Tuesday, September 17, 2024

Hieromonk Benedict: Thoughts and How to Confront Them

THOUGHTS AND HOW TO CONFRONT THEM

Hieromonk Benedict of Mount Athos

 

“Just as it is natural for ocean rocks to be pounded by waves, similarly man will undoubtedly come into contact with the assaults borne of thoughts.” - St. Ephraim the Syrian

 

1. The difficult war.

It has been stated many times that prayer is a dynamic action, which is beneficial for the person who offers the prayer as well as being pleasing to God.

The fact that all this is real irritates the devil and makes him fight against the person who engages in prayer.

In this manner, the faithful person who desires to unite himself to God through prayer faces obstacles placed by demons. These demons place barriers, which are systematically organized and planned in order for their attacks to be successful.

Due to this inevitable attack, prayer becomes an act of labor, which causes great toil. More so than any other type of work. That is why one of the Desert Fathers emphasizes that “there is no greater fatigue than for someone to pray to God.” In order for someone to pray until his last breath, he is required to struggle.

It is not only prayer which is tiring. It is mostly the implacable battle of the demons, which makes prayer much more fatiguing.

Therefore, the hatred, which the demons have for those who pray, is a reality. The war between the person who prays and the demons has two aspects to it: the visible (mostly for the beginners) and the invisible for the spiritually advanced. They use sound, objects, and cause noises in order to draw their attention away from prayer. Whether beginner or advanced, the demons often fight a person by use of thoughts.

+++

It is truly a difficult battle for whoever has chosen to commence the battle against thoughts. For, the thoughts and reasonings are the greatest barrier man faces in order to achieve his spiritual education and perfection. And this perfection can by no other means be achieved than by the continuous invocation of the name of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. In fact, the invocation must be done often enough, as Saint Gregory the Theologian emphasizes, so that “it is more desirable for one to commemorate God than it is to breathe.”

There exists, however, the internal war. There is no war fiercer than an irrational thought, which nests in our soul. All that, which originates from inside us, is more intense than that which strikes us from the outside. The illnesses, which are borne from inside us, are sly and treacherous, causing greater damage than an external wound. Even nations were harder hit by internal enemies, compared to those who invaded from a nation's exterior.

In this way then, the soul cannot be destroyed as much by the machinations that come from the outside as by the diseases, which grow inside us, which are the loathsome, obscene and blasphemous thoughts.

2. Thoughts and their origin

What are thoughts and where do they originate? When we say thoughts, we do not simply mean reflections, but also the images and the conditions under which they exist with each occurrence, along with the most suitable reflections. Thus, the descriptive images, along with the reflections, are called thoughts and reasonings.

The first and foremost cause of thoughts in man is ancestral sin. Up to that point, man's mind was “one-tracked”; that is, it was not distracted to think of other things. It is only thoughts were for God! From the time of the ancestral sin, the thoughts of doubt began and, in continuation, came all the other thoughts.

The second cause of instigation of thoughts in man is his senses, when they are not properly governed by their ruling mind. It is especially so for hearing and sight. Today, particularly due to technology (TV, radio, etc.), the senses receive more stimulations than ever before. For this reason, the battle against thoughts is more intense.

The third cause is the passions which exist in man. It is because of these that the demons gain the opportunity to mobilize malicious thoughts against us.

The fourth and primary cause are the demons. St. Gregory of Sinai characteristically emphasizes: “Thoughts are the words of the demons and forerunners of passions.”

In addition, St. Isaac the Syrian, accentuates that “the natural desire” which exists in us, as well as our soul's inclinations and tendencies, cause thoughts to arise.

This war is especially intense against monks, who many times have had to combat against the demons, body to body, during the attack by cunning thoughts. That is why St. Maximos the Confessor states that this war is much more difficult than the perceptible war.

In addition, cunning thoughts may arise due to the temperament and constitution of the body, and even from daily meals, as well as the movements and motions undergone by the body itself.

The above-mentioned causes give rise to lewd and impure thoughts.

3. The journey towards the world of sin.

Externally, the act of sin may appear to be a simple fact, such as a car accident or some other incident. However, in order to commit this act, many other successive instrumentations must have taken place. For example, in order for a murder to take place, there must have, beforehand, occurred thousands of reflections and plans in the human mind. The human mind, in order to come to the point of committing the act of murder, had first become an entire base of demonic thoughts. This is what happens with the commitment of any act of sin. And it all started because of one simple thought...

Let us proceed, however, to see what happens, after the assault of one simple thought.

We are not held liable for a simple thought or image, which passes through our mind, nor is it difficult for us to confront it. However, from the moment that we open the door to welcome in this thought and commence to ponder it, it is then that the thought takes its position within us and becomes a prevailing thought.

The thought is the main reason “for the journey towards the act of sin.” This journey is for us the same as the path and the evolution of disease in the human body. Just as for someone to go to a hospital, various series of events must have previously taken place in the human organism; it is the same for someone to reach the point of having committed the act of sin. A great war must have previously taken place. It is similar to the birth of a child. A complete series of events first take place: from the conception up to the lengthy pregnancy. It is exactly so in the case of sin. The conception of the thoughts, their gestation period, and their birth.

St. Nikodemos the Athonite believes that the thought is the beginning, or the root out of which sprouts the trunk, the branches and the complete tree of sin!

The damage begins from the instance of the first thought, and, in continuation, it intensifies. When someone throws a pebble into a well, the waves caused by its tossing create one small ripple in the beginning. The small ripple creates a larger ripple that goes on to create a larger one, up until the wave reaches the walls of the well.

It is exactly so with sin. Before the sin is committed, a succession of mechanisms and events previously take place and each one follows the other in consecutive order.

4. The stages of sin.

We are able to perceive three stages in the journey towards the world of sin in this order:

a. the assault, b. the consent or approval, and c. the captivity or imprisonment.

How does this mechanism work? It works in this way: some cunning thought such as conceit, vainglory, stinginess, gluttony, condemnation, etc., enters the person's mind. Temptation works through the use of the imagination and its fantasies. It presents the situation as enticing as possible. In this way, its presentation becomes stronger and more attractive.

Up to this point, man is not liable for the thought. The first stage is an assault, an attack from the enemy, or more simply put, the enemy knocking on that person's door! This situation is normal... physiological. It is not possible for a human to exist without having received an assault. St. Ephraim the Syrian says that just as it is normal for someone to find weeds and flowers growing together in a garden, or just as the islands are pounded by waves all around their coastline, so it is for man. It is most certain that we will come into contact with the attacks of evil thoughts.

From this point on comes the stage of sinning. The commencement of the battle is the assault. If man tosses it out of his mind, without deliberating on it, he then saves himself and liberates himself from the wretched consequences, which would follow. If, however, he accepts to discourse with the cunning thought, he opens the door to this impure thought, which previously was simply a “knocking on his door.” He creates a friendship with it and then comes to the point of approval of the sin. This is the second stage of the execution of the sin.

The person rehearses the sin in the inaccessible depths of his soul and imagines himself having an active part in sinning. He condemns, blasphemes, fornicates, commits adultery, murders, and carries out countless crimes and commits whatever the human mind is capable of imagining. Later, nothing else remains but the third stage, which is the actual execution of the act of sin by the person whose mind has become a hostage of the thought. This person no longer controls the thought, but is imprisoned by it.

Thus, the thought, which began with a simple knocking of the door (the assault), caused the opening of that door (the consent). In conclusion, the person was unable to control and dismiss the thought, and he eventually committed the act of sin. This is the path towards sin, which begins with one single thought.

5. Passions are the source of sinful thoughts.

Up to the point of a man's death and as long as his soul remains in his body, it is impossible for him not to have evil thoughts.

The main reason for the existence of these evil thoughts is the war, which the devil wages against us. Most thoughts are of diabolical origin. It is the devil's aim to cast man into sinning, either through the use of evil thoughts or through the performance of the act itself. St. Makarios of Egypt states that spiritual adultery is the consent one gives to cunning thoughts. This is why he says: “a person is obliged to maintain his soul pure and clean, since it is the bride of Christ.”

In most instances, evil thoughts resemble themselves to “a river current,” in front of which a man begins to panic. That is why the demons first fight with us by use of diabolical thoughts and then follow with materialistic things. If one yields to them, they will then slowly push that person into sinning by execution of the act of sin.

St. John of Damascus tells us that the dominating reasons for evil are eight, the following: 1. Gluttony, 2. Fornication, 3. Stinginess, 4. Rage, 5. Grief, 6. Indifference, 7. Vainglory and 8. Pride and Haughtiness.

Someone else may tell us that the most basic passion in a human, from which all the passions originate, is selfishness and conceit. Selfishness is the illogical self-love and care given to our own self. This is also the passion of today's human being. It is from selfishness that the three dominating thoughts originate: 1. Gluttony, 2. Vainglory, and 3. Haughtiness. From these three vices arise all evil thoughts.

6. Categories of thoughts.

All that has been stated previously refer to cunning thoughts. However, in addition to those, there exist the good-hearted thoughts and the idle and unprofitable, or human thoughts. The good-hearted arise from God. How shall we then discern them from those which are cunning and impure?

A fellow monk once asked Abba Barsanuphius about this issue and received the following explanation: “The thoughts which originate from God bring internal peace and joy to the person. On the contrary, the thoughts, which originate from the devil, are filled with agitation, disturbance and grief.”

7. Thoughts are the beginning of the war.

Generally speaking, as previously mentioned, the thoughts are the beginning of the war, which the devil wages against us. The war begins with an assault of cunning thoughts and later proceeds to the consent and approval of the sin.

This is the path and the development of thoughts, which predominantly arise from the devil and from man.

8. The demonic cunningness.

Let us examine, then, how man is attacked by thoughts, or which methods the demons use in order to overtake us through the use of thoughts.

The craftiness of the demons, which desire to sow within us countless impure thoughts, is indescribable. The devil will even take advantage of the most unimportant incident that has taken place in our lives, or the most improbable and unlikely situation to contaminate us.

To begin with, before they cast us into sin, they implant in us the thought that God is a philanthropist. After the act of sin, however, they bombard us with the thought that God is abrupt, rude and harsh. They do this in order to bring us to the point of despair. “Before the fall, they call God a philanthropist, whereas after the fall, abrupt and harsh.”

9. Blasphemous thoughts.

In following, they attempt to infect the holy moments, such as those of prayer, and the Holy Eucharist, or by implanting in our mind thoughts of blasphemy against God.

Thus, this vile and impure being adores the moments of holy gatherings and especially the dreadful moments of the Holy Sacraments (the Holy Eucharist) in order to blaspheme the Lord and the Sacred Feasts. That is, when the ceremony of the Holy Eucharist takes place, Satan comes and implants in us various blasphemous thoughts. Thoughts such as: “The Holy Eucharist is not the Holy Body and Blood of Christ", and that "that which we go to receive in us is absolutely nothing!” Worthless! There are even more impure and wretchedly vile thoughts which one dares not mention.

St. John of Mount Sinai mentions that a monk was fighting a war against such thoughts for fourteen whole years. There is no other thought as difficult to withdraw and cast out as that of the thought of blasphemy, which may lead a person to despair.

This is a war in which the Abbot Pambo took part and, while he was praying to the Lord for assistance, heard a divine voice from above which said: “Pambo, Pambo, do not distress yourself with the sins of others, but tend to your own acts.”

These blasphemous and vile thoughts battled with many other formidable and virtuous men, such as Meletios the Confessor, as well as others who witnessed and died because of their faith in the Lord. Among those saints who confirm this is St. Peter of Alexandria and Paphnutius the Confessor, who suffered persecution. St. Peter of Alexandria narrates that, “While I was admitting and confessing my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in the court of law, where they were, by the use of various means, flogging, skinning and burning my body, the demon inside me was blaspheming God.”

It is certain, as St. Nikodemos the Athonite points out, that these types of thoughts originate mainly due to the condemnation, the haughtiness, and the jealousy of the demons. For these reasons, the best weapons one may use against them are humility and self-reproach.

10. The chain of thoughts.

The following are referred to in the writings of St. John of the Ladder, of Mount Sinai: “Let us take notice and we will observe that at the time when the church bells sound and we see our brethren gather into the Church, the invisible enemies also gather themselves there. Still others gather themselves at the time when we prepare to wake up to go to church and do so in order to suggest to us that we should return to our sleep. They say, ‘...stay and rest until the introductory and preliminary hymns are completed and then you can go to church.’ Again, others, while we are deep in prayer, come to us in order to bring us drowsiness, others to bring hunger, others to suggest to us to lean on the wall as if we were tired, and others cause us to yawn.” Others remind us of loan payments, contracts and bank accounts. So, it is, that in this manner, we leave the Church harmed instead of benefited, without having heard even the most fundamental parts of the Holy Liturgy. There are even many times while we are in prayer that our mind becomes filled with improper and indecent thoughts. Yet, as the time the prayer finishes, every temptation suddenly disappears.

The devil is well aware of the benefits which are borne from prayer. For this reason, he attempts to contaminate it.

Even if we are victorious over the demon, he installs in us the thoughts of pride and haughtiness through the use of other means, such as the fact that we have attained virtue, since, for example, all the cunning and tempting thoughts have been terminated.

This thought that we are victorious resembles a snake which is coiled and hidden in the dung heap of haughtiness. Cunning and tempting thoughts are hidden and nesting in the depths of our hearts!

There are demons who infect our soul at the moment we lay down to sleep and there are others who contaminate our very first thoughts when we wake up in the morning. The devil never loses the chance of fighting us.

There are times when he implants in us thoughts which are against our spiritual confessor and guide. On other occasions immediately after the confession of our sins, he reminds us of the sins we have just confessed in order to bring us to the point of despair. Yet other times, he even casts us into sin and, following that, installs in us the thought of teaching others to perform the same sin!

These, in general terms, are the thoughts which are created by the devil.

Let us now examine the thoughts which are created by man himself.

The human mind is fond of creating havoc. That is, just as a dog goes to the butcher store in order to grab some piece of meat, or a food-lover is fond of continually speaking of food, the human mind resembles these examples. Many times, it feeds on improper and unclean notions.

A monk who has no possessions, who owns no property (and by definition is Christian), therefore has no troublesome temptations at the time of his prayer. There are no thoughts of problems or issues concerning possessions or lands, which enter his mind to break his concentration at the time of prayer. However, a person who owns properties and possessions and is fond of them, has his reflections and thoughts on materialistic things at the time of his prayer.

The person who cannot control himself, that is a person who is a glutton, has his mind and thoughts continuously concerned about impure images. St. John of the Ladder gives us an example of this. Just as a dung heap gives rise to vermin, so does the multitude of food generate downfalls through the production of cunning thoughts and indecent dreams. Gluttony is for fornication the same as wood is for fire.

It is for this reason that St. John of Mount Sinai when writing in “The Ladder,” after his dissertation concerning gluttony very wisely placed the topic of fornication.

“For, I believe,” he states, “that gluttony is the mother of fornication.”

So then, where do the thoughts of fornication originate? If a person enjoys a leisurely life with all the necessary comfort and, as a result, does not know how to endure hardships and has no knowledge of how to engage in spiritual exercises of ascetic nature, then it is very natural for this person to have thoughts of fornication which will eventually lead to the act. In other instances, again, when a person liberates senses in order to view some other person or to touch someone with his hand, or hear something indecent, it is as if at that moment, he has opened the door to impure thoughts. Of course, man's nature is prone to him having such thoughts.

Even the disobedience to God's covenants gives birth to a “warehouse of thoughts.” That is, the human mind becomes a storage of cunning thoughts. The same types of thoughts are also created by disobeying our confessor and spiritual father. Many times, human curiosity to explore God's mysteries creates blasphemous thoughts, such as the thought that God is unjust and favors some persons over others. That to some He gives visions and miracles and yet to others He gives nothing!

11. Combination of thoughts.

There exist, however, thoughts, which originate from man as well as the devil. These are the “combination thoughts.”

“I have seen,” says St. John of the Ladder, “a few men eating with delight and not being immediately attacked (by the impure thoughts). Also others, dining and keeping company with women and yet not having had any cunning thought pass through their mind at that moment in time. However, at the time when they thought that they were in their cell in a condition of peace and security, that is when they were suddenly overtaken by disaster. Nature is what pushed them to dining and drinking delightfully and viewing wantonly. Satan used the moment and cast them into sin.”

These are, in general terms, the thoughts which originate from man as well as the devil.

+++

Throughout all this battle, there exists a ladder, attack, combination, consent, and captivity.

The enemy attacks the person with one simple thought or with one image. When that person accepts, then the consent takes place. Then begins the conversation with the thought. From this moment on begins the person's own responsibility for thoughts or actions. Following, the person consents with delight in order to fulfill that which the thought suggests, and in the end, he submits and is imprisoned by the passion.

12. Results of the thoughts.

When the thought ages inside us, we then become servants to attempt its accomplishment. Attempt is the attachment of a person to material items and his desire to obtain only these items. Thus, the person's mind becomes detached from eternal nourishment. And when the person's mind withdraws totally from God, then “it becomes either ferocious or devilish.” That is, the person becomes either as a beast or a demon. We observe this happening in today's consumer society. The person's mind has become adhered only to the earthly and has no thought whatsoever of heaven. The result is that the person is transformed into a beast and handicraft (technology) in whatever form, has been deified.

Man becomes unrestrained. He cannot control himself. When a person does not fight against the cunning thought, he then becomes a slave of sin. “Whoever retains the thoughts of sin, without fighting or arguing with them, then commits the act of sin.”

Our thoughts corrupt us and crush us, thus creating problems within our personal relationships.

Thoughts pollute and contaminate our soul, poisoning it and mortifying it. “This is the battle of the cunning demon. And with these arrows he poisons all souls,” as St. Hesychios the Elder tells us.

With the acceptance of thoughts, the devil obtains authority and can drive a person even to suicide, since that person cannot withstand the devil's strength. The thought makes the soul underhanded. That is, it ties the human soul to the earthly things. The person who senses the continuous harassments of corrupt thoughts and feels the underbelly of the body on fire reveals that he is distanced from the sweet fragrance of the Holy Spirit.

One then loses his outspokenness with God. When the mind begins to converse with shameful and indecent thoughts, then “it is discredited in its frankness towards God.” It is not possible for God to have communion, that is communication, with a person whose mind is continually being polluted with indecent and cunning thoughts. Just as it is detestable for an earthly lord when he observes someone denouncing him in order to converse with his enemies, so it is with God.

“Impure thoughts separate God from man.” God does not reveal His mysteries to a person who is possessed by defiled thoughts.

Since thoughts separate man from God, consequently, for this reason, a number of bodily abnormalities then arise. Anxiety, insecurity, and fear, on top of many other bodily illnesses, are caused by thoughts. These causes are apparent even to medical doctors. For this reason, they order their patients not to think of various things, which would cause them distress.

One thought is enough to cause a person to lose his sleep all night long. It is for this reason it can even break his nerves. The Holy Father, the Abbot Theodore, used to say: “The thought comes in order to disturb me.” These, in brief, are the results of cunning and corrupt thoughts. We should, however, also see the manners in which one must confront these types of thoughts, which mostly originate from the devil.

13. The confrontation of thoughts.

How can someone become liberated from shameful thoughts?

The Saints and Holy Fathers of our Church have made evident to us the various ways of confronting such thoughts.

St. John Chrysostom advises us not to declare or express them, but to choke them with silence. It is just as the beasts and reptiles when they fall into the pit. If they find some outlet upwards, they climb up and out and usually become more ferocious. If, however, they continuously remain enclosed therein, they are easily lost and disappear.

The same happens with the polluting thoughts. If they find some outlet by way of a person's mouth to be verbally expressed, they then light up the internal flame. If, however, they are blockaded with silence, they become weak. They dissolve hunger and quickly disappear.

The passage, “How could I do anything so wicked, and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9), is appropriate. When any type of illogical thought comes to agitate us, let us think of how the most minuscule and illogical thoughts cannot be hidden from God.

The study of God's laws, the remembrance of things which are to take place in the future, as well as all that God has done just for us, decreases the corrupt thoughts. They, therefore, cannot take root within us.

Their redemption. Just as a snake coming out of its nest runs in order to hide elsewhere, so it is with loathsome thoughts. When they are redeemed, they then depart from the person. We should know that nothing makes the demons unhappier than the concealment of shameful thoughts.

The exhaustion of the soul and the bodily trials “on all occasions, places and things” can result in a person not having indecent thoughts.

Tend to rid yourself from the passions and you will immediately expel these thoughts from your mind,” stresses St. Maximos the Confessor. That is, in order for someone to rid himself from fornication, he should weary himself bodily and fast. In order to dismiss rage and sadness, he should despise fame and glory, dishonesty and disgrace. In order to dispel revenge, he should pray for the person who caused him harm.

We cannot hinder thoughts from coming to us. We can, however, not accept them. It is the same as with crows. Just as we cannot stop them from flying overhead of us, we can, however, prevent them from building their nests on our heads.

Let us follow what St. Basil has to say concerning this topic and the war that is involved:

“We should confront these attacks with intensive care and attentiveness, just as an athlete when he evades his opponent's blows with the accurate precaution necessary, together with the flexibility of his body. We should entrust the ending of the war and the avoidance of the arrows to prayer and assistance from above.

“And even if the tricky enemy, during the hour of prayer, subjects us to cunning fantasies, the soul should not interrupt its prayer. The soul should also know that it is not responsible for the cunning attacks undertaken by the enemy, in addition to the fantasies emanating from the ‘paradoxical miracle maker.’ On the contrary, he should think of the fact that these thoughts are due to the impertinence of the inventor of evil. That person should then intensify his kneeling to the Lord and should plead to God to dissolve the cunning partition caused by irrational and absurd thoughts, so that, unhindered, he can approach God.

“If, however, the harmful attack of the thought becomes more intense due to the impudence of the enemy, we should not turn to cowardice nor quit the battle in its duration, but instead, we should endure up to the point when God will notice our perseverance. He will then enlighten us with the Grace of the Holy Spirit, which will on one hand cause the enemy to flee, and on the other hand, flood our mind with Holy Light, in order for the thought to adore God with uninterrupted tranquility and joy.”

In general, the Holy Fathers have these methods of confronting corrupt thoughts: a) Prayer, b) Objection, and c) Contempt.

a) Prayer. It is not possible for the beginner to rid himself of these thoughts on his own. It is only those perfected in prayer who know how to do this.

The prayer of the heart, the monologistic prayer of “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner,” is the strongest weapon which someone can use in order to win over cunning thoughts. “The name of Jesus scourges the enemies. There is truly no stronger weapon on earth nor in heaven,” stresses St. John of the Ladder.

“The ever-sweet Name of Jesus, continuously meditated on with fervent passion and faith in the depths of the heart, lulls to sleep all the evil thoughts, while awakening all the pure and spiritual. And wherever there originated impure thoughts from the heart such as murder, adultery (Matthew 15:19), as the Lord said, it is from there that follow thoughts filled with purity, and speech of wisdom, and Grace.”

b) The Objection. Prayer is for the beginners and the weak. Those who are able to fight should then use objection, which usually muzzles the demons to silence. Our Lord used this method in order to win the three great wars which were begun in the desert mountain by the devil. Sensuality with “Man shall not live by bread alone.” Ambition with “You shall not tempt the Lord your God.” Avarice with “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve” (Matthew 4:10).

The holy Martyr Peter of Damascus relates the following to us: “When the demons inflict us with a thought of pride, then you should remember the shameful thoughts which they flung at you, and thus you should humble yourself. Then again, when you are subjected to corrupt thoughts, remember those thoughts of pride and be victorious over them by the use of this method so that you either lose hope because of the impure thoughts, or become proud because of the good ones.”

This is just what one elder said when he would find himself subjected to thoughts of haughtiness: “Old man, take a strong look at your fornication,” and the war would then come to an end.

There are instances when one musters up all his spiritual strength, all the pure thoughts, and yet still is unable to dispel one evil thought. What is the cause of this? “It is due to the fact that we begin by accepting the thought of judging our brethren.” By judging our brothers, our thoughts lose the strength which they previously had. There are many times when we are nonsensical and, for this reason, we are overpowered by thoughts. Many times, however, we do not have the power to withstand these thoughts. As a result, we receive spiritual wounds so deep that they cannot recover, even with the passage of a great period of time.

For this reason, it is best for one to resort to the power of prayer and tears, because:

1) The soul does not always have the same strength, 2) the devil has thousands of years of experience, whereas ours is very limited, with the result of us quitting the battle defeated and wounded, since our nous is yet again polluted with corrupt fantasies, and 3) one dispels haughtiness and shows humility when one takes refuge in God at the time of the war of thoughts, and confesses weakness in the fight, while declaring Jesus Christ the only One who withstands the war, since it is He who said: “Take courage, I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). That is, the passions, the thoughts, and the devil.

c) Contempt. If we occupy ourselves with the thoughts that are imposed on us by the devil, we will never be able to do any good.

To dislike, to disregard, and not to be occupied with the thoughts imposed by the enemy are the greatest weapons. These are the strongest blows one can throw to the devil. We must regard his thoughts as being vermin, as the barks of puppies, as mosquitoes, and in the worst instance, as the noise of an airplane and nothing else, since: 1) we believe in the power of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and 2) we believe that after the crucifixion and death of Our Lord, the devil has no power whatsoever over us, but remains powerless and weak, as is written: “O enemy, destructions are finished forever!” (Psalm 9:6).

There exists no greater victory and humiliation for the demon than this contempt and scorn, since the person who has arrived at this point in the battle, is armed with the Grace of God and remains unapprehended by the thoughts imposed by demons.

+++

These are the three methods of combating corrupt thoughts, which originally arise from the devil.

In addition, we should say that the memory of death is a very powerful method for the contempt of these thoughts. The memory of this creates heartfelt pain for our sins and prevents our mind from accepting such thoughts. Whosoever considers the passing day as being the last in his life will curb the shameful thoughts to a very great extent. Do you sit down at a table in order to have your meal? You should then think of death in order for gluttony not to tempt you.

We should paint a picture in our mind of our tombstone, in order to erase the inconsideration and heartlessness we have. Abba Silouan, the latest formally declared saint of Mount Athos, said: “You should have your mind continually thinking of Hell, and do not despair.” By these means, no thought will ever take root in you.

Which method should we use in order to escape the ongoing and tortuous suffering, (as St. Theodore the Studite aptly characterizes the thoughts)?

Let us follow the tactics of St. John of Kolovos, who had tested all the methods available. The great spiritual fighter advises us to do the following:

“I resemble a person who sits under a great tree and who suddenly sees a great herd of beasts and reptiles coming to attack him. Then, since he cannot easily withstand it, runs up the tree and saves himself. This is exactly what I do. I sit in my cell and watch the cunning thoughts coming to confront me. That is when I climb ‘The Tree of Life,’ to my God with prayer and in this way, I am saved from the enemy.”

 

Translation by Calliope Hatzidimitriou (with minor corrections). Published by the Attendants of Hieromonk Spyridon, New Skete, Holy Mount Athos, Greece, 1998.




Remaining in Communion with the Ecumenists - Arguments and Counterarguments


Chapter 4 of the Romanian work, Orthodox Confession in the Face of the Ecumenist Heresy, by the Orthodox Brotherhood of St. Ignaty Brianchaninov, Chișinău, 2014.

 

We have shown so far the reasons why Ecumenism is a heresy, and not just an ordinary heresy, but the very heresy of heresies; we have also presented the teaching of the Holy Fathers regarding the communion of the faithful with heretics. Nevertheless, although the Church's teaching in this regard cannot be questioned, we encounter the situation where many conservative and traditionalist Orthodox continue to remain in communion with the Ecumenists, thereby legitimizing and justifying them in this way, allowing the spread of this heresy among Orthodox believers.

Without any doubt, such a resolute attitude of the Fathers of the Church toward separating from heresy and heretics has profound spiritual reasons, the most important of which, of course, is the salvation of the soul. But as we can see, such communion also has other consequences, for Ecumenism, being an ecclesiological heresy, corrupts not only the teaching about the Church but also the ecclesiological consciousness of those who reject this teaching, calling it heresy. How else could we explain the fact that many traditionalist Orthodox can be seen claiming that breaking away from heretics is a schism, or that the heresy of the episcopate poses no danger to the Orthodox, or that one must first attain a holy life before confessing the faith, and many other deceptions, which we painfully observe they have fallen into? This is what the life of St. Niketas the Confessor shows us about the work of the deceitful: "Those malicious heretics, seeing that those fathers would rather die than depart from their true faith, found this deception against them, saying: 'We require nothing else from you, but only that you commune in the church with the Holy Mysteries together with Theodotus, the Patriarch, and beyond that do nothing more. Thus you will go freely to your monastery, with your faith and understanding intact.'" – Let us be watchful, brothers, so that we are not deceived in the same way!

We will attempt to refute the most widespread arguments of those who, seeing the work of the Ecumenist heresy and understanding what it means, still seek justifications for remaining in communion with the Ecumenists.

1. "We must remain in the canonical Churches."

From the multitude of arguments brought in favor of maintaining communion with the Ecumenists, I have placed this one at the forefront, as I consider it to be the most harmful and deceptive for Christians, especially since it has a Roman Catholic origin, where the pope remains the "canonical" head of their church without any connection to the faith he confesses. [177]

In the current understanding, the canonical churches are all the local churches that are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and, accordingly, have communion with each other. However, as shown in the history of the Church and in the lives of the Saints, this has often not meant the right confession of these churches. The primary criterion has always been the Orthodox testimony, being in the Truth, and not the antiquity of the episcopal seat or its communions. When Saint Maximus the Confessor was asked: [178]

"Which Church do you belong to? The one of Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these Churches, along with the territories under them, are united. Therefore, if you are a son of the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us without delay, so that you do not find yourself on some strange or new path, which will cause you to fall where you least expect!

“The Saint said:

"The Lord Christ called the Catholic Church the one that keeps the true and salvific confession of faith. For this confession, He called Peter blessed and said that He would build His Church upon this confession."

It is an error to confuse the unity and communion of Local Churches, while neglecting the confession of faith of these churches, with the catholicity of the Church of Christ, for St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: "The Church is called Catholic because it preaches everywhere and completely all the teachings that people need to know, the teachings about the visible and invisible, the heavenly and earthly, because it brings all of mankind to the true faith." [179]

The Church of Rome was also canonical in this sense, which nevertheless did not prevent it from falling into its terrible heresies, just as happened with the so-called canonical Patriarchates during the time of St. Maximus the Confessor or St. Mark of Ephesus.

The confession of the Truth is not only a characteristic of the Church of Christ, but it is the very foundation upon which it was established by the Savior, as St. Maximus the Confessor showed above, and along with him, St. Philaret of Moscow: "The Church is the God-established community of people who are united through the Orthodox faith, the Divine Law, hierarchy, and the Mysteries." [180] And in the same spirit, St. Nikolai Velimirovich: "Who are the members of the Church? Men and women, all those who are united in the true faith." [181] Naturally, the Orthodox Patriarchs have confessed: "The Catholic Church cannot err or be deceived, preaching falsehood in place of the Truth."  [182] And again, St. Philaret of Moscow, together with them: "It can never apostatize, nor err in the truth of the faith or fall into deception." [183]

Canonicity cannot be justified by the apostolic succession of the episcopal seat either, for St. Nikolai of Ohrid says: "Apostolic succession is the preservation of the apostolic teaching by the legitimate hierarchy of the Church and the reception of the grace of the Holy Spirit." [184] And again, St. Philaret: "The Creed, in saying that the Church is Apostolic, teaches us to firmly follow the apostolic teaching and tradition and to avoid that teaching and those teachers who do not base themselves on that of the apostles." [185] St. Gregory the Theologian further explains apostolic succession: "In this, succession must be seen, for unity of thought also unites the [episcopal] thrones, while difference of thought separates the thrones. One is succession in name only, and the other – in essence itself. For the true successor is the one who does not hold to contrary teaching, but preserves the faith unchanged." [186]

So, which church was canonical during the time of Monothelitism: that of St. Maximus or that of the Patriarchs? And during the time of Iconoclasm: that of the Orthodox or that of the persecutors of the holy icons? Without a doubt, such a perversion of the ecclesiological consciousness of Christians is one of the consequences of Ecumenism, one of the marks left by this teaching on the consciences of the faithful.

The purely juridical approach to the canonicity of a local church represents a misunderstanding of Orthodox ecclesiology, for it neglects the right confession of faith, which is a foundational attribute of the Church of Christ.

2. "Separation from the Ecumenists is schism."

Another argument used to justify the abandonment of faith in which a Christian finds himself is the idea that separating from Ecumenist bishops and priests is schism. For, they say, whoever ceases to commemorate his bishop, even if that bishop openly teaches heresies, separates himself from the Church of Christ and becomes estranged from it. The renowned Orthodox "traditionalist" writer, Fr. Epiphanius Theodoropoulos, in his work The Two Extremes: Ecumenism and Zealotry, says: "Schism, dear brothers, is not created by possible deviations from the exact line of the Holy Canons, but by the breaking of communion and connection with the other Orthodox Churches and their anathematizing of you." [187] Elsewhere, he says: "You must reestablish your canonical ties with [the official Orthodox Church], so that you can as quickly as possible be in canonical communion with the Orthodox Church everywhere." [188] These words clearly show the position of this father, which is followed by many Christians today, namely that those who have ceased commemorating their bishop, even for reasons of heresy, and therefore have broken communion with the official Orthodox Church (to which this bishop belongs), have become schismatics and strangers to the Orthodox Church everywhere. In light of this danger, Fr. Epiphanius also tells us how we must oppose the lawlessness and heresy preached by the hierarchs: "Any opposition that does not lead to schism is justified. Blessed are the mouths that protest against the anti-Orthodox actions of the patriarch, and blessed are the writings that condemn his acrobatics in matters of faith. A continuous and relentless fight against the patriarch, YES! Schism, however, NO!" [189]

True are the words of the Apostle, who said that among us there will be false teachers who will secretly bring in destructive heresies (2 Peter 2:1). Such a teacher is this one as well. He denies the teachings of the Fathers and of the entire Church, instead proposing teachings according to his own desires, and even more grievously, many will follow their misguided teachings, and because of them, the way of truth will be blasphemed (2 Peter 2:2). I say this because the teachings of the Church regarding schism and the breaking of communion with a heretical bishop are different from those proposed by this father. Thus, by calling schism what is Orthodox and necessary for salvation, this father places Christians who follow his opinions in a position where they are unable to act in a beneficial and salvific manner.

It is unnecessary to speak again of the fact that the Catholicity and Unity of the Church are of a different nature than that which some insist on presenting — this subject was analyzed in the previous subchapter. Here, we must analyze what a schism truly is and how we should relate to a heretical bishop, that is, a bishop who persists in preaching a heresy condemned by the Fathers and the Church.

The Canons 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople prohibit, under the penalty of deposition, the cessation of the commemoration of the local bishop and the cessation by a bishop of the commemoration of his Metropolitan and Patriarch. In this way, schism is condemned as the separation of the Body of Christ through the anger (fury) of the schismatics. [190] With these canons, the Holy Fathers established that if, from now on, any presbyter or deacon condemns his bishop for some wrongdoing, before synodal judgment and investigation and his complete condemnation, and dares to separate from communion with him and does not commemorate his name in the holy prayers of the liturgies, as handed down by the Church, he is to be deposed and deprived of all priestly dignity. [191] At the same time, the God-loving Fathers, while judging the cessation of the commemoration of a bishop condemned for some wrongdoing before synodal judgment (as addressed in four consecutive canons), take a completely different stance toward a bishop who openly teaches heresies, emphasizing that there is only one valid cause for ceasing commemoration: “And these decisions were made and sealed for those who, under the pretext of certain wrongdoings, separate themselves from their superiors and create schism, breaking the unity of the Church. For those who separate themselves from communion with their superior because of some heresy condemned by the holy councils or the Fathers, that is, from communion with one who publicly preaches heresy and teaches it openly in the Church—such persons will not only not be subjected to canonical censure for separating themselves [192] from communion with one who is called a bishop before synodal investigation, but they will also be deemed worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox. For they have not condemned bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they have not broken the unity of the Church through schism, but have endeavored to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.” [193]

What do we understand from these wise words and commands? First of all, we understand that it is one thing to cease the commemoration of a bishop due to some wrongdoing, and something entirely different when Christians distance themselves from a preacher of heresy. In the first case, the cessation of the bishop's commemoration is forbidden and condemned as schism, while in the latter case, the Christians who cease the commemoration of a heretical bishop are praised, because they have not broken the unity of the Church through schism but have endeavored to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions. The same action (or deed) is condemned in one case and praised in another, the difference lying in the quality and status of the bishop being commemorated. It is not the action itself that is good or bad, but the quality of the action depends on the circumstances under which it is carried out, just as a medicine can be poison for a healthy body but a cure for a sick one. Similarly, the commemoration or cessation of commemoration can be either good or bad, depending on the relationship of the bishop being commemorated with the Church of Christ.

Schism is defined as the breaking of communion with the true Church by ceasing the commemoration of a true bishop, because even in the case of wrongdoing (except for heresies), the bishop remains a true bishop until judged by a council. However, breaking communion with a heretical bishop (a bishop who preaches some heresy condemned by the holy councils or by the Fathers) is the distancing of Christians from one who is called a bishop but is, in fact, a pseudo-bishop and a pseudo-teacher. Therefore, it is the distancing of the Christian from heresy and the public exposure of this fact. It is precisely through this that the Church is safeguarded from schisms, as it is written that such individuals have endeavored to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.

Therefore, it is evident that the cessation of the commemoration of a heretical bishop is not a schism; on the contrary, it is a safeguard against schism. The argument of schism is used to confuse the minds of those who have not thoroughly studied the Church's teachings on this subject, and it relies on an emotional and superficial understanding of the matter. It also draws on the authority of "official theologians" who uphold the traditionalist line and create the appearance of fighting against the Ecumenist heresy but do not allow the cessation of commemoration of heretical bishops, claiming that this would be a schism. In the teachings of such people, there is even more Ecumenism than in the gatherings and symposia of the Ecumenists. Those from there openly reject the Church for the sake of "love" for pagans and their teachings, while these others, dressed in sheep's clothing, pretend to be fighters against lawlessness, twisting the words of the Saints and Scripture, leading many people to destruction. What could be more Ecumenist than when someone who claims to fight Ecumenism is himself sick and poisoned by the plague of heresy, as is evident from his Ecumenist faith?

It is remarkable that those "theologians" who fear so much the cessation of commemoration on the grounds of schism (although in this case it cannot even be called schism) do not concern themselves at all with the fact of knowingly remaining in communion with heresy. Let such people look at what the Saints and God-bearing Fathers say about this: "For those who appear to confess the Orthodox faith but are in union with those who oppose it, if after admonition they do not break this union, you must not only separate from them, but it is not fitting to even call them brothers." [194] Another says: "Woe to those who stain the holy faith with heresies or make any agreement with heretics! Then, from each of us will be required the confession of faith and the unity of Baptism, the faith pure from any heresy, the unblemished seal, and the undefiled garment." [195]

3. "Heretics must first be condemned by an Orthodox council."

Considering the multitude of errors and false beliefs that endanger Christians and divide the Church, it is not surprising that, in defense of their own apostasy, some attempt to invent arguments and justifications, presenting them as Orthodox and pious teachings. And when some of these are exposed, they devise even more clever ones, continuing to hide behind them. Thus, even if at times they agree that the cessation of the commemoration of a heretical bishop is not a schism, they try to distort the teachings of the saints about obedience and the royal path, claiming that the bishop must be commemorated, even if he preaches foreign teachings, until he is condemned by an Orthodox council. Those who act in this way prove to be true wolves in sheep’s clothing. Outwardly, they seem to care for the Church and the salvation of souls, but inwardly, they themselves renounce the faith and encourage others to do the same. Their argument can easily be refuted; what is more difficult to combat is the "good intention" and "care for the Church" professed by these deceivers. It is precisely these latter claims that give rise to many new arguments, strengthening their own apostasy, thereby creating even greater danger for true believers.

Returning to the proposed argument to demonstrate why it is not true that, in order to reject the poison of falsehood and the one spreading it (i.e., to cease the commemoration of a heretical bishop), he must first be condemned by an Orthodox council. This is not true, first of all, because such a statement contradicts the Tradition of the Church and the Holy Canons, especially the one invoked in polemics on this subject, Canon 15  of the First-Second Council of Constantinople, which says: "For those who separate themselves from communion with their superior because of some heresy condemned by the holy councils or by the Fathers—that is, from communion with one who publicly preaches heresy and teaches it openly in the Church—such persons will not only not be subjected to canonical censure for separating themselves from communion with one called a bishop before synodal investigation, but will be deemed worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox." [196] As the canon clearly shows, it is first necessary to condemn the heresy preached by the bishop so that everyone may know that the teaching he spreads is not sound, but soul-destroying, following the word of the Apostle, who says: "But even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed!" (Gal. 1:8). Thus, the criterion for ceasing the commemoration is not the person of the bishop, but the faith preached by that bishop. Therefore, to cease the commemoration, it is necessary for the heresy preached by the bishop to be condemned, not necessarily the heretical bishop himself.

The cessation of the commemoration of a bishop only after synodal condemnation can be permitted only when dealing with a new heresy, about which neither the councils have ruled nor the Fathers have written, and everyone is in ignorance as to whether the teaching preached by him is true or not. When it is evident that it is something new and unclear, they will wait for a council to decide whether that bishop (and his teaching) is Orthodox or not, and then they will cease or not cease his commemoration. However, this would not be done out of economy, obedience, or any other reason, but due to ignorance of the newly emerged heresies and their deceptions. Even in such cases, it is not so much the bishop that is subject to synodal judgment, but the heresy he preaches. He is condemned as a heretic and a preacher of heresy specifically for the awareness of Christians, so that they may flee from him due to his unorthodox faith, and so that he himself may know that, because of the heresy he preaches, he finds himself outside the Church, where there is no place for salvation.

These words from the canon (since it was written against schisms in the Church) can also be interpreted to prevent someone from falsely claiming that a bishop or patriarch is preaching some heresy (when, of course, this is untrue) and then ceasing to commemorate him, which would indeed result in schism. The cornerstone is still the faith preached by the bishop (whether it is Orthodox or unorthodox), and the actions and responses of Christians toward that bishop are derived from this.

But let us see that the situation is different now. The heresy preached by a multitude of bishops, priests, and laypeople is evident and condemned by the Fathers, by Orthodox councils, and everyone is aware that the House is plundered and the thieves are inside it—not just for two or three years, but already for nearly a century. The Fathers are dishonored, the decisions of the Councils are annulled, the holy Canons are rejected, the very faith is mocked, and the holy things are ridiculed. And yet, you say that the falsehood is not evident and that we must wait for a council to decide that what is being done is wrong and that we should protect ourselves from these things and from those who commit them? Hypocrite, how can you twist the words of the canon to cover up your own abandonment? What you say does not correspond to divine decisions, but shows a lack of piety, being a betrayal of the faith in the face of the ravenous wolves. Look, councils have been held, and many Fathers have condemned this teaching, and I believe you understand that the faith is being mocked and salvation endangered, seeing all that has taken place. Everything has been done, yet you have done nothing, and more than that, you hide behind lies, claiming that the heretic must be condemned, when it is not the heretic but the heresy that must be condemned, which has already been done.

But what does the canon say further? It says: "separating themselves from communion with one who is called a bishop even before synodal investigation, they shall be deemed worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox." If the condition of a condemned heresy is first and foremost—meaning if the bishop preaches any known and condemned heresy—separate yourself from him without waiting for a synodal decision, and then not only will you not be reproached by the canon, but you will also be deemed worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox, that is, of those who are on the narrow path of salvation, not among those who abandon the faith and mock the holy things. See what the Saints and God-bearing Fathers tell you through these words of the canon: If you want to be like us, that is, those already saved and honored in Orthodoxy, separate yourself from the one who preaches blasphemy and misleads the people, and do not wait for any council or other decision, for you know that the teaching preached by him is deceitful and a renunciation of the faith.

4. "Separation from heretics is recommended by the canons, but not obligatory."

There are some who, accepting that separation from heretics is not schism, claim that the application of the mentioned canon, which honors someone with the dignity of the Orthodox, is a special and good deed, but in no way obligatory for every Orthodox Christian. This view somewhat corresponds to the truth, as no one is forced to seek the honor of the Orthodox or to be on the path of salvation. These matters pertain to the free conscience with which God has endowed us.

The Savior did not force anyone to follow Him and be saved, but He said, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Mt. 11:28), and elsewhere He says, "See, I have prepared My dinner; My oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding" (Mt. 22:4). You see, the Master of the vineyard did not compel anyone to come to Him, but invited everyone, saying "come," and the Evangelist rightly says, "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Mt. 22:14), and elsewhere He speaks of the chosen ones, "Do not fear, little flock" (Lk. 12:32). This is so not for any other reason than the unwillingness of people to come and fulfill the Lord’s command, for it is written, "But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt. 19:17). So, in saying that it is not obligatory to cease commemorating a heretical bishop, one must be aware that, indeed, this may not be obligatory, but it is necessary and undeniable for those who seek the salvation of their soul, that is, those who seek the honor due to the Orthodox. For if we do not seek to bear the honor of the Orthodox, which is nothing other than right faith and salvation, then what honor are we seeking, and to whom do we wish to resemble?

But if anyone believes that it is an exaggeration to call this canon's directive a commandment, and that the examples brought from the Gospel do not pertain to this subject, let that person's hypocrisy be shamed by the words of the Saints and God-bearing Fathers, for they fulfilled the commandments with their lives, serving as a shining beacon of right faith amidst the swamp of worldly apostasy. So, let us see what the Fathers say about the obligation to break communion with a heretical bishop and teacher. St. Athanasius the Great says: "Flee from those who, pretending not to agree with Arius, actually serve together with those who follow him." [197] St. Gregory the Theologian teaches: "But when it comes to an obvious impurity, it is better to face fire and sword, disregarding the needs of the times and rulers, and generally disregarding everything, rather than to partake in the seed of deceit and to touch those who are infected. The most terrible thing is to fear something more than God, and due to this fear, the servant of truth becomes a traitor to the teaching of faith and truth." [198] And even more than these, St. Basil the Great says: "For those who appear to confess the Orthodox faith but are in communion with those who oppose it, if after admonition they do not break this communion, you must not only separate from them but also should not even call them brothers." [199] These and many other words of the saints were shown in Chapter III, where the topic of communion with heresy is discussed. So, having seen all these things, do not dare to invent lies that it is permissible to remain in communion with heretics, knowing that such union leads to death and eternal perdition.

Similar to the previously mentioned arguments is the claim that it is sufficient merely to confess that Ecumenism is a heresy while not ceasing the commemoration of the bishop. The foolishness of such individuals has reached the point of disregarding both the faith and the Church of Christ, attributing to it false and foreign qualities, thus defiling the Church’s teaching about the Church through their statements. It is to be expected that a heresy which denies the existence of the Church and teaches that not only Orthodoxy is the path of Truth, as Ecumenism does, would also invent teachings according to which the Church is no longer a single body where all are united by one baptism and one faith in one Lord, but rather that each can hold to their own belief, with the bishop on one side and the laity on the other, maintaining only an outward unity. Is this not the essence of Ecumenism and the vile heresy that plagues the Church today?

It is true that such a confession (without the act of renouncing and condemning heresy) is a greater evil than that of the heretics themselves. The latter are darkened by their heresy, but those who believe they are confessing rightly, as if condemning heresy, deceive themselves and, by silencing the voice of their conscience, become participants in the harmful heresy, thus leading even more people into the hell of apostasy from the faith. This is well known in the Church, as seen from the statements above, where the Holy Fathers say we must flee even more zealously from those who claim to confess Orthodoxy yet unite with heretics. St. Basil says that "you must not only separate from them, but it is not fitting to even call them brothers," [200] and St. Theodore the Studite says: "Some have suffered complete shipwreck in matters of faith, while others, even if they have not drowned in erroneous thoughts, still perish due to communion with heresy." [201] Thus, we must understand that it is not enough merely to confess that Ecumenism is heresy; we must also act by separating ourselves from those who preach this heresy and are in communion with those who propagate it. For see what the Holy Apostle James, the brother of the Lord, says regarding those who believe that it is enough to have faith alone: "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead," "You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works," and again, "But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?" (James 2:17-20).

5. "Ecumenism is a private opinion of the bishop and does not affect us."

Just as every work has a beginning and reaches its intended end, so too the work of apostasy and contamination with heresy culminates in unprecedented blasphemies and teachings foreign to a faithful Christian, even though at the start it appeared to be a teaching of love for humanity and truth. Similarly, this ridiculous claim—that the apostasy of a bishop does not endanger the salvation of his flock and that Ecumenism is merely a private opinion of the bishop and does not affect us—can rightly be called the ripe fruit of Ecumenist heresy. Those who believe this can rightly be called the faithful children of heresy, for just as heresy denies the existence of the Church and the truth, which exists only within the Orthodox Church, so too do they dare to disregard the existence of the Church and the entire work of the salvation of mankind. Has it ever been seen anywhere that the Orthodox faith and teaching are so greatly despised, that someone who considers himself Orthodox would ignore both the Church and salvation by inventing such heresies?

Can a leaf exist without a branch, or a branch without a trunk, or a trunk without roots? How, then, can you say that the branch is withered, yet the leaf growing on it remains green and healthy, or that the spring is poisoned, and you, knowing this, drink from it, believing that your right faith will keep you alive through the Lord? Is this not like what the Savior responded to: "You shall not tempt the Lord your God" (Luke 4:12), making yourself guilty and dead through the violation of the commandment you were informed about, just as the one who was cast out of the Garden of Eden?

Thus, this claim not only appears unnatural, but it also contradicts and rejects the Church’s teaching about the Church, bishops, priests, and laypeople, who are all united in a close bond of faith, forming a single body of the Militant Church. St. Cyprian of Carthage, speaking about the mystery of the Church, says: “The bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church.” [202] So, knowing that a heretical bishop is outside the Church, you who are in communion with him—what Church are you in? Elsewhere, the same saint says: “The episcopate is one, and each bishop shares in it fully,” [203] thus it is not possible for each to have their own separate faith when it is known that we are all one (John 17:21), being in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

And to see that the apostasy of a bishop inevitably endangers the salvation of the faithful, listen to what St. Athanasius of Alexandria says: “Let us beware of the deceptive path and remove from ourselves the spiritual eye: if the bishop or priest, being the eyes of the Church, lead an unworthy life and cause scandal, they must be removed from us. It is better for people to gather in churches for prayer without them than, along with them, as with Annas and Caiaphas, to be cast into the fire of Gehenna.” [204] And if it were true that the apostasy of a bishop does not endanger the salvation of the faithful, the Fathers would not have repeatedly stressed that, for our own benefit, we must quickly distance ourselves from communion with such individuals.

6. "A robber council has not yet taken place."

In the struggle against the Ecumenist heresy, a stumbling block for many believers is the so-called Eighth Ecumenical Council, which has already been planned to take place in 2016. It is assumed that at this council, a decision will be made to establish Eucharistic communion between the Orthodox and other confessions, meaning this will serve as a kind of threshold after which communion with Ecumenists will no longer be possible.

Let us consider: do the Ecumenists truly need to hold a council that will be openly a robber council? Indeed, many of them claim that one of the final goals of Ecumenism is the establishment of full Eucharistic communion with various heretics. But what do we see now, before the council in question? Is there already a boundary beyond which an Orthodox Christian cannot go, and has this boundary already been crossed by the Ecumenists, or is it still necessary for this to be exposed in a robber council?

At present, there are already numerous testimonies and documents in which the official Orthodox churches recognize the sacraments of the Monophysites, Catholics, and other heretics. The belief in the same God as the Jews, Muslims, and other pagans is affirmed, and the pope of Rome is commemorated among the bishops in Constantinople—not to mention the multitude of joint prayers with all kinds of confessions and religions. Are these not, indeed, the essence of Ecumenism? And all of this has been done without any great robber council, but rather step by step, so that Christians are gradually deceived, becoming accustomed to and accepting all these horrors as a new normal. The theses of the Ecumenist heresy are already present and active, with Ecumenists openly affirming their heresy, "with uncovered heads," and not only without being punished, but often without even the slightest reaction from the clergy or the laity.

Under these conditions, why would the Ecumenists even need to resort to formal unions, which would only harm them by scattering their flock, when the most important union—the spiritual one—has already been achieved? It is quite possible that the council of 2016 is merely bait for the conservatives who continue to remain under Ecumenist bishops, with the message, "Wait a little longer, for the union will be signed then, and you can apply the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the canons." And as we can see, this bait has so far had the desired effect.

As we have seen from the teachings of the Church, we must guard ourselves and flee from heretics as soon as they begin to preach their heresy and persist in this false teaching. Let us recall the words of St. Theophan the Recluse: "Whether or not an anathema is pronounced upon your teaching and your name, you are already fallen under it when you think contrary to the Church and persist in this thinking." [205]

We do not truly know whether heretical decisions will be made at the 2016 council or if there will be any robber councils organized by the Ecumenists. However, we do know that, even without these potential decisions, there is already a multitude of heretical testimonies made thus far and continuing to be made, all of which are more than sufficient for us to heed the voice of the Fathers and flee from the apostate teachers, to protect our souls from the poison of their destructive heresy.

7. "Communion with Ecumenists must be maintained out of economia."

Economia, being a measure of leniency in the application of the canons, is often cited as a reason for maintaining communion with the Ecumenist heretics.

But beyond certain personal weaknesses, administrative church situations, and so on, can we truly apply economia in matters concerning heresy and those who persist in preaching it?

We find an answer from St. Maximus the Confessor: "If, for the sake of economia, the saving faith is suppressed together with the false faith, then such a form of so-called economia is, in fact, a complete and total separation from God, not a union." [206] Ecumenism is precisely the teaching that seeks to completely suppress Orthodoxy, equating it with all kinds of heresies and paganism. So, what kind of economia can be applied to those who preach such a heresy? "Only then is economia rightly used when the true faith is not harmed," [207] says St. Eulogius of Alexandria.

The proponents of maintaining communion with Ecumenists claim that such economia is applied to preserve the peace of the Church, [208] forgetting, however, that "I do not blame the one persecuted for defending the faith, for the highest and most essential truths, and to tell the truth, I even praise and rejoice with him. For better is a praiseworthy war than a peace that separates you from God." [209] After all the words of the Holy Fathers mentioned, is there any doubt left that such a peace separates us from God?

The Holy Fathers speak of the use of economia in the case of receiving heretics into the Church when they repent, as we demonstrated in Chapter II.5, but never in the case of those who persist in their heresy, as the Ecumenists do.

We consider that such economia not only fails to serve the strengthening of the Truth, but on the contrary, it encourages liars in spreading falsehood, nourishing and supporting them in their lawless work. Even from the actions of Ecumenism, we see that the communion of Orthodox with heterodox does not bring the latter to the path of Truth, but rather strengthens them in their heresies, while distancing the Orthodox from the saving faith. Similarly, the communion of Orthodox with Ecumenists strengthens the latter in their error, while causing the Orthodox to excuse themselves, and not only themselves but also those who preach heresy. These are the ones to whom St. Maximus' words are addressed: "I urge you to be harsh and unyielding toward anything that might aid in the persistence of their foolish faith, for I consider it hatred of men and separation from Divine love to give aid to heretical error, leading to the greater perdition of those who cling to this error." [210]

We do not, in any case, wish to say that, at the expense of economia, we must fully apply akrivia (strictness), but only to remind that "economia is used for a short time, allowing something improper for the continual strengthening of good piety." [211] However, the history of the last century shows us that economia in relation to Ecumenists does not lead to the strengthening of true piety, but on the contrary, we see things going from bad to worse. Ecumenists increasingly allow themselves to openly defame and mock the Church of Christ, while the Orthodox, in the name of so-called economia, make more and more concessions in their favor, thus confirming that "in matters of Orthodox faith there can be no concession. The corruption of the common faith is the common destruction of all. All things concerning the Orthodox faith do not allow for economia." [212]

8. "Many holy fathers did not break communion with Ecumenist hierarchs"

Brothers, far be it from us to deny the spiritual heights attained by anyone or to undermine the honor given to these fathers.

Let us be mindful of the fearful Judgment, where we will stand before our God and give account for all our actions, words, and decisions. On that day, we will be held accountable for what we did or did not do, not for the actions of others. Likewise, no one else will answer for our deeds; the full responsibility will fall upon our own shoulders. Even if the stance of the fathers, to whom this argument refers, is pleasing to God, from all the examples in the Lives of the Saints and their writings that we have received, it is clear that this would happen as an exception, not as a rule that we might mistakenly believe will be accepted in our case as well.

On the other hand, we also have many examples of righteous fathers who fled from communion with the Ecumenists. For instance, numerous fathers on Mount Athos, at various stages of the deepening of Constantinople Patriarchate’s involvement in Ecumenism, broke communion with the patriarch. To this day, the Esphigmenou Monastery remains in such a state. We have the examples of fathers like St. Justin Popović, who in the last years of his life ceased to commemorate the name of the Ecumenist Patriarch German during services, or of Venerable Seraphim Alexiev, who withdrew from all the positions he held in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church after the introduction of the new calendar.

We also have the example of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), which distanced itself from communion with churches involved in Ecumenism. In 1983, the Synod led by St. Philaret (Voznesensky) anathematized this teaching, those who preach it, and—very importantly—those who knowingly remain in communion with the Ecumenists.

Let us also note that all these examples come from a time when the extremes we witness today had not yet been reached. At that time, there were no recognitions of the sacraments of heretics, no interreligious Ecumenism, and none of the other excesses we see now.

 

NOTES

177. Vatican II, Lumen gentium, chapter 22

178. The Life of St. Maximus the Confessor

179. St. Cyril of Jerusalem – Catecheses, 18:23

180. St. Philaret of Moscow – Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, chapter 250

181. St. Nikolai Velimirovich – The Faith of the Saints. Catechism of the Orthodox Church of the East, chapter II.1.10

182. Encyclical of the Orthodox Patriarchs from 1723

183. St. Philaret of Moscow – op. cit., chapter 269

184. St. Nikolai Velimirovich – op. cit., II.1.10

185. St. Philaret of Moscow – op. cit., chapter 273

186. St. Gregory the Theologian – Oration 21: Praise of Athanasius the Great

187. Epiphanius Theodoropoulos – The Two Extremes: Ecumenism and Zealotry, Apologeticum, 2006, p. 31

188. Ibid., p. 33

189. Ibid., p. 45

190. Canon 13 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople

191. Ibid.

192. In other editions of the Pedalion it is written "walling themselves off," in the Russian editions of the Pedalion the phrase reads: "таковые аще и оградят себя от общения с глаголемым епископом," ["Such ones, even if they distance themselves from communion with the so-called bishop"] meaning it specifically refers to separation from the heretical bishop.

193. Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople

194. St. Basil the Great – Patrologia Graeca 160:101C

195. St. Ephraim the Syrian – Homily on the Second Coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ

196. Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople

197. St. Athanasius the Great – Patrologia Graeca, 26:1185D-1188C

198. St. Gregory the Theologian – Oration 6: On Peace

199. St. Basil the Great – Patrologia Graeca 160:101C

200. St. Basil the Great – Patrologia Graeca 160:101C

201. Theodore the Studite – Epistle 15(74). To the Patriarch of Jerusalem

202. St. Cyprian of Carthage – Letter 54

203. St. Cyprian of Carthage – On the Unity of the Church

204. St. Joseph of Volotsk – The Enlightener, Homily 12

205. St. Theophan the Recluse – Manuscripts from the Cell, Homily on the Sunday of Orthodoxy

206. The Acts of the Trial of St. Maximus the Confessor and His Disciples, chapter IV

207. St. Eulogius of Alexandria – Patrologia Graeca 103:953

208. Epiphanius Theodoropoulos – The Two Extremes: Ecumenism and Zealotry, chapter B.2

209. St. Gregory the Theologian – Oration 3: On His Departure to Pontus

210. St. Maximus the Confessor – Patrologia Graeca 91:465C, Letter 12

211. St. Eulogius of Alexandria – Patrologia Graeca 103:954

212. The Life of St. Mark of Ephesus

 

Source: Mărturisire ortodoxă în faţa eresului ecumenist [Orthodox Confession in the Face of the Ecumenist Heresy], by the Orthodox Brotherhood of St. Ignaty Brianchaninov (Chișinău: 2014), pp. 56-74.

 

 


Does ROCOR have the right to judge the heads of the Local Churches? (1997)



Your Grace, Right Reverend Vladyka,

In response to the inquiry and proposal from the Greek Old Calendar Metropolitan Cyprian regarding a joint decision with us to condemn the ecumenical errors of the Ecumenical Patriarchs, I would like to offer the members of the Hierarchical Synod the following reply:

On this 28th/15th day of January 1997, at a meeting of the Hierarchical Synod, the aforementioned proposal was discussed, and the following decision was made:

There is no doubt that the Ecumenical Patriarchs, along with other heads of Local Orthodox Churches, being actively involved in ecumenism, have placed themselves on the defendant's bench. However, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad does not consider itself to have the authority or right to pronounce judgment over them, leaving this responsible matter to a potential lawful future Ecumenical Council. Any other attempt at condemnation would be a pitiful spectacle, incompatible with our honorable seventy-five years of faithful canonical standing in the thousand-year history of the Russian Church.

The ever-blessed Metropolitan Philaret, in his time, sent his "Sorrowful Epistle" to all the Ecumenical Patriarchs. We can only reinforce this message by noting that the Ecumenical Patriarchs are now in danger of losing the precious God-given gift of freedom, as they receive directives and "advice" from the central administration of ecumenism in the notorious Geneva.

 

Your sincere well-wisher,

Metropolitan Vitaly


Source: https://kirillov-v-y.livejournal.com/33147.html

Before the Judgment of God

By Metropolitan Vitaly of New York and Eastern America [1986]

 

The entire leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate, in its consistent, intentional, and voluntary stance of standing for 63 years in Sergianism, and then in ecumenism, has become so closely intertwined with these two heresies that it has lost the ability to be reborn and return to the roots of true Orthodoxy. Meanwhile, the apologists of Sergianism are already beginning to actively justify Metropolitan Sergius himself, pointing to the fact that what drove him to sign the infamous Declaration was nothing other than a fervent desire to save the Church in those terrible conditions of rampant militant atheism.

Such defenders of Sergianism, striving to provide some semblance of a foundation for the lies and deception of this heresy, are digging a deep pit for their hierarchs, a pit from which they will never emerge. For universal Orthodox thought, it is already clear that we are all saved in the Church and by the Church, but we do not save the Church. None of the Holy Fathers ever expressed such an absurd idea, bordering on ignorance in the very doctrine of the Church. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the sole Savior of the Church as its Head, and only He alone, no one else. And the recent events in Russia have shown us that the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate neither managed to nor wished to take advantage of the glasnost and perestroika, providentially given to them as a reprieve, thus finally convincing everyone of their hopeless rigidity and their state of profound servitude to the party. Let us, at last, be frank and speak the truth to their face.

For every honest, right-minded Orthodox Christian, whether layperson, and even more so clergy or bishop, not only of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad but of any Local Church, such prolonged and stubborn persistence in clear error makes the rulers of this patriarchate a guilty body before the eternal Truth—Christ. But what Council will judge them when so many hierarchs of other Orthodox Churches share with Moscow the same ecumenical principles and errors?! As for us, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, being only a free part of the Russian Church, we have never intended to don the mantle of such judges. However, there is something to ponder, for by our very existence we convict Moscow, and even if we were to remain completely silent, both de facto and de jure, we would still be their silent judges. And our current place is not yet at the judgment, but only within the conscience of the rulers of the Moscow Patriarchate. And it is not we who have placed ourselves in this spiritual domain of conscience, but the Lord Himself.

From everything that has been said, it is evident that all the rulers of the Moscow Patriarchate, due to the impossibility of being judged by a true, impartial, and sincere Episcopal Council and Court, are handed over to the Judgment of God. And this is terrifying, for "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Amen.

 

Russian source: http://internetsobor.org/index.php/istoriya/rptsz/arkhiv-rptsz/mitropolit-vitalij-pered-sudom-bozhiim

 

Metropolitan Vitaly on Sacramental Grace in the Moscow Patriarchate (1991)

Now, dear Vladyka, let us speak about the ideological side of the entire matter. It must be said immediately that our Church, under no Metropolitan, has ever declared that the entire Moscow Patriarchate is completely without grace. What is this? A betrayal of the Truth? Not at all! We deeply recognize ourselves as part of the FREE Russian Church and do not have the full authority to make such a declaration, which belongs only to the All-Russian Council of the entire episcopate... We express our total disagreement with Moscow by not having any kind of even social communion with their episcopate. Moscow is a defendant and awaits its condemnation. The Lord is evidently performing an incredible economia for us, for many truly believing people, and He grants them communion and bestows His grace upon them, for example, through Baptism. Can you yourself, who were once also part of this Moscow Patriarchate, deny this?! You cannot, for you know, and you have affirmed to us, that there are many wonderful priests of God who suffer within this Patriarchate, doing all they can to rightly shepherd their flock, and because of this, their days are numbered—they are all awaiting their expulsion, prohibition, or even removal from the priesthood without any trial.

In such conditions, can we declare an anathema on all of them? That would be a completely irreparable mistake, a tragedy for many, or even just foolish zeal without wisdom. The phrase you mention from the Hierarchal Message was a tactical error, and this is a lesson for us, as many in Russia must have been troubled by it, as you wrote. What is natural to us is not understood by them. We, thank God, have preserved our objectivity, but try to maintain that in the USSR, where you are constantly persecuted, oppressed, and harassed. We fully understand this and will simply proceed with caution. There is nothing else, nor can there be.

I could cite hundreds of excerpts from letters from Russia, in which many young people are fighting for the faith, getting baptized, and completely transforming their lives, something that only the grace of the Holy Spirit can accomplish. Could I suddenly tell them that it is all false, that they are not truly baptized? They simply would not believe me and would take me for some sort of sectarian because their hearts are filled with joy, they pray to God with tears, they have completely changed their lives, and I would insist that it is all an illusion? No, holy Vladyka, neither I nor you will act in such a way, of this I am completely certain. Give them time, and under the influence of God's grace, they will gradually become enlightened, their eyes of understanding will be opened. After all, we say at Baptism: "You have been baptized, you have been enlightened, you have been chrismated, you have been sanctified," and so on. It seems enlightenment works gradually, overcoming our weaknesses and distortions. We must give them time, and for us, patience. That is all on this matter.

- Letter of Metropolitan Vitaly of New York to Bishop Lazarus of Tambov, dated January 9/22, 1991.

 

Russian source: https://archiv.livejournal.com/176877.html

 

Archpriest George (Bishop Gregory) Grabbe on the Issue of Grace



I have never asserted the gracelessness of the Moscow Patriarchate. I believe that any illness in the Church spreads gradually and that until the final moment, when, as in the case of the Arian heresy, for example, evil completely poisons the organism of a certain part of the Church, one must be cautious in declaring anyone graceless. Regarding the Patriarchate, I cannot help but have doubts about hierarchs who are agents of the KGB, but how can we name them with certainty? Therefore, I always refrain from answering the question of gracelessness. Refusal of communion with someone is by no means equivalent to declaring them graceless. This is ultimately known only to the Lord God. In this approach to the question, I believe I express the "Antonian" thought. However, the Vladyka was very definite in his denial of the sacraments of clerics he had prohibited (the Evlogians). He called their communion the food of demons, for in their disregard of lawful prohibition, he saw blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

- Letter No. 23 of Fr. George Grabbe to Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich), dated July 23 / August 5, 1975.

 

I have read the note on church groupings very carefully. I recognize that the question of grace is very complex and I do not like to determine where it has disappeared and where it still remains. However, there are canonical crimes for which retribution follows without a judicial decision, in the so-called declarative order. Such, for example, is the crime against the Paschalion, apostasy, etc. The expression "incorrect position" is very general in nature and can sometimes be too mild. Can such a definition suffice in regard to Nikodim? I would agree that in cases of jurisdictional deviations, one may refrain from rushing to definitive decisions, limiting oneself only to the factual severance of communion. But is this sufficient when ecumenism reaches the point of communing heretics? It seems to me that no new principled definition is required, but it is necessary to maintain the previously established abstention from concelebration, especially in the liturgy. We should fear not only the danger of erring and condemning as invalid what has not yet deserved such a definition regarding the sacraments of those who have separated, but also the danger of showing indifference to truth and falsehood and some form of participation in it through liturgical communion with those who have fallen into it. In general, the very fact that we are discussing this question demonstrates uncertainty regarding the grace of the separated; and where there is uncertainty, there cannot be concelebration. Yet such uncertainty is not yet a definitive decision on the gracelessness of all the separated. I believe that if ecumenism continues to develop, the time may come for a more definitive delineation. For now, this heresy nests in the upper ranks but has not yet spread to the people. But what will happen when the principles of the Thyateira Confession enter life and practice, and Patriarch Dimitrios serves a liturgy with Pope Paul? If the First-Second Council indicates that in cases of violation of Orthodoxy one must sever ties with one’s hierarch, then a District Council can likewise act concerning the heads of other Churches. Moreover, the rule not only permits this but directly prescribes it. As for special rules regarding the order of reception from their flock, it seems that this is only required when personal delusion and personal preaching transition into the conviction of the entire Church, i.e., both clergy and laity. Separation from the Church is not a matter of a single moment but is usually the result of a known process.

- Letter No. 28 of Fr. George Grabbe to Archbishop Nathaniel (Lvov), dated March 2/15, 1976.

 

Russian source: https://vishegorod.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=740&Itemid=151


Patristic Teachings: “Speak to God in this way, as though you were picking up the telephone”

Orthodoxos Typos | September 18, 2026   “But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you” ( Luke 12...