The Essential Unity of Ecumenism, Phyletism and Zealotism & The Demonic Method of Adulteration

Protopresbyter Peter Heers

Two recent lectures by Fr. Peter Heers have been combined into one in an essential presentation concerning how the faithful discern the spirit of the Antichrist in our contemporary environment. A pdf is available for your convenience and it is the subject of the livestream which is also found below.

The_Essential_Unity_of_Ecumenism,_Phyletism_and_Zealotism_&_The.pdf

Download PDF • 1.01MB

See the livestream below for a video examination of this presentation::

Discerning the Spirit of Antichrist: The Orthodox Way Amid Ecumenism, Phyletism and Zealotism

TOPICS EXAMINED IN THE VIDEO:

I. The Essential Unity of Ecumenism, Phyletism and Zealotism

A. Ecumenism and Secularism

B. Phyletism and Secularism

     C. Ecumenism and Phyletism: Two Sides of the Same Coin of Secularism

     D. Ecumenism and Zealotism: United in “Another Way”

II. The Demonic Method of Adulteration of the Faith

     A. The First Stage: Co-Existence

     B. The Second Stage: Dialogue

     C. The Third Stage: Infiltration

     D. The Fourth Stage: Subversion

Conclusion.

Discerning the Spirit of Antichrist: The Orthodox Way Amid Ecumenism, Phyletism and Zealotism

The Essential Unity of Ecumenism, Phyletism and Zealotism & The Demonic Method of Adulteration

As Fr. Seraphim Rose once wrote, the difference between Orthodoxy and heterodoxy is most apparent in that the Orthodox Church (in Her Saints) is able to discern the spirits. Moreover, discernment of the methods of the fallen spirits is a requirement in the formation of Christology and Ecclesiology.[1] As the Evangelist John writes, “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil”[2] (1 John 3:8).

Fr. Seraphim Rose giving a lecture at the New Valaam Academy, Platina, 1980.

Insomuch, therefore, as one is purified from the passions and illumined by the Spirit of God, so much is his spiritual vision open and discernment acquired. This gift of discernment, the greatest of the virtues, presupposes initiation into the death, resurrection and life in Christ which is lived within His Body, the Church. That so few Orthodox Christians possess any measure of this gift is a testament to the inroads of the spirit of anti-Christ, which, by another name, is secularism. The end of the worldly spirit is the denial of the Theanthropic nature of the Christ and His Body, “the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth”[3] before the ascent of the man of iniquity, the Antichrist. This temptation is coming upon the world primarily through the spread of the heresy of ecumenism.

Ecumenism and Secularism

Ecumenism as an ecclesiological heresy and denial of the Truth of the Body of Christ, and as a methodological distortion of The Way of Christ, has been born and bred within a secularized “Christianity.” As we said, secularism is first and foremost the spirit of antichrist, which is “already in the world,” namely, “every spirit which confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.”[4] This refers not only to that “Christianity” which expressly denies the divinity of our Lord, the various contemporary “Arianisms,” but every spirit which denies that the Jesus Christ is come[5] - that is, has come and remains—in the flesh, in His Body, the One Church.

Ecumenism as a unification movement ironically seeks to overcome the scandal of division by denying the scandal of the particular—the Incarnation. Instead of crucifying their intellect on the cross of this scandal—that Christ entered and continues within history in a particular time and place, being mysteriologically-incarnationally “here” and not “there”—the uninitiated and rationalist followers of Jesus seek a Theanthropic Body in their image: “divided in time,” in search of a fullness which they imply exists only on the heavenly plane.[6] They see the Church as divided on the historical plane, as limited by the heavy hand of history. They see as Church identifiers not primarily the exclusive marks of oneness, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity taken together, but rather the externals which “already unite,” such as the water of baptism (whether by sprinkling, pouring or immersion[7]), the rites of the Liturgy, the belief in Christ’s divinity or the common text of Holy Scripture.[8] It matters little that such externals, and indeed much more, were possessed by ancient heretics such as the Monophysites or Iconoclasts and were never seen as sufficient to produce any sort of “partial communion” or “already existing unity.”[9] Neither does it seem to faze them that “the demons believe and tremble”[10] and thus “unity in the belief in Christ’s divinity” would necessarily include the demons.

This new ecclesiology, this new vision of the Church, or, rather, of Christ Himself as Head and Body, might be characterized as ecclesiological Nestorianism, in which the Church is divided into two separate beings: on the one hand the Church in heaven, outside of time, alone true and whole, and on the other hand, the Church, or rather “churches,” on earth, in time, deficient and relative, lost in history’s shadows, seeking to draw near to one another and to that transcendent perfection, as much as is possible in the weakness of the impermanent human will.[11]

They apparently don’t realize, however, that in denying the manifest Oneness of Christ in a particular time and place on earth, in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, they are also denying He is come in the flesh. They seek to forge a Church from disparate elements or recognize an already existing but “divided” Church in place of the One Church, a body in place of the God-man’s Body which is come, and in this reveal they are of the spirit of antichrist (lit. that which is put in place of Christ). 

Phyletism and Secularism

Strangely, what is often seen as opposed to ecumenism, or even the heresy ecumenism is meant to correct, Phyletism, is a kindred spirit with ecumenism and born and bred within the same spiritual milieu: secularism. 

As with the heresy of ecumenism, the phyletist sees the Church as limited by and within history, as identified not firstly or as much by the exclusive marks of oneness, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity as by one’s ethnic identity and its past. The aim of the Church here is not the salvation of all men from sin and death but the salvation of their ethnic identity and nation. With phyletism, as with ecumenism, the hierarchy is lost, discernment misplaced or non-existent, as to what is first and what follows in terms of our identity, with the secondary and tertiary taking the lead.

Phyletism was the necessary precursor to ecumenism, the pendulum swung to the right so that momentum could be built up for the great swing to the left and the ensuing apostasy. It was necessary also that a straw man be created in place of Patristic Orthodox ecclesiology so that legitimate opposition to the new ecclesiology could be easily marginalized and lumped together with the various “isms” on the right. Ecumenism is supposed to come as a corrective to phyletism, but paradoxically it can be, and often is, reconciled “peacefully” with phyletism.

For example, when one views his church as essentially identified with his tribe he readily accepts that his neighbor’s tribe must also have a national church (it matters little whether it is orthodox or heterodox). Only in this context can one make sense of such phenomena in the West as the immigrant who sees no problem with his own children going to the local heterodox community since they have “become Americans” and go to the “American church.” Only when one understands that the phyletists identify the Theanthropic Body of Christ with their language and their culture can you begin to grasp why they prefer to lose their very own children and their parish die with them than change one iota of these transitory aspects (Matt. 24:35).

Ecumenism and Phyletism: Two Sides of the Same Coin of Secularism

Far from being enemies or correctives of each other, ecumenism and phyletism are rather two sides of the same coin of secularism. Both deny the catholicity of the One Church and both seek to recognize in its place a “divided” Church, whether it be along ethnic lines or denominational. Both reduce the Church to the sociological and historical level, placing it at the service of the fallen world as opposed to the service of man’s salvation from, and the overcoming of, the world, according to the words of the Lord: “[B]e of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (Jn. 16:33).

The greatest proof, however, that ecumenism and phyletism are possessed of the “spirit of antichrist” lies in their fruits. They work against the salvation of the world because they make the Church into the world, “thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Mat. 5:13). On the one hand, whether through tribalism or relativism, they deny the divine-humanity of the One Church, Her otherworldliness, Her power of the Cross (asceticism) which, if She “be lifted up” by it, draws all men toward Christ (Jn. 12:32). On the other hand, lacking the “magnet” of holiness and the theanthropic virtues, these two children of secularism deny to the heterodox the salvific “pricking,” what the Holy Elder Paisios of Mt. Athos called the “good uneasiness.” Speaking much of love, each in their own way (for nation or world), both are revealed as bereft of love for his neighbor’s salvation, for both leave him in his delusion and error, the one by erecting an ethnic roadblock, the other denying him the narrow path.

Saint Paisios of Mount Athos

Ecumenism and Zealotism: United in “Another Way”

Finally, there is another path trod in reaction to ecumenism which also eschews phyletism and yet does not exhibit the discernment necessary to cooperate fully with the destruction of the works of the devil: zealotism. Whereas ecumenism and phyletism preach “another Truth” vis-a-vis the identity of the Body of Christ, zealotism unites with them in walking according to “another Way” vis-a-vis the ethos and unity of the Body.

Zealotism is possessed of a “zeal not according to knowledge” of the Way in which the discerning stand opposed to the Pythonic spirits animating syncretistic ecumenism. The zealous “not according to knowledge” on the right and left seek to do good but, as the Patristic axiom has it, the good is not good if not done in a good way [τὸ καλὸν οὐκ ἐστι καλὸν ἐὰν μὴ καλῶς γένηται]. By holding up as the de facto highest criterion of holiness the pre-synodical separation from not only those “preaching heresy bare-headed” but also from all who, though confessing Orthodoxy, have not broken communion with said preachers, those on the right join the ecumenists in undermining “the unity of the Faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit” they seek to build up.

The fruits confirm this judgement: today wolves more easily devour the sheep and preachers of heresy more easily and widely preach, and are made more, not less, bold in their poisonous work. Yet, even more explicit confirmation is found in the zealots’ own loss of the “discernment of spirits” and recognition of the presence of the Holy Spirit. The holiness of the holiest of our days is denied, the innumerable witnesses of heaven and earth are set aside—and this in deference to the one criterion of holiness which—in their eyes—trumps all others: one must flee, must break, must separate, even if before a synodical decision, to begin to be God’s abode. The rejection of the Saints confirms that the loss of the Way leads inexorably to the loss of the discernment of the Truth and Presence of Life. The “temptation on the right” proves to be every bit as formidable and corrosive as that on the left.

If we look at the way one walks, we can learn a great deal of the truth that is, or is not, within him. It is remarkable to observe that, although bitterly opposed over the identity and boundaries of the Lord’s Body, the two extremes of ecumenism and zealotism nonetheless share a similar ethos. It is often characterized, paradoxically, by, on the one hand, great self-confidence and trust in one’s ecclesiastical correctness and, on the other hand, great personal insecurity in search of an external approbation and confirmation. Fr. Seraphim Rose’s description of those succumbing to the “temptation on the right” as ill with the “super-correct” disease is also applicable to the “experts” on the ecumenist “left.”

Trusting excessively in the correctness of their rational assessments of the problems of the Church and insufficiently in patient trust of the Master’s ultimate providential care, they are both led into a renovationism of received Holy Tradition, albeit from very different angles. The academic theologians of Athens or Paris unite with their counterparts on the right in an equally zealous and overly-confident trust in the reach and utility of their rational analyses and prescriptions. By setting themselves up as authorities superior to the Saints of our day, renovationists on the left and on the right are tragically shown bereft of the distinguishing characteristic of Orthodoxy: to be followers—in the Way and the Truth—of the Holy Fathers.

The Orthodox response to these distortions is to stand and engage in authentic Orthodox mission and thus it is imperative that we examine the process by which the worldly spirit subverts the believer.

The Demonic Method of co-existence, dialogue, infiltration, and subversion at work in ecumenism today

Resting on the experience of the Saints, and especially on the explication of the ever-memorable Elder Athanasius Mitilianaios, allow me to refer to and make an attempt to unfold for you the demonic method of adulteration. 

Elder Athanasius Mitilinaios delivering one of his over 4,000 homilies.

When the devil saw that his power was literally devastated by the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, he began to attack the Church with another, new method, with the method of adulteration. He does not claim that Christ is no one of significance. He comes, rather, to speak in the tongue of adulteration and to say, “Yes, certainly, I accept Jesus Christ, but not as the God-man, as Theanthropos. He may indeed be a remarkable man, but he is nevertheless a man”. This is what western man has arrived at today. That is, Arianism dominates that western world today. Jesus is a remarkable man but He is not God.

For those who the unclean spirit cannot bring to outright denial of Christ’s divinity, he allures them with unbelief on the ecclesial plane, which in the final analysis achieves the same end. He has introduced a variety of theories, all of which, however, deny the Theanthropic Nature of the Body of Christ, the One Church. This denial may attack any of the four marks of the Church—that it is One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic. One may hear, for example: “The Orthodox Church is significant and we value your icons, history and theology, but you are not the only Church of Christ”. Or, “the Orthodox Church is, indeed, the Body of Christ, but nevertheless not exclusively so, not absolutely so, since other Christian denominations are also ‘churches,’ even if incomplete.” The lamentable 2016 “council” in Crete succeeded in bringing even some Orthodox to admit as much.

Salvation is wrought in the Church, and if there is a denial of the divine-humanity of the Body of Christ there is a denial of the divine-humanity of the God-man. For if the Church is not theanthropic, not the continuation of the Incarnation, then it differs little from the various confessions, associations, or organizations, which are purely human creations. If the Orthodox Church identifies Herself with these then we have essentially ecclesiological Arianism and the salvific missionary work of the Church is in vain. The devil seeks in every way to sway the Church from Her Theanthropic identity and it matters not in what particular way or heresy he achieves this.

In his assault on the Church, the enemy employs a methodology that has not changed since his subversion of the first-formed, Adam and Eve. He passes through four stages on his way toward achieving the adulteration of the Orthodox Faith and the neutralizing of the Church’s salvific mission: co-existence, dialogue, infiltration or penetration and finally subversion.

The First Stage: Co-Existence

The first stage is co-existence. He comes in the guise of another form, as he once did in the garden as a serpent,[12] in order first of all to draw near to us, near to the Orthodox, near to the faithful. This co-existence is not an end in itself, but a necessary pre-requisite for proceeding to the next stage, which is dialogue. It is for this reason that in the Old Testament God is so strict with the people of God, that they not mingle with idolaters. He must be strict with His people on this point, for co-existence is the beginning of the fall. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers,” says the Apostle Paul, but “come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.”

However, today we do not live before the Incarnation, in the period of the pedagogy of the law. We cannot come out of the society of the world existentially.[13] We are able, however, to depart from it spiritually, in the manner of our living, in our way and ethos. The faithful separate themselves from the world in the way in which they live. This does not mean, however, that the boundaries are invisible or blurry. The Fathers of the Church laid down the boundaries of the Church in the holy canons and decisions of the Councils. Indeed, there are many canons of the Church which regulate our behavior in spiritual matters with regard to the heterodox, most notably those which forbid common prayer.

We must respect these boundaries; for if we abolish or disregard the canons, if we abolish or blur the boundaries, we will undoubtedly enter into temptation. And the temptation is to conform to this world, to become secularized not only in faith but also in methodology and ethos. Today, there not a few who confess orthodoxy in terms of dogma but are heterodox in terms of methodology and ethos. Although they confess orthodoxy the result is nevertheless adulteration and spiritual shipwreck, for Dogma and Ethos are inseparable. As we have said, this sad reality can be observed on the left and on the right, among the fundamentalists of ecumenism and undiscerning zealots against ecumenism.

The Apostle Paul wrote: “Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Respecting the boundaries, such as with regard to common prayer with the heterodox or even common cause (which usually implies a common identity) is necessary in order not to enter into the temptation of co-existence with the heterodox in regard to our manner of living and ethos. For, as our Lord said, “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”

A 14th century fresco image from the Vysokie Dechani Monastery in Serbia depicting the Apostle before the High Priest, the Vision of Paul—the appearance of Jesus to him on the road to Damascus—and Paul blinded by the vision, being led into the city of Damascus.

The Second Stage: Dialogue

The enemy, of course, does not stop there, at co-existence. His aim is to bring us to the second stage, to dialogue. And here he has much experience and is stronger than us. For this reason, humility alone saves him that will not fall into this snare. Christians are naïve and not cunning, and our weakness is precisely here, because we desire and prefer to believe that the other is sincere. We are ignorant of, or choose to ignore, the spiritual state of the uninitiated and the “rights” of the enemy over them. It is particularly dangerous when we have much pride and little progress in the spiritual life.

The heterodox and worldly mollify us and tell us what we like to hear. They praise us for our history, our icons, our “spirituality,” and the rest. Pride and arrogance comes to us because we believe we are something and doing something special, and then grace does not protect us from a fall. Flattery does not mean, however, that there is any desire on behalf of the heterodox to submit with the Church to Christ.[14] Most desire to acquire what we have, not become what we are. This is especially true of most followers of the Pope and is apparent in the Vatican’s “foreign policy.”

Now, to be sure, within the ecclesial sphere not all dialogue is cursed. There are two kinds of dialogue: one that is blessed and lawful, which was done by the saints and apostles, and another kind that is cursed, which serves the aims of the devil.

The first type of dialogue, the blessed kind, is for clarification. The apostles came to Christ many times for clarification. This dialogue is blessed. Someone comes with humility and a good disposition to learn from the Lord. When the heterodox come thus to the Church, we are on a good road. We can expect blessings. We shall have spiritual fruit.

The second type of dialogue, which is conducive to demonic aims, is that which we will characterize as investigative. When the heterodox or atheist comes to the Church for this kind of dialogue, not for clarification but for investigation or debate, then the spirit of cunning is manifest. Investigation or debate in this context indicates pride before Christ and His Church, as if to say: “I’m coming to converse. Let’s talk about it and find another, third way, another truth, not what you Orthodox preach necessarily, but together we shall find the historic truth, the truth of Christ, etc.” One comes not as a seeker of the truth, not as a disciple, but “on equal terms.” Indeed, this very phrase was proposed by the Patriarchate of Constantinople when the theological dialogue with the Vatican was begun fifty years ago: that the Vatican and the Orthodox are dialoguing “on equal terms.”

It is precisely within this context, this mentality, that salvation will remain elusive. There will be no return of the heterodox for the simple reason that the very basis of their meeting with the Church has precluded it! Within this mentality there is no repentance and whatever is done is without cost, without sacrifice on their part. However, without sacrifice, without crucifixion of the old man and his worldly mind, communion with the Resurrected Christ is impossible.

If we are engaging in a dialogue where there is no humble search for truth, no spirit of discipleship, no repentance or return, and no sacrifice or cost, then such dialogue is investigation, not clarification, and it is cunning and from the enemy. It is precisely here that we shall fall, because we are simple and naïve and not accustomed to the ways of the worldly-wise and the heterodox. This type of dialogue does not lead to salvation but to the adulteration of Orthodoxy, to the creation of new schisms and to heresy.

Pope Paul VI meeting with Patriarch Athenagoras I.

The Third Stage: Infiltration

The third stage is infiltration (διείσδυση). After having sufficiently dialogued with the First-formed the enemy succeeded in planting a seed of doubt in the word of their Creator and trust in his sincerity and authority. He penetrated the sacred trust of man in God and infiltrated into their noetic realm, posed to subvert the castle of Orthodoxy from within.

The devil achieves infiltration through endless dialogue with the heterodox, worldly friendships and friendship with the world, co-operation on common cause agendas, ethics and politics, which ignore dogmatic and ecclesiological presuppositions and are aimed at worldly success. We see this very clearly today among Orthodox clergy and theologians throughout the Church, but especially in traditionally non-Orthodox lands. In various parts of the Western world we have arrived at the point where on many levels there is a corruption of the Orthodox phronema (mindset), precisely because there is not only co-existence and dialogue but also infiltration of the heterodox and their phronema into the Orthodox Church.

Examples of this include mixed marriages becoming the norm rather than the exception, common prayer (which is often justified on the basis of the mixed-marriage precedent), corruption of the Orthodox ethos among clergy and laity, including the adoption of missionary methods of the heterodox, the perversion of the role of the bishop from a prophet and apostle to a diplomat and a politician, and even the beginning of public support of deviant sexuality and a heretical anthropology.

Infiltration has been greatly furthered through the acceptance by leading Orthodox ecumenists of the idea that we should focus on what unites us and not what divides us, building on a supposed already existing unity. The approach of leading ecumenists, such as Metropolitan Hilarion Alfayev, which links the Church to the heterodox in common cause on the social and moral plane, follows and is in harmony with the new ecclesiology of Vatican II and in stark contrast to the approach of the Apostle Paul to the heterodox of his day, the Judaizers. Far from Metropolitan Hilarion’s common cause with the Latins and the gifting of the holy things (such as the relics of St. Seraphim of Sarov) to the “dogs,” that is, to the Pope who is not in a position to honor them θεοπροπως (in a Godly manner), the Apostle Paul waged a life-long war against the Judaizers who were preaching an “ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον” (“another gospel,” Gal. 1:6). These were leaders from among his own Jewish Christians and it is quite characteristic that they had not overturned the entire Gospel of Christ but only certain points, such as observing the Jewish observation of the Sabbath and circumcision. This could have been an opportunity for the Apostle to seek, in the spirit of Vatican II, to maintain a “communion in the Gospel” and an “incomplete communion” with his fellow Jews who, in fact, held the “basic faith” of the Church. Not only did the Apostle not do this, he taught that anyone preaching anything different than the Gospel that he had preached brings about the total overturning of the Gospel. If any man (including himself) or any angel from heaven would do this, “ἀνάθεμα ἔστω” (“let him be anathema,” Gal. 1:9).

Focusing on “what unites” and conducting “common cause” with the heterodox achieves little beyond dividing the Orthodox. It also reveals that our own understanding of the Dogma and the Ethos of the Church has been adulterated. Confirmation of this can be found in numerous examples of infiltration of the heterodox phronema, such as - to name just three - the scholastic practice of simply vesting converting Latin clergy, or the adoption of the Aquinan views of the form(s) of baptism and of schismatic and heretical mysteries, or the unprecedented transfer of the etiology of primacy from the realm of oikonomia to theologia, as put forward by Metropolitan John Zizioulas.

In contrast to this approach of our leading ecumenists, the example of the Apostle Paul rather inspires us to stress our differences with heterodox and it is precisely this which is essential for our mission to the alienated and increasing atheist West. To reach them what we need is a clean and decisive break with the heterodox which they have rejected, and not a further merger.

This approach of our leading ecumenists also stands in contradiction of the example of the Fathers of the Œcumenical Councils who withstood the various heresies which had erred on only one or two particular points. That the Church saw the fact of division, and not the degree of distance from dogmatic teaching, as of preeminent importance in Her estimation of heterodox confessions is clear both from the controversy surrounding Baptism in the third century and from the following very characteristic case of the stance of the Holy Patriarch Tarasius at the Seventh Œcumenical Council.

Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, President of the 7th Œcumenical Council

During the first session of the Seventh Œcumenical Council, the assembled fathers argued at length about how to receive the bishops of the iconoclasts. Some wanted to transfer the discussion to the dogmatic plane and posed the question: “Is the heresy that has now been manifested more grievous or less grievous than those that preceded? The holy Patriarch Tarasios, echoing the words of the Apostle James, “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10), replied: “Evil is evil, especially in matters of the Church, as far as dogmas are concerned, it is all the same to err to a small degree or to a great degree, because in one case or the other the law of God is broken.”

Tragically, our leading ecumenists are following not the Holy Fathers but the conciliar texts of Vatican II and the interpretations of them by Latin scholars. What the Fathers call heresy, Vatican II calls “Christian” and “of the church.” For, to “not profess the faith in its entirety” (Lumen Gentium 15) is another name for heresy. Heresy, like Truth, is not a matter of quantity. As it pertains to loss of grace and communion, there are no greater or lesser heresies, serious or trivial diversions from Church teaching. Orthodox faith, worship, and ethics are one whole that cannot be divided.[15] Although a sect may amass more of them over time, each heresy is equally divisive and destructive because each heresy separates those holding it from the Church. The passage of time, the good dispositions of those holding heresy or the amount of “elements” in their possession cannot change the reality and consequences of holding “worthless currency.” As St. John Chrysostom remarks, echoing the entire patristic understanding: “As he who but partially pares away the image on a royal coin renders the whole spurious, so he who swerves ever so little from the pure faith, soon proceeds from this to graver errors, and becomes entirely corrupted.”[16]

Sooner or later, infiltration leads to the fourth stage, subversion.

The Fourth Stage: Subversion

The enemy works incrementally and systematically, usually in the shadows, out of sight or disguised as something good, even virtuous, all in order that man doubt God, His commandments, Church dogma and canons. He will use whatever it takes, even the cover of “love” and “brotherhood” as long as we stretch out our hands and contravene His commandments or set aside His rule of faith. It was only after the First-Formed stretched forth their hands that they realized they had been subverted, separated from Life, cast out of paradise.

What exactly is subversion with respect to ecumenism? Subversion in this case means that it is no longer a matter of the return of the heterodox but that we, the Orthodox ourselves identify with the heterodox, consider them within or a part of the Mystery of the Church, or even commune with them, whether in prayer or the Eucharist.

Unfortunately, this is already happening among not a few clergy, both in North America and Europe. We have first-hand reports that Orthodox priests are communing heterodox, during, for example, mixed marriage ceremonies. Yet, even when there is but a theoretical “recognition” of a “valid” Baptism per se or even the Eucharist, the subversion of the Orthodox Faith is no less real.

When Orthodoxy is identified with heterodoxy, the truth with delusion, the Church with heresy, then we have arrived at the fourth and final stage and there is subversion of the Orthodox Faith and phronema.

We often hear that the ultimate boundary is the “common cup” and before this it may be undiscerning to cease commemoration of the offending clergy. And while this is true, loving resistance to the heretical machinations of the wayward need not be reserved for “that day” of the “common cup.” The “red line” is not only the “consummation” of the Union; it is also the “marriage ceremony” which precedes it—i.e. the recognition/identification of Mysteries. Subversion is accomplished when there is a recognition of the one baptism or other mysteries among the heterodox per se, for it is Christ Who offers and is offered in every Mystery, and therefore this recognition is in fact a confession of “another gospel,” another Christ.

Subversion and Expulsion from Paradise

Conclusion

The path that leads to life is narrow and winding and few are those who will find it. Few are those who have eyes to discern between “the spirits” and the Spirit, between the work of rationalistic ideologies and the sweet fruit of Pentecost. The royal path between the extremes is nonetheless still accessible to all who would take up their cross, crucify their mind, re-orient their spirit, hierarchize their life, and be in but not of the world, thus escaping the sirens on both the left and the right.

If we desire that the missionary work of the Church proceed and flourish, we shall take head to the machinations of the enemy and attend to the avoiding these four stages of demonic methodology, to avoid the snares of the enemy.

Orthodox mission, catechism, and initiation is the answer to the demonic method of adulteration of the Faith. Only if the Orthodox Church continues Her mission to the heterodox in an Orthodox manner, initiating the heterodox into the Mystery, baptizing them into the death and resurrection of Christ, only then is there hope of subversion, not of Orthodoxy (God-forbid) but of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.

Endnotes

[1] See: J. S. Romanides, “The Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 7:1 and 2 (1961–62), 53–77.

[2] 1 John 3:8.

[3] Rev. 3:10.

[4] 1 John 4:3.

[5] 1 John 4:2.

[6] Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople stated in the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem in in 2014: “The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by the “Word in the beginning,” by the one “truly with God,” and the Word “truly God”, according to the evangelist of love, unfortunately, during her engagement on earth, on account of the dominance of human weakness and of impermanence of the will of the human intellect, was divided in time. This brought about various conditions and groups, of which each claimed for itself “authenticity” and “truth.” The Truth, however, is One, Christ, and the One Church founded by Him. See: On the Recent Events in Jerusalem and their Ecclesiological Underpinnings, by a Greek Orthodox Priest: http://jordanville.org/responsetoecumenicalpatriarch.html.

[7] See: Protopresbyter Peter Heers, The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome’s Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church. Uncut Mountain Press, 2015 (43-50).

[8] See Unitatis Redintegratio (The Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council), 3:2.

[9] Ibid, 3.

[10] James 2:19.

[11] See footnote 6 above.

[12] Genesis 3.

[13] “To speak in general terms, we may say that the Christian is to the world what the soul is to the body. As the soul is present in every part of the body, while remaining distinct from it, so Christians are found in all the cities of the world, but cannot be identified with the world. As the visible body contains the invisible soul, so Christians are seen living in the world, but their religious life remains unseen.” (Letter to Diogenes).

[14] Ephesians 5:24

[15] Πρωτ. Βασιλείου Α. Γεωργοπούλου, “Τὸ Μυστήριο τῆς Ἐκκλησίας καὶ τὸ Φαινόμενο τῶν Αἱρέσεων” [The Mystery of the Church and the Phenomenon of the Heresies], Ερώ 8 (Οκτ.–Δεκ. 2011), 77.

[16] PG 61.622: “Καθάπερ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς βασιλικοῖς νομίσμασιν ὁ μικρὸν τοῦ χαρακτῆρος περικόψας, ὅλον τὸ νόμισμα κίβδηλον εἰργάσατο· οὕτω καὶ ὁ τῆς ὑγιοῦς πίστεως καὶ τὸ βραχύτατον ἀνατρέψας, τῷ παντὶ λυμαίνεται, ἐπὶ τὰ χείρονα προϊὼν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς.