Boundaries of The Church

The Boundaries of the Church
A Brief Discourse on Contemporary

Ecclesiological Heresies
Nikolaos (Nicholas) Mannes1
“The Church of Christ is an assembly of people baptized in

the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
and united one with another through the confession of the
same Faith and through communion and participation in the
Mysteries, under the protection of genuine and canonical
Bishops, who recognize as their one and only Head our Lord
Jesus Christ” (Metropolitan Meletios [Metros] of Athens,
†1714)
Heresies, as teachings that distort the Truth of Orthodoxy, are

divided into two categories, corresponding to their provenance.
They may derive from and be expounded either by persons be-
longing to groups already cut off from the Church (e.g., those
embracing the heresies of the Gnostics, Chiliasts, etc.) or by per-
1
Mr. Mannes, gifted with a deep understanding of the Church’s theolog-
ical and ecclesiological teachings, is a Greek educator and prolific religious
writer. He lives and teaches in Athens, where he and his wife and children are
active in the life of the Genuine (Old Calendar) Orthodox Church of Greece.
4 Orthodox Tradition
sons existing within the bosom of the Church, primarily clergy,2

such heresies being touted, in this case, as Orthodox positions (it
was in this manner, for example, that the teachings of Arianism,
Nestorianism, and Monophysitism were first set out).
In this article, I have put forth a brief assessment of contem-
porary ecclesiological heresies belonging to the second category,
which is, as one can understand, the more perilous, since, aside
from the distortion of Orthodox doctrine occasioned by the pro-
clamation of these heresies, there is also the danger of the apos-
tasy of part of the flock of the Church and the creation of new
schisms. As an example, one need only recall the losses that
Monophysitism inflicted on the Orthodox Church by the schis-
matic and heretical bodies—the so-called “Pre-Chalcedonian
Churches”—that it spawned: those of the Copts, Ethiopians, Ar-
menians, Indians, and other of our erstwhile Orthodox brethren
whom it plundered by way of its misbeliefs.
And whereas in the past these heresies were Trinitarian or
Christological (that is, they pertained to the dogma of the Holy
Trinity or to the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ), today these
heresies are ecclesiological; that is, they pertain to the Church of
Christ and Her boundaries. The principal heresies among these
are ecumenism and those heresies generated thereby or formed in
tandem therewith: 3 Matthewitism, Episcopocentrism, and Ser-
gianism. I will speak about all of these straight away.
Ecumenism: A Broadening of the Boundaries
A great many informative articles have been written about
ecumenism, and its teachings have been condemned as heretical
both by contemporary Fathers and Teachers and by Synods (such
as the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in 1983).
2
St. Meletios the Confessor of Mt. Galesion [ca. 1209-1286] observes
“that Shepherds [i.e., Bishops] are accountable for heresies and every sort of
evil.” [This reference is by no means an assault on the charismatic oversight
of the Church by its Bishops, but addresses the abuse thereof—Trans.]
3
It should be noted that ecumenism is reminiscent of Arianism, in terms
of the turmoil that it provokes in the Church, since that heresy lasted for many
years and became the cause of other heresies, and even of those ostensibly-
opposed to it (Apollinarianism, Luciferianism, Pneumatomachianism, etc.).
[The turmoil spawned by Arianism was also at times literal, fueled as it was
by extreme emotionalism and an appeal to popular sentiment, just as ecu-
menism is marked by a sometimes saccharine display of religious enthusiasm
in music fests, liturgical dance, the celebration of pagan rites, etc.—Trans.]
Volume XXXIV, Number 1 5
Ecumenism has the peculiarity of belonging to both of the a-

forementioned categories. That is to say, it is a heresy that has
been, and is, expressed both by persons belonging to groups out-
side the Orthodox Church (Protestant or Roman Catholic ecume-
nism) and by persons who formally exist within the Church (Or-
thodox ecumenists).
This heresy broadens the boundaries of the Church, which, in
its estimation, comprises the Western and the
Eastern (the genuine historical) Church (the
two lungs theory) or, beyond that, all “church-
es,” as branches of it (the branch theory), if not
the totality of all the “baptized”—and sprin-
kled—(baptismal theology), while the most
extreme of its devotees include even those of
other religions, and not necessarily only mono-
theists!
It is precisely on account of this broadening of the Church’s
boundaries [dismissing doctrine and dogma as secondary and as
impediments to unity(!)—Trans.] that ecumenism is called a pan-
heresy, since it accords legitimacy to all heresies. Its ideological
affinity with Freemasonry is obvious: the two greatest Orthodox
exponents of this heresy (Patriarchs Meletios Metaxakes and
Athenagoras Spyrou) were Masons of the highest degree.
By precipitously placing inside the saving Ark of the Church
those who are voluntarily broken off from Her, or who refuse to
be incorporated into Her, the ecumenists advance the image of
an unjust God, Who does not respect the sovereignty of His crea-
tures and deprives man of the principal gift that He has bestowed
on him, that is, free will, while they represent themselves—and
blasphemously so—as being putatively more charitable than
God!
Matthewitism: A Constriction of the Boundaries
At the polar opposite of the heresy of ecumenism we have an
ecclesiological heresy which constricts the boundaries of the
Church. We characterize this heresy as Matthewitism, 4 since
Bishop Matthew (Karpathakes) of Bresthena was its first and
4
This heresy could be characterized also as “extreme Zealotry.” The late
Father Seraphim (Rose) of Platina aptly calls it “super-correctness” [a term
that he took from the late Matropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle—Trans.].
chief exponent. However, its exponents are not solely (or neces-
sarily) Matthewites (and naturally we are not speaking of the
simple faithful who follow their leaders out of innocent zeal), but
also non-Matthewites (such as, for example, in the past, Mother
Magdalene the nun5).
The principal characteristic of this heresy, which developed
within the ranks of the Old Calendarists, is the theory concerning
the automatic excision from the Church of all
transgressors (be it a simple believer or even an
entire Synod of a local Church) and the non-ne-
cessity of a Synodal verdict about a transgres-
sion. Thus, according to Matthew, by virtue of
the calendar innovation of 1924, both “the
Churches that accepted this innovation became
schismatic,”6 as well as “those local Churches
that concelebrate and in general pray with the
The sash on this innovating Churches.”7 Indeed, this theory con-
caricature reads: cerning automatic excision from the Church
“Super Orthodox.” was considered a sine qua non, with the force
of dogma (they called it an “Orthodox Confession”), with the re-
sult that all those who would not accept it were stigmatized as
non-Orthodox, its adherents regarding even their brother Old
Calendarists who rejected it as “outside the Church,” denouncing
them in 1937, creating the notorious Matthewite Schism! Belief
in this heretical theory concerning automatic excision from the
Church leads to an unprecedented constriction of Her boundaries,
as has been noted in a pertinent article on the subject.8
By arbitrarily cutting off from the saving Ark of the Church
all those who, in their opinion, have fallen into some heresy, real
5
Abbess of the Convent of the Ascension in Kozani, Greece († 2006). A
twentieth-century Greek monastic firebrand who wrote numerous popular in-
vectives, including an opprobrious condemnation of St. Nectarios of Aegina.
6
Encyclical of Matthew of Bresthena (September 21, 1944). “Schis-
matic” is here understood to mean “actually schismatic,” that is, already cut off
from the Church of Christ, not “potentially schismatic,” as St. Chrysostomos
the New held, that is, subject to trial at a competent Major Synod for causing
schism.
7
Ibid.
8
“Ἡ Ἀπόρριψη τῆς Συνοδικῆς Kρίσεως εἶναι πλάνη ποὺ ὁδηγεῖ σὲ
ἀδιέξοδο” (Rejection of a synodal judgment is an error that leads to an im-
passe), http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.gr/2016/03/blog-post_4.html
or imaginary (in order to justify the new schisms that have emerg-
ed in their ranks, they have contrived “neo-Iconoclasm,” “eccle-
siomachy,” “Christomachy,” and other “heresies”), the Matthew-
ites, themselves, also introduce the image of an unjust God, Who
has actually failed in His saving work (away with such blasphe-
my!), since Matthewitism, by its unjustified, automatic excisions,
deems ostracized from the Church a multitude of faithful who
are not aware of various ecclesiological deviations, whether be-
cause they repented at the ninth or eleventh hour, or by reason of
illiteracy or a lack of intellectual capacity, or, finally, on account
of circumstances of age (e,g., under eighteen [the age of inde-
pendent consent]), and who, practically speaking, are incapable
of understanding what is going on in the Church, to the extent
that they could be held accountable. This is why a Synodal diag-
nosis and verdict are imperative, so that all might come to know
who the heretics are and who the ones creating schisms are.9
St. Chrysostomos (Kabourides), the former Metropolitan of
Phlorina, among others, wrote against Matthewitism.
Episcopocentrism: Transposing the Boundaries
Episcopocentrism, as a heresy, was expounded chiefly by Fa-
ther Epiphanios Theodoropoulos10 and arose as a reaction to
9
At this time, there are in Greece and in the rest of the world ecclesiasti-
cal communities, though few in number (and not necessarily defining them-
selves as Matthewites) possessed by the principles of this heresy, which define
themselves as the Church, a fact which clearly shows that such a view is hereti-
cal and springs forth from pride cloaked in zeal.
10
The term “Episcopocentrism” (despotic rule by the Church’s Masters,
or Bishops) is preferable to “Epiphanism,” since it today has evolved even fur-
ther through the teachings of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon [Pa-
triarchate of Constantinople], now its leading exponent. Through his writings,
Father Epiphanios served, and serves, this heresy very well, chiefly through his
theory concerning officers and footsoldiers in the Church, depriving the latter
of the indisputable right to resist and protest when the Faith is in crisis, and,
as well, through his blasphemous and potentially destructive view of the Fif-
teenth Canon of the First-Second Synod. However, it is Metropolitan John
who has elevated the administrative jurisdiction of the Bishop in the affairs of
the Church to a “dogma of dogmas,” in conformity with the model of Papoc-
entric power (a recent example being the behavior of Metropolitan Theokle-
tos of Phlorina towards Father Paisios Papadopoulos). [The author is not
questioning, here, proper episcopal authority and oversight of the Church, but
is, rather, contrasting “Epiphanism” and “Episcopocentrism” with the charis-
matic quality that empowers a true Shepherd and Master—Trans.]
Matthewitism (which it dubs “Zealotry,” including therein, how-

ever, other teachings that are in every way correct, such as keep-
ing one’s distance from uncondemned heretics). It is the most
dangerous ecclesiological heresy of our time, along with ecu-
menism, to which it renders sterling service.
This heresy transposes the boundaries of the Church from
the Truth of the Faith to the persons who administer it, regarding
as evidence that one is “within the Church” the fact that one is in
communion with those in authority at all times, even if they are
heretics, though on the grounds that they have not been officially
cut off from the Body of the Church.
This ecclesiological heresy is in direct contradiction both to
the teaching of the Church as expressed through the Synods and
the Holy Fathers and to the practice of the latter and also of all
Orthodox at a time when heresy makes itself manifest within the
bosom of the Church.
For the Saints, evidence that one is essentially within the
Church is the Truth of one’s Faith,11 that is, the Orthodoxy of his
Confession.12
Thus, Orthodox who break communion with those in author-
ity, when the latter have fallen into heresy, in no way regard them-
selves, and never have been regarded, as “outside the Church.”13
This unheard-of teaching of communion with Hierarchs who
are uncondemned heretics invalidates the entire Orthodox strug-
gle that always preceded the Synodal condemnation of a heresy,
which struggle delivered the Church from the divisions and
11
“Those who belong to the Church of Christ belong to the Truth; those
who do not belong to the Truth do not belong to the Church of Christ either;
and all the more so, if they speak falsely of themselves by calling themselves,
or calling each other, holy pastors and hierarchs. For it has been instilled in us
that Christianity is characterized not by persons, but by the truth and exacti-
tude of Faith” (St. Gregory Palamas, “Refutation of the Letter of Patriarch Ig-
natios of Antioch,” §3, in Panagiotes K. Chrestou (ed.), Γρηγορίου τοῦ
Παλαμᾶ Συγγράμματα [The works of Gregory Palamas], Vol. II [Thessa-
lonike: 1966], p. 627).
12
“[Christ called] the Catholic Church the correct and saving Faith in
Him” (St. Maximos the Confessor, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XC, col. 132A).
13
“Eustathians” under the Arian-minded Bishops of Antioch, Orthodox
under Nestorios of Constantinople, St. Maximos the Confessor and those with
him under Monothelitism, Iconodules under Iconoclasm, anti-unionists under
the false synods of Lyons and Ferrara-Florence, et al.
schisms that heresy inflicted on Her.14

This heresy has, unfortunately, incapacitated a large segment
of those who, in all other respects, have an Orthodox mentality,
but who for decades have not dared to do the obvious (that is, to
break ecclesiastical communion with those who preach heresy),
out of fear of finding themselves “outside the Church.”15
The ever-memorable contemporary Father of the Church, Fa-
ther Theodoretos (Mavros), in particular wrote illuminating
works against this heresy.
Sergianism: Distorting the Boundaries
The name “Sergianism” is a neologism coined by the con-
temporary Russian Confessor Boris Talantov.16 This heresy
(which took its name from Patriarch Sergius [Stragorodsky] of Rus-
sia, who in 1927 submitted to the atheistic régime of the Soviet
Union) distorts the boundaries of the Church through the rejec-
tion of a courageous Confession of Orthodoxy in practice, since
it uses deceptive measures as a means, supposedly, of safeguard-
ing the Church; that is, Her administrative external structure.17
Thus, we have what is nominally a local Church that is rec-
ognized as official by the militantly anti-ecclesiastical régime to
which it belongs, but which in essence does not constitute part of
the Church of Christ, since it does not confess the Truth of the
Faith, but accepts and serves falsehood, error, and the lawless-
ness of the anti-Christian state.
Although Sergianism was born in countries that were once
communist, it is a heresy that disfigures the Church, even today,
14
It is for precisely this reason that the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Sec-
ond Synod praises those walled off from such heretical pseudo-Bishops, for
“they have been sedulous to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.”
15
Moreover, this heresy has influenced a segment of Orthodox newly
walled off from ecumenism, who think that the struggle against heresy stops
simply at walling off and that any further action, such as the consecration of
Orthodox Bishops, constitutes “schism” and “forming a new Church,” thereby
accepting as “canonical” Bishops who have fallen into heresy and from whom
they are walled off!
16
He died in 1971, from maltreatment, in a prison hospital in the Soviet
Union.
17
The connection between Episcopocentrism and Sergianism is therefore
evident.
in the so-called neoliberal capitalist states in which the local

Churches, thanks to their recognition by atheist states (as legal
entities in public law18) remain silent in the face of the passage of
increasingly anti-Christian laws (the legalization of adultery,
abortion, homosexual civil unions, atheistic education, “anti-dis-
crimination” restrictions, electronic surveillance, etc.), out of fear
that, if they react, their recognition and the privileges accorded
them will cease.
In an important ecclesiological declaration of the free and
(still) surviving Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of
Greece, it is aptly observed that Sergianism, “having long ago in-
corporated within itself a worldly spirit, unscrupulousness, de-
ception, and a pathological servility towards the powerful of this
world, continues to betray the Church, now no longer for fear of
reprisals from atheistic rulers, but for the sake of self-serving and
secularist motives and under the cloak of supposed canonicity,
still peddling the freedom of the Church in exchange for gaining
the friendship of the powerful of this world, with all of the con-
comitant material benefits and, to be sure, prestigious social sta-
tus.”19
It is the duty of a future authentic Major Synod of the Or-
thodox (which will condemn the false Synod of Crete) to refute
the aforementioned teachings, thereby safeguarding the flock of
the Church from false teachers who have introduced pernicious
heresies.20
Author’s note in the original Greek text: The sketches [in this article] are
from issues of the periodical Χριστιανική Σπίθα [Christian spark],
[founded] by the late Metropolitan Augustine (Kantiotes) of Phlorina.
18
Metropolitan Polycarp (Lioses) of Siatista (†1996) wrote prophetically
that the official Church, by virtue of its constitutional charter and its transfor-
mation into a legal entity in public law (1969) “formally and decisively cut off
the Head of the Church, which is Christ, and put in His place the law of the
State, which, as the head of a legal entity, the ‘Church of Greece,’ will hence-
forth steer the Church, as its head, in whatsoever direction it wishes, and even
to its dissolution” (Metropolitan Polycarp Lioses of Sisanion and Siatista, Ἡ
Ἐκκλησία τοῦ Χριστοῦ θεοσύστατον ἵδρυμα καὶ οὐχὶ Nομικὸν Πρόσωπον
Δημοσίου Δικαίου [The Church of Christ is a divinely constituted foundation
and not a legal entity in public law] [Athens: 1969], p. 37).
19
“The True Orthodox Church and the Heresy of Ecumenism: Dogmatic
and Canonical Issues,” http://hsir.org/p/be.
20
Cf. II St. Peter 2:1.

Boundaries of The Church

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boundaries of The Church

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boundaries of The Church

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Boundaries of the Church

A Brief Discourse on Contemporary

“The Church of Christ is an assembly of people baptized in

Heresies, as teachings that distort the Truth of Orthodoxy, are

sons existing within the bosom of the Church, primarily clergy,2

Ecumenism has the peculiarity of belonging to both of the a-

Matthewitism (which it dubs “Zealotry,” including therein, how-

schisms that heresy inﬂicted on Her.14

in the so-called neoliberal capitalist states in which the local

You might also like