1. We maintain, irrevocably and without alteration, everything that the Synods and the Fathers have instituted. We accept everything that they accept and condemn everything that they condemn; and we avoid communication with those who innovate in matters of the Faith.8 We neither add, nor remove, nor alter any teaching. Even from the apostolic era, the God-bearing Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his epistle to Saint Polycarp of Smyrna wrote: “Anyone who says contrary to what has been decreed - even if he is trustworthy, even if he fasts, even if he lives in virginity, even if he performs signs and prophesizes, let him appear to you as a wolf in a sheep’s hide, aspiring to the corruption of the sheep.” Saint John the Chrysostom, in interpreting the Apostle Paul’s words “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:9), observes that the Apostle “did not say if they should proclaim something contrary or if they should overturn everything, but that even if they should preach even the smallest thing that has not been delivered to you, even if they should simply provoke it, let them be anathema.”9 Upon announcing its decisions against the Iconoclasts to the clergy of Constantinople, the 7th Ecumenical Synod wrote: “We have followed the tradition of the Catholic Church, neither loosening [the matters of faith] nor making any superfluous addition, but, having been taught in the apostolic manner, we maintain the traditions we have received, accepting and respecting everything that the Holy Catholic Church has received from the first years, unwritten and written… for the true and straightforward judgment of the Church does not make any allowance for innovations within Her, or for attempts to remove anything. We, therefore, by following the laws of our Fathers, having received Grace by the one Spirit, have duly safeguarded without any innovations and reductions, all the things of the Church.”10

Along with the Holy Fathers and the Synods, we too reject and anathematize all the heresies that appeared during the historical course of the Church. Of the old heresies that have survived to this day, we condemn Arianism (still surviving, in the pseudo-Witnesses of Jehovah) and Monophysitism - the extreme form of Eutychius and the more moderate form of Sevirus and Dioscorus - according to the decisions of the 4th Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon and the Christological teaching of the great Holy Fathers and Teachers such as Saints Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Photios the Great and the hymns of our worship.

2. We proclaim that Roman Catholicism is a womb of heresies and fallacies.11 The teaching of the “Filioque” - that is, the procession of the Holy Spirit AND from the Son - is contrary to everything that Christ Himself taught about the Holy Spirit. The entire chorus of Fathers, both in Synods and individually, regard Roman Catholicism as a heresy because apart from the Filioque, it produced a host of other fallacies, such as the primacy and the infallibility of the Pope, the unleavened bread (host), the fires of Purgatory, the immaculate conception of the Theotokos, created Grace, the purchasing of absolution (indulgences)… it has altered nearly all of the teaching and the practice pertaining to Baptism, Chrismation, the Divine Eucharist and the other Sacraments, and has converted the Church to a secular State.12

Contemporary Roman Catholicism has deviated even further than the medieval Latins from the teaching of the Church, to the extent that it no longer comprises a continuance of the ancient Church of the West. It has introduced a swarm of new exaggerations in its “Mariology,” such as the teaching that the Theotokos is a parallel redeemer (co-redemptrix) of the human race. It has reinforced the “Charismatic Movement” of Pentecostal (supposedly Spirit-centered) groups. It has adopted eastern religious practices and methods of prayer and meditation. It has introduced additional innovations into Divine worship, such as dances and musical instruments. It has shortened and essentially ruined the Divine Liturgy. With respect to Ecumenism it has set down the bases for a unification of all religions (panthriskeia) with its Second Vatican Council, by recognizing “spiritual life” in the people of other religions. Dogmatic minimalism has led it to a diminishing of moral requirements, on account of the bond between dogma and morality, resulting in the moral failures of leading clergymen and an increase in moral deviations such as homosexuality and pedophilia among clergymen.13 By continuing to support “Uniatism” - that caricature of Orthodoxy with which it victimizes and proselytizes faithful - The Vatican is sabotaging the dialogue and is contradicting its supposedly sincere intentions for union.

Generally speaking, after the Second Vatican Council there has been a radical change in Catholicism and a turn towards Protestantism, and even an adoption of various “spiritual” movements of the “New Age.”

According to Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki, the Mystagogue, “Papism” caused more damage to the Church than all the heresies and schisms combined. We Orthodox have communion with the pre-Schism Popes and we commemorate many Popes as Saints. However, the post-Schism popes have all taught heresy; they have ceased to be successors to the throne of Rome; they no longer have Apostolic succession, because they no longer have the faith of the Apostles and the Fathers. It is for this reason that, as St. Symeon states, with each such pope, “not only do we have no communion, but we also call him a heretic.” On account of their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with their teaching of the Filioque, they forfeited the presence of the Holy Spirit and therefore everything of theirs is deprived of Grace.14 Not one of their Mysteries (Sacraments) is valid, according to Saint Simeon: “Therefore the innovators are blaspheming and are far away from the Spirit, by blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, hence everything of theirs is graceless, inasmuch as they have violated and have demoted the Grace of the Spirit… which is why the Holy Spirit is not among them, and there is nothing spiritual in them, as everything of theirs is new and altered and contrary to Divine tradition.”15

3. The same things apply to an even greater degree to Protestantism, which as the offspring of Papism has inherited many heresies, but has also added many more. It has rejected Tradition, accepting only Holy Scripture (Sola Scriptura), which it misinterprets; it has abolished the Priesthood as a unique Mystery (Sacrament), as well as the veneration of the Saints and of the holy Icons; it has failed to honor, or even, in some cases, slighted the person of the Most Holy Theotokos (Mother of God); it has discarded monasticism; among the Holy Mysteries, it accepts only Baptism and the Divine Eucharist, which are understood in a way that deviates sharply from the teaching and the practice of the Church; it teaches such things as absolute predestination (Calvinism) and justification through faith alone. Furthermore, its more “progressive” sector has introduced Priesthood for women and marriage between homosexuals - whom they even accept into the ranks of the clergy. But above all, it lacks a proper ecclesiology, because the Orthodox understanding of the nature of the Church does not exist among them.16

4. The only way that our communion with heretics can be restored is if they renounce their delusion (plani) and repent, so that there may be a true union and peace: a union with the Truth, and not with delusion and heresy. For the incorporation of heretics into the Church, canonical precision (akriveia) requires that they be accepted through Baptism.17 Their previous “baptism,” performed outside the Church (without the triple immersion and emersion of the one being baptized in water sanctified by a particular prayer) is in no way a baptism.18 All attempts at baptism outside the Church lack the Grace of the Holy Spirit (Who does not remain within schisms and heresies) and as such, we have nothing in common that unites us, as Basil the Great points out: “those who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on them the Grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken…they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that Grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain.”19

That is why the new attempt by Ecumenists to push the idea that we have a common baptism with heretics is unfounded. Indeed, upon this nonexistent baptismal unity they want to base the unity of the Church, which supposedly exists wherever a baptism may exist.20 One enters the Church, however, and becomes Her member, not with just any baptism, but only with the “one baptism,” that uniformly performed baptism, officiated by Priests who have received the Priesthood of the Church.

5. As long as the heterodox continue to remain in their errors, we avoid communion with them, especially in common prayer. All those holy canons which address the matter of common prayer are unanimous in prohibiting not only common officiating and common prayer in the temple of God, but even ordinary prayers in private quarters. The Church’s strict stance toward the heterodox springs from true love and sincere concern for their salvation, and out of Her pastoral care that the faithful be not carried away by heresy. Whosoever loves, reveals the truth and does not leave the other in falsehood; otherwise, any love and agreement with him would only be counterfeit and false. There is such a thing as a good war and a bad peace: “...for a praiseworthy war is superior to a peace that separates one from God” says Saint Gregory the Theologian.21 And Saint John the Chrysostom recommends: “If you should see devoutness infringed upon, do not prefer a oneness of mind to the truth, but stand fast until death… in no way betraying the truth”. And elsewhere, he recommends with emphasis: “Do not accept any false dogma on the pretext of love.”22 This stance of the Fathers was also adopted by the great defender and confessor of the Orthodox faith against the Latins, Saint Mark of Ephesus, who concluded his own Confession of Faith in Florence with the following words: “All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils and all the divine Scriptures exhort us to avoid heretics, and to refrain from communion with them. Therefore, am I to disregard them all, and follow those who under the pretense of a manufactured peace strive for union? Those, who have counterfeited the sacred and divine Symbol of Faith (The Creed) and who introduced the Son as the second cause of the Holy Spirit? [...] May this never happen to us, benevolent Comforter (Paraclete), and may I never fall away from my own duteous thoughts, but, by following Thy teaching and the blessed men who were inspired by Thee, may I be added to my fathers, by bringing in, if nothing else, this: devoutness.”23

6. Up until the beginning of the 20th century, the Church has steadfastly and immutably maintained a dismissive and condemnatory stance towards all heresies, as clearly formulated in the Synodicon of Orthodoxy which is recited on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Heresies and heretics are anathematized, one by one; furthermore, in order to ensure that no heretics be left out of the anathema, there is a general anathema at the end of the text: “Let all heretics be anathematized.”

Unfortunately, this uniform, steady and unswerving stance of the Church up until the beginning of the 20th century has begun to be progressively abandoned, following the encyclical that was released by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1920, “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere,” which for the first time officially characterized heresies as “churches”24 that are not alienated from the Church, but are familiar and related to Her. It recommended that “the love between the Churches should above all be rekindled and reinforced, and they should no more consider one another as strangers and foreigners, but as relatives, and as being a part of the household of Christ and ‘fellow heirs, members of the same body and partakers of the promise of God in Christ.”25

The path is now open for the adoption, the shaping and the development of the heresy of Ecumenism within the sphere of the Orthodox Church – this “pan-heresy,” initially of Protestant inspiration, now with Papal acceptance, which adopts and legalizes all heresies as ‘churches’ and assaults the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This new dogma regarding the Church, this new ecclesiology, is now developed, taught and imposed by Patriarchs and bishops. According to this new teaching, no Church is entitled to demand for itself exclusively the designation of the catholic and true Church. Instead, each one of them is a piece, a part, and not the entire Church; they all together comprise the Church.26

All the boundaries set by the Fathers have fallen; there is no longer a dividing line between heresy and Church, between truth and delusion. Heresies are also ‘churches’ now; in fact, many of them – like the Papist one- are now regarded as ‘sister churches’ to which God has entrusted, jointly with us, the care for mankind’s salvation.27

The Grace of the Holy Spirit now also exists within heresies, and therefore their baptisms are – like all the other mysteries – considered valid.28 All who have been baptized into a heretical group are now considered members of Christ’s Body, the Church.

The condemnations and the anathemas of the councils are no longer valid and should be stricken from liturgical books. We are now lodged in the “World Council of Churches” and have essentially betrayed - with our membership alone29 - our ecclesiastical self-awareness. We have removed the dogma regarding the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - the dogma of “one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.”30

7. This inter-Christian syncretism has now expanded into an inter-religious syncretism, which equates all the religions with the unique knowledge of and reverence for God and a Christ-like way of life – all revealed from on high by Christ. Consequently, it is not only the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in relation to the various heresies that is being attacked, but also the foundational and unique dogma of revelation and salvation of mankind through Jesus Christ in relation to the religions of the world. It is the worst delusion, the greatest heresy of all ages.

8. We believe and confess that salvation is possible in Christ alone. The religions of the world, but also the various heresies do not lead man to salvation. The Orthodox Church is not merely the true Church; She is the only Church. She alone has remained faithful to the Gospel, the Synods and the Fathers, and consequently She alone represents the true catholic Church of Christ. According to the blessed Elder Justin Popovitch, Ecumenism is a common name for the pseudo-churches of Western Europe; their common name is “pan-heresy.”31

This pan-heresy has been accepted by many Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, clergymen, monks and laity. They teach it, “bareheaded,” they apply it and impose it in practice, communing with heretics in every possible manner - with common prayers, with exchanges of visits, with pastoral collaborations - thus essentially placing themselves outside the Church.32 Our stance, per the Conciliar canonical decisions and per the example of the Saints, is obvious. Each one must now assume his responsibilities.

9. There are of course collective responsibilities also, and chiefly in the ecumenistic conscience of our hierarchs and theologians, towards the Orthodox people (pleroma) and their individual flocks. To them, we declare with a fear of God and with love that this stance of theirs and their involvement in ecumenistic activities are condemnable from every aspect, because:

a) they actively impugn our Orthodox-Patristic Tradition and Faith;
b) they are sowing doubt in the hearts of their flock and unsettle many, leading to division and schism,
and
c) they are luring a portion of the flock into delusion, and thus, to spiritual disaster.

We, therefore, declare that, for the aforementioned reasons, those who endeavor within this ecumenist irresponsibility, whatever rank they may hold within the Church Body, contradict the tradition of our Saints and are thus stand in opposition to them. For this reason their stance must be condemned and rejected by the entirety of the Hierarchy and Faithful.33

________________________________

1 See treatise by Gennadius II Scholarios, Patriarch of Constantinople: “Regarding the only way to the salvation of mankind,” to George Scholarios “The complete extant works - Oevres Completes de Georges Scholarios,” Volumes I-VII, Paris 1928-1936, publ. L. Petit - X. Siderides - M. Jugie, Vol. III, 434-452.
2 John 8:12 “I am the light of the world - whosoever follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 3:19 “The light had come to the world and men loved the darkness rather than the light.”
3 Acts 4:12.
4 1 John 4:2-3: “Every spirit that confesses Jesus had cometh in the flesh, is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus Christ had cometh in the flesh, is not from God. And this is what you have heard regarding the antichrist: that he cometh and is now already in the world.”
5 See “Didaches” (Teachings) of St.Cosmas of Aetolia, of I. Menounos, “Cosmas of Aetolia teachings” (and biography), Tinos publications, Athens, Didache A1, 37, page 142: “All faiths are false, counterfeit, all of them the Devil’s. This I realized as being true, divine, heavenly, correct, perfect, both by my word and by your word: that the faith of the pious and Orthodox Christians is good and holy, and that we must believe and be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
6 “Homily prior to the exile” 1,

33, 186.
7 Epistle 90, “To the most holy brothers and bishops in the West” 2,

2, 20.
8 This refers to those who provoke and innovate with regard to the Faith. It does not mean that Orthodox Christians should have no contact with non-Orthodox in the context of missionary outreach and witness, which would mean the cessation of all evangelism, missionary work, sharing of our Faith, etc. –Ed.
9 Galatians. 1, 9. To Gall. Homily chapt. 1, PG 61, 624.
10 Mansi, 13, 409-412.
11 In our age of “political correctness” this statement may seem outrageous and unnecessarily inflammatory. It is, however, “soft” in comparison to the writings of the Holy Fathers (e.g., note the language of St. Photios the Great throughout his 10th-century treatise against the filioque clause, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit – and this was long before many other heresies were introduced). The Holy Fathers have, for centuries, viewed the Roman Catholicism as a womb of heresies, beginning with the adoption and promulgation of the filioque clause.
Consider the following statements from another Confession of Faith from modern times, the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1848: “As soon as [the filioque] was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel— commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed.... It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.”
Similar language is found in the the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895: “[B]ut the present Roman Church is the Church of innovations, of the falsification of the writings of the Church Fathers, and of the misinterpretation of the Holy Scripture and of the decrees of the holy councils, for which she has reasonably and justly been disowned, and is still disowned, so far as she remains in her error.... [A]s has been said before, the Western Church, from the tenth century downwards, has privily brought into herself through the papacy various and strange and heretical doctrines and innovations, and so she has been torn away and removed far from the true and orthodox Church of Christ.” If some find the language of the “Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism” offensive, they might consider whether this is due to a lack of familiarity with the writings of the Holy Fathers, and past confessional statements of the Orthodox Church. – Ed.
12 Again, see the Patriarchal Encyclicals of 1848 and 1895, which lay this out in great detail. – Ed.
13 The moral laxity and decadence, even among the clergy, had already been noted at the beginning of the 15th century, by Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki (see ‘Dogmatic Epistle 16’ in D. Balfour, by Simeon of Thessaloniki (1416/17-1429) “Theological Works,” Vlatades Gleanings 34, Thessaloniki 1981, page 218: “And furthermore, that they did not regard fornication at all entailing Hell, not even among their priests, but instead, they would unscrupulously have concubines and youths for fornication and would every day officiate.” Ibid, 15, page 216: They also do not follow an evangelical lifestyle; for, every kind of luxury and fornication to them is not a reprehensible matter, nor anything else that is forbidden for Christians.) The moral decadence that is observed of late even among the Orthodox clergy is the result of liberalism which accompanies ecumenism and of secularism.
14The term “Grace” is often misunderstood today. The Patristic teaching on the subject was best expressed by our Venerable Father Diadochus the God-bearer, Bishop of Photike in Epirus. As he writes in his Hundred Texts on Spiritual Knowledge and Discernment: “Before holy baptism Grace encourages the soul towards good from the outside, while Satan lurks in its depths, trying to block all the intellect’s ways of approach to the divine. But from the moment we are reborn through Baptism, the demon is outside, Grace is within.” And, in our own days, Blessed Archbishop Seraphim of Sophia writes concerning the two forms of Grace: “According to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, the Grace of the Holy Spirit is manifest in two forms: firstly, as an external, providential Grace, which acts in and throughout the lives of everybody, enabling anyone to accept the True Faith; and, secondly, as an internal, salvific Grace, which revivifies, redeems, and functions solely in the Orthodox Church.” Here the Confession refers to the latter form of Grace. The general operation of the Holy Spirit among all men is not in question. – Ed.
15 Dialogue 23, PG 155, 120-121. Epistle regarding blessedness 5, in D. Balfour, Simeon Archbishop of Thessaloniki (1416/17-1429), “Theological Works,” Vlatades Gleanings 34, Thessaloniki 1981, page 226. These comments of Saint Simeon should be interpreted on the basis of the Patristic teaching on Grace, as referred to in note 14 above. – Ed.
16 Here the Confession speaks generally of Protestantism. Given that there are 26,000+ denominations, it is impossible to make a succinct statement about Protestant tenets that applies accurately to them all. The Confession is admittedly painting with a broad brush, but these are all aspects of Protestantism that apply more or less to all Protestant groups, unless otherwise specified as speaking to particular confessions (such as Calvinism). – Ed.
17 “Canonical precision” or akriveia, is the norm, as it is most consistent with the theological principles under-girding the Canons concerning Holy Baptism. Nevertheless, the authors of the Confession would agree that, when canonical presuppositions existed, “canonical dispensation”, or oikonomia, has been employed. It is also the case, however, that, in almost every case today, those presuppositions (such as triple immersion) do not exist. – Ed.
18 The reception of a convert into the Church by oikonomia, when indeed it is done within the canonical prescriptions and leads to the same end as akriveia, in no way can be interpreted as altering Orthodox ecclesiology. Employing oikonomia in the reception of non-Orthodox does not mean acceptance per se of non-Orthodox mysteries. The acceptance per se of non- Orthodox mysteries by some Orthodox representatives in the ecumenical movement is impossible to reconcile with Orthodox ecclesiology and is to be rejected as contrary to the Orthodox Dogma of the Church. – Ed.
19 Canonical Epistle , To Amphilochios of Iconion, 1st Canon.
20 In the text of the 9th General Convention of the World Council of Churches in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2006, which was accepted by the representatives of the Orthodox churches and was titled “Called to be the One Chuch,” in paragraph 8 it states: “All those baptized in Christ are united in His name.” In paragraph 9: “That we all belong in common to Christ through baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, gives the churches the possibility and it invites them to walk together, even when they disagree. We assure that there is one baptism, exactly as there is one body and one Spirit, one hope in our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one God and Father to all of us (see Ephes.4:4-6).” The Metropolitan of Pergamos John (Zizioulas) in his work “Orthodox Ecclesiology and the Ecumenical Movement,” Sourozh Diocesan Magazine (England, August 1985, vol.21, page 23), had paved the way for this position, by stating: “Within baptism, even if there is a break, a division, a schism, you can still speak of the Church… The Orthodox, in my understanding at least, participate in the ecumenical movement as a movement of baptized Christians, who are in a state of division because they cannot express the same faith together. In the past this has happened because of a lack of love which is now, thank God, disappearing.”
21 Apologetics on the flight to Pontus 82,

1, 176.
22 To Romans, Homily 22, 2, PG 60, 611. To Philippians, Homily 2.1, PG 62, 119.
23 Confession of faith displayed in Florence, in Documents relatifs au Concile de Florence, II, Oeuvres anticonciliaires de Marc d’Ephèse, par L. Petit, Patrologia Orientalis 17, 442.
24 That is, “churches” in a more or less real, ecclesiological way, implying mystical union with the one, true Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church. – Ed.
25 See I.Karmiris’, “The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church,” vol. 2, page 958.
26 One recent example of this is found in the declaration of the 9th General Convention of the World Council of Churches in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2006, which was accepted by the representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches and was entitled “Called to be the One Chuch.” In section II, paragraph 6 of the document, which is a common declaration of Orthodox and heterodox, we read: “Each church is the Church catholic and not simply a part of it. Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it. Each church fulfils its catholicity when it is in communion with the other churches.” But, as it would be expected, this “new dogma” takes on a wide variety of expressions, from including only two churches, such as (in the “two lung” theory) Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church, or three churches, as in the classic Branch Theory of the Anglicans, or including many churches, as has been expressed in the “invisible church” ecclesiology of the World Council of Churches and the “baptismal unity” theory. That which binds these various theories together is a rejection of “ecclesiological exclusivism” and an ecumenism “of return.” A sentiment that is said often and by many, including Orthodox primates and hierarchs, is that “a Catholic will not become an Orthodox and vice versa, but we must approach the altar together” (Bishop Tichon, Diocese of Central and Western Europe of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria on his visit to the Pope, October 22nd, 2009; See http://www.zenit.org/article-27299?l=english).
27 See joint statement by Pope John-Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew during the latter’s visit to Rome on the 29th of June, 1995. The same had been proclaimed at an earlier date by the Combined Theological Committee for the Dialogue between Orthodox and Papists, in Balamand, Lebanon in 1993.
28 The term “valid” here means accepting heterodox baptism “per se”, in and of itself, apart from the Church, and has ecclesiological implications which the kat’oikonomia reception of the non-Orthodox can never imply.
29 This is a question of methodology, the “essential betrayal” being an abandonment of the patristic methodology of witness, wherein the Scriptural command, “a man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject” (Tit 3:10) is followed, if not in word than in spirit. Rather, we have “lodged” ourselves in the World Council of Churches as full organic members, even committing ourselves to dialogue without presuppositions or limits. This disregard for patristic and scriptural guidelines to proper witness inevitably has lead to a betrayal of the Church’s self-understanding.
30 Ephesians 4:5.
31 Archimandrite Justin Popovitch, Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, Thessaloniki 1974, page 224. 32 What is not meant here is an institutional departure from the Church by excommunication or anathema. And this is clear by the use of the terms “essentially” and “placing themselves.” Rather, what is meant is that by their actions and their words they have separated themselves in essence from the Church – from Her Fathers, Her Way and Her Life. They have essentially removed themselves from the Church by no longer following the Holy Fathers, no longer expressing the Orthodox Faith.
The passage draws on the 15th canon of the 1st -2nd Synod. The understanding behind the phrase “essentially placing themselves outside the Church” is clearly implied in the canon when it states: “For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned…” The 15th canon, although praising those who cease commemoration of their bishop, who is teaching heresy “bareheaded”, does not make ceasing commemoration a requirement. It leaves the particular course of action – based on the canons and councils and fathers – to the discretion of each. The Confession follows suit, clearly naming the heresy and calling all to appropriate response (Our stance, per the Conciliar canonical decisions and per the example of the Saints, is obvious.), but leaving the particulars to each one’s discretion (Each one must now assume his responsibilities). – Ed.
33 As of February 25, 2010 19,470 clergy, monks and laymen have signed this Confession of Faith against Ecumenism. See: http://www.impantokratoros.gr/ABF82395.el.aspx for a complete list of signers.

ROCOR’s Hierarchy must choose one or two roads. They can either grasp the historic moment to unite the Orthodox against ecumenism and those deluded ecumenist hierarchs in our midst and thereby continue to be a standard bearer for the truth of the Church OR they can assimilate their church into the dulled and secularized thinking of most clergy today and merge comfortably and seamlessly into the general spiritual decline, to the detriment of all. We have already arrived at midnight spiritually. It is later than we think. The historic moment is now. We are all praying that you not let the Orthodox down; that you speak and act boldly and clearly, for the love of the Faith and faithful. We are all waiting for the prophetic voice of Orthodoxy to be heard in Moscow in May and thereafter. May your example of a true confession truly unite us all in confirmation of the One True Faith!

Sound and Fury Symbolizing...?This is of course the very thing which makes the visit of Benedict XVI such a temptation. Just as in 1054, when the prospect of one, all-powerful bishop who would protect the Church made the West bow the knee to Rome, it is now increasingly apparent that His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew finds great comfort in the friendship of the Roman Catholic leader. The added flattery at the thought that the unique position of one Orthodox bishop’s relationship with Rome provides the key to some kind of Orthodox-Catholic union is particularly seductive.

In reality, the influence of the Patriarchal throne is limited and waning. Most Orthodox Christians worldwide are either under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow, or of some other independent jurisdictions. Sadly, and somewhat dishonestly, many even in the Church would gloss over this fact. The mythology of Byzantium - not its reality - brings with it the reward that the worldly mind always seeks: the reward of being somebody important.

Yet being somebody important - in imagination or in reality - brings with it giant responsibilities, particularly for Orthodox Christians. Firstly, one is obliged to tell the truth, about friends and opponents, about peers and those who are smaller or “less important”. Secondly, one is called upon to deal with diplomatic relations based on integrity, and not on gaining opportunities to enhance personal reputation or power.

However much attention the media gives to the wooing of the Patriarch by the Roman Catholics, the outcome of the affair has far more limited implications than either of the participating sides would like to believe. Those who support their increasingly close relationship need to start being honest about this. Should this friendship turn into a marriage (i.e. should the Patriarch sign a union with Rome), most Orthodox Christians in the world would not be obligated to follow suit, and in fact, many (if not most) would deal with such a union as it should be handled: as a schism from the Church, in which those bishops, clergy, and laity who join in, depart from the Church, Her holy orders, and Her Communion.

Those in North America who seek such a union must be honest with themselves and with others, that the results of their efforts could well be the further isolation of the Patriarchate, rather than the enhancement of its prestige and position. The results would certainly produce a greater disunity amoung Orthodox Christians - quite possible a Schism - rather than the “unity of love” for which these advocates hope.

Christian love means telling the truth. Just as it behooves all Orthodox to be clear that the Patriarch is not the “spiritual leader of Orthodox Christians” (i.e. an Orthodox “Pope"), it would also serve well the peace of the Church in North America for Her hierarchs and clergy to speak forcefully and honestly to the faithful about the consequences of such a false union, its historic and catastrophic implications for the Church, and its destructive implications for the harmony and unity of brotherly love amoung Orthodox Christians in North America. Any other message is simply less than honest.

Orthodox Canada: A Journal of Orthodox Christianity
Vol. 1 No. 2 - Nativity 2006

© All Saints of North America Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church in America, 2007.

Fresco of the Elder Paisios
in a Metochi of the Monastery
of Vatopedi, Kavala, GreeceI recall the first time that I visited the Holy Mountain – in one of the brotherhoods, the Elder was a little old man, who was very pious. Out of piety, he had preserved from generation to generation, not only the stoles of his [spiritual] grandfathers, his predecessors, but also the moulds that had been used to make the stoles. He also had several old books and various manuscripts that he kept beautifully wrapped in his book-case, which was carefully closed so that they wouldn’t collect dust.  He never touched those books; he kept them wrapped up.  “I am not worthy to read such books” he would say. “I will just read these simpler ones – the Sayings of the Desert Fathers (Gerontikon), the Ladder of Divine Ascent...”.

Then a young monk came along (who, in the end, left the Mountain permanently) and asked the elder:  “Why do you keep all this junk here?” He made a move to take away the moulds and dispose of them – to burn them.  The poor old man begged him with tears: “that was from my [spiritual] grandfather – why do you mind my keeping it?  There are so many other rooms here – leave them be in a corner.” Out of the piety that he had, he not only held on to the books, the heirlooms, the stoles, but even the moulds! 

When there is a respect for minor things, there will be an even greater respect towards greater things.  When there is no respect for the lesser, neither will there be for the greater.  This is how the Fathers preserved the holy Tradition.

-- See Elder Paisios, With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man, Volume One of the Series, The Discourses of Elder Paisios, Holy Monastery of Saint John the Theologian, Souroti, Thessaloniki, Greece. 

May God enlighten all of us; may the Most Holy Theotokos shelter and bless her Garden; and may They protect the Orthodox Church from defamers of the Theotokos, and from heretics who fight against the Saints, as well as from fainthearted pastors who leave the flock unprotected from attacks of the wolves.

Asking your prayers for all the foregoing, we, the undersigned, remain respectfully yours,

Hieromonk Ephraim, former abbot [of Philotheou], Elder of the Skete of Apostle Andrew [“Serrai”, of the Holy Monastery of Vatopedi] and the brotherhood with me.
Elder Eustratios, Hieromonk, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra.
Elder Poimen, Hieromonk, Holy Monastery of Zographou
Elder Basileios, Hieromonk, Holy Monastery of Zographou
Elder Bessarion, Hieromonk, Holy Monastery of Zographou
Monk Nikodemos (Bilalis), Sacred Cell “of the Presentation” from Kapsala
Monk Artemios, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Priestmonk Hilarion, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Monk Paisios, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Monk Savvas, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Hierodeacon Chariton, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Monk Chariton, Karoulia, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Monk Athanasios, Karoulia, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Elder Vlasios, Monk, Kserokalyvo Viglas, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Monk Akakios, Sacred Kathisma of the Holy Trinity (Kyr Isaiah) Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Elder Isaiah, Monk, Kellion of the Birth of the Mother of God, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Monk Cherubim, Sacred place of the Archangels, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Hieromonk Damaskinos, Kellion of Holy Trinity at Karyes, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Elder Nektarios, Monk, Kellion of Holy Trinity at Karyes, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Elder Theoklitos, Monk and the fathers with him; Kellion of the Sacred Forerunner,St.Anne’s Skete, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Hieromonk Gabriel, Sacred Kellion of St. George(Kartsounaion) Sacred Skete of St. Anne, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Hieromonk Chrysostomos Kartsonas, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Elder Kosmas Monk, Sacred Hut of St. Demetrios, Skete of Saint Anne, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Elder Panteleimon, Monk, Sacred Kellion of St. Panteleimon, Sacred Skete of Holy Trinity, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Elder Sophronios, Monk, Sacred Hut of Entrance of the Theotokos, Sacred Skete of Holy Trinity, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Monk Parthenios, Sacred Hut Entrance of Theotokos, Sacred Skete of Holy Trinity, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Monk Athanasios at Vouleutiria, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Elder Serapheim, Hieromonk, Kellion of All Saints, Skete of Saint Anne, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Elder Daniel, Monk, Saint Anne’s, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Elder Gerasimos, Monk Sacred Hut of St. George, Katounakia, Holy Monastery of the Great Lavra
Elder Benediktos, Hieromonk, Kellion of Ss Konstantine and Eleni, Holy Monastery of Vatopedi
Monk Paisios, Kellion of Archangels (Savvaion) Karyes, Holy Monastery of Hilandar
Monk Silouanos, Sacred Hut of St. Nicholas, Nea Skete, Holy Monastery of St. Paul
Monk Gabriel, Kellion of Koutloumousiou of Saint Christodoulos
Monk Dositheos, Koutloumousiou Monastery Kathisma
Elder Nektarios, Monk, Sacred Hut of Holy Trinity, Skete of the Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou
Monk Paisios, Kellion of Saint Barbara, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou
Elder Moses, Monk, Kellion St. John Chrysostomos, Skete of St. Panteleimonos, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou
Elder Abraaham, Hieromonk, Sacred Hut of St Gerasimos Kefalinias, Skete of St. Panteleimonos, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou
Elder Spyridon, Monk, Kellion of St. Nicholas, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou
Monk Theodoulos, formerly of the Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou
Elder Chrysostom, Hieromonk, Kellion of St. Spyridon of Kerkyra, Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou
Monk Hilarion, Sacred Kathisma of the Holy Monastery of Doheiariou (Platon area)
Elder Nikodemos, Monk, Kellion of St. Nektarios Kapsala, Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros
Hieromonk Gabriel, Kellion of Quick to Hear Mother of GOD, Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros
Monk Isaac, Kellion of Birth of Mother of GOD, Kapsala, Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros
Elder Athanasios, Monk, Kellion of St . Athanasios, Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros
Elder Meletios, Monk, Birth of Theotokos, Kapsala, Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros
Elder Gregory, Monk Kellion of St. Nicholas, Kapsala, Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros
Elder Onoufrios, Monk, Kellion Dormition of Theotokos, Karyes
Elder Nicholas, Monk, Kellion of St. Demetrios, Karyes
Hieromonk Gabriel, Kellion of Holy Archangels (Kombologas) Karyes

The collection of names continues.