Is It Heresy to Deny the Coming of the Antichrist?

[Hieromonk Enoch]

Is it heresy to deny the coming of the future Antichrist as explained by the Scripture and Holy Fathers of the Church?

[GOCPriestMark]

If you mean; "Has the Church decreed a condemnation or anathema against those who fail or refuse to believe that the antichrist will come first, before the return of our Lord Jesus Christ?" - I do not see that they have specifically stated this.

But, if you mean; "Can someone refuse to believe the Holy Evangelists Matthew and Mark, the Holy Apostle Paul and Saint John the Theologian; the Holy Orthodox Church which has affirmed that their writings are Holy Scripture, and be considered anything other than a heretic?" - No, anyone who does not believe the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers is a heretic.

[Suaidan]

If you mean; "Has the Church decreed a condemnation or anathema against those who fail or refuse to believe that the antichrist will come first, before the return of our Lord Jesus Christ?" - I do not see that they have specifically stated this.

But, if you mean; "Can someone refuse to believe the Holy Evangelists Matthew and Mark, the Holy Apostle Paul and Saint John the Theologian; the Holy Orthodox Church which has affirmed that their writings are Holy Scripture, and be considered anything other than a heretic?" - No, anyone who does not believe the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers is a heretic.

Evlogite:

I think Father Augustine may be making reference to recent statements from the Synod in Resistance which seem to imply that they reject the traditional Orthodox understanding of the last days.

This text seems to indicate that Orthodox Eschatology must be historically viewed in three "waves" (one of which started in 1980?), and that apparently this is some sort of eschatological "wave" that must be rejected. One of the "features" of these "waves" they reject is "The notion that the Apocalypse constitutes a futuristic text, that is, a codified collection of oracles or a prophetic chronology, disclosing specific historical developments in the Church and in world history." (page 7, http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2 ... t2010A.pdf )

This would effectively discount the position of every single Father of the Church who wrote about the Book of the Apocalypse.

This question, which seems to have occupied a number of recent statements from SiR Bishops and at least one from a sister-church of theirs, became relevant to us in the Autonomous Metropolia after Vladika John's visit to Russia. During a press-conference, Metropolitan Anghelos stated the reason he left the Synod in Resistance was a denial of the reality of antichrist. While their statements imply these things, that Metropolitan Anghelos said that so point-blank to reporters means that this belief is not simply a result of the SiR's tendencies towards overanalysis but an actual belief.

[Ephrem]

Since ecumenism is itself a forerunner of the doctrine of antichrist, it is not suprising that SiR would deny his existence. To the True Orthodox, antichrist is an obvious reality, even a palpable one, since True Orthodox have always suffered at the hands of antichrist's forerunners, be they masons or communists. Those who oppose antichrist, it seems, see his true face, which he hides from the world, feigning "brotherly love" and "tolerance".

SiR doesn't accept that the World Orthodox churches have fallen into complete apostacy and that they are completely outside of the Church. Whereas the True Orthodox, knowing the truth of the matter, cannot help but seeing it as the work of antichrist.

Does that make sense to anyone, or am I babbling nonsense?

[Hieromonk Enoch]

Thank you for the replies. I believed that there was a contradiction from what was read in the Scriptures, Holy Fathers, Saints, and numerous Orthodox writings, and what was contained in the SiR statements.