DECEPTION by Tatiana Senina

[Julianna]

DECEPTION by Tatiana Senina

And then the lawless one shall be revealed,
Whose coming is according to the activity of Satan
In all power and signs and lying wonders,
And in all deceit of unrighteousness in those who are perishing,
Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And on this account God shall send to them an influence of error
For them to believe the lie, that they all might be judged
Who received not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness?
So then, brethren, be standing firm and holding fast
The traditions which ye were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
II Thessalonians 2.8-12, 15.

[Julianna]

1. "We are the best because we are we"

In the contemporary ecclesiastical world hot disputes are being conducted between Orthodox about where it is best and safest for a believing person to bow his head. However, in spite of the proverb: "Every sandpiper praises his own bog", the members of the presently existing true and untrue ecclesiastical organisations often expatiate much more on numerous disciplinary and canonical transgressions in their jurisdictions than on the positive aspects of their existence; they abuse their church leadership and paint quite a dark picture of apostasy in their ranks but in the end unfailingly add that "our bog is the best!"

Of course, the more "correct" and "law-abiding" believers (and, correspondingly, church publications) do not permit themselves to make special attacks on the leadership and clergy, but on the contrary are filled with stories about "miracles and healings", "rivers of grace", pilgrimages to holy places and "elders", etc. But those, too, who to some degree try to reflect the objective state of affairs, and are now and then able to communicate a mass of various facts concerning the apostasy of bishops, clergy and laity from the canons and from the faith, nevertheless for some reason insist that their jurisdiction (the same Moscow Patriarchate) is "the truest", and consider separation from it or the choosing of some other jurisdiction as the most terrible sin, schism, etc. At the same time they are even able to spread various appeals with threats to separate, in accordance with the church canons, from heretical bishops. However, if anyone really decides on such a step, they will say about him that he "was a bit hasty", abandoned "the mother-church" and went along the path of destruction?

Simple believers can say: "They're all proud disturbers of the peace, and we must listen to spiritual people". But what do the "elders" and "spiritual men" say? From them you can also at times hear a recognition that "there is something rotten in the kingdom of Denmark", but at the same time "our church" nevertheless remains full of grace and is "the most salvific" and even "the only true one", no matter what. But the flock must not "judge and condemn the pastors", but remain in obedience. But obediences are in conflict with each other, and in relation to certain kinds of obedience it is said: "Ye are of your father, the devil, and the desires of your father ye wish to do? And because I speak the truth, ye believe Me not" ( John 8.44-45) for such novices are in obedience, not to God, but to men who have apostasised from the Divine truth and reinterpreted it to their advantage, to make it convenient for them to live in this world and get fewer "bumps". Concerning this kind of obedience, the apostle says: "Cease making yourselves slaves of men" ( I Corinthians 7.23).

For these novices it turns out that "it's a bog alright, but still, you wont find a better one anywhere, because we are by definition the best". The argumentation for this comes down to something like the following: "Our Church is true because it has miracles and elders": "Our miracles and elders and the resolutions of our councils cannot be false, because we have the Church". But if the conversation turns to bishops of "alternative jurisdictions", the pious "sandpipers" put every kind of spoke in the wheel (mainly, however, because they are "schismatics"), and without thinking that they are acting simply in a biassed manner, and if they approached their own bishops with the same criteria not one of them would stand up to even a relatively mild critique.

Perhaps the basic advantage of the hierarchs praised by the "sandpipers" is, first of all, the fact that they sit on "apostolic thrones", bearing grand titles, or are the formal successors of the great hierarchs of the past. However, this is what the Pan-Orthodox Constantinople Council of 1848 says about this approach (#11): " We have considered it our paternal and brotherly duty and sacred obligation, through the benevolent epistle that is offered now, to confirm you in the Orthodoxy which we received from our forefathers, and at the same time to demonstrate in passing the weakness of the reasoning of the bishop of Rome, which he himself evidently does not understand. For he is not adorning his throne by his Apostolic confession, but by an Apostolic throne is striving to confirm his dignity, and by his dignity to confirm his confession. But in actual fact it is not like that? The holy Peter himself was personally judged before all "according to the truth of the Gospel" ( Galatians 2.14) What, after this, are we supposed to think about those who exalt themselves and are proud of their possession only of his supposed throne?? Our Holy Fathers teach us that we should not judge about Orthodoxy in accordance with the throne, but should judge about the throne itself and about him who sits on it in accordance with the Divine Scriptures, the Conciliar decrees and definitions, and the Faith which has been preached to all, that is, in accordance with the Orthodoxy of the unbroken teaching of the Church".

Similarly "weak reasoning" is, unfortunately, very widespread amidst contemporary Orthodox. Sometimes in answer to the question: "In what is our Church better than others, or in what way is it distinguished from others?" we hear approximately the following response: "The main thing in our Church is that it is the very same ."

[Julianna]

1. "The Very Same"

What holy fathers of the Church said that the most important thing in the Church is not keeping the canons and preserving the dogmas, but some kind of "sameness" that is, formal historical identity. Where and when did the Lord promise to preserve any particular "jurisdiction" until the end of the age? Such a promise was given by the Lord neither to the Roman nor to the Greek nor to the Russian nor to any other Church. In the Gospel it is said: "I will found My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail over her" ( Matthew 16.18). "I will found it on this rock" on Peter's "confession of the faith". If the faith is not preserved, then a church organisation becomes no longer the Church of Christ, but rather "the church of the Pharisees and evil-doers", who "have sat upon Moses? seat", but expound some "other faith" concerning which the Apostle said: "If we or an angel from heaven preach unto you something other than what we preached to you, let him be anathema" ( Galatians 1..

However, when you begin to point out which canons have been broken by one or another group of bishops "of this same church", they for some reason become very offended with you, call you an extremist, a Pharisee, and even accuse you of not having "spiritual experience" and, the most important, hierarchical rank and for that reason you do not have the right, and in principle cannot have the right, you are physically unable, to discern whether those who allow transgressions of the canons, communion with heretics, and dialogues with ecumenists or heterodox are acting rightly or wrongly?

But which of the holy fathers taught that to define certain actions as uncanonical some special "spiritual experience" is required? It is precisely for this that the canons and rules exist. It's great if someone has really received the gift of spiritual sight from God; but we prefer humbly to recognise that we do not have enough spiritual experience, we do not see with spiritual eyes on which altars the Holy Spirit descends on the consecrated Gifts, and on which He does not descend and for that reason we try to orient ourselves on the canons and dogmas. What pride is there in that?

It is well-known that St. Maximus the Confessor was not a bishop, nor even a priest. He was a simple monk. And nevertheless he condemned the actions of all the hierarchs and patriarchs of his time who had deviated into communion with heresy, for which he suffered torture, for which he is also counted blessed. Perhaps, according to the logic of the contemporary "spiritual Christians", he was a schismatic? But, you know, the heresy of Monothelitism of that time was much more subtle and difficult to understand than contemporary ecumenism. Ecumenism is quite a crude heresy; it tramples directly on one of the articles of the Symbol of faith "I believe? in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" and many canons; Monothelitism would scarcely be recognised as a heresy by the contemporary Orthodox if it appeared in our days. Who now could begin to make the fine distinction whether there is one will in Christ or two, whether the will belongs to the nature or the person now, when they try to represent the general dogmatic teaching of the Church simply as a collection of private "theological opinions"!?

The holy hierarch Mark of Ephesus went against all his brother hierarchs, although he was almost the youngest amongst them according to ordination. Was he also "proud and a disturber of the peace"

St. Theodore the Studite rebuked his patriarch and broke communion with him for what may seem to many now to be a "small" transgression of the canons, and canons, besides, not having a dogmatic character and not connected with heresy. Was he, too, a "schismatic" You know, even the holy Patriarch Nicephorus in his time called him a schismatic.

If these and other saints reasoned as many contemporary Orthodox do, and were as "humble" as they are, would Orthodoxy have survived on the earth to our time?

[Julianna]

1. "The Quarrel about Grace"

If we recognise that the "official churches" have fallen into the heresy of ecumenism, and that the majority of hierarchs in them consciously support this heresy, or, while condemning it by their words, in fact remain in communion with open heretics, how can we recognise the sacraments performed there? According to the teaching of the Church, no sacraments are performed by the heretics. At this point some will object: yes, perhaps no sacraments are performed by Bartholomew himself and Alexis Ridiger, but, you know, in their patriarchates there are bishops and priests who believe in an Orthodox manner and condemn ecumenism; can we really say that nothing is performed by them?

But we do not recognise the uniates, for example, as grace-bearing. Why? After all, externally everything there is Orthodox, and the Symbol of faith is Orthodox, and all the Divine services, and even the bishops are sort of "Orthodox". What's the difference? Simply that there "our universal lord and hierarch", the Pope of Rome, is commemorated. That is, consciously and voluntarily (in some places, perhaps, also out of fear) the name of a heretic is raised. And in so doing, moreover, some new fourth rank of the priesthood ("universal hierarch") is introduced. At this the whole of Orthodoxy vanishes. But why do we hear the shouts: "How can we deprive all the members of the MP of grace?" but do not hear the cries: "Poor uniates!"

The traditional question concerning the poor Orthodox old woman from deep in the country who goes to a church of the MP simply because there are no others in her area, involuntarily elicits a thought concerning the poor pious Catholics from some medieval village. What and where could they hear about Orthodoxy? And what about some Chinese or Hindus from the same village? Can we say about such people that they consciously rejected Orthodoxy and Christ?

The thought occurs that this is already the sphere of God's justice. But that by no means signifies that the true Body and Blood of Christ were present on the Catholic altar in the medieval European village. It also does not mean that the Spirit of God is present in non-Christian religions, as is affirmed by "Patriarch" Bartholomew. We can probably hope that the Lord will have mercy also on the simple believers of the MP or of the Antiochian patriarchate, which has officially established communion with the Monophysites. But that does not mean that sacraments are unfailingly performed in these organisations.

If we arrive at the opinion that at the celebration of the Eucharist in one and the same church some people who are heretics by conviction or support heresy do not commune of the Sacraments, while others who are not heretics in their thoughts commune, then any every concept of the Church in general disappears. If the Sacrament is performed, then everyone communes, but impenitent sinners and people who do not think right receive the Sacrament to their condemnation. But if the Sacrament is not performed, then nobody communes, but the Lord in His loving kindness may save and have mercy on those who took part in this without understanding.

But this mystery of the justice of God exceeds human understanding: we must be worried only lest the Lord should not have mercy on us if we, instead of pointing out to the members of the "official churches" that they are in heretical communities, darken the question with reasonings on who can be saved in these organisations and who cannot, and whether there is still grace there, and if there is, where and how much. Reasoning about grace in this spirit is itself unorthodox, for grace is the uncreated energy of God; but if we recognise that it can be somehow "measured", then we come close to the Latin heresy of created grace. The grace of God is present everywhere insofar as God Himself is everywhere, but it does not act everywhere in the same way. If we evaluate the "gracefilledness" of something simply by the presence of grace there, then hell will be gracefilled. Only in hell grace acts on those who are there by burning them.

In the Church, on the other hand, grace acts by saving people. And outside the Church it can act as it acted on Cornelius the centurion by leading him to the Church. It is the same in believing but heretical communities: grace acts insofar as the Lord "wishes all to come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved", and for that reason we can conditionally call this grace "leading out" grace that is, it rouses those who following its promptings to come into the True Church, to which end they must come out of the heretical community.

The Eucharist is the foundation of the Christian life, and if there is any doubt as to whether it is performed in a jurisdiction whose bishops are clearly deviating into heresy, then the normal reaction of believers must be immediately to flee from this jurisdiction. For what can be dearer to us than eternal salvation? And how can we commune while doubting whether we are really receiving the Body of Christ? How can you say: "Let us love one another, that with one mind we may confess", if you know that your bishop or pastor, or even your parish priest, believes differently from you, and tramples on the patristic teaching? How can we stand at the Terrible Judgement next to the holy fathers if during our lives we had communion with those who only mocked their teaching or simply did not want to know it, and even went so far as arrogantly to distort and reinterpret the Tradition of the Church?

Even when condescending to some ignorance, we must remember the words of St. John Climacus: "Do not excuse yourself through ignorance; for the ignorant man who does things worthy of wounds will be beaten for that which he did not know". The Lord will see why a man was "ignorant" whether because he could not know, or because he did not want to know, did not strive for knowledge, or because, finally, it was more convenient for him not to know.

But if, on the contrary, it is reasoned that the "official churches" are completely salvific and grace-filled "they cannot be otherwise, because they never can be" then why leave them? Would not such a departure signify a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Leave because there are "immoral bishops" there? Or perhaps because they shorten the Divine services and needs? Or perhaps because they "trade in sacraments" But these are non-dogmatic reasons which are truly capable of being healed and require "a struggle from within"; and if anyone separates for such reasons he necessarily, according to the teaching of the Church, is a real schismatic .

[Julianna]

1. The "Cathari"

According to the canons of the Church, it is possible to separate before a conciliar judgement only from heretics. All other separations of clergy and laity from their bishops are schisms. Therefore if a person separates from some "official church", being convinced that it is "equally salvific" with the True Church, in the presence of a mass of Orthodox laity, clergy and even bishops, then it turns out that he is seeking, not the True Church, but simply a "purer" niche within the "one church", a niche that more closely suits his "rarified spiritual taste". Therefore if, in his new situation, he uncovers around himself some dogmatic deviations, he often relates to them with great condescension.

Many often say that during their time in the MP they had a certain "spiritual experience" of the action of the grace of God, and therefore they cannot recognise that the MP is not a Church. It is really difficult for them to renounce their "spiritual wealth" and say that all this was "psychological", perhaps even deception! After all, to say this means to reject one's past "church" life, and to recognise that one's life there has, as it were, been lived in vain? But in the Gospel the Lord says that it is difficult for the rich man rich not only and not so much in a material sense, but also psychologically and spiritually - to enter into the Kingdom of God. By "wealth" here is understood everything that we value in one way or another: if we become too attached to "the wealth of the spirit", and begin to overestimate our spiritual experiences and "attainments", then such wealth can hinder our entry into the Kingdom, into which only the poor in spirit enter.

Following the logic of the "spiritually rich", we necessarily come to the conclusion that those who remain in the heretical "churches" are simply uncomprehending, irrational, fearful, in a word more "sinful" than we; and we are simply more "clever", "righteous", "confessing", etc.; but at the same time both we and they are equally members of the one Church (only perhaps in the ecumenical "churches" the conditions for the acquisition of the grace of the sacraments are simply worse), insofar as the Church of Christ cannot be divided. There are simply, as it were, two parts of the Church like the Anglicans? "high" and "low" churches?

"There is nothing new under the sun" ( Ecclesiastes 1.10). You know, there once certain heretic-schismatics, known as the Novatians, or "Cathari", or "Pure ones", who considered the purity of their community to reside in the fact that they did not accept for repentance those who had fallen in the time of the persecutions and did not accept those who had been married twice into communion, even after repentance. These "pure ones" were condemned in council by the Church as schismatics and heretics, and were received into communion through chrismation.

[Julianna]

1. Cyprianism, or the teaching on the "sick in faith" members of the Church

In recent years there has appeared yet one more explanation of the fear of condemning the former Local Churches for ecumenism. The supporters of this position often refer to the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) of Fili and Orope. They explain his separation from the "not without grace" churches of World Orthodoxy by their resistance to heresy and walling themselves off from it in anticipation of an all-Orthodox Council which will finally condemn it and subject it to anathema. It is evidently assumed that neither the anathemas of the Old Calendarists against the new calendarists nor the anathema of the ROCA against the ecumenists represents the conciliar voice of the whole Church (although we do not know of a single True Orthodox Church of our time which has considered the anathema of 1983 invalid or "not generally obligatory").

Metropolitan Cyprian and his supporters refer to the fact that "we have pastors, and even Patriarchs, who already preach and affirm heretical opinions with conviction and in council. But their flock has not yet completely understood that in this way their faith and salvation are being subjected to danger." It is fitting at this point to ask: does the flock of, for example, the Pope of Rome understand that they are in a heretical church?? Especially in the 11 th -12 th centuries, the simple believers of Rome were hardly likely to have understood the subtle errors of their bishops. Nevertheless, they were all condemned together with their pastors, and none of the Orthodox Fathers ever took it into his head to call them "the sick part of the Church" and invite them to some kind of "Unifying Councils". Still less did the thought occur to them that their condemnation of the Latins was "invalid" because the "resisters" from the Roman church had not been invited to the Orthodox Council. Naturally, after learning of the conciliar condemnation of the Roman bishops that had apostasised from Orthodoxy, such "resisters" were obliged to abandon them and unite themselves to the Orthodox Church. This consciousness could have come to some sooner, and to others later; but certain members? of the condemned church organisation's slowness in becoming conscious of the given problem could in no way have made it Orthodox and "as yet uncondemned".

On the contrary, the member of the Council of 1848 in their Encyclical Epistle write: the innovatory teaching of the Roman Catholics "is real heresy , and its followers, whoever they may have been, are heretics , according to the above-mentioned conciliar definition of his Holiness Pope Damasus; the communities formed of them are heretical , and every spiritual communion with them in Divine services on the part of the Orthodox members of the Catholic Church is unlawful , by dint especially of the seventh canon of the Third Ecumenical Council."

The Epistle goes on to declare: "Our ever-memorable predecessors and fathers, seeing how the primordial Gospel is being trampled underfoot, and how the robe of our Saviour woven from on high is being torn apart by impious hands, moved by paternal and fraternal love, bewailed the destruction of such a multitude of Christians for whom Christ died [our emphasis T.S.], in spite of the fact that the fathers of the Council recognise (#12) the presence among the peoples of the West of wise and pious "bishops, theologians and teachers" and even call the contemporary Pope of Rome "his Beatitude". From this it is evident, as we pass to our time, that neither the presence of pious and wise Christians amidst the members of the ecumenist "churches", nor the fact that the holy hierarch Philaret, the ever-memorable First-Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, in his Sorrowful Epistles called Patriarch Athenagoras "his All-Holiness" (which, however, was before the proclamation of the anathema against the ecumenists) and hoped for the conversion of him and those like him to undefiled Orthodoxy (similar wishes, expressed moreover in the most polite way, were offered in relation to the Pope of Rome by the fathers of the Council of 1848), - none of this alter the fact that the ecumenist churches of "official Orthodoxy" are heretical communities, and that there can be no communion between them and the Orthodox, and that it is necessary to bewail the lot of the multitudes of Christians who follow the heretic bishops.

This is what is written later in the same Epistle: "The duty of his Beatitude [the Pope of Rome] is to show before God and men that he, as the leader of a God-pleasing undertaking, is at the same time a zealous defender of the persecuted truth of the Gospel and of the holy Councils? May it be so! But until this longed-for conversion of the apostate churches to the body of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, whose head is Christ (Ephesians 4.15), takes place, we shall consider every encroachment of theirs, and every self-willed exhortation of theirs that tends towards the corruption of our irreproachable faith that has been given to us from the Fathers, to be not only suspicious and dangerous, but also impious and soul-destroying worthy of conciliar condemnation" (#17). "Our faith, being completely revealed and imprinted, permits neither any addition nor any subtraction, nor any other kind of change, and he who dares to do such, or counsel or think such, has already been rejected from the faith of Christ, and has already voluntarily subjected himself to eternal anathema for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as if He [the Holy Spirit] spoke imperfectly in the Scriptures and at the Ecumenical Councils. This terrible anathema, brothers and beloved children in Christ, is not being pronounced by us now, but was uttered before all by our Saviour (Matthew 12.32), was uttered by the divine Paul (Galatians 1.6) The same was uttered also by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and by the whole order of God-bearing fathers. And so all those who think up something new a heresy or a schism have voluntarily put on, according to the words of the Psalmist (Psalm 108.17), cursing like a garment , whether they be popes, or patriarchs, or clergy, or laity; be he even an Angel from heaven, he, too, will be anathema, if he preach unto you anything other than what you received " (#20).

And so these definitions of the Council of 1848, which is recognised by the whole of the Orthodox Church, show that:

Everyone who falls away from Orthodoxy automatically falls under the anathema of the Saviour, the Apostles, and also of all the earlier Orthodox Councils and Fathers, and the latest Councils do not mark the beginning of his falling away from the Church, but only witness that he has already fallen away from the Church by virtue of his heresy, voluntarily subjecting himself to a curse.

Ecumenism includes within itself communion with all the formerly condemned heresies , and therefore the ecumenists have already long ago been condemned by the Church . Besides, ecumenism directly sins against one of the articles of the Symbol of Faith and is the exposition of "another faith", which has already been condemned by the Ecumenical Councils; and those who are still waiting for some additional condemnation are most likely caring, not for the faith, but for "ecumenist friendship" or some other interests unconnected with Orthodoxy. This is especially noticeable when, even after the condemnation of a heresy by some Orthodox Council, we hear declarations that this Council was "too small" for its decisions to be recognised by the whole of the Church which approach, by the way, was never that of the Orthodox Church.

Church communities whose bishops confess heresy are heretical communities and do not belong to the Body of the One Church of Christ.

Community in spirit and in prayer with such communities is excluded for the Orthodox.

The presence of "pious and wise" bishops, theologians and simple laypeople amidst the members of the heretical communities does not serve for the salvation of these people, if they do not abandon these communities and do not return to the Church.

The members of the heretical communities, whatever their personal faith, are on the path of destruction, for they do not belong to the Body of Christ.

[Julianna]

1. "Handing Over to Satan"

One of the objections to the thesis that all the "official churches" have already been anathematised and "handed over to Satan" that the author of the present lines has happened to hear, is as follows: "Which of the holy fathers of the 20 th century has said that these churches are graceless? Neither St. John of Shanghai nor Fr. Seraphim Rose nor Fr. Justin Popovich nor St. Philaret has said this?"

It is true that St. John did not speak about this. But he died in 1966, when the ecumenical movement had only just begun to come out onto the broad path on a universal scale, and there could not at that time be talk about a final and irreversible condemnation; the more so in that in the preceding centuries the Orthodox had somehow grown unaccustomed to the struggle with newly appeared heresies, and with heresies in general which is why the deviation into the heresy of ecumenism by practically all the Local Churches took place so easily. There is nothing surprising in this St. John Chrysostom was already talking about the danger of a long absence of persecutions against the Church: "Or do you think it is not a great persecution to be safe from persecution? ? This is worse than persecution itself. Safety, like floodwater, weakens the soul, it brings a sleep upon the soul, introduces all kinds of inattentiveness and carelessness, arouses all kinds of passions? But during persecution nothing of the sort can be stirred up: the approach of fear does not allow the passions to raise their voices? During the ancient persecutions one could truly Christian men. At that time nobody worried about property, about his wife, about his children, about his fatherland; they all had one care, to save their souls? There were not many of them then; but great was the wealth of their virtue."

Fr. Seraphim Rose in his foreword to the publication of the Third Sorrowful Epistle of Metropolitan Philaret wrote: "Those who try to obtain from the Metropolitan and the Hierarchical Synod a judgement on the "lack of grace of the sacraments" of the Orthodox Churches which have adopted the new style or which have fallen under the heel of the communist powers, are not taking account of the fact that such questions lies beyond the competence of the Synod? that anathemas except for several indisputable cases only aggravate the illness".

These words were written in 1976 and in no way aid the contemporary ecclesiastical "anti-extremists" insofar as in the 1970s not only Fr. Seraphim but practically everybody else including Fr. Justin Popovich (who died in 1979) - was unsure whether the destructive ecumenist course of World Orthodoxy was yet irreversible. And it is perfectly fair to say that questions relating to the condemnation of this or that heresy or schism lie "beyond the bounds of the competence" of the Synod" the Synod, but not of the Council. But ecumenism was condemned in council , which witnesses to the fact that the "case" of ecumenism was already seen as "indisputable". Father Seraphim died in 1982, just before the reception of this anathema (1983), and he would hardly have begun to speak about its "invalidity". It could have been invalid only if ecumenism were not a heresy.

As regards the MP, for example, it was condemned long ago by many New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, the founders of the Russian Catacomb Church; and the participation of her hierarchs and many of her clergy in one form or another of the heresy of ecumenism is evident. The new calendarists were also condemned as a schism by the True Orthodox Church of Greece, and their involvement in the heresy of ecumenism is undoubted.

As regards Metropolitan Philaret, he never recognised the sacraments of either schismatics or heretics; he expressed himself about this many times in letters and sermons. Concerning the significance of a church anathema, he clearly said that it witnesses to the fact that such-and-such people, having sinned against Orthodoxy, have already fallen away from the Church. It is completely incomprehensible how he could have regarded the significance of the anathema of 1983, which had been accepted in council under his leadership, in any other light?