How does one counter World Orthodoxy's beliefs on Ecumenism?

Discussion about the various True Orthodox Churches around the world including current events. Subforums in other langauges, primarily English on the main forum.


Moderator: Mark Templet

Post Reply
User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

How does one counter World Orthodoxy's beliefs on Ecumenism?

Post by Maria »

It is commonly heard among World Orthodoxy that an Ecumenical Council is needed in order to declare "Ecumenism" to be heretical.

However, how could such an "Ecumenical Council" conducted by World Orthodoxy ecumenists ever succeed in condemning themselves?

Are there any existing canons that condemn ecumenism or praying or worshiping with heretics?

For those who are on the fence between World Orthodoxy and the True Orthodox, what documents concerning Ecumenism would help them better understand Holy Orthodoxy as taught by our Holy Fathers?

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Mark Templet
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon 6 August 2007 2:59 pm
Location: Abita Springs, LA

Re: How does one counter World Orthodoxy's beliefs on Ecumen

Post by Mark Templet »

On Praying with Heretics

Canon XLV of the Holy Apostles:

"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed."

Canon LXV Of the Holy Apostles:

"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

Canon IX of Laodicia (Also approved by the Ecumenical Synods):

"Concerning the fact that those belonging to the Church must not be allowed to go visiting the cemeteries or the so called martyria of any heretics, for the purpose of prayer or of cure, but, on the contrary, those who do so, if they be among the faithful, shall be excluded from communion for a time until they repent and confess their having made a mistake, when they may be readmitted to communion."

Canon XXXIII of Laodicia:

"One must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics."

The Extraordinary Joint Conference of the Sacred Community on Mount Athos:

April 9/22, 1980 Full Text

  1. Theological dialogue must not in any way be linked with prayer in common, or by joint participation in any liturgical or worship services whatsoever; or in other activities which might create the impression that our Orthodox Church accepts, on the one hand, Roman Catholics as part of the fulness of the Church, or, on the other hand, the Pope as the canonical bishop of Rome. Activities such as these mislead both the fulness of the Orthodox people and the Roman Catholics themselves, fostering among them a mistaken notion as to what Orthodoxy thinks of their teaching.

On the Date for Celebrating Pascha

Canon VII of the Holy Apostles:

If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed.

Canon I of Antioch:

As for all persons who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great Synod convened in Nicaea in the presence of Eusebeia, the consort of the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy festival of the soterial Pascha, we decree that they be excluded from Communion and be outcasts from the Church if they persist more captiously in objecting to the decisions that have been made as most fitting in regard thereto; and let these things be said with reference to laymen. But if any of the person occupying prominent positions in the Church, such as a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, after the adoption of this definition, should dare to insist upon having his own way, to the perversion of the laity, and to the disturbance of the church, and upon celebrating Pascha along with the Jews, the holy Synod has hence judged that person to be an alien to the Church, on the ground that he has not only become guilty of sin by himself, but has also been the cause of corruption and perversion among the multitude. Accordingly, it not only deposes such persons from the liturgy, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. Moreover, those who have been deposed are to be deprived of the external honor too of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood have partaken.

See also the Sigillon of 1583 which anathematized the Gregorian and Papal Calendar.

On Separating from Heretical Hierarchs

From St. Basil's first canon:

Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of ecclesiastical causes and remediable questions have developed a quarrel amongst themselves. Parasynagogues is the name applied to gatherings held by insubordinate presbyters or bishops, and those held by uneducated laities. As, for instance, when one has been arraigned for a misdemeanor held aloof from liturgy and refused to submit to the Canons, but laid claim to the presidency and liturgy for himself, and some other persons departed with him, leaving the catholic Church—that is a parasynagogue.

Apostolic Canon XXXI:

"If any Presbyter, condemning his own bishop, draw people aside and set up another altar, without finding anything wrong with the Bishop in point of piety and righteousness, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is an office-seeker. For he is a tyrant. Let the rest of clergymen be treated likewise, and all those who abet him. But let the laymen be excommunicated. Let these things be done after one, and a second, and a third request of the Bishop."

Interpretation (of Ss. Nikodemos and Agapios):

"Order sustains the coherence of both heavenly things and earthly things, according to St. Gregory the Theologian. So good order ought to be kept everywhere as helping coherence and preserving the established system, and especially among ecclesiastics, who need to know their own standards, and to avoid exceeding the limits and bounds of their own class. But as for Presbyters, and Deacons, and all clergymen they ought to submit to their own Bishop; the Bishops, in turn, to their own Metropolitan; the Metropolitans, to their own Patriarch. On this account the present Apostolical Canon ordains as follows: Any presbyter that scorns his own bishop, and without knowing that the latter is manifestly at fault either in point of piety or in point of righteousness—that is to say, without knowing him to be manifestly either heretical or unjust—proceeds to gather the Christians into a distinct group and to build another church, and should hold services seperately, without the permission and approval of his bishop in so doing, on the ground of his being an office-seeker he is to be deposed; since like a tyrant with violence and tyranny he is trying to wrest away the authority which belongs to his bishop. But also any other clergymen that agree with him in such apostasy must be deposed from office too just as he must; but as for those who are laymen, let them be excommunicated. These things, however, are to be done after the bishop three times gently and blandly urges those who have seperated from him to forgo such a movement, and they obstinately refuse to do so. As for those, however, who seperate from their bishop before a synodical investigation because he himself is preaching some misbelief and heresy publicly, not only are not subject to the above penances, but have a right to claim the honor due to Orthodox Christians according to c. XV of the 1st & 2nd.

Canon XV of the 1st & 2nd:

"The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter's name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him, creates a schism, the holy Synod has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions."

Comments on the First-Second Synod found in the Life of St. Photios the Great by the eminent Serbian scholar and Saint, Hieromonk Justin (Popovich) of Chelije (From Saint Photios, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, trans. by Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Studion Publishers, 1983):

Maintaining his meekness, his love for order, and the canons of the Church, St. Photios called a second Council to convene in the Church of the Holy Apostles in the spring of 861* with the approval of Emperor Michael. This assembly later came to be known as the First-Second Council. Many bishops, including the representatives of Pope Nicholas, were in attendance. All confirmed the determinations of the holy Seventh Ecumenical Council, once more condemning the iconoclast heresy, and accepted Photios as the lawful and canonical patriarch. At this Council, seventeen holy canons were promulgated with the purpose of bringing disobedient monks and bishops into harmony with ecclesiastical order and tradition. The disobedient monks were expressly forbidden to desert their lawful bishop under the excuse of the bishop's supposed sinfulness, for such brings disorder and schism to the Church. The holy Council added that only by a conciliar decision could the clergy reject a bishop whom they thought to be sinful. This rule was adopted in direct response to those unreasonably strict monks who had separated themselves from their new Patriarch and his bishops. The holy Council, however, did distinguish between unreasonable rebellion and laudable resistance for the defense of the faith, which it encouraged. In regard to this matter it decreed that should a bishop publicly confess some heresy already condemned by the Holy Fathers and previous councils, one who ceases to commemorate such a bishop even before conciliar condemnation not only is not to be censured, but should be praised as condemning a false bishop. In so doing, moreover, he is not dividing the Church, but struggling for the unity of the Faith (Canon Fifteen).

  • The footnote reads: "This Council together with that of 869 are considered the First-Second Council, whose canons are accepted by the Orthodox Church."

On Obedience to the Canons

Canon I of the Second Ecumenical Synod:

"Let not the Symbol of Faith be set aside…but let it remain unchanged: and let every heresy be given over to anathema…"

Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Synod:

"Let no one be permitted to bring forward, or write or compose a different faith besides that defined by the holy Fathers who assembled with the Holy Spirit in the city of Nicaea. And whoever dares to compose a different faith, or present, or offer [one] to those wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth…let such, if they be bishops or belong to the clergy, be alien-bishops from the episcopate, and clerics from the clergy—and if they be laymen, let them be given over to anathema."

Canon I of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod:

"We have acknowledged it as just to keep the canons of the holy Fathers set forth at each synod till now."

Excerpt from Divine Prayers and Services of the Catholic Orthodox Church of Christ, compiled and arranged by the Late Reverend Seraphim Nassar (Englewood, NJ: Antiochian Archdiocese of N. America, 1979), p. 1031.:

Now since the Church is one, and that oneness consists primarily and universally of perfect agreement in Orthodox doctrines, it necessarily follows that all those who do not conform to those Orthodox doctrines, whether by addition or omission, or by any innovation of their own, thus changing the truth, are outside this one Holy Church, as one may also ascertain from a review of the sixth and seventh canons of the Second Ecumenical Council, and the first canon of St. Basil the Great.

Canon I of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, in Trullo:

"…we decree that the faith handed down to us by the eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, the divinely chosen Apostles, and, further, by the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers…who assembled in Nicaea, be preserved inviolate from innovations and changes… Likewise, we also maintain the confession of faith proclaimed by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers, who assembled in this reigning city under the great Theodosius, our emperor…Likewise, we also seal…the teaching set forth by the two hundred Godbearing Fathers, who assembled the first time in the city of Ephesus under Theodosius, our emperor, the son of Arcadius…

"Likewise, we also confirm in Orthodox manner the confession of faith inscribed by the six hundred and thirty divinelychosen Fathers in the provincial city of Chalcedon under Marcian, our emperor… And further, we also recognize as uttered by the Holy Spirit the pious utterances of the one hundred and sixtyfive Godbearing Fathers, who assembled in this reigning city under Justinian, our emperor of blessed memory, and we teach them to our posterity… And we bind ourselves anew to preserve inviolably…the confession of faith of the Sixth Synod that came together recently under our emperor, Constantine of blessed memory, in this reigning city... Speaking briefly, we enact that the faith of all of the men who have been glorified in the Church of God...be kept steadfastly, and that it abide until the end of the age unshaken, together with their divinely handed down writings and dogmas... If anyone at all does not maintain and accept the aforementioned dogmas of piety, and does not think and preach so, but attempts to go against them: let him be anathema, according to the decree previously enacted by the aforementioned holy and blessed Fathers, and let him be excluded and expelled from the Christian estate as an alien."

Canon I of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod:

"For those who have received the priestly dignity, the inscribed canons and enactments serve as testimonies and directions, which we, gladly receiving, sing together with the divinely inspired David unto the Lord, saying: In the way of Thy testimonies have I found delight, as much as in all riches (Psalm 118:14). Likewise, Thou hast ordained as Thy testimonies... righteousness for ever; give me understanding and I shall live (Psalm 118:138, 144). And if the prophetic voice commands us to preserve the testimonies of God forever, and to live in them, then it is manifest that they abide indestructible and unshakeable. For Moses the Godseer also speaks thus: It is not fitting to add to them, nor is it fitting to take away from them (Deuteronomy 12:32). And the divine Apostle Peter, boasting in them, cries: which things the angels desire to look into (I Peter 1:12). Likewise the Apostle Paul also says: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed [literally, let him be anathema] (Galatians 1:8). Inasmuch as this is true, and attested unto us, rejoicing over this, as one that has found great spoil, we receive the divine canons with delight, and we maintain wholly and unshakably the enactment of these canons set forth by the allpraised Apostles, the holy trumpets of the Spirit, and by the six holy Ecumenical Synods, and those assembled locally to issue such commandments, and by our holy Fathers. For they all, being enlightened by one and the same Spirit, ordained what is beneficial. And whomever they give over to anathema, those we also anathematize; and whomever to expulsion, those we also expel, and whomever to excommunication, those we also excommunicate; and whomever they subject to penances, those we likewise subject."

Eighth Proceeding of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod:

Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio [1960], vol. 3, p. 416). Quoted by Dr. Constantine Cavarnos in Orthodox Tradition and Modernism, p. 37.

"If anyone breaks any ecclesiastical tradition, written or unwritten, let him be anathema"

From the Synodicon of the Holy Spirit:

Note: This is subtitled, "A confession and proclamation of the Orthodox piety of the Christians, in which all the impieties of the heretics are overthrown and the definitions of the Catholic Church of Christ are sustained. Through which the enemies of the Holy Spirit are severed from the Church of Christ." This Synodicon (a decision, statement, or tome either originating from a synod possessing conciliar authority) is attributed to Patriarch Germanos the New (1222-1240).

"To those who scorn the venerable and holy ecumenical Synods, and who despise even more their dogmatic and canonical traditions; and to those who say that all things were not perfectly defined and delivered by the synods, but that they left the greater part mysterious, unclear, and untaught, ANATHEMA."

"To those who hold in contempt the sacred and divine canons of our blessed fathers, which, by sustaining the holy Church of God and adorning the whole Christian Church, guide to divine reverence, ANATHEMA."

"To all things innovated and enacted contrary to the Church tradition, teaching, and institution of the holy and ever-memorable fathers, or to anything henceforth so enacted, ANATHEMA."

The Example of St. Maximus the Confessor

From The Life of Our Holy Father St. Maximus the Confessor:

The life of Saint Maximus is also instructive for us. Saint Maximus, though only a simple monk, resisted and cut off communion with every patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop and bishop in the East because of their having been infected with the heresy of Monothelitism. During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,

"To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!"

To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession. However, I wish to know the contents of your confession, on the basis of which all churches, as you say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to the truth, then neither will I be separated from it."

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox. Some time later, at his last interrogation by the Byzantine authorities, the following dialogue took place:

The Saint said, "They [the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and all the other heretical bishops of the East] have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local synod which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?"

"Then you alone will be saved, and all others will perish?" they objected.

To this the Saint replied, "When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Children did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with the doings of others, but took care only for themselves, lest they should fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, when Daniel was cast into the lion's den, he did not condemn any of those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not wish to pray to God, but he kept in mind his own duty, and desired rather to die than to sin against his conscience by transgressing the Law of God. God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I alone am being saved! However, I shall sooner agree to die than to apostatize in any way from the true Faith and thereby suffer torments of conscience."

"But what will you do," inquired the envoys, "when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord's day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch. "

The Saint replied, "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching."

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy. When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome, one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops. During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong. (pp. 60-62)

Other quotes from The Life:

Those who first defended and dissmeninated the heresy of the Monothelites were Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria (630-643), and Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople (610-638), and even the Emperor Heraclius himself, who was drawn into this heresy by them. Summoning local synods—Cyrus in Alexandria and Sergius in Constantinople—they confirmed this heresy, distributed their decrees everywhere, and corrupted the entire East. Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, alone opposed this heresy and did not accept the false teaching. Saint Maximus, seeing that the heresy had penetrated even into the royal palace and had corrupted the Emperor himself, began to fear lest he also should be corrupted, following the example of the many... He set out for Rome, preferring to live with Orthodox men who firmly preserved the Faith. (p. 2, 4, emphases mine).

[At the urging of Saint Maximus the] Pope convened his bishops, one hundred and five in number, with Abba Maximus in their midst. This was the Lateran Council (A.D. 649): it reviewed the errors of Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, and also the Emperor's heretical confession. The false teachings were anathematized, and the Pope wrote to the faithful in all places, confirming them in their Orthodoxy, explaining the errors of the heretics and warning them in every way to be on their guard against them. (p. 7)

Then Theodosius began to speak, "The Emperor and the Patriarch wish first of all to find out from you why you withdraw yourself from communion with the Throne of Constantinople."

Saint Maximus replied, "You know the innovations which were introduced twenty-one years ago in Alexandria, when Cyrus, the former Patriarch of that city, made public the ‘Nine Chapters’ which had been approved and confirmed by the Throne of Constantinople. There have also been other alterations and additions—the Ekthesis and the Typos—distorting the definitions of the Synods. These innovations were made by the foremost representatives of the Church of Byzantium, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, and they are known to all the churches. This is the reason why I, your servant, will not enter into communion with the Church of Constantinople. Let these offenses, introduced by the aforementioned men into the Church, be removed; let those who have introduced them be deposed; and then the path to salvation will be cleared of all barriers, and you will walk on the smooth path of the Gospel, cleansed of all heresy! When I see the Church of Constantinople as she was formerly, then I will enter into communion with her without any exhortation on the part of men. But while there are heretical temptations in her, and while heretics are her bishops, no word or deed will convince me ever to enter into communion with her." (19-20, emphases mine)

To this Abba Maximus replied, "To keep silence about a word means to deny it, as the Holy Spirit says through the Prophet, 'There are no tongues nor words in which their voices are not heard' (Ps. 18:3). Therefore, if some word is not said, then it is not a word at all4."

Then Troilus said, "Have whatever faith you please in your heart; nobody forbids you."

Saint Maximus objected: "But complete salvation depends not on the faith of the heart alone, but also upon confessing it, for the Lord said, 'Whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in Heaven' (Matt. 10:33). Also, the divine Apostle teaches: 'For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation' (Rom. 10:10). If, then, God and the divine Prophets and Apostles command that they mystery of faith be confessed in words and with the tongue, and this mystery of faith brings salvation to the whole world, then people must not be forced to keep silence with regard to confession, lest the salvation of people be hindered." (p. 29)

The Example of St. Mark of Ephesus

He addressed the faithful on the day of his repose. This is an excerpt:

Concerning the Patriarch I shall say this, lest it should perhaps occur to him to show me a certain respect at the burial of this my humble body, or to send to my grave any of his hierarchs or clergy or in general any of those in communion with him in order to take part in prayer or to join the priests invited to it from amongst us, thinking that at some time, or perhaps secretly, I had allowed communion with him. And lest my silence give occasion to those who do not know my views well and fully to suspect some kind of conciliation, I hereby state and testify before the many worthy men here present that I do not desire, in any manner and absolutely, and do not accept communion with him or with those who are with him, not in this life nor after my death, just as (I accept) neither the Union nor Latin dogmas, which he and his adherents have accepted, and for the enforcement of which he has occupied this presiding place, with the aim of overturning the true dogmas of the Church. I am absolutely convinced that the farther I stand from him and those like him, the nearer I am to God and all the saints, and to the degree that I separate myself from them am in union with the Truth and with the Holy Fathers, the Theologians of the Church; and I am likewise convinced that those who count themselves with them stand far away from the Truth and from the blessed Teachers of the Church. And for this reason I say: just as in the course of my whole life I was separated from them, so at the time of my departure, yea and after my death, I turn away from intercourse and communion with them and vow and command that none (of them) shall approach either my burial or my grave, and likewise anyone else from our side, with the aim of attempting to join and concelebrate in our Divine services; for this would be to mix what cannot be mixed. But it befits them to be absolutely separated from us until such time as God shall grant correction and peace to His Church. [as quoted in The Orthodox Word, June-July, 1967, pp. 103ff.]

Originally posted by Anchon

There is no more a need to have an Ecumenical Council to condemn the World Orthodox than there was a need to condemn Arians after the First Ecumenical Council with another Ecumenical Council. Once the Universal Church has condemned an action, such as prayer with heretics, then there is no need to hold another council to condemn them. After that there is only the need for synodal spiritual trials for those who are canonically accused of violating the canons.
This is often what the World Orthodox point to when they defend their churches if not their hierarchs-- they claim that the sins of ecumenism are personal sins of the hierarchs and do not condemn the whole church. However, by their synods not condemning the actions of their memebers who engage in these actions and also not suspending, defrocking, and excommunicating via spiritual trials those who do these things and, in fact, supporting such actions by vote of the synod, these actions clearly show that the entirity World Orthodox people have placed themselves against the True Church of Christ and are thus graceless schismatics gleefully joining themselves to heretics and therefore guilty of the same. IT IS THAT SIMPLE!

Fr. Mark Templet
ROAC

Ephrem
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue 23 February 2010 6:38 pm
Jurisdiction: FROC/ROAC
Location: Pensacola, FL

Re: How does one counter World Orthodoxy's beliefs on Ecumen

Post by Ephrem »

Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!

The ROCOR's Anathema Against Ecumenism (1983)

Ecumenism is referred to as the "pan-heresy". This is because ecumenism teaches us to embrace all of the heresies; it assembles all the heresies together and puts them next to the true faith, as if they were equal. The Church has already condemned the various heresies (Monophysitism, Arianism, the Filioque, etc.), and has no need of condemning them again. When they were condemned, the Church forbade its members from mingling spiritually with the heretics. But, of course, that is precisely what ecumenism is all about. So really, ecumenism violates every anathema the Church has ever decreed, because it embraces all the different heresies.

Ephrem Cummings, Subdeacon
ROAC

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: How does one counter World Orthodoxy's beliefs on Ecumen

Post by Maria »

Ephrem wrote:

Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!

The ROCOR's Anathema Against Ecumenism (1983)

Ecumenism is referred to as the "pan-heresy". This is because ecumenism teaches us to embrace all of the heresies; it assembles all the heresies together and puts them next to the true faith, as if they were equal. The Church has already condemned the various heresies (Monophysitism, Arianism, the Filioque, etc.), and has no need of condemning them again. When they were condemned, the Church forbade its members from mingling spiritually with the heretics. But, of course, that is precisely what ecumenism is all about. So really, ecumenism violates every anathema the Church has ever decreed, because it embraces all the different heresies.

Thanks so very much for these two posts, Father Mark and Ephrem.
Excellent.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
Ivanov
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012 5:09 pm

Re: How does one counter World Orthodoxy's beliefs on Ecumen

Post by Ivanov »

I am new to this Forum and wanted at the outset to say thank you for the time, effort and expense that you put into this Forum. I am embracing the Orthodox Faith and entering through the catechumenate into The Ancient and Orthodox Church, having left and renounced 20+ years in Roman Catholicism (American version). Previous to that I was a serious-minded Protestant for 14 years following an earnest conversion. I began 'official' inquiry about 5+ months ago, and was subsequently accepted as a catechuman about 6 weeks ago.
I have requested to enter the Church at the appropriate time through Baptism by triple immersion. I have spoken with 2 priests locally, the one who admitted me into the catechumenate, and another of a different jurisdiction, and both have told me that personally they would baptize me... but that they can't because of the current directives from their Bishops. I am told that Chrismation will supply what is lacking from my previous baptism. They seem unable or unwilling to discuss straightforwardly the issue of triple immersion as a necessary part of the 'form' of the baptismal Mystery... it is not really dealt with. It seems to me that 'economy' is the governing principle rather than the normative instruction of The Church to be baptized if I come to her seeking entry (with rare exceptions as noted by St. Basil in Canon 1 and, I'm confident, by others elsewhere). I am told that St. Innocent Chrismated the Christians he found already baptized when he came to Alaska. So, as you can see, I have more to learn as I am currently, and somewhat agonizingly, left uncertain. My sense, for what it's worth, is that I could no more be born of a woman outside of her womb and have her as my mother than I could be baptized at the hands of heretics and still call The Orthodox Church my 'Mother'. I asked the priest then if my chrismation (confirmation) in the Roman Catholic Church was such that it only needed to be completed... and if so, by what Mystery? I don't recall a response... at least one that resolved the question within me.
Secondly, I have seen the dangerous and potentially fatal (speaking spiritually) effects of Ecumenism, RC-Vatican II style, up-close-and-personal for over 2 decades... i.e. the emptying of convents, monasteries, and pews and the dilution of faith as a result of an abject approbation of the seducing spirit of indifferentism and relativism. Millions confused and running to the ever-embracing protestants. I sense that that same ecumenism, to whatever degree, has slithered its way into my path to Orthodoxy and is responsible for my frustration regarding Baptism. Am I wrong to believe that ANY truly Orthodox response OTHER THAN UNEQUIVOCAL, ABSOLUTE SILENCE AND iNATTENTION to the siren calls of worldly, carnal religionists with their WCC and YMCA mentalities... is very probably perceived as a nod of approval of their Nimrodian-utopian designs? These poor souls apparently don't believe (or have forgotten) the Scripture which says that "unless The Lord builds the house, they labor IN VAIN that build it" or again, where Christ The Lord says" I will build My Church...") thus rejecting the absolute necessity that in order to belong to Her you must "repent and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU" (Acts 2:28)... not gather 'round the campfire and pray the "Our Father" together while holding the hands of a false and shallow deception parading as 'unity' or its clever accomplice, "dialogue". I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever been argued, compromised or dialogued into the Kingdom of God.
I see this so clearly from an historical, experiential perspective that I am dumbfounded that I am affected by it in the Orthodox environs I find myself in currently! But, I must be quick to remind myself that we 'wrestle not against flesh and blood" and that the "mystery of iniquity" is just that... a mystery.
The other challenge I am faced with (and I am writing all of this asking for your help and compassion as Orthodox Christians) is the lack of unity and (perhaps?) sectarian mindset among the various 'traditionalist' groups that have sprung up in reaction to the imposition of the Gregorian Calendar in the 20's and the ensuing, ubiquitous ecumenism that especially gained impetus in the 60's. I fled to the 'traditionalists' among the Papists as well... those who resisted (implicitly rejected) Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Popes. I saw the very same tendencies toward infighting and denunciations and breaking communion among the multiplying 'traditionalist' groups ad nauseum. Most distressing was the lack of the love... (that love which St. John Evangelist and Theologian said was mandatory.).. among these poor souls who must have labored each day with "creeping sanctimony".

With all that said, and assuming your kindness and patience with a catechuman, I am simply asking for helpful, honest and charitable input and direction. Must I now leave 'World Orthodoxy' (unknown to me as such until recently) and head for the Traditional Orthodox Church (and which one...and why?), just as I had to leave "World Vatican II Romanism" and seek refuge among their 'traditionalists?
I am sincerely glad I found this Forum and hope not only to 'take' but also to 'give', as I grow in The Faith, to those who prayerfully and empathetically 'give' here on this Forum.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have Mercy on us.

Ivanov

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: How does one counter World Orthodoxy's beliefs on Ecumen

Post by Maria »

Dear Ivanov,

As a former Roman Catholic who has found a home in GOC-HOTCA, I encourage you to put aside the ecumenist leanings of World Orthodoxy and come home to True Orthodoxy.

I sent you a PM.

In Christ,
Maria

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Ephrem
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue 23 February 2010 6:38 pm
Jurisdiction: FROC/ROAC
Location: Pensacola, FL

Re: How does one counter World Orthodoxy's beliefs on Ecumen

Post by Ephrem »

I was also a World Orthodox catechumen before I found the True Orthodox Church. They would not baptize me, either! This is actually quite common. The World Orthodox do not want to offend anybody. It hinders their ecumenical relations when they baptize converts, because it implies that they do not consider other confessions as having valid baptisms. So, in this sense they are very compromised. That is a huge difference between the World Orthodox and the True Orthodox. They are compromised and have no spiritual freedom. They do not have the freedom to act according to their conscience because they have made a pact with the powers of this world. We have made no such pact, and so we are spiritually free, even though we seem less powerful.

Yes, of course you should leave the World Orthodox. If you want to be Orthodox you don't have a choice. They have made their position clear, that they despise the teachings of the Fathers. This can be clearly seen by anyone who bothers to look with an objective mind. Ecumenism is absolutely incompatible with Orthodox Christianity, and the World Orthodox have devoted themselves to ecumenism.

Don't be distressed that there seems to be a lack of unity among the traditionalists. You have to remember that not a hundred years ago all the Patriarchates were still Orthodox. In all the traditionally Orthodox countries there was no question about who were the real Orthodox. Suddenly, though, there was a great apostasy, and many, many false teachers and ambitious men tried to lead people astray. In many cases, the governments of the world actively assisted them in this apostasy. In the Soviet Union, the government even created a fake Orthodox Church (the Moscow Patriarchate) in order to undermine the True Orthodox Church! So, it is not unusual that there is a lot of confusion and distrust.

That being said, there are some legitimate divisions among the so-called traditionalists. For instance, the True Orthodox do not have any communion with the so-called Cyprianites (also known as the Synod in Resistance, which is in communion with ROCOR under Metropolitan Aganfangel). This is because they are also ecumenists, just in a milder form. They say that the ecumenists are still Orthodox even though ecumenism is heresy. Obviously, this is no different than the ecumenists saying that Roman Catholics are still Christians even though they are heretics.

I know that it seems very unstable from the outside. You won't find peace anywhere else, though. Only in the true Church, where Christ is, will you find it.

Ephrem Cummings, Subdeacon
ROAC

Post Reply