During the World Council of Churches (WCC) or better said, of Heresies, that took place in Busan, South Korea, were formulated positions contrary to the orthodox ecclesiology, the Orthodox Church was pretended to ask forgiveness for the separation state where the Christian world was in, it was questioned the infallibility of our Church, it was formulated the protestant dogma about the invisible ecclesiological Church unity that apparently is “multi-dogmatic” and likewise the word of Christ, Who prays that “may all be one” was disregarded and misinterpreted.
In their memo, the five metropolitans formulate serious accusations against some metropolitans of Mesinia, Dimitriades and Prusia for the positions they support and that they provoke and distract the faithful people. They also accuse the representative hierarchs of the Church of Greece partakers to the 10th General Meeting of the WCC or better said, of Heresies for accepting the decisions of WCC without any protest. They wonder how would then the heretics, regardless of their nature, either coming from the “bosoms” of our Church or not, be correctly approached if our churchly tradition of Orthodoxy is altered and if the infallibility of our Church is questioned? The five metropolitans ask as well for stopping the theological dialogues with the papists for as the Australia’s Archbishop, kir Stylianos, who was for 20 years the co-president of the Committee for Dialogue with Roman-Catholics, declared that those dialogues are not more than “a game that lacks consistency.”
Five metropolitans of the Church of Greece, in a memo addressed to the Archbishop of Athens, kir Ieronymos, who holds the position of President of the Holy Synod, support and extend the individual memo written and sent to the Holy Synod by the Metropolitan of Piraeus, kir Seraphim, where he mentions about the ecclesiological deceptions of the text adopted on the 10th General Meeting of the WCC from Busan, South Korea. (http://graiulortodox.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/ips-serafim-de-pireu-condamna-declaratiile-c-m-b-de-la-busan-2013-coreea-de-sud/ )
In the text from Busan the Orthodox Church was pretended to ask forgiveness for the separation state where the Christian world was in. The five metropolitans, according to the order they singed, are: Metropolitan of Dryinoúpola, Pogania and Konitsa, kir Andreas, Metropolitan of Glyfadei, Elliniko and Voula, kir Pavlos, Metropolitan of Kythiria, kir Seraphim, Metropolitan of Etolla and Akarnania, kir Kosmas and Metropolitan of Gortyna and Megalopolis, kir Jeremiah.
All the memo signers:
- Accuse the representative hierarchs of the Church of Greece for not protesting against the decisions of WCC that are mainly remarked by attacking and contesting the Orthodox Church, as one that expresses the Truth of our faith. They have even come to the point where they ask the Orthodox Church to repent while the repentance [for alienating from the truth of faith and for disrupting the unity] is an act that all heretic Christians should do. They wonder themselves: “isn’t that enough that there were abolished from the Synodikon of Orthodoxy the anathemas against the heretics? Do we now have to also deny the fact that the dogmas of our Church represent “the faith of the Apostles, fathers and Orthodox people” giving the fact that according to the protestants from Busan, the Church needs repentance for the faith issues and that they understand progressively the divine will?”
- They formulate serious accusations to the metropolitans of Mesinia, kir Chrysostom, and of Dimitriada, kir Ignatius for the positions they express and that they tempt the church’s pleroma to sin.
They ask the Archbishop of Athens, kir Ieronymos to add to the subject list for debating to the following meeting of the plenum of the Greek’s Synod the decisions of WCC from Busan as they distort the ecclesiological teaching of the orthodox church. The signers of the memo wonder: “How will we then confess the Truth of our faith against the wolves that attack our herds, of Jehovah’s pseudo-witnesses, of Pentecostals, of Mormons, etc?” Regarding the dialogue with the papists, the signers consider that it contributes to the distortion of the orthodox ecclesiology and remind on this matter the declaration of Australia’s Archbishop, kir Stylianos, who was for 20 years the co-president of the Committee for Dialogue with Roman-Catholics, who declared that those dialogues are not more than “a game that lacks consistency.”
The memo of five Greek Metropolitans against the decisions of the WCC from Busan
– First part –
Holy Mitropoly of Dryinoupoli, Poganiani and Konitsa
Nr prot. 28
Delvinaki, 30th April 2014
To the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece
Ioannou Gennadiou 14
115 21 Athens
Blessed President of Holy Synod,
Holy Synodic Metropolitans,
We, the signers, who are together with you bishops in the autocephalous Church of Greece, after the events from November 2013 from Busan, South Korea during the proceedings of WCC and theological dialogue with protestant denominations of different kinds, with monophysites and monothelites, we would like to present with a deep respect to our Supreme Churchly Authority our protest against the result of those meetings, as follows.
We further briefly illustrate from the point of view of orthodox ecclesiology the unacceptable ecclesiological positions formulated during the 10th General Meetings of WCC. These prove to be even worse if we take into account that according to the protocol rules of WCC (see Appendix II, page 6), the right of each “church member” of WCC to keep its own churchly conscience unaltered and to express it likewise, was acknowledged.
Neither the reasoning that according to the texts of WCC meetings are ad referendum and do not express their de facto acceptance by the church-members does not excuse the lack of attitude and indifference of the orthodox representatives, nor the pretext that “they did not sign” is valid as long as the agreement with the decisions of WCC is not expressed through a signature but through “indicator cards”. According to the aforementioned ones, the inefficient participation of orthodox representatives harm both the heterodox by nourishing their churchly confusion as well as those of same faith by concealing and corrupting the principles of ecclesiological teaching clearly expressed by Holy Fathers in the Holy Spirit and our canonic Tradition about the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The heterodox will be harmed and corrupted by reading the text from Busan since they neither have any idea whether the text was ad referendum nor they can find that out.
The appendix documents
In addition to the present letter, we attach the translated Greek version for the text of “Unity Declaration” from Busan (Appendix I) as well as for a part of the protocol rules of the status of WCC (Appendix II) wherefrom results, according to the present procedure, the right of the representatives to express their opinions related to the subjects of churchly self consciousness to support a position in total agreement with their religion and to speak directly to their “churches” (Rules XX.6.d, p.6). Likewise, we attach (Appendix III) the speech of Archbishop Nifon of Targoviste, representative of Romanian Patriarchy, a speech marked mainly by the heterodox ecclesiological thinking that he gave to the closing meeting from Busan. The last appendix (IV) confirms that the elaboration of the text from Busan has started even from September 2012 when the general committee of WCC within the Orthodox Academy of Crete, from Kolybari.
The communiqué of the Synod of the Church of Greece from 15th September 2009 released 4 years ago for a similar occasion, observed the necessity of a “more complete information” of the Synod and it strongly claimed that “from now on the Synod will be informed about all the stages of the dialogue”, that “the dialogue needs to continue yet it has to be within the ecclesiological range and according to the orthodox canons” and that “the representatives of our Church to the respective dialogue have a clear knowledge of the orthodox theology, ecclesiology and churchly Tradition and they offer their knowledge and resources for the purpose of “the unity of all” “in truth”” [1].The heterodox text of “Unity Declaration” of WCC from Busan was prepared without any synodic deliberation within our Most Holy Church by the Central Committee of WCC as the custom is at the Academy from Crete (at Kolybari) from even autumn 2012 [2] when it was approved in fully agreement by the plenary session of WCC from 8th November last year in Busan. Thus, the text of “Unity Declaration” from Busan, totally unacceptable from an ecclesiological point of view, has been already shared everywhere as a common confession of the members of WCC and it has unfortunately become through this silence a confession for the Orthodox Church as well.
The ecclesiological errors and deceptions of the text from Busan
The official text entitled Unity Declaration from the 10th Conference of WCC has a position contrary to Orthodoxy, the Body of Christ since there has been accepted that (a) the Orthodox Church together with the other “churches” needs to repent for the fact that Christians are divided [3], (b) the Church, as the Body of Christ, was not necessarily guided by the dogmatic unity neither over the apostolic period [4], (c) that there is presently an invisible churchly unity of Christianity and therefore the visible unity of the One Church is expected [5], (d) that our Lord’s Jesus Christ prayer “may all be one” has not been accomplished yet and its fulfillment depends on us [6], (e) that the Church can enrich itself and take benefit from the charismas of heterodox [7], (f) that we will be responsible in front of God if we do not unceasingly aim to the Christian unity for the benefit of the outward right confession [8], (g) moreover, by virtue of a wile ambiguity, it claims that God “always surprises us” and that the Church continues having the conscience of the divine will [9], (h) that new ways should be used in approaching the theological discrepancies [10] and (i) that the Church unity is strongly inter-dependent on the unity of humanity and creation [11].
Besides, the text (j) has a non-Christian ecologist orientation as well, talking about the expectance for a mundane renewal of creation, earthly welfare of creation and humanity and about the human responsibility related to this matter [12], (k) talks about the collaboration of Christians with those of other faiths or with atheist regarding this earthly welfare [13]! Thus, it is not a surprise if the text uses as well the notorious occultist term “holistic” from monism to characterize the mission of Church (“holistic mission-evangelism” [14]). The text has lots of hints regarding the churchly toleration of “marginal” lifestyles, without specifying anything related to sin and repentance and that their final direction needs to be taken into account giving the more general positive attitude of the Conference from Busan to homosexuality [15].
https://www.youtube.com/embed/M94BeY_ZmtQ?feature=player_embedded from the min 30:36 of Archbishop Nifon’s declaration
A ridiculous official closing from the orthodox representatives during Meeting from Busan is represented by the speech of His Eminence Archbishop of Targoviste, kir Nifon, representative of Romanian Orthodox Church (Appendix III) who ascertains that (1) the Church unity is lost and that the existent Church, in its division is poor from a sacramental point of view [16], (2) he is not aware of which Christian division is the continuity of the old Church of Jerusalem [17] and (3) that all the people are brothers in Christ while the Christian baptism is only a sacramental superior step to the spiritual kinship of humanity, an unity that already exists [18]. His Eminence Nifon (4) was silent and concealed the fact that the orthodox ecclesiology from WCC was distorted, talking about the defense of “our traditional moral values” by WCC, as for instance, “the supreme value of the Christian family” [19].
The Orthodox ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian and the innovations from Porto Alegre and Busan
Saint Cyprian emphasizes even from the third century the unity around the bishop in Eucharist and in the right faith; here is what this holy father writes: “God is One and Christ is One and His Church is One, the faith is one, the flock is one, united through the unanimity connection in the lasting unity of the Body”[20]. Still, for Saint Cyprian, the orthodoxy is not a faith determined through a common agreement of bishops, it is the one taught by the Apostles from the very beginning. By the virtue of this faith, Saint Cyprian did not respect the jurisdiction and position of the Bishop of Rome, Stefan, but he advised to disobey him for Stefan breached the apostolic faith (Epistle LXXIV, Ad Pompeium contra Epistolam Stephan)[21]. The exigent ecclesiological teaching of Saint Cyprian who asserts that there is no salvation outside Church (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) is par excellence orthodox and in agreement the Tradition, according to Professor Vlasios Feidas. On the contrary, Augustine’s ecclesiology who claims that there are elements with churchly character also outside the Church, wherefrom it came to the point to represent the base for the text from Ravenna and for the latest texts released by WCC (Porto Alegre and Busan), represent a heresy [22] and admittedly, any persistent impenitent dogmatic fallacy represents a heresy for the Orthodox Church! [23]
The Church, as the Body of Christ, is infallible and cannot go wrong
The infallibility of the Church – denied in the text “Unity Declaration” from Busan, as it calls for repentance the Orthodoxy as well and apparently claims a progress in understanding the divine will – is a sermon not only of the Holy Scripture about Church, that it is being called “pillar and foundation of truth” (I Timothy 3:15) but also of the Inter-orthodox Synods of Patriarchs of the second millennium whom in order to defend it from the papists and protestants, preached sometimes that the (Orthodox) Catholic Church “cannot be wrong, for it is rich for having the Holy Spirit as teacher” [24] and some other times that “in all dogmas and teachings… we faultlessly believe in Christ’s Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church… that were always shining from Above through the right faith and were permanently shining… for it has been neither wrong nor deceived but it has always faultlessly risen, founded on the safe rock of our orthodox faith”. [25] Thus, orthodoxy is “the only right faith, the only worship that pleases God and the only saving path and we keep it unlessened, authentic and unaltered.” [26] After all these, they also preach that the alienation of heretic papists did not harm the universality and “infallibility” of the Church that yet “before those times through the work of the wile Pope of Rome, who wandered from the right path and fell for alien dogmas and pure inventions, expelled himself from the whole body of the right faithful Church and drew apart” however “the four parts of the ruptured cloth, each of it in its own country, remained united and connected through which we travel untroubled by the waves of the sea of this life(…). Thus, the right faithful Church of Christ rises now on four pillars, meaning on the four patriarchies and stays unshaken and untroubled.” [27]
Therefore, the statement of the text from Busan regarding Orthodoxy’s need of repentance for its apparent mistakes is rejected as it is totally reasonless and degrading for our Church.
Repentance [for faith fallacies] is truly right only for heretics
Further, the text from Busan calls us to repent also for the discord that exists within the Christian world! Yet the repentance is truly right for those who, according to the apostolic word, stand against (I Corinthians 11:16) the churchly belief and become heretics as “the one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty” (Galatians 5:10). On the contrary, the Church praises the shepherds who expelled from the garden of Church those with a different conscience and “expelled with the sling of Spirit the dangerous and contagious wolves, casting out from the stable of Church… as truly faithful servants of Christ” [28] in order to save the apostolic faith. Saint Cyprian who shares the same opinion writes against the heretics and schismatics that “we need to rejoice when these are expelled from the Church for they danger the pigeons and sheep of Christ with their wild and poisonous taint” [29]. Thus, is there not enough that they abolished from the Synodicon of Orthodoxy the anathemas against the heretics? Do we now have to also deny the fact that the dogmas of our Church represent “the faith of the Apostles, fathers and Orthodox people” giving the fact that according to the protestants from Busan, the Church needs repentance in the matters of faith and that they understand progressively the divine will?
The unity of the dogmatic confession of Church
The reference on the diversity of “churches” that we often hear at the WCC even during the conference from Porto Alegre and the conception about faith as being changeable and its understanding is in progress were used in the text from Busan as well in order to justify the vision about the “Christian Church invisibly united”. The text wording (section 10, page 5) that according to “the difference cannot possibly be so huge so that a schism has to follow it” distorts the ecclesiastic history and ecclesiology for only the variety of nations is faultless, according to the word of Saint Photius the Great and other Holy Fathers [30] yet not also the diversity of dogma that are common for the whole Church over the world as it has been ascertained since ancient times. Saints Ignatius [31] and Irineus [32] and others more asserted favorable to dogmatic unanimity of Church that as Christ’s Body and continuity of Apostolic Community, keeps “One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism” (Ephesians 4:5).
Casting out the heretics and schismatics cannot harm the Church, as Saint Basil also asserts: “these are pity worthily for their corruptibility as long as your body is whole through God’s Grace. For what is corrupted therefore is fallen apart and what stands therefore is not corrupted.” [33] The growth and difference in faith exists only according to personal faith in Christ and not in regard to the compact assemble of evangelical and patristic dogma. [34]
The invisible Church unity – a pure protestant dogma
The reference to the text “Unity Declaration” from Busan to the expected achievement of a visible unity between the orthodox and heretics indirectly suggests that there is already an invisible unity of the so-called One Church, “a multi-dogmatic” one, as it was declared in the text from Porto Alegre, yet this conception is nothing more than a protestant dogma categorically unaccepted by orthodox. The Synod from Constantinople in 1672 identifies the One Church with the visible and infallible Orthodox Church: We assert about the Orthodox Catholic Church that it is impossible for it to fall for a mistake as it is guided by the same head, Christ, the Truth itself and taught by the Spirit of truth… It is as well always visible and may the orthodox never miss this till the end of time, as long as not all of them will die, but all will be changed, as the Apostle said when he spoke about the faithful ones. Thus it is clear that till the end of times the Church of Christ is visible and complete, without missing any part of it.”[35] However, the Bible clearly tells us that the Church is visible, as long as it can be located (I Timothy 3:15) and it talks about the increase of its members (Acts 2:47). The orthodox interpretation of the evangelic word about the “the town built on a hill cannot be hidden” that is obviously visible” refers to the Church. [36]
The Christological disdain of the expression “may all be one”
Additionally, the so promoted argument in the dialogue with papists and so common within the WCC as well as within the meeting from Busan and based on the Lord’s prayer “may all be one” (John 17:11; 21-23) ends up in a total despise of the Christological teaching, for as long as the real unity of those who believe represent the will of God-Man Christ, according to the ecumenist claims, this unity has not yet been achieved. Is it because of the weakness of Christ’s divine will as some impious people do claim? Is it because the Nestorian distinction between what Nestor calls Jesus’ gnomic will and Holy Trinity’s will? Yet God-Man within His two natures has “two wills of the two natures that each is not contrary to the other…for His human nature follows His divine and almighty nature and it does not stand against and is not inimical to it, but it rather obeys it”. [37] Thus, His divine will, having His fully deified human nature obedient to it, is the one expressed through His human voice in his hierarchic pray for the unity of the faithful ones. This is accompanied by His almightiness and openly manifests in those who deliberately obey to Christ. Therefore, Saint John Chrysostom certifies that this expression “may all be one” has been attained already in the Church through the inward faith unanimity despite the apostasy of heretics that represents the fruit of their superficiality: “What will we say then? Has this been attained already? It has strongly been attained, for those who believed through the Apostles are one, even if some of them separated from them, being well known that He did not conceal this as He announced it beforehand and explained that the aforementioned fall is caused by people’s ignorance.” [38] The frequent mention of the expression “may all be one” within these dialogue is blasphemous for it claims that those words were not accomplished over the time and it hints that the Holy Spirit, the Almighty Comforter, the God of peace and not of disorder (I Corinthians 14:33) that has the uniting work (“he called all to unity”[39]) has not yet been given to the Church. Therefore, the WCC and the other ecumenists foreshadow a new Pentecost for the unity of the separated ones!
The ecological falls of WCC
The references from the “Unity Declaration” of WCC to the concern and prosperity of creation as a way and purpose for the welfare of humanity conceal from a theological point of view an ecological millenarianism. Obviously that the word of the New Testament regarding the “eagerness of creation” “that has been groaning with pains of childbirth up to the present time”, about the attainment of incorruptibility that hints the eternity, “to share the glorious freedom of God’s children”, when we set free from the corrupting bondage for the “feature glory that will be revealed to us” [40]. WCC defines a new earthly expectance and a new eschatology. By ignoring the ancestral fall of humanity, the authors of the Declaration aim to guide us to the commandment given to the man before his fall, to work and protect (Genesis 2:15) without trouble the Garden of Eden suppressing the evangelical sermon about repentance for the sin and apostasies of all kinds, as well as they ignore the heavenly ones and the dogma that teaches us that for Christians’ “citizenship is in Heaven” (Philippians 3:20) and not on earth’s paradises. The creation serves the salvation of man by proving the eternal power and divinity of God and through showing his well-doing [41] and does not represent the good in itself. God is not firstly concerned about horses and insentient creation in general but about the rational human being who is aware of the drama of being immortal: “God is not only concerned about oxen, is he? Isn’t he really speaking for our benefit?” (I Corinthians 9:9-10)
Source: Orthódoxos Týpos, 6th June 2014, no 2025, p. 1, 7. via:http://acvila30.ro/graiul-ortodox-cinci-mitropoliti-eleni-contesta-deciziile-c-m-b-contrare-ortodoxiei/#more-91322
[1] «ἩἹεραρχία γιά “ὁμολογία πίστεως” καί “διάλογο”»,http://www.romfea.gr/component/content/article/25-2009-12-18-08-37-46/5539-2010-08-07-10-45-46
[2] Central Committee Members August 2012 http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2%2Farchived.oikoumene.org%2Ffileadmin%2Ffiles%2Fwccmain%2Fdocuments%2Fgoverning_bodies%2
Fcentral_committee%2F2012%2FCentralCommitteeMembers_August2012.xlsx&ei=u
[3]Appendix I, section 5 (p. 3) and section 14 (p. 6).
[4]Appendix I, section 4 (p. 2), section 7 (p. 4) and section 10 (p. 5).
[5] Appendix I, section 14 (pp.6 and 7) and section 16 (p. 7).
[6] Appendix I, section 7 (p. 3 and 4) and section 15 (p. 7).
[7] Appendix I, section3 (p. 2), section 4 (p. 2) and section 15 (p. 7).
[8] Appendix I, section 2 (p. 2), section 4 (p. 3), section 11 (p. 5) and section 14 (p. 6).
[9] Appendix I, section 6 (p. 3), section 8 (p. 4), section9 (p. 4) and section 1 (p. 8).
[10] Appendix I, section 15 (p. 7).
[11] Appendix I, section 13 (p. 6) and section 9 (p. 4).
[12] Appendix I, section 3 (p. 2) and section 8 (p. 4).
[13] Appendix I, section 12 (p. 6) and section 15 (p. 7).
[14] Appendix I, section 12 (p. 5). See Archimandrite Hristophoros Tsiakkas (the present Metropolitan of Karpasia) ἘγκυκλοπαιδικόΛεξικόΘρησκειῶνκαίΑἱρέσεων, Printing House Ἱ.Μ. Τροοδιτίσσης, Cyprus 2002, pp. 697-699, and 613-616. See also the use of expression “holistic agenda” also in the speeches of the President of WCC Dame Mary Elizabeth Tanner, commander of Imperial British Order (Appendix IV, p 2).
[15] Appendix I, section 6 (p. 3) and section 7 (p. 3). About the evolution in accepting homosexuality from the General Meeting in Porto Alegre (2006) to the one in Busan (2013), see Holy Monastery Pantocrator, Forgive us for being orthodox: 10th General Meeting of WCC from Busan (part IV) )http://www.impantokratoros.gr/0862339B.el.aspx
[16]Appendix III, p. 3.
[17]Appendix III, p. 2.
[18]Appendix III, pp. 1-2.
[19]Appendix III, p. 2.
[20] Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ 23, PL 4, 517B: «Deus unus est, et Christus unus, et una Ecclesia ejus, et fides una, et plebs una in solidam corporis unitatem concordiæ glutino copulata».
[21] In his Epistle to Pompey, as an answer to the Epistle to the Bishop of Rome, Stephan, Saint Cyprian, amongst others uses the story of the broken water pipe – when deviating from the water pipe, we go to the source of waters – for avoiding the dogmatic mistakes of bishop, in this case the Bishop of Rome, Stephan; therefore we need to go directly to the Head and divine source of Tradition: «Nam si ad divinæ traditionis caput et originem revertamur, cessat error humanus … ut si vitio interrupti aut bibuli canalis effectum est quo minus aqua continua perseveranter ac jugiter flueret, refecto et confirmato canali ad usum atque ad potum civitatis aqua collecta eadem ubertate atque integritate repræsentetur qua de fonte proficiscitur?» (S. CYPRIANUS, Ad Pompeium contra Epistolam Stephani de Hæreticis baptizandis 10, PL 3, 1133 B.C).
[22]ΒΛ. ΦΕΙΔΑΣ, ἘκκλησιαστικήἹστορία, vol. I, Athens 1994, pp. 567 and 569-570.
Blessed Augustine “for reasoning the universal and undefeatable character of the divine Grace had to confront himself with a) previous churchly tradition regarding this respect that according to the divine Grace is given to the man only through the Sacraments and only within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (…). This permission of granting the divine grace both to the ministering priest and the canonic decisions of Church made blessed Augustine come to a contradiction with the ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian that by expressing the more general churchly knowledge asserted ad hoc that those baptized by heretics or schismatics do not receive the divine grace for extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (…) yet [according to the blessed Augustine’s teaching] the heretics can as well be considered in a sort of way members of Church, for “many who seem to be outside, are actually inside” the Church {De baptismo 5, 28} (…) Yet the ecclesiological consequences of (Augustine’s teaching) were clarified especially by the later scholastic theology and by the protestant reformation and they decisively influenced the entire ecclesiology of western Christianity. This thing is observed not only in the protestant teaching about the “Invisible Church” but also in the roman-catholic ecclesiology of the recent disposition De oecumenismo (Unitatis redintegratio) from II Council from Vatican.
[23]Ν.ΜΑΤΣΟΥΚΑΣ, Ὀρθοδοξίακαίαἵρεση,ΦιλοσοφικήκαίΘεολογικήΒιβλιοθήκη 23, EdituraΠ. Πουρναρᾶ, Thessaloniki 1992, p. 99,103. “Therefore, the criteria of delimitations between orthodoxy and heresy need to be historical. The first claims the ancientry while the second one claims the innovation. (…) The orthodox position is clear and steady. This is the only criteria for the purity and authenticity of teaching.”
[24] Synodic letter to the Synod of Jerusalem from 1672, in ΙΩ. ΚΑΡΜΙΡΗ, Τά Δογματικά καί Συμβολικά Μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, Athens 1953, vol. II, p. 704.
[25] The Creed Confession of the Synod from Constantinople 1727, 16, in ΙΩ. ΚΑΡΜΙΡΗ, op. cit., p. 868.
[26] Encyclical of the Synod from Constantinople from 1836 against the protestant missionaries, 7, in ΙΩ. ΚΑΡΜΙΡΗ, op. cit., p. 883.
[27] Answers (1716/1725) of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs to Anglicans, Answer 5, in ΙΩ. ΚΑΡΜΙΡΗ, op. cit., p. 794 and the following.
[28] Stihira from the Praises of the Sunday of 318 God bearing Fathers from Nicene (The Seventh Sunday after Easter)
[29] Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ 9, PL 4, 506C-507A: «Gratulandum est, cum tales de Ecclesia separantur, ne columbas, ne oves Christi sæva sua et venenata contagione prædentur».
[30] Photius’ Epistle to Pope Nicholas p 102, 605D: «Οὕτωςἐνοἷςοὐκἔστιπίστιςτόἀθετούμενον, οὐδέκοινοῦτεκαίκαθολικοῦψηφίσματοςἔκπτωσις, ἄλλωνπαρ΄ἄλλοιςἐθῶντεκαίνομίμωνφυλαττομένων, οὔτετούςφύλακαςἀδικεῖνοὔτετούςμήπαραδεξαμένουςπαρανομεῖνὀρθῶςἄντιςκρίνεινεἰδώςδιορίσαιτο». S. FIRMILIANUS, Epistle LXXV Ad Cyprianum contra epistolam Stephani 6, PL 3, 1159A: «… in ceteris quoque plurimis provinciis multa pro locorum et hominum diversitate variantur, nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiæ Catholicæ pace atque unitate aliquando descessum est. Quod nunc Stephanus ausus est facere rumpens adversus vos pacem».
[31]ἘπιστολήΦιλαδελφεῦσι 3, p 5, 700A.
[32]Ἔλεγχοςκαίἀνατροπήτῆςψευδωνύμουγνώσεως 1, 10, 2 PG 7a, 552 A.B.
[33] Ἐπιστολή 238, Νικοπολίταις Πρεσβυτέροις PG 32, 889B.
[34] IΩΑΝΝΗΣΔΑΜΑΣΚΗΝΟΣ, ἜκδοσιςἀκριβήςτῆςὈρθοδόξουΠίστεως 4, 10 (83) PG 94, 1125C-1128B. ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΟΣ, ΕἰςτήνπρόςΡωμαίους 26, 3 PG 60, 640.
[35] Tomosul Sinodal al Sinodului de la Constantinopol din 1672, în ΙΩ. ΚΑΡΜΙΡΗ, Τά Δογματικά καί Συμβολικά Μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, Atena 1953, vol. II, p. 692.
[36]ΚΥΡΙΛΛΟΣΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ, ἘξήγησιςὑπομνηματικήεἰςτόνΠροφήτηνἨσαΐαν 1, 2 PG 70, 69A.B. ΕΥΣΕΒΙΟΣΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΙΑΣ, Εὐαγγελικήπροπαρασκευή 6, 18 PG 22, 457D.
[37] Ὅρος Πίστεως τῆς ΣΤ’ Οἰκουμενικής Συνόδου, în ΙΩ. ΚΑΡΜΙΡΗ, Τά Δογματικά καί Συμβολικά Μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, Atena 1952, vol. I, p. 187.
[38]ΕἰςτόκατάἸωάννην 82, 2, PG 59, 444.
[39] Kontakion of the Pentecost Sunday (voice 8).
[40]Romans 8:18-23.
[41]Romans 1:20 and Acts 14:17.
Source: Graiul Ortodox
