Monk Damianos of the Skete of St. Basil, Mount Athos
Definition and
constitution of heresy.
Before referring to the practice
of the Church in dealing with heresies, it is necessary to clarify more
precisely the concept of heresy, in the context of its various teachings: how
the holy Fathers, up to and including the Seventh Ecumenical Council, understand
it. This is because the treatment of those returning from condemned heresies
varies from one heresy to another. It is therefore necessary to examine wherein
this different treatment consists, and whether we can speak of some gradation
among heresies.
“Heresy is the
intentional and obstinate rejection of a dogma defined by the Church, or the
acceptance of an erroneous dogmatic teaching already condemned by the Church.
The ecclesiastical penalty for this is anathema.” [1]
“The formulation
and proclamation of a dogmatic teaching concerning the faith in Christ, which
departs entirely or simply deviates from the bounds of the Orthodox Christian
Faith, constitutes the canonical offense of heresy. One who commits this
offense is called a heretic.” [2]
“By heresies
[the ancients] meant those who have completely broken away and become alienated
in the faith itself; by schisms, those who have become divided from one another
for certain ecclesiastical reasons and over questions capable of being healed;
and by parasynagogues, assemblies formed by uninstructed people.” [3]
“We call
heretics both those who were long ago repudiated by the Church and those who
were subsequently anathematized by us. In addition to these, also those who
pretend to confess the sound faith, but who have separated themselves and form
rival assemblies against our canonical Bishops.” [4]
“The canon calls
heretics all those who hold opinions contrary to the Orthodox faith, whether
they were repudiated long ago or recently, whether they belong to ancient
heresies or to new ones.” [5]
By definition, it is evident that
heresy opposes the salvific purpose of the Church. It presents itself as though
it were right belief and is passionately defended by its proponents, who are
usually philosophers and men of words—or, I would say more accurately, lovers
of darkness and verbose talkers (as the learned Kollyvades Father [St.] Athanasios
Parios wittily put it)—for the only true philosophers and men of words, at
least with regard to matters pertaining to the faith, were the holy Fathers.
At first, heresy draws many of
the faithful of the Church into accepting its heterodox teaching, waging war
against Orthodox doctrine from within. This applies, at least, to all the
Christological heresies. Naturally, this internal warfare continues until the
heterodox teaching and its representatives are condemned synodally. From that
point onward, the heresy either gradually loses its strength until it
disappears or, as usually happens, it sets itself against the Orthodox Church
by establishing another, rival anti-church. Without exception, all heretical
confessions are anti-churches which wage unceasing war from without against the
One and true Church.
We have seen that the Second
Ecumenical Council, in its Sixth Canon, defines heretics in three categories:
a. “those who
were long ago repudiated by the Church,”
b. “those who
were subsequently anathematized by us,”
c. “those who
pretend to confess the healthy faith, but who have separated themselves and
form rival assemblies against our canonical Bishops.”
We shall deal somewhat more
extensively with the first category, insofar as space permits here, because in
the references to heretics made by a number of ecclesiastical pastors and
theologians, a certain confusion has been observed, arising from the identification,
at least, of the first two categories with one another. As we shall see, the
differences between these categories, and whatever temporary “intercommunion”
relationship they may have had with the Church, constitute the key to the
correct interpretation of the relevant sacred Canons—that is, those referring
to the manner in which heretics are to be dealt with.
Those Long Ago
Repudiated by the Church
In this case, according to the
most apt expression of St. Basil the Great, the heretics “long ago repudiated
by the Church” are those who belonged to the “heresies completely broken off
and alienated in matters of faith.” That is, they are the heresies which denied
even the dogma of the Holy Trinity and, as a result, were completely alien to
the Christian faith. These were the earliest heresies, which appeared
immediately with the spread of the Gospel throughout the inhabited world. Their
distinguishing characteristic, in comparison with the other known heresies, is
that they fought against the Church chiefly, and from the outset, from outside
her.
Certainly, some of the leaders of
these heresies began to teach their unsound doctrines while still within the
Church. With the public proclamation, however, of their teaching that was
“completely alienated in matters of faith,” as we shall see, they literally
“placed themselves” outside the Church. But the Apostolic Fathers and bishops
of that time, true zealots of the faith, as soon as they perceived their
perverted teaching, immediately repudiated them. Subsequently, those who had
thus been repudiated founded schools which openly set themselves against the
salvific Christian teaching. The principal figures among them were Theodotus
the Tanner, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Praxeas, and Noetus.
Already from the earliest
heresiologists of the Church—Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Justin, and Tertullian—the
danger posed by these schools to the Church was understood. Having therefore
studied their teaching, they discerned a Judaeo-Christianity based on Jewish
principles, which acknowledged one God without His Trinitarian nature. While
accepting the historicity of Christ, but denying His divinity, they created
inconsistent mythological constructions, so that they became completely
alienated from Christian teaching. Because of the theological monism they
preached, these heretics were generally called Monarchians or Monarchianists.
In contrast to the Jewish
mentality of the Monarchian heresies, Gnosticism appeared in the second century
with syncretistic characteristics. That is, it gathered its teaching from
various religious and philosophical systems into a general system of knowledge
and even claimed for it a redemptive character. “The Gnostic system is not
simply an adoption of philosophical and metaphysical concepts, but at the same
time a transformation of these concepts into a system of life and a promise of
salvation.” [6]
One form of Gnosticism was
Christian Gnosticism, which recognized Christianity “as the only true religion
capable of leading man to salvation.” [6] Although “Christian,” it was
radically opposed to the Christian faith and teaching. Because of its dualistic
conception of the creation of the world, it regarded matter as the creation of
an evil being. “Christian Gnosticism certainly cannot be numbered among the
Christian heresies, since it manifestly rejected the most fundamental Christian
dogmas and plainly adopted strange beliefs. Nevertheless, it existed like a
shadow accompanying and following the Christian Church for more than two
centuries.” [6]
The principal representatives of
Christian Gnosticism, though with differing conceptions and teachings in their
respective schools, were “Simon Magus, the source not only of Christian
Gnosticism, but of all heresies,” [6] Dositheus, Menander, Saturninus,
Basilides, Isidore, Valentinus, Carpocrates, and others. Of these, “Valentinus
emerged as the most important of the Gnostics because of his activity and the
widespread influence of his teaching... His teaching consisted of a combination
of mythical, ritual, Christian, magical, astrological, mystical, and
philosophical elements within a single genealogical theogony.” [7]
Marcionism could also be included
in the category of Gnosticism. Whereas the other Gnostics established schools,
Marcion created his own anti-church parallel to the Christian Church. It had
spread throughout almost the entire world then known and compelled the Church
to defend herself vigorously in order to weaken it. Marcionism ultimately
flourished until the fourth century. From that point onward, it began gradually
to decline until it disappeared in the seventh century, “remaining in history
as the memory of a dangerous deviation.” [6]
Another heresy completely alien
to Christian teaching was Manichaeism, which constituted “a compilation of
elements drawn from many heresies, most of which were already extinct.” [6] It
was the dualistic system par excellence. Its founder was Mani, who regarded
himself as the fourth and final great prophet after Buddha, Zoroaster, and
Christ, and identified himself with the Paraclete. His teaching had a global
outlook which strongly recalls present-day Ecumenism, because in every
region where it operated it incorporated distinctive elements of the local
religion, while showing a clear Persian influence owing to the origin of its
founder.
Montanism was an apocalyptic
movement and began as an attempt at reform within the very bosom of the Church;
subsequently, however, it separated from her and was condemned as a heresy. Its
founder was Montanus, who believed that he possessed a special gift of prophecy
and would fall into states of ecstasy and religious enthusiasm. He was
surrounded by a group of supposed prophetesses, such as Maximilla and
Priscilla.
“Valentinianism, Marcionism, and
Manichaeism found wider acceptance among the members of the Church than the
other Gnostic systems, as did Montanism as the dialectical counterpart of
Gnosticism.” [8]
Finally, Chiliasm, in its two
forms—material Chiliasm and spiritual Chiliasm—is the “Christian version of a
Jewish teaching which understood the Messiah as an earthly king.” [9] It was
more of a movement than an organized heresy. The Church never approved it, with
the result that it died out toward the end of the fourth century, only to
“reappear in renewed form during the Middle Ages and in modern times.”
From this brief survey of the
Monarchian and Gnostic heresies, as well as of the last two apocalyptic
movements, what may be observed, as we have already noted, is that they fought
against the Church chiefly from outside, and not as heresies operating within
her. In combating them, especially the Gnostics, the Church employed the
following three means.
― “The episcopal office, and
especially its uninterrupted apostolic succession,” [10] together with
episcopal lists of the principal local Churches—Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem,
and Antioch. In this way their claim that their teaching constituted a secret
apostolic tradition was shown to be false, since, had it been “such, it would
have been known to the bishops who had come down from the Apostles through
uninterrupted succession.” [10]
― The confession of faith at
Baptism, which at first had been simple and practical, gradually acquired a
stricter and more formal formulation, with dogmatic details, precisely in order
for the Church to combat the Gnostics. The development of various Gnostic
systems in different places also explains the existence of many variant
baptismal creeds in the local Churches.
― Third, the Church set against
them the Canon of the New Testament, by means of which the faithful
distinguished the genuine apostolic books from the pseudonymous works of the
Gnostics, “who through these sought to present their teachings as apostolic.”
As for the known local synods
prior to the First Ecumenical Council, which appear to have anathematized the
“ancient” heretics who, as we have seen, were already outside the Church, it is
self-evident that these synods had only a declaratory character, evidently once
again for the safeguarding of the healthy teaching of the Church and of the
Orthodox flock. The anathemas pronounced by the later Ecumenical Councils
against heresies and heretics who had already been anathematized by earlier
local and Ecumenical Councils likewise had this same declaratory character,
while at the same time renewing those condemnations.
These, chiefly, are the heresies
which St. Basil the Great characterizes as “completely broken off” from the
Church and “alienated in matters of faith”; these are the heretics concerning
whom the Sixth Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council says, “those long ago
repudiated by the Church,” [11] and the three methods mentioned above were the
principal means by which the Church repudiated them. That the Sixth Canon has
these persons in view here is also evident from the distinction made by the
same Council in its Seventh Canon concerning those who come to the Church from
among the heretics. In other words, the Sixth Canon anticipates the Seventh.
Likewise, it is primarily these heresies to which the Apostolic Canons refer,
since it is well known that the activity of these heresies began in the era of
the holy Apostles and the post-Apostolic Fathers. The Seventh Canon in
particular, however, will be examined in greater detail in a subsequent
section.
Those Subsequently
Anathematized
In the second case (b), the Canon
defines those heretics who were expelled from the Church by synodal anathema.
The phrase “subsequently,” apart from its chronological sense, also appears to indicate
the different manner in which the later heretics were dealt with—namely,
through synods—as distinct from those “long ago repudiated by the Church.” This
is because the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, and even more so those
of the First, were familiar with the three methods by which the ancient
heretics had been dealt with, since these methods were still recent and were
still being applied. Indeed, they appealed to the preservation of the episcopal
lists, the Canon of the New Testament, and the baptismal creeds as established
traditions of the Church; from the latter the Creed itself arose and was
articulated in its final form.
In short, the heretics
“subsequently anathematized by us” belong to the Christological heresies, but
are heretics who, together with their heresy, had been judged and cast out of
the Church by the synodal acts of the holy Fathers gathered in council.
But why were those “long ago
repudiated” regarded as being outside the Church without prior synodal
proceedings, whereas the later heretics (of the Christological heresies) had to
be anathematized by synods in order for them likewise to be placed outside the
Church? [12]
The entire line of inquiry of the
present subject centers upon this momentous question and is adequately grounded
in the practice of the Church, which clearly constitutes the absolute and
precise criterion for ecclesiological questions.
The Christological heresies came
to the forefront of ecclesiastical history at the beginning of the fourth
century. Their difference from those that had preceded them lay in the fact
that, although they accepted Christian teaching as a whole, they deviated—each
in a different way—from the correct interpretation of particular points of
Christological dogma. They also existed within the body of the Church’s pleroma
and operated openly and boldly within her, for the most part supported by the
powerful of the day, and often even by the emperor, at least until their
condemnation by the Church through a synod, and many times even after that
condemnation. Consequently, their anathematization by the synods certainly
implies, and indeed presupposes, that the proponents of these heresies, having
until recently been Orthodox, were born and came to maturity within the body of
the Church Militant. It is concerning such heretics that the Evangelist John
says: “They went out from us, but they were not of us.” (1 John 2:19)
Nevertheless, until the Church
perceived the seriousness of the deviation of these heretics and the danger
that would consequently arise for her healthy members, and until she took
decisive measures to deal with them, they considered themselves to be serving
the divine will and the salvific work of the Church. Curiously, the originators
of these heresies were usually patriarchs, bishops, presbyters, abbots, and
monks. That is, as clergymen they were also particularly active members of the
Church. For this very reason, moreover, their deviation in Christological dogma
was judged to be especially dangerous for the pleroma of the Church. It
was precisely this conviction of theirs (that they were serving the divine
will) that made necessary first the “synodal examination” of their teaching
and, once it had been shown to be heterodox, its condemnation by the anathema
of the synod. Thereafter, the proponents and leaders of the heterodoxy were
examined by the synod and, if they remained unrepentant, having by then no
defense, they were anathematized—that is, they were definitively expelled from
the Church.
A principal characteristic of the
Christological heresies was that they disturbed the Church through the
well-known Christological controversies among the faithful, which lasted for
several decades, even after their synodal condemnation. After the Fourth
Ecumenical Council, the controversy continued for an entire century, during
which one part of the faithful accepted the Definition of the Council
(Chalcedonians—Orthodox), while the other part opposed it (anti-Chalcedonians).
All the Christological heresies were dealt with by the Church through
Ecumenical Councils, but also through local synods, with the distinction that
whenever the spread of the heretical teaching extended beyond local boundaries,
the convocation of a greater synod was always deemed necessary.
Likewise, the synods concerning
these heresies were always convened only after turmoil and disturbance had
first arisen within the pleroma of the Church, which was alarmed by the
heterodox teaching being put forward. An exception is the case of the
Monophysite Eutyches, whom Eusebius of Dorylaeum alone denounced to St.
Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, and indeed repeatedly, because Flavian
did not readily yield to the accusations.
In the third case (c), the Canon
calls heretics those who pretend to be Orthodox, but who of their own accord,
without reasonable cause, separate themselves from the body of the Orthodox
Catholic Church and assemble in their own houses of prayer. In this sense,
those schismatics who appeal to insignificant and “certain curable questions,”
yet out of great pride assemble in separate churches, may likewise be regarded
as heretics. St. Nicodemus confirms this in his interpretation of this Canon,
saying: “But why did the Canon call the schismatics and those forming
parasynagogues heretics? See, etc.” [13] And he continues elsewhere:
“Schismatics are schism-heretics, inasmuch as Augustine (Epistle 101) says that
there is no schism which does not first invent a heresy, so that it may appear
to have separated from the Church with good reason. And in Chapter 11 on
Matthew, the same author says: A schism that persists in evil becomes a heresy,
or degenerates into heresy; although, strictly speaking, it is not a difference
of faith that makes schismatics, but the rupture of the fellowship of communion.”
[13] The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Canons (in its first part) of
the First-Second Council of Constantinople also refer to these same
schismatics.
NOTES
1. Ecclesiastical Law. Nik. Milas. p. 698.
2. Penal Law. P. Panagiotakos. p. 343.
3. From the First Canon of St. Basil the Great.
4. From the Sixth Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council.
5. Syntagma, vol. II, p. 182 – Interpretation of the
Sixth Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council by J. Zonaras.
6. History of Dogmas. K. Skouteris. Vol. I, pp. 294,
298, 299, 300, 328, 330.
7. Ecclesiastical History. V. Pheidas. Vol. I, p. 158.
8. Ecclesiastical History. V. Pheidas. Vol. I, p. 169.
9. History of Dogmas. Ibid. pp. 343, 344.
10. Ecclesiastical History. V. Stephanides. pp. 73,
74.
11. The verb “repudiate” (ἀποκηρύσσω) is interpreted here as
a prohibition addressed to the faithful, by means of public declarations (that
is, by the three methods of dealing with heretics), against communion with
heretics. (ἀποκηρύσσω = to prohibit by public proclamation. Dictionary of I.
Stamatakos).
12. This question ought to have been raised first and
foremost by all those ecclesiastical figures—and not only by them—who,
interpreting the sacred Canons according to their own judgment and acting
accordingly, created problems in the Church which have almost irreparably
discredited the remnant of piety in the eyes of its opponents, whether
well-intentioned or not, with incalculable spiritual harm, and have afflicted
the faithful of three generations and continue to afflict them even now. Those
who dwell in Jerusalem know the truth of the matter.
13. The Rudder. pp. 161, 589.
(End of Part 1)
Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/10/blog-post_8.html
* * *
On the Reception
of Heretics
Around the middle of the third
century, the question of those coming to the Church from heretical confessions
was raised for the first time.
More precisely, this question
concerning the manner of receiving heretics who approach in repentance—if we
judge on the basis of the differing treatment accorded to them by the local
Churches of that time—presents itself with particular urgency, especially
today, and its examination requires special care.
For the clarification of this
serious question, our preceding discussion of the heresies is of decisive
importance. The classification of the heresies on the basis of the Sixth Canon
of the Second Ecumenical Council, in conjunction with the First Canon of St.
Basil the Great, as well as, further on in the present study, the relevant
decisions of the First Ecumenical Council (Canons 8 and 19), the Second
Ecumenical Council (Canon 7), and the Quinisext Council (Canon 95), safely
guide us toward the correct interpretation and proper treatment of similar
contemporary problems, especially those of rebaptism, reordination, and
rechrismation.
The differing treatment is found
chiefly in the dispute between the African bishops under St. Cyprian and
Firmilian of Caesarea, on the one hand, and the Church of Rome, on the other,
concerning whether or not heretics coming to the Church should be baptized, and
was the result of the differing views of the two “opposing sides” on the
subject. We consider this difference to lie in a contrary tendency toward
extremes on each side regarding the ecclesiological interpretation and
definition of heretics and schismatics. The Africans believed that all
heretics, even those who had separated over “certain curable questions,” such
as the Cathari, could possess no grace in their Mysteries, and that those
baptized by them “are regarded as having been baptized by laymen.” The Romans
under Pope Stephen, on the contrary, regarded even the Mysteries of extreme
heretics, such as the Montanists, as unlawful, but not therefore ineffective or
invalid.
From this differing understanding
of the two sides also arose their disagreement concerning the administration of
the Mysteries. The former rebaptized all who came to the Church and demanded
that all the local Churches do the same. The composition of the relevant
canonical epistles of St Cyprian likewise tended toward this position (see the
Epistle to Jovian). Those of Rome, on the other hand, received them merely by
means of a libellus renouncing the heresy, even when there was no reason
for economy. As a result of this difference, two currents arose within the
Church, and naturally the question had to be settled by a Greater Synod.
From the outset, the holy Fathers
of the First Ecumenical Council modified the decision of the local Synod of
Carthage concerning the rebaptism of the Cathari, decreeing by the Eighth Canon
that they be received by means of a libellus. And concerning their
clergy: “so that, after the laying on of hands upon them, [1] they may thus
remain in the clergy.” [2] Likewise, by its Nineteenth Canon, the Council
decreed concerning the Paulianists that “they must without exception be
rebaptized.” It should be noted that the Paulianists denied the confession of
the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ, whereas the Cathari refused
to accept the repentance of Christians who had sacrificed to idols during the
great persecutions. They are also called Novatians, after Novatus, the
originator of their error.
Likewise, whereas the African
bishops call the Cathari heretics, St Basil the Great regards them as
schismatics, as erring over a curable question, evidently in order to
distinguish them from those “completely broken off and alienated in matters
of faith,” as he defines the heretics known up to that time, together with
the Paulianists.
From this distinction it becomes
clear that St Basil the Great is not entirely in agreement with St Cyprian’s
view concerning the reception of schismatics who come to the Church. Referring
in his First Canon to the rebaptism of the Cathari (and other schismatics), he
presents this as the judgment of the synods [3] of Cyprian and Firmilian.
“...It seemed good,” he says, “to those with Cyprian and Firmilian... for which
reason they ordered those baptized by them to be treated as having been
baptized by laymen.” On the other hand, he also sets forth the view of economy,
again as the judgment “of the bishops of Asia”: “...but since it seemed good to
some of those in Asia, for the sake of economy toward the many, that their
baptism be accepted, let it be accepted.” In other words, the great Father
accepted both views: the first according to strictness and the second according
to economy.
A saint of ecumenical stature, he
thought and labored anxiously for the whole Catholic Church as one living
organism, as indeed she is. He recognized the reasons that called for a certain
ecclesiastical economy, but wherever it was possible to apply strictness, he
did not hesitate to uphold it. He prudently discerned that strictness could not
be applied everywhere [4] without creating greater problems than those already
existing, given that the purpose of economy is to provide the possibility for
more repentant schismatic-heretics to come to the Church, through the temporary
relaxation of certain stricter provisions.
Characteristic is the case of the
Encratites, who, in order to prevent those among them from coming to the
Church, went so far as to alter even the form of Baptism. We have this
testimony from the Saint himself in his First Canon, where he says: “We must
understand the wicked device of the Encratites: in order to make themselves
unacceptable to the Church, they undertook beforehand to use a baptism of their
own; hence they even falsified their own customary practice. I therefore think
... that their baptism should be rejected.... If, however, this is likely to
become an obstacle to the general economy [i.e., strictness], then we must
again follow custom and follow the Fathers who ordered matters concerning us
according to economy. For I fear lest, in wishing to make them reluctant to
baptize, we hinder those who are being saved because of the strictness of our
proposal.”
Here we may express our
perplexity as to why St. Basil the Great did not deal with the Arians in his
First Canon, given that theirs was the prevailing heresy of his time. The most
likely explanation is that he did not wish to include them in the category of
heretics “completely broken off,” nor yet in the category of schismatics over
“some curable question.” Always precise in his views and expressions, he
regarded the Arian heresy as less extreme in comparison with the well-known
ancient heresies, concerning which he stated that “from the outset... the difference
concerns the very faith in God itself”; that is, they denied the dogma of the
Holy Trinity. In comparison with the schismatics, [5] however, he regarded it
as further removed from the correct teaching of the Church. Thus St. Basil the
Great was among the first great Fathers who, at least indirectly, laid the
foundations for the different treatment by the later Ecumenical
Councils—especially the Second and the Quinisext—of those coming from various
heresies.
The Arians, however, are dealt
with by another great Alexandrian Father, St. Athanasius, in his Epistle to
Rufinianus, where he at the same time gives a new dimension to the question of
reception and also provides its solution. He distinguishes the leaders of the
impiety from those who had been led astray “through necessity and coercion.”
Concerning the former, he decides that, if they repent, they are indeed to be
received, but not with whatever clerical rank they may have held: “not to give
them a place among the clergy”; concerning the latter, however, that they
should “retain their place among the clergy.” He likewise invokes, in support
of his judgment, at least four local synods.
Evidently, Rufinianus’ question
to St. Athanasius indicates the confusion that existed in the Church concerning
the reception of those coming from the Arian heresy. Arianism had been
condemned by the two local Synods of Alexandria (320?) and Antioch (325), the
latter having a wide influence, but without sufficient effect, because at that
time the Arians were powerful opponents and were spread throughout the East.
[6] Finally, the First Ecumenical Council condemned Arius on the basis of the
decisions of the two preceding local synods, and naturally their acceptance by
the First Ecumenical Council conferred upon them an ecumenical character. Now
regarded by the pleroma of the Church as condemned heretics, many
considered that the decisions of the local Synod of Carthage ought to apply to
them; that is, that they should be received “as pagans,” because “no one can be
baptized outside the Catholic Church, since there is one Baptism, and it exists
only in the Catholic Church,” [7] and consequently that even the ordinations of
those who had been led astray “through necessity and coercion” should be
regarded as invalid—as, later, would also have been that of St Meletius of
Antioch, [8] it being well known that he was ordained by Arians.
However, neither St. Athanasius
the Great nor the local synods to which he appeals would have expressed a view
so different from that of the Synod of Carthage had they not regarded, as did
St. Basil the Great, the Arian heresy as less extreme in comparison with the
ancient Gnostic and Monarchian heresies.
Final Regulation
Concerning Reception
Under these principles
(strictness and economy), by the time of the Second Ecumenical Council (381),
the question of the classification of heresies in accordance with the foregoing
had already reached its final settlement. Thus, in the Seventh Canon, the holy
Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council definitively distinguished by name the
best-known heresies up to that time and decisively prescribed the manner of
receiving into the Church those coming from them. If we also take into account
the later heresies, subsequent to the Second Ecumenical Council, which the Quinisext
Council addresses in its Ninety-fifth Canon, they distinguished them into three
categories.
A. The “heresies completely
broken off and alienated in matters of faith,” such as the Eunomians,
Montanists, Sabellians, Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites, and those “from
similar heresies,” who are received “as pagans”; that is, they are first catechized
and then baptized.
B. The more moderate heresies,
such as the Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Cathari, Quartodecimans, and
Apollinarians, who are received by means of a libellus and Chrismation
with Holy Chrism.
C. The still more moderate
heresies, such as the Nestorians, Eutychians, Severians, and those “from
similar heresies,” who are received only by means of a libellus.
A more general distinction, but
one that also goes to the essence of the matter, is made by St. Theodore the
Studite in his Epistle to [St.] Naukratios, where he divides the heresies into
two categories. With regard to the first, he is in complete agreement with
Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canon 95 of the Quinisext Council
respectively, while in the second category he calls the moderate and still more
moderate heresies—that is, all the Christological heresies—“heresies so called
by an abuse of the term.”
The Quinisext Ecumenical Council
was convened three centuries later. Nevertheless, in its Ninety-fifth Canon it
incorporated verbatim the Seventh Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council. It
also added by name other ancient “completely broken off” heretics from the First
Canon of St. Basil the Great. Thus, up to this point, there is complete
agreement between the Quinisext and the Second Ecumenical Council regarding
reception. As for the later condemned heresies that arose after the Second
Ecumenical Council, however, as we saw in the third category, those coming from
them are received only by means of a libellus, since those heresies are
regarded as still more moderate.
Commenting on the authority of St.
Cyprian’s Canonical Epistle to Jovian in relation to the Seventh Canon of the
Second Ecumenical Council, the renowned Zonaras says the following:
“This epistle
commands, without exception, that those baptized by heretics or schismatics who
come to the Catholic Church be baptized... The Second Ecumenical Council,
however, in its Seventh Canon, does not command all those returning from
heresies to be baptized anew, but enumerates those who are to be received upon
giving libelli and anathematizing, each one, his own heresy... being
sealed, that is, chrismated with Holy Chrism. As for all the rest, some of whom
it also lists by name, it decrees that they be baptized, receiving them as
pagans... Hence it is evident that this injunction was not accepted by the
later holy Fathers. Since, therefore, the two synods introduce contrary
provisions on this point, those of the Second Council prevail, both because it
is later and because it is Ecumenical... That the present canon was not
accepted by all the holy Fathers is also evident from the Second Canon of the
Council held in Trullo, called the Sixth: ‘which [canon] prevailed in the sees
of the presiding bishops [i.e., of the local synods of Carthage and Caesarea of
Cappadocia], and in those alone, according to the custom handed down to them.’
From this, therefore, it is shown that even from the beginning the canon was
not in force everywhere.” [9]
NOTES
1. The meaning of the laying on of hands is clarified by the
Seventh Ecumenical Council, at which St. Tarasios interprets this very Canon,
saying: “Here he speaks of the laying on of hands for a blessing, and not for
ordination.” (Acts of the Councils. Vol. III, p. 233).
2. The Rudder. pp. 133, 147.
3. In any event, this view was not unjust at that time. Thus,
these schismatics, by refusing to accept the repentance of the “fallen,” were
justly repaid by those local synods in kind. Under no circumstances, however,
as we shall see, can the application of the decisions of those synods be
generalized.
4. It is evident here that St Basil the Great also accepted
the application of strictness, being constrained by—and respecting—the synodal
decision of Carthage, although, as we have seen, he was not entirely in
agreement with it. He knew, of course, from experience that his relentless
enemies, both within and without, were lying in wait to find a pretext to
accuse him; therefore, had he supported economy alone, he would have found them
arrayed against him. The fact that in his time—an age in which the great
heresies were wreaking havoc—his episcopal see constituted the “single
remaining branch of Orthodoxy” required extremely delicate handling, with great
prudence and discernment.
5. “Concerning schismatics, the Synod of Carthage in the year
256 had decreed that they too should be rebaptized; but this solution was
judged excessively strict already by St Basil the Great, and it is in obvious
disharmony with the final settlement of the matter by Canon 95 of the Quinisext
Council. For since, according to the latter, there are heretics—the Nestorians
and Monophysites—who are received by a written declaration alone, without
either Baptism or Chrismation being required of them, it is not possible for
schismatics to be placed in a less favorable position than the adherents of
heresies, even very slight ones, for some of whom ecclesiastical law in its
final form is satisfied, as stated, with the declaration alone.” (Greek
Ecclesiastical Law. A. Christophilopoulos. – p. 119.)
6. Ecclesiastical History. V. Pheidas. p. 418.
7. From the First Canon of the Synod of Carthage.
8. Certainly, today no one raises an objection concerning the
uncanonical character of St Meletius’ ordination. Yet how many rigorist
critics, had they lived at that time, would have refused to tolerate it, just
as today they refuse to tolerate cases which it is more beneficial to deal with
by economy? For example, the incomplete and uncanonical Baptism of New
Calendarists, in which the immersions are not performed completely because of a
fear of drowning—a fear which, of course, is unjustified.
9. Acts of the Councils. S. Milias. Vol. I, pp.
184–185.
(End of Part 2)
Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/10/blog-post_15.html
* * *
Criteria for
Reception
On the basis of what criteria,
however, did the councils receive the more moderate heretics by means of a libellus
and Chrismation with Holy Chrism, while receiving the still more moderate ones
by means of a libellus alone? Does this decision of the Second
Ecumenical Council in its Seventh Canon allow us to suppose that, at least in
part, the Mysteries of these heretics were valid, given that we are speaking of
the reception of persons coming from heresies condemned by the First Ecumenical
Council? Likewise, the Quinisext Council, in its Ninety-fifth Canon, refers
only to heresies condemned by preceding councils. In receiving those coming
from them by means of a libellus alone, did it therefore regard the
Mysteries of these heretics as in some degree more valid than those of the
heretics received by means of a libellus and Chrismation with Holy
Chrism?
Concerning this very question,
Professor V. Giannopoulos says:
“The return of
heretics to the Catholic Church without the repetition of Baptism or even of
ordination, but only through Chrismation with Holy Chrism or even simply by
means of a libellus, in our view, is difficult to reconcile with the
idea of the invalidity, according to strictness, of the Mysteries of all
heretics. And this is because the Church never applied the principle of economy
to those returning from extreme heresies, but to those returning from heresies
regarded as more moderate. Does not this distinction mean that the Mysteries of
those heretics who are received through Chrismation with Holy Chrism possess
something more than those whose repetition is required, and something less than
the Mysteries of those heretics who are received by means of a libellus?
And in such a case, should not those Mysteries which are recognized upon the
returning person’s submission of a libellus be regarded as standing in a
very close relationship to the Mysteries of the Catholic Church?” [1]
This question posed by the
professor—a “logical” conclusion from the gradation of heresies made by the
Second Ecumenical and Quinisext Councils—approaches the extreme view of
Stephen, Pope of Rome. The Acts of these two Councils and of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council, however, provide us with no information as to whether the Mysteries of
these heresies are valid even in part.
This view abolishes the
uniqueness of the Orthodox Church as the “custodian of the divine grace” of the
sacred Mysteries. It leads inevitably onto the Ecumenist paths of “sister
Churches” or of the “two lungs” of the Body of Christ—expressions uttered without
theological foundation and blasphemously even by the highest-ranking Orthodox
clergy. It is impossible to suppose that the holy Fathers of the Second
Ecumenical Council composed the Seventh Canon on the basis of such a notion
concerning the validity of the Mysteries of these heretics. This is wholly
contrary to the tradition of the Church and to her very existence as the one
and only Church for the salvation of mankind. Nevertheless, they did not
overlook the fact that the Mysteries performed by these heretics preserved the
form of the corresponding Mysteries performed by the Orthodox Church. That is,
they were deficient only with respect to sanctifying grace, which, upon their
coming to the Orthodox Church, after they had abjured the heresy and repented,
the Fathers considered to be supplied. [2] In this manner, the divine Fathers
synodally resolved insurmountable difficulties entailed by the strict and
absolute observance of those sacred Canons that are not dogmatic in character,
which would have had an adverse effect upon those wishing to come to the
Church, “because they are baptized as unbelievers.” [3]
The difficulties evidently arise
from the failure to distinguish between the authority of the sacred Canons and
their applicability. Their authority is absolute, whereas their applicability
is relative. [4] An exception is constituted by Canons of dogmatic content or
by the Definitions of the Councils, whose applicability is likewise absolute.
But if the applicability of non-dogmatic Canons is also regarded as absolute,
then the salvific work of the Church is certainly made more difficult. This is
because such absolutization plainly denies ecclesiastical economy, which is a
tradition of the Church equal in authority to strictness. “Two kinds of
governance and correction,” says St Nicodemus, “are observed in the Church of
Christ. The one kind is called Strictness, and the other Economy and
Condescension; by these the stewards of the Spirit govern the salvation of
souls, sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other.” [5]
Consequently, the sole criterion
that remains for the reception of these heretics into the Church is, once
again, strictness and economy. Some were received by the holy Fathers through
the application of the sacred Canons according to strictness, especially the
Apostolic Canons, while others were received according to economy, “that they
might gain something greater.” [6] That is, so that more souls might be saved.
Under reception according to strictness fall those coming from the extreme and
“completely broken off” heresies, the Gnostics and Monarchians. With regard to
this class of heresies, all the holy Fathers are in agreement concerning the
manner of reception, deriving the application of strictness from the Apostolic
Canons, specifically Canons 46, 47, and 68. Evidently, the Apostolic Canons
refer to these heresies, since the activity of the Christological heresies began
much later, at the beginning of the fourth century. St. Theodore the Studite
gives us a very clear explanation of this in his Fortieth Epistle to Naukratios,
interpreting Apostolic Canon 68 as follows: “...by heretics the Apostolic Canon
meant those who were not baptized, and who do not baptize, in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and this we learn from the divine
words of Basil the Great. For he says: ‘By heresies [the ancients meant] those
who have completely broken away and become alienated in the faith itself; by
schisms, those who have become divided from one another for certain
ecclesiastical reasons and over questions capable of being healed.’”
Nor does the differing reception
of those who come to the Church, on account of these gradations, conflict with
the application of the Apostolic provisions according to strictness. How,
indeed, could the Second Ecumenical and Quinisext Councils have decided
anything of the kind? For if the more moderate heresies were later to change
for the worse and come to differ “concerning the very faith in God itself” to
the same degree as the Gnostic heresies, then certainly there could no longer
be any question of receiving those coming from them into the Church according
to economy. This is because, when the conditions that make economy possible
cease to exist, economy itself likewise ceases to apply. An appropriate example
is Papism, which, in addition to its original deviation in Christological dogma
through the addition of “and from the Son” (Filioque) to the Creed,
subsequently added many other heretical beliefs and canonical transgressions:
papal primacy, infallibility, the teaching concerning created grace, the
Immaculate Conception by St. Anne, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, Mariolatry,
the objectionable principle of Uniatism, and, of course, the unacceptable
alteration of the Orthodox form of three immersions by means of pouring and
sprinkling.
The Mysteries of
the Uncondemned Are Valid
In our discussion of the
Christological heresies, we saw that, ordinarily, when the pleroma of
the Church begins to be disturbed by a heresy being taught within the Church,
the process is then set in motion for the convocation of a synod in order to
restore Orthodox teaching. The dogmatic or theological “ambiguity” is fully
clarified; the leaders of the heresy are deposed or anathematized personally
and by name; the controversy among the members is brought to an end; and
Orthodoxy triumphs.
Never in the history of the
Church has the phenomenon been observed of a transgression occurring and a
synod being convened immediately. This, first of all, serves a purpose
consonant with the essential characteristics of the Church as the ark of
salvation. The Church always keeps before her eyes the loving-kindness of
Christ and, by economy, affords her members who have gone astray a period of
time in which to repent—at least until she determines that the activity of
those responsible for the heresy has become dangerous and harmful to her healthy
members. We say “at least” because there have certainly been many cases in
which the judgment of those who had gone astray was delayed much longer because
of various circumstances (as is happening today with the pan-heresy of
Ecumenism), owing to the inability to convene an Orthodox synod.
This purpose is most clearly
evident in the practice of the holy Fathers. St. Cyril of Alexandria, replying
to those who accused him of not acting in time to depose the heretical
Nestorius, wrote to the clergy and people of Constantinople:
“We offer our
defense in view of the sorrow of you all on this account. For we did not pass
the preceding time without tears; but we hoped that, through ecclesiastical
counsels and admonitions, ...he would turn away from his most abhorrent
doctrines.... Let no one blame the delay; for we did not grow drowsy while so
great a flock was being disturbed, or rather while peoples and Churches
everywhere were being disturbed. We imitated those experienced in the healing
art, who do not immediately subject bodily ailments to the severe measures of
the knife and cautery, but at first soften them with gentle remedies, awaiting
the proper time for incisions.” [7]
Consequently, between the
emergence of the heterodox teaching of uncondemned heretics and its synodal
determination and condemnation, a certain period of time intervenes, which may
be relatively short or may extend to ten, twenty, fifty, or even a hundred
years, “by judgments known to the Lord.” The practical consequence of this is
that, in the meantime, such persons may be serving as clergy in Orthodox
churches and celebrating the sacred Mysteries.
Never in the practice of the
Church has the validity of these Mysteries been called into question by the
Fathers of the holy Councils. The personal alienation of such clergymen from
the saving divine grace of the Church, on account of the anti-Orthodox teaching
which they preach, does not impede the divine operation of the Mysteries
celebrated by them for the faithful. This is because, on the one hand, it is
not they themselves who bestow divine grace in the sacred Mysteries, but the
All-Holy Spirit; and, on the other hand, because these Mysteries are celebrated
within the bosom of the Orthodox Church, from which they received, worthily or
unworthily, the grace of the priesthood. [8]
Of course, the validity of these
Mysteries does not benefit the heresy-professing clergyman himself who
celebrates them, nor the faithful who have gone astray into heretical
doctrines, nor those who commune with the heterodox while knowing of their
heresy. A detailed analysis of this most serious question is given in The Eleventh
Hour, Part 6.
[English translation:
https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/04/the-root-of-division-of-those-in.html]
But what purpose does the
validity of these Mysteries serve, since Orthodox faithful are obliged to flee
communion with heretics so as not to be defiled? If the purpose and end of the
sacred Mysteries is the sanctification of the faithful, as indeed it is, then
who is sanctified?
Those who receive communion from
the above-mentioned uncondemned heretics are sanctified as though receiving it
from Orthodox clergymen, because they are unaware of their blameworthy course.
Sinners who come to them in repentance at the eleventh hour, and through
them to the Church, are sanctified. Even one single heretic or sinner who comes
repentant at the final hour is sanctified—for whom Scripture says that “the
whole world is not worthy of his soul.” Of this wondrous providence of God,
which seeks in every way to save that which is “lost,” we are assured by the
Good Samaritan, the Canaanite woman, the dragnet, the postponement of the
cutting down of the barren fig tree, and other examples.
But in what sense, from a
canonical standpoint, is the validity of these Mysteries justified?
Interpreting the Sixth Canon of
the Second Ecumenical Council and summarizing what has been said thus far, we
consider that when it refers to heretics who have been anathematized, it
implies that prior to their anathematization by the synods which judged their
teaching, they were members of the Church, though spiritually dead or ailing
members. They were judged as members because no one is deposed or
excommunicated from the Church unless he is a member of her—that is, unless he
is within her. They were dead or ailing members because they were liable and
subject to the penalties prescribed by the sacred Canons which they had
transgressed. And as persons liable and accountable, even before their judgment
they were indeed subject to deposition (if clergymen); but since they had not
yet been deposed, they occupied the thrones of Orthodox local Churches. And
since they remained undeposed, they derived from the Orthodox Catholic Church,
as her “active” members, the ability validly to celebrate her Mysteries, of
which she alone is the custodian and dispenser.
All, without exception, of the
“let him be deposed,” “let him be excommunicated,” and “let him be anathema”
provisions of the sacred Canons are interpreted in this manner; that is, they
are applied to members of the Church who are liable, first and foremost, for
heresy, but also for other canonical transgressions. They also serve, however,
as a deterrent to such persons, so that before they are deposed or
anathematized by synods of living bishops, they may repent. The history of the
Church abounds in cases of uncondemned heretics who administered her sacred
Mysteries to multitudes of Orthodox faithful and ordained many clergymen, a
considerable number of whom are commemorated today as Saints. Woe indeed if,
through the deviation of some or all of the bishops of a local Church, the
Mysteries celebrated by them were to become automatically invalid before their
condemnation by a synod. Repentance and sanctification would then be impossible
for multitudes of innocent faithful, who would consequently and inevitably
become prey to the demons lying in wait.
The great St. Theodore the
Studite sets forth for us with complete clarity this destructive error of the
automatic loss of divine grace from the Mysteries of uncondemned heretics,
in the following memorable words:
“How many
ordained clergy have meanwhile come from east and west, north and south, and
been joined in communion to our Church? And how many were then ordained without
payment and themselves ordained others, even though they professed heresy?”
(Were they heretics?)
Continuing on the same subject,
he demonstrates forcefully that the automatic deposition of uncondemned
heretics (by the Canons alone) would, retrospectively, lead to the deposition
of all ordained persons “through their mutual concelebration with one another,”
and consequently to the absurdity (and indeed blasphemy) of the disappearance
of the Mystery of the priesthood from the Church:
“For if the
matter is investigated more thoroughly, ...the gift of the priesthood would
disappear to such an extent—the gift by virtue of which we are called
Christians—that we would fall back into pagan worship, which is absurd.
Moreover, if we insist upon strictness, we would not find what we are seeking
even if we went throughout East and West, since all would be retroactively
deposed through their mutual concelebration with one another.” [9]
The correct interpretation,
therefore, of the sacred Canons in accordance with the words and practice of
the holy Fathers of the Church resolves all ecclesiastical problems and guides
us safely along the middle and royal path. Those who “deviate to the left”
regard those who knowingly commune with heretics as not accountable,
owing to an erroneous interpretation of Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of
Constantinople as supposedly optional; consequently, according to them, such
persons are not condemned but sanctified. Those who “deviate to the right,” on
the other hand, hold that uncondemned heretics do not celebrate valid
Mysteries, and thus consign, at the very least, those who commune with them in
ignorance to spiritual death.
If, then, one arrives, in
accordance with this unsound theory, at the conclusion that “the gift of the
priesthood disappears (or rather, disappeared long ago), upon which our being
called Christians depends... since all are retroactively deposed through their
successive concelebration with one another,” one can understand how serious
this question is and into what spiritual danger the advocates of this theory
fall.
NOTES
1. Journal THEOLOGIA. Offprint, Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki. p. 532.
2. Thus, “the impiety of their belief was healed by means of
the libellus” and “through the divine Chrism,” administered “for the
confirmation of their confession and faith,” “so that they might become
partakers of the Kingdom of Christ and of the gift of the Spirit, of which they
had been deprived.” (I Confess One Baptism. Protopresbyter George
Metallinos. Tinos Publications. p. 49.)
3. As we have seen, the Second Ecumenical Council set aside
the strict practice of rebaptizing, without exception, all schismatics and
heretics, which had been proposed by the three local Synods of Carthage (3rd
century). We also saw that when this was set aside, all the cases involved had
already been adjudicated. The Matthewites and those who follow Matthewite
views, however, relying indiscriminately on the Synods of Carthage, rebaptize,
rechrismate, and reordain those coming from uncondemned schismatic-heretics!
But the New Calendarists too have committed similar sacrileges, for example,
the reordinations of Bishops Paisios and Vikentios (!).
4. As, however, is established... in certain serious cases
and for reasons of necessity (spiritual or bodily), it is possible for the
force and application of the sacred Canons to be suspended, to remain
inoperative—that is, to be relative—and yet for this to have no adverse effect
whatsoever upon their authority, upon their absolute validity. (The
Authority and Force of the Sacred Canons. Pan. Boumis, pp. 108–109).
5. The Rudder. p. 53.
6. See the Epistle to Gennadios by St Cyril of Alexandria.
7. Acts of the Councils. S. Milias. p. 461.
8. “The priesthood is a gift of the Holy Spirit, which has
been treasured in the Church since the day of Pentecost and is transmitted
without interruption through the ‘laying on’ of the bishop’s hands. ...the
priesthood of the priest is nothing other than the priesthood of Christ, which
has been deposited in the Church, His Body.... The priest is neither a
‘representative’ nor a ‘substitute’ for Christ; in the Mystery (of the
Eucharist), Christ Himself is present, and the Assembly is His Body.” (The
Eucharist. Alexander Schmemann. Translated by I. Roilidis. Akritas
Publications. pp. 36–37.)
9. Epistle to Stephen the Reader.
(End of Part 3)
Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/10/blog-post_55.html
* * *
The Church and
Ecumenism
The canonical assessment in the
preceding articles of the current ecclesiastical problems referred to
there—namely, the theory of automatic consequences and its attendant practices,
especially reordination, rechrismation, and rebaptism—was necessary for many
reasons. For, as St. Tarasios says, “evil in matters of dogma,” whether small
or great, “is the same.” For these “small” problems gave rise to the larger
ones, such as the first schism of the Matthewites and, subsequently, the
various factions, thereby breaking the unity of those who were rightly
resisting the calendar innovation. For these problems—deviations with which
most do not agree—were deceitfully and repeatedly exploited, “in season
and out of season,” by the theoreticians of the innovation, especially by the
spiritual mentors of the New Calendarist faithful from their infancy, in order
to malign their God-pleasing resistance, to such an extent that when they hear
the word “Old Calendarists” (itself another of their malicious inventions),
they imagine that it refers to some sect of Jehovah’s Witnesses or some other
wicked assembly. For even today these problems still prevent many
well-intentioned faithful from walling themselves off from communion with the
pan-heresy of Ecumenism.
We shall close the present
section with a brief—since there already exist highly valuable studies—but
necessary reference to the greatest ecclesiastical problem, not only of our own
age but of the entire two-thousand-year course of the Orthodox Church: the
problem of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.
Papism was, of course, an immense
ecclesiastical deviation, but its attempts to subject the Orthodox Eastern
Church failed, thanks to the great Fathers—Photios, Gregory Palamas, Joseph
Bryennios, Mark of Ephesus—and to the piety of the Orthodox people; and it
withdrew into its West, and from there into the total darkness of its
Luciferian pride. Ecumenism today, however, has penetrated almost all the local
Orthodox Churches and aspires to unite the heretical and heterodox confessions
with Orthodoxy in an unprecedented, monstrous, many-horned beast. Could it
ultimately be the beast of the Apocalypse, “rising up out of the sea” of this
world?
Let us, however, take matters
from the beginning.
We mentioned in the first part
that “by definition, it is evident that heresy opposes the salvific purpose of
the Orthodox Church,” and that “until it is condemned synodally, it draws many
of the faithful of the Church into accepting its heterodox teaching.”
Anyone who examines the surviving
Acts of the great Ecumenical Councils cannot but acknowledge that at the heart
of the dogmatic discussions of the past—Christological and Trinitarian
alike—there is always the essential question concerning the relationship
between divinity and humanity, and consequently Christian anthropology.
Certainly, this relationship and its preservation were regarded by the holy
Fathers as indisputable, and whatever cause brought about its rupture was
always opposed as heresy.
By proclaiming Christ to be a
creature, Arianism did nothing other than rupture this very relationship. It
rendered the divinity distant from and unrelated to human reality and to man’s
potential as being “in the image and likeness” of God. It thereby shattered
these very foundations of Christian anthropology, and consequently of
soteriology.
The same occurred with all the
heresies, culminating in Iconoclasm, whose denial of the icons, in the final
analysis, as interpreted by the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, had
as both its starting point and its ultimate aim the denial of the very
Incarnation of the Son of God.
Likewise, all the Western
confessions have ruptured the relationship between divinity and humanity to
such a degree that, from the Orthodox standpoint, they remain Christian only
“in name alone.” Consequently, they have departed completely from the salvific
path marked out beforehand by the holy Apostles and the Fathers of the Church.
For the Ecumenists, therefore,
their ardent desire to unite Orthodoxy with the Western heresies clearly
reveals their alienation from Orthodox Tradition. Never could an Orthodox soul,
nourished by the words of the holy Fathers and revering the sacred Tradition of
the Church, consciously rupture its relationship with God. They therefore serve
other purposes, foreign and alien to the salvific purpose of the Orthodox
Church. For if the Canons and the barriers established by the holy Fathers
precisely in order to protect the people of God from the various heresies no
longer have force for them, then what relationship can they have with authentic
Orthodox patristic theology—the theology that preserves, deepens, and gives
life to the relationship between divinity and humanity? For this reason, new
“theologies” and new confessions continually appear: the branch theory, the
theory of the Church’s two lungs, post-patristic theology, baptismal or
Eucharistic ecclesiology, and others. It seems that they have never known the
fragrance of Orthodox spiritual life, the experiential life of our holy
Fathers, which breathes forth so richly from their writings, simply because
they have never truly immersed themselves in them so that the spiritual fire
might be kindled—the fire that illumines and fills Orthodox souls with
fragrance. Perhaps they merely leafed through them and said, “We know all
this,” but they did not study them; for the divine Psalmist says: “and in my
meditation a fire shall be kindled.” It is indeed astonishing how Hierarchs of
Orthodox local Churches, abbots, monks, and theologians can pass over “with a
light heart” this ecclesiological deviation of enormous proportions. As for
those who embrace it, they are anything but Orthodox. Certainly, there have
been and still are arrogant and impious ecclesiastical figures [1] who today
regard the divine writings and the sacred Canons as outdated; but our
perplexity concerns those who accept the divine inspiration of patristic
literature. The others have opened the “broken cisterns” of Western
“theologians” and have become like them. Thus, according to them, the One
Church is divided into Orthodox, Papal, Protestant, Monophysite, and
other branches, which must therefore be united by setting aside their dogmatic
differences.
The assault upon the essential
question of the relationship between God and man, therefore, undoubtedly exists
also in the heresy of Ecumenism. From the outset, the ecclesiological
deviations of Ecumenism were not characterized by the immediacy of Christological
or Trinitarian deviations—that is, they did not at once render them heresies
which completely rupture the above-mentioned relationship—but unquestionably
they too attacked that same relationship and, with the passage of time, led it
to complete rupture. This indirectness has until now enabled Ecumenism to
maneuver between Orthodoxy and heterodoxy, displaying chameleon-like behavior
according to each circumstance, precisely so as not to provoke reactions, at
least not vigorous ones.
Such reactions are their great
headache, because they fear the informing and indignation of the people of God.
For this reason, when a faithful person, especially a clergyman, repudiates
them by ceasing commemoration, they unhesitatingly unleash a relentless and
impious war against him. And unfortunately, they almost always succeed in
silencing such voices, either through depositions or by isolating them from the
majority of the faithful, who remain uninformed as to what ought to be done
ecclesiastically and according to the Fathers.
The immediate reaction in the
past to any Christological deviation or heresy arose chiefly from two causes:
from the good knowledge that Christians of that time, clergy and laity alike,
possessed of Christological dogma, and from the reverence they cherished for
the apostolic and patristic Tradition of the Church. For example, when the
faithful of Constantinople heard, in a public sermon by a priest—with Nestorius
present and in agreement—the Panagia being called not Theotokos but
Christotokos, a term unheard of at the time and quite rightly regarded by the
faithful as blasphemous, because it reduced the God-man to a mere man, they
immediately left the church, literally emptying it. Thereafter, the Orthodox
completely broke ecclesiastical communion with Nestorius until he was condemned
by the Third Ecumenical Council. Today, by contrast, unprecedented blasphemies
are heard from the lips of Patriarchs, while the great mass of the New
Calendarist faithful—clergy first and foremost, and laity—dismiss them as mere
trifles.
With the official establishment
of the term “heterodox Churches” [2] for the heresies of the West, and not only
those, by the robber Great Council of Crete, Ecumenism now not only rivals the
immediacy with which a Christological deviation or heresy severs the
life-giving relationship, but actually surpasses it. The Christ proclaimed by
Ecumenism is at one time the God-man, at another a Monophysite, and at another
a source of the Holy Spirit (Filioque). And for the more advanced
Ecumenists, at one time He is the founder of one religion among many, and at
another He is placed on the same level as Mohammed or Buddha. They have
retained the name of Christ, but in His name they alter the “Tradition of
revealed Truth once delivered by the holy Apostles and Fathers”—a Truth which
does not admit even the slightest alteration without being corrupted, without
rupturing man’s life-giving relationship with the Holy Spirit. In the name of
Christ they have created a bizarre construct, something analogous to the
nonexistent Christ of the ancient Monarchian heretics, whom we have already
mentioned: although they acknowledged the historicity of Jesus, by denying His
Divinity they created incoherent mythological constructions, with the result
that they became completely alienated from Christian teaching.
Thus Ecumenism does indeed
include Orthodox Christology, but it mixes it with the heterodoxy of the
non-Orthodox and thereby distorts it, with the result that Ecumenism itself in
turn becomes completely alienated from the Orthodox Tradition of the Church.
The Christ ultimately proclaimed by Ecumenism is not the unique God-man
proclaimed by the holy Fathers. And naturally it is no coincidence that the
blasphemous heresiarch of the Phanar characterized these very holy Fathers as
“victims of the primordial evil serpent” and said that “they are already in the
hands of the righteous Judge, God,” to be judged. That is, a complete
perversion of the truth.
Lawless as Ecumenism is, because
it has moved the “eternal boundaries which the holy Fathers set,” it is working
feverishly for the coming of the final Lawless One. Those who have cultivated
their spiritual senses can now see clearly that the steps of Ecumenism lead,
alas (!), to the acceptance of the Antichrist. Everything is tending toward the
creation of his new global religion.
It is noteworthy, and now more
timely than ever, that the Lord Himself warns us: “I am come in My Father’s
name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will
receive.” (John 5:43)
But why is the same immediate
reaction toward the Ecumenists not seen today as that shown by the faithful of
Constantinople against Nestorius and in similar cases? Again, for two reasons.
First, precisely because Ecumenism, as we briefly noted in the preceding
paragraphs, changes its appearance like a chameleon wherever it finds itself;
and second, because reverence for the Tradition of the holy Fathers of the
Church has been lost, and with it the knowledge of the essence of ecclesiology,
which consists exclusively in Orthodox theology, from which the sacred Canons
flowed.
Through the study of the Holy
Scriptures, says St Ephraim the Syrian, the human soul is nourished with words
of truth, while unsound and soul-destroying thoughts that give rise to
delusions and heresies are cut away, just as a farmer prunes away unfruitful
and withered branches and grafts the healthy ones so that they may bear
abundant fruit. This is the necessary and essential knowledge that guards the
mind from the soul-destroying weeds of heresies, while also giving life to the
ontological value of human existence.
Ecumenism, of course, claims to
be concerned with the welfare of humanity, but this welfare is understood in a
humanistic sense, that is, solely according to worldly criteria. Hence also its
ecological sensitivities, which from a spiritual standpoint are devoid of
substance. Eternal spiritual values have been overturned, while Mr. Bartholomew
travels aboard the most luxurious yachts, supposedly in order to bless the
whales. It is precisely this worldly spirit that also caused Papism to lose the
Spirit-bearing criterion possessed by the great Fathers of the Western Church
up until the eighth century. The secularization of Papism prevailed from the
first—the Pope—down to the last of the faithful, because from the eighth
century onward they lacked spiritual knowledge. What befell the Jews because
they expected the Messiah as an earthly king—and this befell them because they
did not heed or did not believe the words of the Spirit-bearing prophets whom
God sent them—the same befell the Papists, and with them the whole of the West,
because they abandoned the pure waters of the holy Fathers in order to drink
from the turbid waters of the philosophers, the Barlaamites, and the scholastic
theologians. In the end, Papism itself, through its Luciferian arrogance,
became a source of incredible delusion and heresies of perdition. Already in
the ninth century, St Photios the Great characterized them as “new forerunners
of apostasy” and “common destroyers,” while the new Chrysostom, St. Nicodemus,
calls them “age-old heretics” and “a church of great delusions and deliberate
heresies.”
Unfortunately, however, the
leaders of the Orthodox Church did not learn from what befell the Jews and the
Papists. Almost all of them likewise drank, and continue to drink, from the
same turbid waters of scholastic theology, studying in the schools of the
Western confessions, as was naturally prescribed by the very charter of
Ecumenism, the Encyclical of 1920: “through communication between the
theological schools and the representatives of theological scholarship, and
through the exchange of theological and ecclesiastical periodicals and writings
published in each Church” (Article 4), and “through the sending of young people
for study from one Church to the schools of another Church” (Article 5). There
is, however, one small detail that makes a great difference: only from our
Orthodox country do prospective theologians depart for Western universities,
especially those of Italy. No Catholic, Protestant, or Anglican has come to
study our Orthodox theology.
Very few Orthodox students
remained unaffected by scholastic theology, and this explains the sympathy of
so many toward the heretics of the West. And whoever calls their authority into
question—for they become masters—immediately finds himself branded by them as a
schismatic, fundamentalist, or Old Calendarist. “The harlot calls the virgins
harlots,” says the great Chrysostom, “so that they may have nothing with which
to reproach her in return.”
The only way to combat Ecumenism
and every heresy effectively is through an excellent knowledge of the Holy
Scriptures and of the ecclesiology of the theologian holy Fathers, especially
the Confessors, who established and confirmed their unerring theology through
their life and martyrdom. This, of course, requires persistent and painstaking
study of the subject in depth, together with watchfulness and prayer, in
imitation of the Saints, insofar as our poor strength permits. It is by no
means accidental that in our time heresies have multiplied to such an extent,
and that Ecumenism in particular has assumed enormous proportions. Secular
knowledge has increased at every level of daily life, while spiritual knowledge
concerning the essentials of Orthodox ecclesiology and the related salvific
Christian anthropology remains at an infantile stage, if not at zero, with the
natural result that the former easily opposes and prevails over the latter.
Finally, in various publications
we observe the deeply regrettable phenomenon of disputes among the faithful of
the anti-heretical front. They are literally concentrating on the tree while
watching the entire forest being mercilessly consumed by fire. Instead of
coming to an understanding and uniting with the healthy elements among those
who from the beginning resisted the calendar innovation—the first blow of
accursed Ecumenism against the Orthodox Eastern Church—and rallying
together against the pan-heresy, so that, humanly speaking at least, the “host
of the Lord” might be strengthened and the remnant of piety [3] freed from the
stumbling blocks of the extremes responsible for the well-known divisions,
quite a number of them also cast the stone of anathema against it. Where Old
Calendarism once faltered, they themselves now falter, repeating the same error
of the Matthewites, which became the root of all the evils among those who from
the beginning had rightly resisted.
They speak of a parallel Church,
taking as their starting point the Synodal structure of the Old Calendarists,
and refuse to understand that the Synodal structure is also an administrative
institution and was absolutely necessary in order to serve their 800 branches,
“...so that the struggle might be better served,” as the former Metropolitan of
Florina [St. Chrysostomos the New Confessor] wrote. Certainly, there were also
some unfortunate statements, and even Encyclicals (1950, 1974, 1998), which
would have the historic Florinite Synod hold the views of the Matthewites (that
it is the only Greek Synod). In practice, however, very few were consistent
with their words; and today the great majority hold and follow the
crystal-clear and well-documented ecclesiology of the former Metropolitan of
Florina, which recognizes the ecclesial status of the New Calendarists, but not
communion with them.
They speak again and again of
calendar dogmatism, and although everyone assures them that no such issue
exists, they persist indiscriminately in the same assertions like stubborn
children. Those who resisted over the calendar always believed, and still believe,
that the change was an illegitimate offspring of Ecumenism and refused to adopt
it, especially since it was uncanonical and unilateral.
Thus, failing to distinguish
properly the healthy remnant of piety from the fanatical and extreme elements
of the faith, they believe that “the greatest harm to walling-off and to the
condemnation of the heresy of Ecumenism has been done by the Old Calendarists,”
[4] thereby wiping out with a single stroke and rejecting their much-suffering
ninety-year struggle, even unto blood, imagining that they alone are making an
Orthodox confession and entertaining vain hopes that they will usher in the
spring. If we were to suppose that only the Matthewite factions existed, we
would agree with them, apart from the very Matthewite error (read: heresy)
which they themselves also profess. Since, however, there exists a substantial
remnant of piety, they accomplish nothing other than giving birth to yet
another faction. Do they not know that “divide and rule” is the devil’s
favorite tactic? Do they not understand that all Orthodox forces must unite in
the common struggle against the great pan-heresy of Ecumenism—something that
would also help to isolate the extremist elements and perhaps even draw healthy
elements from the other small Matthewite and Matthewite-leaning factions?
May they come to understand their
great error.
NOTES
1. Theokletos Pharmakides, Meletios Metaxakis, Athenagoras,
and Bartholomew, to confine ourselves to the foremost innovators in
ecclesiastical matters.
2. The Ecumenists have always regarded the heresies of the
West as churches. This is clearly evident in the 1920 Encyclical of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
3. A most apt term first used by the former Metropolitan of
Florina to distinguish those resisting the calendar change from those within
the Church of Greece who accepted it.
4. Journal Orthodox Tradition (September 2016).
(End of Part 4/Final)
Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/11/blog-post_3.html
