Why isn't ecumenism taken seriously as a heresy?

[Ecumenism is Heresy 141]

Hello everyone, I am new to these forums. I am a baptized Orthodox Christian. I am not trying to upset anyone with this question, but it has troubled me for several days. I do not go to a 'True Orthodox' church currently, but frankly I am considering it.

The ROCOR 1983 anathema against ecumenism says the following:

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

Now, what is an anathema? That is a good question.
Anathema - OrthodoxWiki
The above website says the following and they cite St. John Maximovich and St. Theophan the Recluse.
The website says: "Anathema is the most extreme sanction that the Orthodox Church can take against a member of the Church for wrong doing. An anathema is a complete separation, an expulsion, from the Church."

Okay, let's look at another website.
The Word Anathema and Its Meaning
This website says: "Anathema" literally means the lifting up of something separate. In the Old Testament this expression was used both in relation to that which was alienated due to sinfulness and likewise to that which was dedicated to God."

Again this emphasizes "alienation" and "separation" from the Church.

If there are any other definitions of anathema, I would be interested to hear them but almost every website I have looked at has emphasized that those under anathema are not part of the Church. The very word in Greek apparently implies separation.

As one example of prominent ecumenism, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow in 2016 issued a joint statement with Pope Francis calling each other "brothers" in the faith and other such absurdities. And Patriarch Kirill is considered "conservative" compared to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemew, who has also met with the Pope and made even more ecumenical statements. None of those statements have been taken back since they were made.
All Orthodox jurisdictions (except the Georgian Patriarchate I think) are members of the World Council of Churches.

This website World Council of Churches | Description, History, & Members
says the following about the WCC: "World Council of Churches (WCC), Christian ecumenical organization founded in 1948 in Amsterdam as “a fellowship of Churches which accept Jesus Christ our Lord as God and Saviour.” The WCC is not a church, nor does it issue orders or directions to the churches. It works for the unity and renewal of the Christian denominations and offers them a forum in which they may work together in the spirit of tolerance and mutual understanding."

Would this blatant ecumenism not fall under ROCOR's 1983 anathema against ecumenism?
My conscience is pricked when we commemorate ecumenist hierarchs in the liturgy, for are these ecumenists not outside the Church and not anathematized?

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

God decides who is anathema and it is found in His word so based on His word some aspects of ecumenical unity are worth condemning. Others are not Biblical such as your declaration of the Eucharist and giving the priesthood this authority. We can debate these topics separately and use the Bible as the proof text for arguing. But the main abomination of the ecumenical movement is that there is more than one path to God other than through Jesus Christ. In Rev 5 we see all in heaven worship the lamb and acknowledge that He has redeemed them by His blood out of every tribe tongue kindred and nation. Jesus denoted if you do not believe I am He you will die in your sins. I believe Jesus is LORD and confess my faith in Him. In Rev 20 anyone who's name is not written in the Lamb's book of life is cast into the fire and that is the 2nd death. Your declaration that if I disagree with you regarding your church's teaching on the priesthood and communion will not take my name out of that book. I have the holy spirit in my life and know the before and after faith life in the Spirit. We should focus on the clear gospel and declare it to all. As John in his gospel gave us a thesis statement. And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. The ecumenical movement is including life to those who do not believe Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God. Your statement of anathema includes those who believe exactly this. Think if it over.

 

[dzheremi]

@Brian Mcnamee : This thread is on The Ancient Way, the Eastern Orthodox confessional subforum. The site-wide rules on guests from other traditions posting on specific subforums is that they/we are not allowed to teach or argue against the faith represented by the particular subforum on which we find ourselves. The EO do have a debate forum, St. Justin Martyr's Corner, and this is where all posts that criticize or teach against the EO religion should go, not on the main confessional forum (TAW).

 

[ArmyMatt]

Hello everyone, I am new to these forums. I am a baptized Orthodox Christian. I am not trying to upset anyone with this question, but it has troubled me for several days. I do not go to a 'True Orthodox' church currently, but frankly I am considering it.

The ROCOR 1983 anathema against ecumenism says the following:

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

Now, what is an anathema? That is a good question.
Anathema - OrthodoxWiki
The above website says the following and they cite St. John Maximovich and St. Theophan the Recluse.
The website says: "Anathema is the most extreme sanction that the Orthodox Church can take against a member of the Church for wrong doing. An anathema is a complete separation, an expulsion, from the Church."

Okay, let's look at another website.
The Word Anathema and Its Meaning
This website says: "Anathema" literally means the lifting up of something separate. In the Old Testament this expression was used both in relation to that which was alienated due to sinfulness and likewise to that which was dedicated to God."

Again this emphasizes "alienation" and "separation" from the Church.

If there are any other definitions of anathema, I would be interested to hear them but almost every website I have looked at has emphasized that those under anathema are not part of the Church. The very word in Greek apparently implies separation.

As one example of prominent ecumenism, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow in 2016 issued a joint statement with Pope Francis calling each other "brothers" in the faith and other such absurdities. And Patriarch Kirill is considered "conservative" compared to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemew, who has also met with the Pope and made even more ecumenical statements. None of those statements have been taken back since they were made.
All Orthodox jurisdictions (except the Georgian Patriarchate I think) are members of the World Council of Churches.

This website World Council of Churches | Description, History, & Members
says the following about the WCC: "World Council of Churches (WCC), Christian ecumenical organization founded in 1948 in Amsterdam as “a fellowship of Churches which accept Jesus Christ our Lord as God and Saviour.” The WCC is not a church, nor does it issue orders or directions to the churches. It works for the unity and renewal of the Christian denominations and offers them a forum in which they may work together in the spirit of tolerance and mutual understanding."

Would this blatant ecumenism not fall under ROCOR's 1983 anathema against ecumenism?
My conscience is pricked when we commemorate ecumenist hierarchs in the liturgy, for are these ecumenists not outside the Church and not anathematized?

it depends on what you mean. ecumenism can mean dialogue with the heterodox and heretics to bring them to the truth, which is good. it can also mean lowering the truth to the lowest common denominator, which is evil.

it might fall under the anathema depending on how one approaches it. remember, it took decades after Nicaea for Arianism to be rooted out.

 

[ArmyMatt]

God decides who is anathema and it is found in His word so based on His word some aspects of ecumenical unity are worth condemning. Others are not Biblical such as your declaration of the Eucharist and giving the priesthood this authority. We can debate these topics separately and use the Bible as the proof text for arguing. But the main abomination of the ecumenical movement is that there is more than one path to God other than through Jesus Christ. In Rev 5 we see all in heaven worship the lamb and acknowledge that He has redeemed them by His blood out of every tribe tongue kindred and nation. Jesus denoted if you do not believe I am He you will die in your sins. I believe Jesus is LORD and confess my faith in Him. In Rev 20 anyone who's name is not written in the Lamb's book of life is cast into the fire and that is the 2nd death. Your declaration that if I disagree with you regarding your church's teaching on the priesthood and communion will not take my name out of that book. I have the holy spirit in my life and know the before and after faith life in the Spirit. We should focus on the clear gospel and declare it to all. As John in his gospel gave us a thesis statement. And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. The ecumenical movement is including life to those who do not believe Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God. Your statement of anathema includes those who believe exactly this. Think if it over.

just a thought, but how about knowing what we believe about the Eucharist before giving us your commentary? it looks less foolish and rude.

 

[Ecumenism is Heresy 141]

God decides who is anathema and it is found in His word so based on His word some aspects of ecumenical unity are worth condemning. Others are not Biblical such as your declaration of the Eucharist and giving the priesthood this authority. We can debate these topics separately and use the Bible as the proof text for arguing. But the main abomination of the ecumenical movement is that there is more than one path to God other than through Jesus Christ. In Rev 5 we see all in heaven worship the lamb and acknowledge that He has redeemed them by His blood out of every tribe tongue kindred and nation. Jesus denoted if you do not believe I am He you will die in your sins. I believe Jesus is LORD and confess my faith in Him. In Rev 20 anyone who's name is not written in the Lamb's book of life is cast into the fire and that is the 2nd death. Your declaration that if I disagree with you regarding your church's teaching on the priesthood and communion will not take my name out of that book. I have the holy spirit in my life and know the before and after faith life in the Spirit. We should focus on the clear gospel and declare it to all. As John in his gospel gave us a thesis statement. And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. The ecumenical movement is including life to those who do not believe Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God. Your statement of anathema includes those who believe exactly this. Think if it over.

Is this a question or a statement? My question was directed to Orthodox Christians primarily.
It is not me making this anathema but rather me restating the 1983 anathema of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. We have a very different faith - Orthodoxy - than you do.

 

[Ecumenism is Heresy 141]

it depends on what you mean. ecumenism can mean dialogue with the heterodox and heretics to bring them to the truth, which is good. it can also mean lowering the truth to the lowest common denominator, which is evil.

it might fall under the anathema depending on how one approaches it. remember, it took decades after Nicaea for Arianism to be rooted out.

Yes, but should we not flee from ecumenist bishops and break communion with them just as the Orthodox Christians of old had to flee from Arian bishops and break communion with them?

Also, thank you for replying.

As to the term 'ecumenism', I am aware that it can be used in two different ways. It can be what the ROCOR 1983 anathema speaks about: branch theory, considering heterodox as "part of the Church", attempting to reunite with heterodox, etc. Or, by contrast, it can be a synonym for proselytization or evangelization of heterodox which the anathema does not target. I avoid using it in the latter way as it creates equivocation and confusion.

The actions of the hierarchs I am referring to is sadly of the former definition.
Patriarch Kirill called Pope Francis a "brother" in the faith.
According to this 1983 anathema, that's anathema.
Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia | The Russian Orthodox Church

I am just using him as an example, other hierarchs have made similar statements.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, but should we not flee from ecumenist bishops and break communion with them just as the Orthodox Christians of old had to flee from Arian bishops and break communion with them?

Also, thank you for replying.

As to the term 'ecumenism', I am aware that it can be used in two different ways. It can be what the ROCOR 1983 anathema speaks about: branch theory, considering heterodox as "part of the Church", attempting to reunite with heterodox, etc. Or, by contrast, it can be a synonym for proselytization or evangelization of heterodox which the anathema does not target. I avoid using it in the latter way as it creates equivocation and confusion.

The actions of the hierarchs I am referring to is sadly of the former definition.
Patriarch Kirill called Pope Francis a "brother" in the faith.
According to this 1983 anathema, that's anathema.
Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia | The Russian Orthodox Church

I am just using him as an example, other hierarchs have made similar statements.

well, that's not exactly how it worked. after Nicaea, you had folks in the same parish who were Arians or semi-Arians openly debating the Orthodox. they didn't just break communion. at the Schism, Constantinople had a deacon chase down Humbert to take back the Bull of excommunication, so they could talk (and this was 200 years after Constantinople 4 which condemned the Filioque).

 

[Ecumenism is Heresy 141]

well, that's not exactly how it worked. after Nicaea, you had folks in the same parish who were Arians or semi-Arians openly debating the Orthodox. they didn't just break communion. at the Schism, Constantinople had a deacon chase down Humbert to take back the Bull of excommunication, so they could talk (and this was 200 years after Constantinople 4 which condemned the Filioque).

Sadly we are not just talking about laity.

If your priest is a public heretic and under anathema i.e. completely outside the Church, are his mysteries real? How can someone outside the Church do mysteries? That seems like a contradiction of our core beliefs.

It is my understanding that during the Arian crisis most of the Orthodox fled from Arian priests, bishops, and patriarchs.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

I took this little ditty with me to the OB/GYN office to read while I awaited my wife:
https://www.amazon.com/Church-Treat...881413127/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Seems to have some answers on this topic.

St Cyprian, third-century bishop of Carthage, developed a theory of church unity almost universally accepted up to the European Reformation: to be a member of the Body of Christ you needed to be in communion with a priest who was in communion with a bishop who in turn was in communion with all other bishops in the world. But, how could you discern who was a legitimate bishop?Among other questions.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sadly we are not just talking about laity.

If your priest is a public heretic and under anathema i.e. completely outside the Church, are his mysteries real? How can someone outside the Church do mysteries? That seems like a contradiction of our core beliefs.

It is my understanding that during the Arian crisis most of the Orthodox fled from Arian priests, bishops, and patriarchs.

that's not how it works. ROCOR came back into full communion with everyone in 2008 to include the bishops you are mentioning. the Synod which came up with that Council hasn't enforced it the way you are saying it should be enforced.

plus, for grace to cease a cleric actually has to be formally kicked out of the Church. read the early history between us and the non-Chalcedonians.

 

[Ecumenism is Heresy 141]

that's not how it works. ROCOR came back into full communion with everyone in 2008 to include the bishops you are mentioning. the Synod which came up with that Council hasn't enforced it the way you are saying it should be enforced.

plus, for grace to cease a cleric actually has to be formally kicked out of the Church. read the early history between us and the non-Chalcedonians.

Does an anathema not entail separation from the Church? For example, when the EP anathematized Rome in 1054, the EP did not have to individually 'kick' each priest and bishop in Western Europe under the Roman Pope out of the Church. The anathema entailed that.

As for ROCOR, several factions split off from their organization rejecting the union with the Moscow Patriarchate. According to these 'True Orthodox' factions, ROCOR-MP fell under their own 1983 anathema. They all claim themselves as true successors to ROCOR.

ROCOR in the 1980s I believe enforced this anathema the way it's written. ROCOR were out of communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch starting in 1960s after the EP Athenagoras lifted anathemas against Rome and met in Jerusalem with Pope Paul VI.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Does an anathema not entail separation from the Church? For example, when the EP anathematized Rome in 1054, the EP did not have to individually 'kick' each priest and bishop in Western Europe under the Roman Pope out of the Church. The anathema entailed that.

As for ROCOR, several factions split off from their organization rejecting the union with the Moscow Patriarchate. According to these 'True Orthodox' factions, ROCOR-MP fell under their own 1983 anathema. They all claim themselves as true successors to ROCOR.

ROCOR in the 1980s I believe enforced this anathema the way it's written. ROCOR were out of communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch starting in 1960s after the EP Athenagoras lifted anathemas against Rome and met in Jerusalem with Pope Paul VI.

that depends. Origen was condemned for heresy in his own lifetime, yet many of the Fathers at Nicaea were open Origenists. plus, after Nicaea many were still open Arians or Semi-Arians. it was only til after Constantinople I was they were basically snuffed out.

as far as the Schism, that was a full break between East and West. they were by default anathema since the West broke communion with us and stayed in communion with Rome. ROCOR was not a full schism like that. they always remained in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem, who also were in communion with everyone else.

 

[Ecumenism is Heresy 141]

that depends. Origen was condemned for heresy in his own lifetime, yet many of the Fathers at Nicaea were open Origenists. plus, after Nicaea many were still open Arians or Semi-Arians. it was only til after Constantinople I was they were basically snuffed out.

as far as the Schism, that was a full break between East and West. they were by default anathema since the West broke communion with us and stayed in communion with Rome. ROCOR was not a full schism like that. they always remained in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem, who also were in communion with everyone else.

I am not saying there is a "chain of communion" anathema where the other Patriarchates who are in communion with the heretic under anathema are automatically anathematized. However, ROCOR considered the EP as heretical for a long period of time. Many 'True Orthodox' synods who claim themselves as ROCOR's successors still do call the EP heretical and refuse communion with it. ROCOR did not break communion with Jerusalem or Serbia because at that time those jurisdictions had not fallen to the pan-heresy of ecumenism.

If you were living in the Arian crisis and knew your bishop was an Arian, would you not flee from him?

He may not be deposed yet, but are the faithful not justified in fleeing from heretics?

Furthermore, once much time has passed since the pronunciation of this public heresy and numerous attempts have been made to make it clear to the heretics where they have deviated from the Orthodox faith, is it not our responsibility to flee from these unrepentant heretics?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am not saying there is a "chain of communion" anathema where the other Patriarchates who are in communion with the heretic under anathema are automatically anathematized. However, ROCOR considered the EP as heretical for a long period of time. Many 'True Orthodox' synods who claim themselves as ROCOR's successors still do call the EP heretical and refuse communion with it. ROCOR did not break communion with Jerusalem or Serbia because at that time those jurisdictions had not fallen to the pan-heresy of ecumenism.

If you were living in the Arian crisis and knew your bishop was an Arian, would you not flee from him?

He may not be deposed yet, but are the faithful not justified in fleeing from heretics?

Furthermore, once much time has passed since the pronunciation of this public heresy and numerous attempts have been made to make it clear to the heretics where they have deviated from the Orthodox faith, is it not our responsibility to flee from these unrepentant heretics?

well, True Orthodox are schismatics and can't even keep themselves together, so that isn't a good point (plus, if they were interpreting that Council as ROCOR did in the 80s, they would not have broken communion with Serbia and Jerusalem). my point was that both Schisms were different. the Schism between East and West was literally that the West fully sided with Rome, and the East sided with the East (and Truth), so it's not a good comparison. no such thing happened when it comes to ROCOR.

I would probably flee, but I am not everybody. again, many clergy still followed Arius after Nicaea, and interpreted the Council in an Arian or Semi-Arian way. and still openly professed their errors.

they are justified, but until he is deposed, he is still a vessel of grace. read how St Cyril addresses Nestorius in the very letter where he points out Nestorius' heresy.

Origen was pronounced a heretic in the 200s. it took til 553 for his heresy to be formally weeded out, and then til 681 to be affirmed. so how much time is "much time?"

 

[Nick T]

Its important I think to be careful about not falling into a Donatist understanding of the Church and how it operates here. Grace and the sacraments are not something dependant on the righteousness or indeed even right beliefs of individual priests and bishops- rather they come from God through his Church. Even if a priest is teaching error, until he is removed from the Church by episcopal authority then he remains a priest and his sacraments continue to have grace. And in the case of a Bishop the same goes until he is formally anathemised and removed by his brother-bishops.

With regards to the anathemas of Councils, they still require Bishops to enforce them. To use the example of the Great Schism, the 879 Council of Constantinople had already condemned the Filioque, but it wasn't until the mutual anathemas of 1054 that a schism took place. Once there is a schism then yes you can speak of one side breaking out the communion of the Church, and that it is therefore incumbent for those who might find themselves under the schismatic (that is to say in obedience to Bishops who are either themselves part of the schism or who are in obedience to a schismatic Patriarch/Archbishop/Metropolitan) to break free from them and re-establish communion with the rest of the Church.

This might sound overly formulaic but remember that Christ gave authority and the power of the keys to the 12 Apostles and their successors- that is to say the Bishops. They are the ones that can bind and loose with God's authority, not us laity. That doesn't mean of course that it isn't wise to avoid priests/bishops that are doing harm even within the Church, but it does mean we shouldn't be applying anathemas ourselves as though we have the authority to loosen someone from the Church of our own will.

 

[Ecumenism is Heresy 141]

Its important I think to be careful about not falling into a Donatist understanding of the Church and how it operates here. Grace and the sacraments are not something dependant on the righteousness or indeed even right beliefs of individual priests and bishops- rather they come from God through his Church. Even if a priest is teaching error, until he is removed from the Church by episcopal authority then he remains a priest and his sacraments continue to have grace. And in the case of a Bishop the same goes until he is formally anathemised and removed by his brother-bishops.

With regards to the anathemas of Councils, they still require Bishops to enforce them. To use the example of the Great Schism, the 879 Council of Constantinople had already condemned the Filioque, but it wasn't until the mutual anathemas of 1054 that a schism took place. Once there is a schism then yes you can speak of one side breaking out the communion of the Church, and that it is therefore incumbent for those who might find themselves under the schismatic (that is to say in obedience to Bishops who are either themselves part of the schism or who are in obedience to a schismatic Patriarch/Archbishop/Metropolitan) to break free from them and re-establish communion with the rest of the Church.

This might sound overly formulaic but remember that Christ gave authority and the power of the keys to the 12 Apostles and their successors- that is to say the Bishops. They are the ones that can bind and loose with God's authority, not us laity. That doesn't mean of course that it isn't wise to avoid priests/bishops that are doing harm even within the Church, but it does mean we shouldn't be applying anathemas ourselves as though we have the authority to loosen someone from the Church of our own will.

The Donatists (according to my understanding) claimed that the grace of the mysteries was negated by personal sins of a priest. For example, if your priest robbed a bank, the Donatists would have said that he does not have grace to do mysteries because of his personal sin.

That is not the argument here.

The pan-heresy of ecumenism is not just a personal sin but a negation of one's confession of the Orthodox faith. Is it not? I do not see any way around this. A priest may rob ten banks and still have grace in the mysteries, what but if he stops confessing the Orthodox faith and goes into heresy publicly? As the hierarchs of the EP, MP, Antioch, and most other jurisdictions have also fallen into this pan-heresy from what I can tell, the deposition of ecumenists is not going to happen anytime soon.

Anathema (according to my sources in the original post) is not just a warning, but a "complete separation, an expulsion, from the Church". I believe that there are also canons that automatically depose any priest or bishop who prays with heretics, lights the menorah, goes to the mosque, etc.

 

[ArmyMatt]

no, a Donatism includes heresy as well. in fact, the heresy was in response to clergy who caved under persecution.

it's not just about moral lapses.

 

[Nick T]

The Donatists (according to my understanding) claimed that the grace of the mysteries was negated by personal sins of a priest. For example, if your priest robbed a bank, the Donatists would have said that he does not have grace to do mysteries because of his personal sin.

That is not the argument here.

The pan-heresy of ecumenism is not just a personal sin but a negation of one's confession of the Orthodox faith. Is it not? I do not see any way around this. A priest may rob ten banks and still have grace in the mysteries, what but if he stops confessing the Orthodox faith and goes into heresy publicly? As the hierarchs of the EP, MP, Antioch, and most other jurisdictions have also fallen into this pan-heresy from what I can tell, the deposition of ecumenists is not going to happen anytime soon.

One of the central points to the opposition to Donatism was in fact that the sacrament is not dependant on any personal qualities of the priest, including faith (in fact St. Augustine is very particular on the latter point because, as Fr. Matt said, it later became an important part of the controversy). A priest is ordained as such by the power of God and his Church, and this cannot simply be invalidated by the priests own personal will. Only if a priest is canonically de-frocked by a Synod can we say that he has "lost" his priesthood.

Also there is a difference between teaching heresy and leaving the Church. The Church is a real visible institution which one enters through baptism. It is not an invisible communion open only to those with the correct teaching in which people slip in and out depending on their theological knowledge. It is entirely possible for someone to be a public heretic and still be in the Church, although it is obviously a dangerous and lamentable state of affairs, since Bishops are supposed to remove those who do so from any position of authority.

Anathema (according to my sources in the original post) is not just a warning, but a "complete separation, an expulsion, from the Church". I believe that there are also canons that automatically depose any priest or bishop who prays with heretics, lights the menorah, goes to the mosque, etc.

Teaching heresy (or even breaking the canons) does not automatically depose a Bishop or priest. As Fr. Matt and I have stated, historically there were many bishops who taught heresy but were not deposed until specific Synods were called against them to anathemise them personally. An anathema does indeed cast out from the Church those whom it anathemises, but it is then up to later bishops to enforce those anathemas in their own times. Otherwise there would be no need for modern synods to be called to depose heretical or misbehaving bishops because they would be automatically deposed anyway.

 

[Ecumenism is Heresy 141]

well, True Orthodox are schismatics and can't even keep themselves together, so that isn't a good point (plus, if they were interpreting that Council as ROCOR did in the 80s, they would not have broken communion with Serbia and Jerusalem). my point was that both Schisms were different. the Schism between East and West was literally that the West fully sided with Rome, and the East sided with the East (and Truth), so it's not a good comparison. no such thing happened when it comes to ROCOR.

I would probably flee, but I am not everybody. again, many clergy still followed Arius after Nicaea, and interpreted the Council in an Arian or Semi-Arian way. and still openly professed their errors.

they are justified, but until he is deposed, he is still a vessel of grace. read how St Cyril addresses Nestorius in the very letter where he points out Nestorius' heresy.

Origen was pronounced a heretic in the 200s. it took til 553 for his heresy to be formally weeded out, and then til 681 to be affirmed. so how much time is "much time?"

When ROCOR unified with the MP, it caused a lot of chaos so these 'True Orthodox' jurisdictions who split away in resistance have some excuse to be disunified. As for them being 'schismatic' i.e. outside the Orthodox Church, they could just as easily say that about ROCOR-MP. It just begs the question: how do we know that we are inside or outside the Church?

My first answer would be the Orthodox faith is essential to being in the Orthodox Church. The 'TO' see these patriarchs today falling into ecumenism, a heresy.

It is true that Nestorius initially was rebuked with calmness and patience, but much time has passed since 1965 and the pan-heresy has spread. In 1965, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras met with the Roman Pope in Jerusalem and they lifted the mutual anathemas between Rome and Constantinople, between Athenagoras and the Roman Catholic Church. This is when ROCOR broke communion (if I understand the history correctly). That was 55 years ago.

And this led to the 1983 anathema. Through unification with the MP they fell under their own anathema, but the anathema still applies. Would it not?

We also live in a different age to the Arian crisis where technology has made communication and movement faster. In medieval times travelling from one end of France to another would take the same amount of time and effort than driving today from Paris to Moscow. We have email, telephone, fax, etc. etc. etc.

Also I suppose you are correct that the schism in 1054 was different to the one in the 1960s. Perhaps it was a bad example. My point was that there are canons that say a cleric who prays with heterodox 'Christians' or pagans is automatically deposed. The Church can break communion with clerics who do so and she does not have to go through the process of formally deposing each cleric. That seems to be what these anathemas are for.

There are many good people confessing the Orthodox faith in these jurisdictions under ecumenist hierarchs by the way. I myself went to one parish for quite a while and met wonderful people. This is not a character attack on those pious people but rather an honest inquiry.