Father Peter Heers & The Romanian Patriarchate: A Departure from Orthodox Christian Principles
- Subdeacon Nektarios, M.A.
- 7 days ago
- 17 min read
By Subdeacon Nektarios, M.A.
In a recent and unexpected announcement, Father Peter Heers of Orthodox Ethos announced that he was received into the New Calendarist Romanian Patriarchate’s American Metropolis under their bishop, Metropolitan Nicolae. According to this announcement from Orthodox Ethos, Father Peter will be assigned to Protection of the Mother of God Orthodox Christian Church in Houston, Texas [1].
This unexpected announcement is interesting in that this was not the original intent of Father Peter who originally had his sights on joining the Bulgarian Patriarchate. While I was with Orthodox Ethos (2019-2023), Father Peter had taken multiple trips to Mount Athos to meet with a bishop-elect at the Bulgarian Monastery of Zographou to discuss being received into their jurisdiction which apparently never took place. What is interesting about Father Peter Heers’ choice of this jurisdiction is that he has joined one of the most ecumenist jurisdictions within World Orthodoxy by every measure. Father Peter has created for himself a platform and persona where he is known for his supposed Orthodox Traditionalist worldview, fighting the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, and preaching endlessly the heretical ecclesiology of the “resistance from within” movement, where, contrary to the apostles, scriptures, saints, canons, canonical interpreters, councils, and liturgical text, he teaches that you “must” remain in communion with a so-called “local church” in order to remain canonical.
His move to the ecumenist jurisdiction of the New Calendarist Romanian Patriarchate is a shocking move because it undermines everything he has taught over the course of his public ministry. As I mentioned, Father Peter established himself within World Orthodoxy as one of the last remaining priests who openly rejects the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, insists on baptism of all converts by triple immersion (which, of course, is correct but something the Romanian Patriarchate is not known for), rejects the World Council of Churches, and adamantly rejected the pseudo-council of Crete in 2016, going so far as to call the documents created at this robber council to be teaching a heretical ecclesiology.
The question that needs to be asked is, “How does Father Peters reception into this New Calendarist jurisdiction undermine his entire public ministry? How does it strip him of his credibility as an Orthodox traditionalist and anti-ecumenist, and most importantly, how does it show that he has, by his own criteria, condemned himself as a heretic?”
To understand this question, we need to first take a brief look at the Romanian Patriarchate itself, its involvement in the pan-heresy of ecumenism, and its heretical membership in the World Council of Churches, where, in order to become a member, they have to agree to its ecclesiological statements as well as pay annual membership dues for its participation.
The Romanian Patriarchate: New Calendarist & The WCC
The Romanian Patriarchate adopted the New Calendarist innovation almost immediately after it was forced onto the Church by the arch-heresiarch and freemason, Meletios Metaxakis, in 1923, with the Romanians implementing it in October of 1924. Their own Patriarchal Synod records this in its official decision published in Biserica Ortodoxă Română (January 1924), stating: “The date for the beginning of this corrected calendar was fixed for the month of October in the year 1924, such that October 1 became October 14” [2]. According to the Romanian Patriarchal Synod, they justified this innovation by saying that,
The Holy Synod, taking into consideration the necessity of correcting the Julian calendar, whose deviation from astronomical reality has become evident, and desiring to bring the ecclesiastical calendar into agreement with the more exact astronomical recking of time, resolves to adopt the corrected calendar (New Calendar), in conformity with the decisions and deliberations of the recent Orthodox consultations [3].
Of course, these “Orthodox consultations” that they are referring to at the time are the heretical pan-Orthodox congress gathered by the freemason, Meletios Metaxakis, who unilaterally implemented this innovation in every jurisdiction he touched (Church of Greece, Ecumenical Patriarchate, Patriarchate of Alexandria) and did so without the consultation of the entire Orthodox Church. It is here that the roots of the Romanian Patriarchate’s departure from Orthodoxy began. As soon as the Church’s calendar was changed to the Revised Gregorian Calendar, the New Calendarists used the State government to persecute Romanian Orthodox Christians, including Saint Glicherie of Romania. Saint Glicherie refused to accept this innovation, and those who followed his example later became known as the Romanian Old Calendarists [4].
The acceptance of this innovation ultimately propelled them into the next departure from Orthodoxy: their voluntary attachment to the heretical World Council of Churches. This Protestant-created organization is the foremost proponent of the ecclesiological heresy known as the branch theory, which is intrinsic to the pan-heresy of ecumenism, and nearly all World Orthodox jurisdictions that belong to it.
The Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate joined this Protestant organization in 1961 and has since remained an active participant [5], [6]. In order to become a member of the World Council of Churches, the Romanian Patriarchate had to sign and agree to support and uphold the membership principles and ecclesiastical statements of the organization, including recognizing that the Church exists, in some form, outside of Holy Orthodoxy.
According to the Constitution and Rules of the World Council of Churches, membership in the fellowship of the World Council of Churches theologically requires:
a) Theological
1) In its life and witness, the church professes faith in the triune God according to the scriptures, and as this faith is reflected in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
2) The church maintains a ministry of proclaiming the gospel and celebrating the sacraments as understood by its doctrines.
3) The church baptizes in the name of the one God, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and acknowledges the need to move towards the recognition of the baptism of other churches.
4) The church recognizes the presence and activity of Christ and the Holy Spirit outside its own boundaries and prays for the gift of God's wisdom to all in the awareness that other member churches also believe in the Holy Trinity and the saving grace of God.
5) The church recognizes in the other member churches of the WCC elements of the true church, even if it does not regard them “as churches in the true and full sense of the word” (“Toronto Statement”) [7].
Points three, four, and five are entirely heretical, yet the Romanian Patriarchate was required to agree to this document, which encourages the recognition of heretical baptism (e.g., sacramental grace outside of Orthodoxy) and the acknowledgment of grace beyond the boundaries of Orthodoxy. In point five they even adopt the heretical branch theory, stating that the Romanian Patriarchate must accept that “elements of the true church” exist outside the boundaries of the Orthodox Church.
Ironically, in 2007 Father Peter wrote a book entitled The Missionary Origins of Modern Ecumenism: Milestones Leading Up to 1920, in which he documents the founding and origins of the heretical World Council of Churches and explains why this organization is incompatible with the Orthodox Church. In the conclusion to his book, Father Peter writes,
Confusion and double-talk reign and the Orthodox ecumenists would like us to view the World Council of Churches (WCC) as a worldwide humanitarian and peace-making platform for dialogue, from which we must not be absent “lest we become isolated.” The truth is, however, that the WCC has never ceased to be driven by the Evangelical Protestant dream of a united and worldwide mission irrespective of dogmatic peculiarities and sensitivities — something which perhaps is understandable for the Protestants, with minor dogmatic differences which usually exist between them, but not for the Orthodox. For the Orthodox the very basis for involvement —recognizing a unity in Christ and the Church with the heterodox — nullifies the very reason for involvement, namely, to instill in the heterodox “a good uneasiness” and sense of separation from the Church [8].
However, despite the fact that he knows the World Council of Churches is heretical and that participation in it is heresy, Father Peter has joined himself to the Romanian Patriarchate, which participates in the World Council of Churches. This means that all decisions of the World Council of Churches that the Synodal Patriarchate of the Romanian Orthodox Church has signed and agreed to accept are now ecclesiastically binding upon Father Peter, regardless of the personal anti-ecumenist position he claims to hold, since he is not above the authority of his new Patriarchal Synod in Romania.
The Robber and Pseudo-Council of Crete (2016)
For those unfamiliar with this pseudo-council, it was a failed council called by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople which attempted to bring all the local World Orthodox jurisdictions to the table. However, because of the many political and theological issues that surrounded this false council, many refused to attend. Those that attended and sent delegations to this failed pseudo-council were the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Patriarchate of Antioch, Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Patriarchate of Serbia, Patriarchate of Romania, the New Calendarist Church of Greece, Church of Cyprus, Church of Poland, Church of Albania, and the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.
This is highly problematic for Father Peter because not only did his new Patriarch, Daniel, sign these heretical documents, twenty-four other bishops of his Patriarchate also signed them, one of which is now his own hierarch, Metropolitan Nicolae of the Romanian Metropolis of America [9].
What is most interesting about Father Peter attaching himself to the Romanian Patriarchate concerns this council, of which he was one of the most principled antagonists. Up until the actual council events he was the most critical of it and gave many lectures, podcasts, and talks concerning the pseudo-council, calling the documents that it produced, signed, and published nothing less than heretical.
In 2017, Father Peter gave a lecture entitled “The ‘Council’ of Crete and the New Emerging Ecclesiology: An Orthodox Examination” at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, while he was assigned as a professor of the seminary there. Presiding at this lecture were Metropolitan Hilarion of New York (+2022), Metropolitan Jonah (former OCA), Bishop Irenei of London, and Bishop Nicholas of Manhattan, and among the crowd were other clergymen of ROCOR-MP as well as current seminarians.
In this hour-long lecture Father Peter argues that this pseudo-council is not a legitimate Pan-Orthodox Council, presenting several reasons throughout his talk, and he openly, without equivocation, describes the documents it produced as teaching a new and heretical ecclesiology. This is reflected even in the title of his speech, which he presents as a “New Emerging Ecclesiology.”
If Father Peter recognizes this Cretan council as a new ecclesiology, which is a doctrinal issue, why did he unite himself to a jurisdiction whose Patriarchal Synod signed these documents, which includes the very bishop he voluntarily placed himself under? In the scriptures, Saint Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians teaches that “though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be anathema (Epistle to the Galatians 1:8-9, KJV). How is something so critical simply ignored, and violated so easily by such a “traditionalist” clergyman?
In this lecture to the clergy and laity in Jordanville on the heretical Cretan Council, he argues that the council, when held, had a “disdain of conciliarity on display at the council itself” because the council’s structure was governed solely by the primates, which of course he is right in saying [10]. He also goes further concerning the structure of the council, stating that the “Papal elevation of the primates is extremely dangerous for the entire church,” which again he is entirely correct.
As we can see briefly at the outset, he rejects the entire Cretan Council firstly because of its papist nature, which again is an ecclesiological issue among these World Orthodox hierarchs. They are introducing a heretical innovation into the ecclesiological position of the Church which falls under dogmatic grounds and not under mere “personal sins” as many World Orthodox apologists would have you believe. Father Peter Heers recognizes this is a problem among the hierarchs at a grand scale, not just at the individual level of some bishops who think they are their own individual pope, such as Patriarch Bartholomew, or in the example given by Father Peter himself in the lecture where he says that in the Serbian Patriarchate “we have an even more flagrant example of creeping papalism” where the “Serbian churches entourage consisted of twenty-four bishops. Of these only seven stood in favor of the final text on the heterodox, seventeen of the twenty-four refused to sign it. Nevertheless, because the Patriarch of Serbia was favorable and signed the text, the council considered that the church of Serbia excepted the text” [11].
Moving forward in his lecture Father Peter approaches the actual documents that were created, signed, and published by all the World Orthodox jurisdictions that attended. In this lecture he covers two of the most egregious documents “which presented serious problems for several of the churches” [12]. The first being “The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments,” and the second being the “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.”
It should be mentioned that earlier in his lecture Father Peter criticizes the Romanian Patriarchate for signing these documents and then trying to excuse them by claiming they require later clarification, can be reinterpreted, and contain “nuance” rather than outright ecclesiological heresy and papism, as will be seen in the following dialogue from Father Peter. However, in his early criticism of the Romanian Patriarchate he says,
The Patriarchate of Romania, which participated in the council, later stated that the text can be explained, can be nuanced in part, or further developed by a future Great and Holy Council of the Church. However, it says that their [Romanian Patriarchate] interpretation and the drafting of the new text on a variety of issues must not be made hastily or without pan-Orthodox agreement, apparently, because that is how the Great and Holy Council came to pass without pan-Orthodox agreement. They must be delayed and perfected until agreement can be reached [13].
In the document concerning marriage it addressed the issue of so-called “mixed marriages,” which is the marriage of an Orthodox Christian with a heretic within the confines of the mystery of marriage and the actual rite within the Church, in which Father Peter states that, based on Canon 72 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, it is “based on the dogma of the church and thus does not admit economia” when it comes to an Orthodox marrying a heretic in the Church. Father Peter goes on to say that this heretical council “introduced for the first time in the history of the church a synodical decision which allows for the overturning of a canon of an ecumenical council and most importantly its underlying dogmatic basis” [14].
After discussing the document on marriage signed at the false council of Crete he moves into the most heretical of the documents, which is the “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian World,” which he says is “fraught with error [heresy] and confusion” [15]. He goes on to quote Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, in part, and say,
As a text with a clear dogmatic ecclesiological orientation, this text ought to have been distinguished by an absolute clarity of meaning and exactitude in formulation such as to exclude the possibility of a variety of interpretations and intentional misrepresentations. Unfortunately to the contrary in key passages, we encounter obscurity and ambiguity as well as theological contradictions and antinomy which permit polar opposite interpretations.
It is characteristic that with what difficulty the council met the task of approving this text that nearly 30 bishops refused to sign it and many others only signed it after the termination of the council after the four versions in four languages had finally been completed.
To see that the text is a product of an ecumenistic and not truly ecumenical mindset, one only need to consider what Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos wrote concerning the text and the debate surrounding the text during the council. He said, “When the minutes of the council are published, where the true views of those who decided on and signed the text are recorded, then it will be clear that the council was dominated by the branch theory, baptismal theology and especially the principle of inclusiveness, that is, a retreat from the principle of exclusivity (theologically speaking) to a principle of inclusivity or inclusiveness. During the works of the council in Crete various distortions of the truth were said in order to bolster the text regarding St. Mark of Ephesus, the council of 1484 which did away with false council of Florence and the synodical encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848 with regard to the word 'Church' as applying to Christians cut off from the one holy catholic and apostolic church" [16].
Father Peter, as we can see, clearly rejected this pseudo-council, as he rightly should have, recognizing it as a false council dominated by heretical ecumenists and promoting a heretical theology in varying degrees of aspects. He continues in the lecture and states emphatically,
It should be clear then that the offensive text with its heretical ecclesiology must be rejected by the Church, by every local Church separately, and then in a future council, and replaced in council, for it will undoubtedly be the source of a falling away from Orthodoxy. There is still time to correct the course and heal the wound already inflicted upon the Church [17].
We see that he clearly recognizes that a large majority of so-called local churches have adopted what he clearly states as “heretical ecclesiology,” but then doubles down on the heretical ecclesiology of the “resistance from within” movement, in which the faithful recognize that their bishops are publicly preaching heresy, publicly producing documents that are, in fact, heretical according to his very own understanding, and signing these same heretical documents they produced, yet in the end disregarding them and opting to remain in communion with this heresy and wait for another “future council”—that is, a council to this council—in hopes that these same heretical hierarchs will come up with a new ecclesiology that is not heretical.
This begs the question: why would he join the Romanian Patriarchate, and more specifically Metropolitan Nicolae of the Romanian Metropolis in America, who signed six of the documents at the False Council of Crete in 2016, which Father Peter has for years called “heretical” and in his closing statements identified as a “ill planned and executed and finally anti-Orthodox Cretan Council,” and that “accommodation of, or, indifference to a new innovative ecclesiology such as that that expressed in word and in deed in Crete is not an option and will only lead to further polarization and shipwrecks on both the left and the right of the royal path” [18].
Romania, Constantinople and De Facto Communion with the OCU
Another perplexing part of this story is that Father Peter joined a jurisdiction that is closely aligned with the arch-heresiarch in Constantinople, which of course is in direct communion with the so-called Orthodox Church in Ukraine (OCU), and with whom Father Peter himself shares tangential communion as well. Both the Patriarchates of Romania and Constantinople are in direct communion with one another, and in a recent visit to Romania, Patriarch Bartholomew concelebrated the Divine Liturgy with Patriarch Daniel in the People’s Salvation Cathedral in Bucharest. During the Great Entrance of the Divine Liturgy, Bartholomew read the name of Epiphany Dumenko of Kiev, the “primate” of the so-called Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) while standing directly next to the Romanian Patriarch Daniel, who gave not even the slightest sign of concern, except for the moment when a member of the laity yelled out “Anathema!” during the reading of Epiphany’s name, at which Patriarch Daniel gave a small smirk and said something under his breath that was unintelligible in the video [19].
Of course, Father Peter, in his heretical “resist from within” ecclesiology, says that there is no such thing as tangential communion and uses the term “communicating vessels theory” as something that is not patristic. In my book The History of Resistance: From the Apostles to the Twentieth Century, I cover this subject extensively in one of my footnotes dealing with this very subject, which I will share with you.
According to adherents of the heretical “resist within” ecclesiology, the concept of “communicating vessels” is regarded as an anti-patristic ideology. Most of these adherents maintain that one cannot break with a public preacher of heresy under any circumstances until an ecumenical council is convened, while others assert that one may break with the preacher of heresy (in exigent circumstances) only if he is one’s own bishop. Furthermore, they claim that communion cannot be broken with those who are in communion with the primary offender. However, Saint Mark of Ephesus, in his deathbed confession, asserted the exact opposite, saying, “I do not desire, in any manner and absolutely, and do not accept communion with him or with those who are with him.” Moreover, in a more recent example of this same teaching even among non-commemorating new calendarists, we have the well-known Church of Greece non-commemorator, Father Theodore Zisis, Professor Emeritus of the School of Theology at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, teaching that this approach is entirely patristic. In the Orthodox Typos, Father Theodore Zisis states, “The issue of communion with heretics, as well as subsequent communion with those communing with them—who by this act become excommunicated—is the major and urgent issue in today’s ecclesiastical life. The ecclesiastical body is dangerously ill; we are all responsible for the illness, not only those communing with the heterodox but also those communing with those who commune with them. The deviation and transgression resemble communicating vessels, much like environmental pollution, which is not confined to the one causing it. By commemorating patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops in the sacred services, we participate in the ecumenistic apostasy.” Father Theodore Zisis, “Martyrdom or Apostasy? Thoughts…On Ravenna,” Orthodox Typos, No . 1466, (2002) [20].
As we can see, this is not only the opinion of Saint Mark of Ephesus but also the opinion of Father Theodore Zisis, whom Father Peter has known for many years and even tried to talk out of non-commemorating his bishop, instead pushing him to “resist from within.” Moreover, these are not the only two sources that explicitly prevent people from communing with those who are in communion with heretics (e.g., tangential communion).
In the Canons of the Holy Apostles, Apostolic Canon 10 states that, “If anyone shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated” [21]. By this canon alone it shows that even the very act of praying with someone who is excommunicated makes one himself excommunicated. How much more if he is celebrating the Divine Liturgy with laymen in bishop’s vestments (OCU), or a Patriarch commemorating a layman (Epiphany Dumenko) as a bishop alongside the Patriarchate of Romania? The list of canons and other elements within the Orthodox theological framework again and again states this fact.
Father Peter’s present ecclesiastical alignment therefore stands at odds with the theological criteria he has publicly applied in the past. He identified participation in the World Council of Churches as incompatible with Orthodox ecclesiology, yet entered a Patriarchate formally committed to it. He described the Council of Crete as promulgating a “heretical ecclesiology,” yet placed himself under a synod and hierarchs who signed and continue to uphold its decisions.
He has also treated communion with the OCU as an ecclesiological problem while joining a jurisdiction in direct communion with Constantinople, which recognizes and commemorates the OCU. Taken together, these actions mean that by the standards he himself previously articulated he has condemned himself as a heretic according to his own theological framework. What consistent ecclesiological principle allows one to denounce these realities as doctrinally corrupt while simultaneously entering and remaining within the very structures that embody them?
It is a sad state of affairs that one who was so principled in his stance against the pan-heresy of ecumenism, the World Council of Churches, and all of the other heretical behavior of World Orthodoxy would appear to abandon his principles on these issues for worldly recognition and so-called “canonical status” by the very heretics he not only recognized as heretics, but the same heretical hierarchs whom he preached against throughout his entire public ministry. All we can do is pray for him and hope that one day he will come out of this prelest and seek out True Orthodoxy and hierarchs who are actually “rightly dividing the word of truth.”
References
[1]. “Archpriest Peter Heers’ Ecclesiastical Situation Resolved,” Orthodox Ethos, accessed February 11, 2026, https://web.archive.org/web/20260210234500/https://www.orthodoxethos.com/post/archpriest-peter-heers-ecclesiastical-situation-resolved
[2]. Sfantul Sinod al Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane, “Hotararea Sfantului Sinod cu privier la indreptarea calendarului Iulian,” Biserica Ortodoxa Romana (Bucharest), January 1924, 36-37.
[3]. Ibid., 36-37.
[4]. Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili. “The True Orthodox Christians of Romania.” The Orthodox Word 18, no. 1 (January-February 1982): 5-15.
[5]. “Romanian Orthodox Church,” World Council of Churches, accessed February 11th, 2026, https://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches/romanian-orthodox-church
[6]. “Church Families: Orthodox Churches (Eastern), World Council of Churches, accessed February 11th, 2026, https://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches?search_api_fulltext=&location_filter_2=All&field_wcc_n_church_family_single=2028&glossaryaz_title=
[7]. “Constitution and Rules of the World Council of Churches,” World Council of Churches, accessed February 9th, 2024, https://www.oikoumene.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/Constitution-and-Rules-of-the-WCC-June-2022.pdf
[8]. Fr. Peter Heers, The Missionary Origins of Modern Ecumenism: Milestones Leading up to 1920 (Thessaloniki: Uncut Mountain Press, 2007), 43.
[9]. “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,” Holy and Great Council – Official Website, accessed February 11th, 2026,
https://web.archive.org/web/20220224205836/https://www.holycouncil.org/rest-of-christian-world
[10]. “Fr. Peter Heers: The "Council" of Crete and the New Emerging Ecclesiology: An Orthodox Examination,” Gregory Decapolite YouTube Channel, accessed February 11th, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz7mHn-H8Hc
[11]. Ibid.
[12]. Ibid.
[13]. Ibid.
[14]. Ibid.
[15]. Ibid.
[16]. Ibid.
[17]. Ibid.
[18]. Ibid.
[19]. “Shout of “Anathema!” as Patriarch Bartholomew commemorates schismatic Dumenko in Romania,” OrthoChristian.com, accessed February 12th, 2026, https://orthochristian.com/173586.html
[20]. Subdeacon Nektarios Harrison, The History of Resistance: From the Apostles to the Twentieth Century (Washington DC: Orthodox Traditionalist Publications, 2024), 142.
[21]. The Canons of the Holy and Altogether August Apostles, “Canon X,” in Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 14, ed. Philip Schaff & Henry Wace (Peabody: Hendrickson Publications, 1999), 594.
Comments