the ranks of the Old Calendarists.” The reason is self-evident.

But let us also turn to those Elders who possess the gift of spiritual fatherhood. There are Old Calendarist spiritual fathers who hear the confessions of New Calendarist faithful without regarding them as heretics or compelling them to wall themselves off. And, so as not to create friction within the most sympathetic ranks of the Old Calendarists, we shall refer to two departed spiritual fathers, Fr Neophytos Kalofountis and Fr Niphon Astyfides, beneath whose epitrachelia many New Calendarist souls found spiritual rest. Indeed, during the first years of the schism, Fr Neophytos followed a strict policy toward New Calendarists and would not receive them for confession, until the Lord Himself rebuked him, saying: “Why are you driving away My children?”

Bringing our reflections to a close, we have this, in conclusion, to say to our beloved Fr Theodoretos, who, admittedly, has struggled for thirty years, including with his pen, in defense of the sacred things of our faith:

Reverend Father, Fr Justin and the other Fathers did not regard the safeguarding of the salvation of New Calendarists as consisting in their walling themselves off from the Church and joining one of the Old Calendarist groups, as Fr Adrian did. We do not know whether this has ever occupied your thoughts. You, of course, defend what you write on each occasion, armed with the learning you have acquired through studying the thought of the Fathers of our Church. But perhaps, in addition to this, you also need something else—something that will bring into harmony within you the thought of the Fathers with the God-pleasing way of life of the aforementioned holy men. Examine this.

* * *

Contemporary “Seers”

By Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros the Hagiorite

 

My dear Mr Sotiropoulos, I would not have returned to the subject had you not noted in your commentary (The Cross, Dec. 1994, p. 198) certain things foreign to the Tradition of our Orthodoxy. In the above commentary, you express admiration for the “seers,” as you call them—that is, those endowed with foresight, as they are commonly described—such as Fr Paisios, Fr Porphyrios, and others. You then emphasize that the aforementioned Elders never advised the faithful of the New Calendar to follow the Old Calendar. But did they ever advise them to do anything that would protect them from the anti-Orthodox actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch and his satellites? Never! On matters of faith, they maintained silence—a silence culpable and condemnable according to the Holy Fathers. Yet they spoke at great length about prayer and almsgiving, traveling kilometers to locate good-quality water underground and hidden treasures (!), while remaining indifferent to the treasure of Orthodoxy being plundered by its supposed guardians! Nor did they miss an opportunity to exhort the faithful to obey the Church—that is, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Iakovos of America, Parthenios of Alexandria, Sotirios of Canada, Stylianos of Australia, and all those in communion with them. According to this line of conduct, neither should you have criticized Stylianos of Australia or Sotirios of Canada, just as your “seers” did not!

You forget that when Fr Paisios was asked by a journalist “how he viewed the presence of Bartholomew on the Ecumenical Throne”—Bartholomew, I repeat, who excommunicated you—he replied in all seriousness: “God, in His providence, has given us the best Patriarch for these difficult years”!! (Kathimerini, 27 November 1993). Surely you too, dear Nikolaos [Sotiropoulos], must feel ashamed on behalf of the… “seer”! I also remind you that the Athonite Fathers who supported Stylianos of Australia in his erroneous teachings received their blessing from these very “seers”!

Do not the bishops and clergy of the New Calendar continue to follow this same policy to this day, calling the Old Calendarists heretics while at the same time embracing the actual heretical Papists (and only them?), considering it a great honor to concelebrate with the arch-ecumenist and Latin-minded Bartholomew, or with Methodios Fouyas, who even prayed together with fire-worshippers at Assisi?

Is it ever possible for these “seers,” who remain indifferent to the above erroneous teachings, to constitute a criterion of Orthodoxy? Do you not see that they had become playthings of the Evil One, since nothing they said is in harmony with the patristic, anti-heretical teaching, thereby becoming a cause for so many souls to remain in communion with the heresy? Do you not remember that in the past as well, certain men who were truly saints, in their simplicity, followed a heresy, without the confessing Fathers who were then the luminaries of the Church imitating them in their slippery course?

Consider the “courtesy” and “kindness” of contemporary heretics—Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestants, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and so forth—especially of their teachers. Why are we not moved in the least by this “courtesy” of theirs? Because we know that their doctrines and teachings are unsound. We ought to do something similar with the words of the “seers.” Since they stand in glaring contradiction to the venerable Tradition of Orthodoxy, we should pay no attention whatsoever to their words. We should regard them as snares leading simple souls to perdition—souls for whom Christ died!

Consequently, in matters of faith and confession, we should not examine which path Fr Justin or Fr Porphyrios follows or followed, but which path ought to be followed in accordance with the Sacred Canons. This is precisely why they are called canons: so that we may regulate ourselves according to what they enjoin.

With regard to the Old Calendarist Fr Neophytos, concerning whom you write that “he followed a strict policy toward New Calendarists and would not receive them for confession until the Lord Himself rebuked him, saying, ‘Why are you driving away My children?’,” I have the following to observe. By the above, you yourself acknowledge that Fr Neophytos was within the Church, since the Lord Himself urges him to receive His children—and not only Fr Neophytos, but also all those who imitate the ecclesiastical course of this good spiritual father!

To the above you will surely reply: “And where are we to go, Fr Theodoretos? Do you not see how many factions there are among the Old Calendarists?” I agree that their divisions constitute their “Achilles’ heel,” but I by no means accept this objection of yours as a logical or theological argument, and here is why: Let us suppose that there were no Old Calendarists; what, then, should the New Calendarists do? Should they continue indefinitely and indifferently in communion with erroneous teaching, tolerating everything, as they do today? And something else: in your opinion, WHEN should New Calendarist clergy and laity break communion with those who teach error? WHAT ELSE, in your judgment, must the Ecumenists do before the bishops and clergy who are called “conservatives” repudiate them?

You urge me to search for and find something “that will bring into harmony within me the thought of the Fathers with the God-pleasing way of life of the ‘seers.’” I am unable to find it! And this is because the words and deeds of the Holy Fathers were on the same wavelength: they taught by doing and acted by teaching. But the words of the “seers” whom you admire stand in complete opposition to the teaching of the Holy Fathers! And this is because the Saints emphasized that “we cannot be saved if we live an upright life but neglect the right doctrines” (Chrysostom, Homily 13 on Genesis).

What we need, therefore, is another kind of harmony: the harmonizing of our life with the truth-bearing teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church, if we wish to belong to Her, since, according to the great Palamas, “those who are of the truth are of the Church.”

Those who are of the truth, then, are of the Church—not those who are in communion with the Greek Patriarchates, as is continually emphasized. We must all learn that the Church has mystical and sacramental, not administrative, foundations, lest we suffer what the Westerners suffered, who followed the Pope into error so as not to find themselves outside the Church!

I remind you, on this occasion, that the Patriarchate of Antioch has already entered into communion with the heretical Monophysites, and the event passed unnoticed! Moreover, in the Church of the Life-Giving Spring in Athens (Akadimias Street), a Monophysite priest serves the Liturgy! These things do not trouble the bishops of the New Calendar; they only hasten to seal the private church of Fr Adrian in Zakynthos because he adopted the traditional calendar!

Reflect on all these things, dear Nikolaos, and pray that God may strengthen you to follow the path of our Holy Fathers, for it is deeply sorrowful to struggle throughout one’s life against various heretics and, in the end, to find oneself in communion with the “pan-heresy” of our age—Ecumenism!

 

Greek source online: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2015/03/blog-post_973.html