Concerns: Fr. Peter Heers, Orthodox Ethos, and the Book on Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church
Concerns: Fr. Peter Heers, Orthodox Ethos, and the Book on Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church
The issues with Orthodox Ethos, Uncut Mountain Press, and their founder, Fr. Peter Heers – and John Coffman's abomination of a book: "On The Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church"
This will be my last article calling out Fr. Peter Heers, John Coffman (who, I believe, is the primary ghost writer of Orthodox Ethos’ newest abomination of a book _On the Reception of the Heterodox Into the Orthodox Church_), Orthodox Ethos, Uncut Mountain Press, for quite some time – ideally forever. I neither enjoy such work nor find it apropos to the desire of my heart: to live a quiet, peaceful existence, practicing the faith and working out my own salvation with fear and trembling. God knows I have my own issues to deal with and need not spend time calling out others. It was only after years of seeing Heers and company post nonsense online that I decided that I could remain silent no longer. I posted my first public article to this end a year or so after having shared my initial concerns about these individuals with several bishops, who did nothing. Posting publicly about it eventually resulted in a statement by ROCOR and the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops.
In closing this chapter for myself I would urge those who can address the issues through the proper hierarchical and ecclesiological avenues – the Bishops, canonists, priests, academics – to do so. And also for priests and up-and-coming priests to be on guard to protect your flocks, speaking out against such things when necessary for the good of the Church.
Update 7/30/2023: For clarification, I had decided not to write a comprehensive review of the book On the Reception of the Heterodox Into the Orthodox Church because, frankly, it’s a dumpster fire – a complete embarrassment. Anyone who believes it is worth reading is either lying or isn’t educated/aware enough to see how utterly preposterous (and blatantly false) much of it is. It’s already being dismantled on twitter.1
Fr. Peter Heers is no stranger to controversy. After five years of dodging what should be a simple question for a priest to answer (“who is your bishop”), the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops finally answered it for him: no one. Heers claims to be a victim of bishop politicking – and that his situation will soon be remedied. What he passes by in silence is the fact that this has been his situation for the last five years (since c. 2018), during which time he has engaged and continues to engage in multiple canonical violations, according to the Assembly,2 while promoting himself online as a teacher of “traditional” Orthodoxy. But Fr. Peter Heers’ orthodoxy is an outgrowth of a schismatic ethos that substitutes hand-picked, “charismatic elders” for bishops, claiming all the while that Saint Ignatius’ ecclesiology might have worked in the first century but it is not sufficient for today, due to the corruption of the Bishopric (as the managing editor of OE and UMP, John Coffman, has said).3 Let the reader understand.
Whether knowingly or unknowingly, Fr. Peter and company frequently use rhetorical devices common to the heretics of old – which can be summed up in what Dr. David Ford calls the Sectarian Mindset. Unsurprisingly, the Orthodox Ethos team (Coffman, Sbn. Nektarios (update 12/03/2023: Nektarios has apostatized to the Old Calendarist Schismatic Group), and the historical consultant who hides his identity behind the name “Gregory Decapolite,” and who may be a GOC schismatic himself – it is unclear, et al.) glamorize the schismatic Genuine Orthodox Church – a classically rigoristic, sectarian group.4 And a cursory look at Christian history will reveal that such rigorism is a keystone in almost every heretical faction.
Our concern regarding Fr. Peter, however, far exceeds his so-called “canonical irregularity,” and alleged deceptions on this and other points.5 Indeed, Fr. Peter Heers’ flagrant disregard for bishops he deems “corrupt” together with his project to set up a parallel ecclesiology, which some have termed elderism, is far more concerning than his status as a priest “in good standing,” as he likes to remind us (news flash: one has to have a bishop to be disciplined by a bishop). Why? Because he is passing on his personal theology to swaths of young Orthodox inquirers. And it leads one of two places: delusion or despair. There are few iterations of Orthodox theology that I, personally, would classify as categorically demonic, but this is one of them. To this point, it would seem that (again whether they know it or not) they prop up their theological positions with incessant, patently false statements and their own eisegetical translations.6
Furthermore, Fr. Peter Heers’ view on the reception of converts leads to a functional donatism.7 Donatism, for those who do not know, was a heresy in the early centuries of the Church developed by rigorists who believed that the personal sins of clergy would delegitimize the efficacy of the sacraments. While Heers makes no such claim, he does prey upon the angst of young converts together with those weak of mind to suggest that chrismation (or confession of faith) is not a valid entry into the Church – that heterodox should be baptized in every single case. And those that were not baptized should be “correctively baptized.” The reason: Heers, Orthodox Ethos, and Uncut Mountain Press take the already-patristically-refuted Cyprianic view – that all heterodox baptisms are “vain washings” and do not accomplish entry into Christ’s Church – and repackage it for today’s disgruntled converts.
The reductio ad absurdum of this view would require us to admit that those who were not baptized into the Church with three full immersions, as the Heerites are quick to add, are not in the Church. Heers attempts to get around the glaring issue by appealing to the use of akriveia and oikonomia: with baptism being the exact and proper way to receive converts and chrismation or profession of faith the condension of oikonomia. But the canons, councils, and saints draw the exact opposite stance.8 With certain heterodox confession of faith is the proper way; with others, chrismation only. The oikonomia in such situations, if applied today, would be baptizing and chrismating a cradle catholic if they could not find their baptismal certificate – as the normal way (even according to St. Mark of Ephesus) – would be to accept the baptism Roman Catholic Church and accept them by renunciation of latin errors and in some cases Chrismation.9
But the pseudo-academic ruse pulled by Heers and company in explicating their theology is not nearly as concerning as the practical ramifications – those that affect real people in real parishes. In some cases, for instance, there are certain parishes and certain priests who buy into this theology who encourage (dare I say require?) chrismated individuals who have been practicing Orthodox Christians for years to stand with catechumens in liturgy and to abstain from communion until after they undergo a corrective baptism. This is nonsense. If baptism is necessary and chrismation is not sufficient, then the sacraments of priests who were brought into the Church by chrismation are not valid. I’ve written about this elsewhere (of course they spin all sorts of fanciful webs to get around this critique).
One last point must be made. Fr. Peter Heers and Orthodox Ethos are resurrecting the angst of Luther within the walls Orthodox Church:10 did I do it right? Am I really saved?11 The extreme version of this are those that get baptized over and over again. (Just like when I was a protestant in elementary school I would constantly say the sinners prayer to make sure I was doing it right and was finally saved. Well, salvation doesn’t work that way.) Fr. Seraphim Rose even noted this.
Alas, Fr. Peter and company continue to peddle their erroneous theology, with its blatant false claims and historical reversals, for which reason it must be addressed – but by those that can actually do something about it. I am talking to you, your eminences and your graces, primarily – our leaders who are charged to “rightly divide the word of truth.”
Fortunately, a number of faithful Orthodox have been calling out Orthodox Ethos, Fr. Peter Heers, John Coffman, Timothy Honeycutt, et. al. on twitter… other offenders who hide behind anonymous accounts should also be called out: Daily Orthodoxy (aka Yianni Katsadas) and Orthodox Reflections (aka Glen Chancey of Florida: https://www.facebook.com/glen.chancy)
A friend of mine, San Agustín es Ortodoxo, wrote a refutation of the recent publication which can be accessed in Spanish. His info: Books in Spanish | Spanish Orthodox Telegram
See:
See the Communique by the Assembly of Bishops: https://www.assemblyofbishops.org/news/2023/communique-04202023
See the following, which is run by Sbdn. Nektarios https://www.theorthodoxarchive.org/post/high-treason-the-luring-of-the-russian-orthodox-church-abroad-to-the-moscow-patriarchate – as well as screenshots available in downloadable document entitled “Internet Orthodox Connections” above. Start with the red square.
Any bishops that would like these resources or information, please reach out. I have screenshots of years of Heers and OE talking around the bishop question.
In their article, Does the Russian Orthodox Church Accept the Mysteries of Heretics?, they conflate the ideas of validity and efficacy in order to passively make the (false) point to the uneducated that the ROC does not accept any of the sacraments as valid (many of the points are talking about efficacy). But this is entirely false. See the Russian Holy Synod of 1903: “As regards—the Latins and the Protestants—we accept the baptism of both one and the other. We respect the Apostolical Succession of the Latin hierarchy, and those of their clergy who join our Church we accept in the Orders which they then possess.”
Not only that, they utilize the 1983 ROCOR anathema against “ecumenism” to bolster their claim. They do not mention that these decrees were invalidated by ROCORs reunion with Moscow (one of the criteria for reunion was the discarding of such statements).
There is plenty of fodder in their articles, videos, and books to support this strong statement – constant double talk, etc. The obvious issues being that they reject Church consensus for the i
Several individuals have already made this leap… See:
St. Mark of Ephesus, Epistle (https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Mark_Efesskij/okruzhnoe-poslanie-k-pravoslavnym-khristianam).
Lots of screenshots of the official Orthodox Ethos accounts advising inquirers as such… (ask for access if you are an inquiring Bishop). Below I’ve included one of Coffman…
After going public about Heers, OE, and rigorism, I’ve been on the receiving end of countless emails and direct messages to this end… Here is but one example (below).
