Nikolaos Mannis, educator
There are two major
deviations from Orthodox ecclesiology within the ranks of the Genuine Orthodox
(Old Calendarist) Christians of Greece. The first, now known as Matthewitism
(which developed into a schism from 1937), was expressed by certain Athonites,
with the future titular Bishop of Vresthena, Matthaios Karpathakis [+1950], at
the forefront, during the early decades of our Holy Struggle, and was
adequately addressed by the writings of our right-believing Fathers and
Teachers, such as Saint Chrysostomos of Florina, Fr. Theodoretos Mavros,
Aristotelis Delimbasis, and others.
The second was
expressed in recent decades by the now-reposed lawyer and theologian Athanasios
Sakarellos [+2021], and not only has it not yet been systematically addressed,
but unfortunately it has also spread and found adherents in our circles,
influencing to such a degree our ecclesiological self-awareness that we are
mocked by certain newly illumined ones as supposedly “heretics,” simply because
we disagree with this ecclesiology. Thus, the present work is apologetic and
polemical, yet at the same time enlightening, and there is hope that it will
contribute to the liberation of the ecclesiology of the Genuine Orthodox (as it
was handed down to us by our right-believing Fathers) from the Sakarellian
(that is, Romanidian, as will be demonstrated) captivity.
***
For anyone who is
unaware, Athanasios Sakarellos was a close collaborator of the historic and
militant newspaper Orthodoxos Typos, whose columns hosted, among other
topics, his writings against the Old Calendarists (whom he considered
heretics), signed either with his own name or with various pseudonyms (e.g. K.
Athanasiou, Ioannis Athonites). These were published mainly during the 1980s
and provoked reactions from prominent members of our Church (such as the
blessed Metropolitan Akakios of Diavleia, Fr. Theodoretos Mavros, and Fr.
Euthymios Bardakas).
Although around
1990 (after his discipleship under Fr. John Romanides), Mr. Sakarellos joined
the Old Calendarists, we personally have not seen anywhere that he publicly
stated he renounces what he had written against them.
However, we shall
not concern ourselves with these texts, accepting by economia that,
since Mr. Sakarellos joined the Old Calendarists, this very act of his joining
constitutes, in a certain sense, a practical repentance for what he had written
against them (even though exactness requires, in the case of written
statements, a written renunciation).
We shall therefore
concern ourselves with the texts he composed as an Old Calendarist, which
shaped a new ecclesiology within our ranks—an ecclesiology that stands as far
from the Orthodox one as does the Matthewite, with which it is, in many
respects, related, though not always identical. These texts of his are
primarily the following:
- The Walling-Off of the Faithful from Heretical Bishops, n.d.
- The Union of the Churches Took Place in 1965, n.d.
- Old and New Calendar, 2005,
as well as his
online publications, signed either with his full name or with his internet
pseudonym “Kosmas.”
***
Before proceeding
to a critical examination of the above texts of his (in which his ecclesiology
is summarized), we shall present his deluded positions which constitute the
deviation (which, for the sake of brevity, we will refer to as Sakarellism),
and which we shall encounter and examine in greater detail in the present work.
The fundamental
positions of Sakarellism are therefore the following:
1. In order for
someone to understand theology in general, and ecclesiology in particular, he
must know history, and specifically the interpretation of history proposed by
Fr. John Romanides. According to this (Manichaean [= dualistic], as it appears)
conception, those called Christians are divided into two parts, the “Romans”
and the “Franks.” These parts, which are presented with certain of their
characteristics in the table below, are in perpetual war, because the latter
conspire to enslave the former.
The “Franks” ultimately managed to prevail and
to take the whole world captive (even the “Romans”), through their “Frankish
scholasticism,” from the 14th to the 20th century—until the appearance of Fr.
Romanides, who liberated us...
2. As a result, all
the Orthodox Fathers, teachers, theologians, and ecclesiastical writers from
Saint Gregory Palamas to Fr. Romanides (with exceedingly few exceptions) were
captives of “Frankish scholasticism,” and therefore unreliable. (And indeed, in
order to determine which of the aforementioned Fathers and Teachers were
captives or not, we simply place their writings next to the writings of Fr.
Romanides; those who agree with his positions were “true” Orthodox—and
Romans!—whereas those who disagree with him—such as Saint Nektarios or Saint
Chrysostomos of Florina, for example—were “captives of the Franks”...)
3. In the Church
(in which, according to Mr. Sakarellos, there exists no distinction between the
Church Militant on earth and the Church Triumphant—this, he claims, is...
“Frankish scholasticism”), only the Saints, the enlightened, the deified, the
elect, the pure, belong. The existence of sinners and those of unsound doctrine
within the Church defiles it, and is therefore impossible. One does not become
a member of the Church through the Baptism of water, but through the “baptism
of the spirit”!!! The Saints are infallible, and consequently, those who
(according to his own judgment, of course) are in error (such as Augustine,
Isaac the Syrian, John Maximovitch, Philaret of New York, and others) are false
saints.
4. The Church of
Greece fell from the pure “Church of Christ” (and lost Divine Grace and the
Priesthood) in 1924 with the change of the calendar, (and/or) in 1930 with the
acceptance of the “Nestorian heresy” of Trembelas, (and/or) in 1935 with the
repudiation of the three hierarchs who returned to the Old Calendar, (and/or)
in 1965 with the supposed “Union of the Churches,” and also because it is in
communion with the Church of Finland, which follows the new Paschalion.
The imitators of Mr. Sakarellos add that it fell (and/or) in 1990 with the
agreement with the Monophysites in Chambésy, (and/or) in 1993 with the
agreement with the Papists in Balamand, (and/or) in 2016 with the
pseudo-council of Kolymbari. (Nevertheless, the fact that Fr. Romanides—the “authority”
and our “great theologian liberator”—was a member of the Church of Greece seems
to have no significance whatsoever...).
5. According to the
saying (which holds the place of a dogma and is also misinterpreted,
according to personal judgment), “he who communes with one who is
excommunicated, let him also be excommunicated,” all the Local Churches that
are in communion with the Church of Greece and with one another have fallen
from the pure “Church of Christ,” which is now comprised solely of a few
deified... “Romans.”
We overlook the
numerous errors found in the above texts that pertain to historical matters and
will focus solely on those relating to ecclesiology; we therefore begin the
critique of Sakarellian ecclesiology with an examination of its first
fundamental principle, which concerns who constitutes members of the Church and
who does not.
The references to
the corresponding passages in Mr. Sakarellos’ aforementioned books will be made
using the following abbreviations:
A (= The Walling-Off of the Faithful from
Heretical Bishops)
E (= The Union of the Churches Took Place in 1965)
P (= Old and New Calendar)
***
According to
Sakarellism (=Romanidism), members of the Church are only those “who have been
deemed worthy to attain the ‘vision of God’, which is ‘illumination’ and
‘deification’” (A, 4 / P, 193), and “who are in the state of noetic prayer” (P,
80). More specifically, Baptism alone is not sufficient for one to be a member
of the Church: “Contemporary theologians consider every Orthodox person to be a
member of the Church simply because he was once baptized…” (A, 5).
The fact that these
positions are based primarily on Fr. John Romanides can be confirmed by
consulting his writings: “Someone who is faithful through the baptism of water,
but has not yet entered into the state of illumination—that is, the baptism of
the Spirit—and therefore is not yet a member of the Body of Christ… is called a
layman, since he remains in a lay condition.” [1] “In any case, the baptism in
the Spirit is identical with the reception of the gift of tongues and is
clearly distinct from the baptism in water… This baptism in the Spirit, which
results in the gift of tongues and is normally accompanied by the gift of
prophecy, is evidently the beginning of the chrismation, the mystery through
which one becomes a member of the Body of Christ and a temple of God. For the
Apostle Paul, the gift of tongues appears to be the minimal requirement for
becoming a member of the Body of Christ (…) Those who, through unceasing
prayer, attain glorification are the central core of Holy Tradition, for
without them there is no Body of Christ. (…) Without them, the sacraments of
the Church become a system of magic. The Apostle Paul does not say that the
Body of Christ is truly built up by baptism, chrismation, the divine Eucharist,
etc., but by the Apostles and prophets—meaning the Apostles and Fathers—who
spiritually beget others in Christ, preparing them to receive the prayer of the
Holy Spirit in their hearts. Only within this framework are the sacraments of
baptism, chrismation, the divine Eucharist, priesthood, confession, repentance,
etc., not magic.” [2] “One must test himself to see whether he is in the state
of illumination, and therefore a member of the Body of Christ and a temple of
the Holy Spirit, having at the very least the ‘kinds of tongues,’ that is,
noetic prayer.” [3] “In the ancient period, the members of the Church were
those who were in a state of illumination. They had at least noetic prayer. And
since they had noetic prayer and were in a state of illumination, they were
called saints.” [4] The first position, therefore, is the following: One does
not become a member of the Church through the “baptism of water,” but through
the “baptism of the Spirit.” And proof that one is truly a member of the Church
is the possession of the “prayer” (noetic prayer).
***
It is indeed true
that, upon examining this position, we did not find it unprecedented. It has
indeed been expressed before in the past—though not by Orthodox. Let us,
however, first examine it in detail. In contrast to this position, the Fathers
teach that one becomes a member of the Church through Baptism, which they do
not divide into a “baptism of water” and a “baptism of the spirit,” as though
these were two supposedly distinct kinds of baptism!
The theoretician of
Romanidism within the New Calendarist sphere (and classmate of Mr. Sakarellos
under Romanides), Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, attempting to establish
this dichotomy, writes: “The baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit may
be connected to one another when proper and Orthodox catechesis takes place;
however, they may also not be absolutely connected, in the sense that the
baptism of water precedes and the baptism of the Spirit follows. It is very
characteristic in the Acts of the Apostles that the Christians of Samaria had
indeed received the baptism of water, that is, they had already been baptized
in the name of the Lord, but they had not received the baptism of the Spirit,
which is why the Apostles Peter and John were sent to baptize them with the
Holy Spirit.” [5] Metropolitan Hierotheos refers to the following passage from
Acts: “Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had
received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they
were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as
yet He had fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy
Spirit.” [6] At first glance, there is indeed the risk that one might conclude
that Baptism does not confer the Holy Spirit. But whoever reads the chapter
carefully will observe earlier that: “Then Philip went down to the city of
Samaria and preached Christ to them” [7] and “But when they believed Philip
preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus
Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” [8] And Saint John Chrysostom
explains: “And why had they not received the Holy Spirit when they were
baptized? Either because Philip had not given it to them, honoring, perhaps,
the Apostles; or because he did not have such a gift (for he was one of the
seven); and this is more likely to say. Hence it seems to me that this Philip
was one of the seven, the second after Stephen. Therefore, though he baptized,
he did not give the Spirit to those being baptized; for he did not have
authority to do so: for this gift belonged only to the Twelve.” [9] We thus see
that the particular Baptisms in Samaria were incomplete only for the reason
that they had been performed by a Deacon (Saint Philip, one of the seven
Deacons) and not by one of the Twelve Apostles, who alone at that time had the
authority to perform the Mysteries.
***
The manner in which
Romanidism (i.e., Sakarellism in our context) treats Baptism—calling it the
“Baptism of water,” while distinguishing and referring to Chrismation as the
“Baptism of the Spirit” [10]—is demeaning to this Mystery, the first and
foundational Mystery of the Church. Through this depreciation, Sakarellism,
combined with its overemphasis on Chrismation, not only now establishes the
pre-existing delusions within our ranks (such as Rebaptisms—since the “baptism
of water” is supposedly not of great value, contrary to the Fathers who stress
that it is of such great value that it must NOT be repeated!) and
re-Chrismations—since Chrismation is of such great value and only through it
does one become a “true member” of the “true Church”—but also constitutes a
deviation which lies at the opposite extreme of the other end, namely the
so-called “Baptismal Theology” of the Ecumenists, which holds that every person
who has received “baptism,” wherever it may have been received, must be
considered a “member of the Church.”
But we, the true
Orthodox, “shall walk the royal road, turning neither to the right hand nor to
the left, until we have passed thy bounds”; [11] and we believe that through
the Baptism which one receives within the Church, he becomes a member thereof.
With every kind of
baptism and wherever it is performed, one becomes a member of the Church.
With Baptism, which is performed within the Church, one becomes a member
thereof. With Baptism, one does not become a member of the Church.
Baptism, therefore,
according to Orthodox teaching, is performed “of water and of the Spirit”
[12]—that is, it imparts the Holy Spirit to those being baptized and makes them
members of the Church even without the Mystery of Chrismation (whose true value
Orthodoxy in no way questions, since through it additional gifts of the Holy
Spirit are bestowed). Proof of this is not only the Church’s practice of
accepting as members those who are baptized without having yet received
Chrismation (e.g., those who needed to be baptized immediately because they
were in danger of death—chiefly sick infants or imprisoned Christians during
persecutions, who had not yet had the opportunity to be baptized), but also Her
teaching, from which we present the following indicative examples:
1. From the Apostle
Paul: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on
Christ.” [13] Does one put on Christ who is not a member of the Church?
2. From the Prayers
in the Service of Holy Baptism: “Make him a rational sheep of the holy flock of
Thy Christ, an honorable member of Thy Church... Build him upon the foundation
of Thy Apostles and Prophets; and do not cast him down, but plant him as a planting
of truth in Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and do not uproot him.”
3. From Saint John
Chrysostom: “Do you see how many are the gifts of Baptism? And yet many suppose
that the gift consists only in the remission of sins, whereas we have
enumerated ten honors: for this reason, indeed, we also baptize children,
though they have no sins, so that sanctification, righteousness, adoption,
inheritance, brotherhood, becoming members of Christ, and becoming a
dwelling-place of the Spirit may be added to them.” [14]
4. From Saint
Nikodemos the Hagiorite: “For through the Cross the Church was betrothed to the
Crucified Christ, and through the blood and water that flowed from His side,
she who was formerly barren bore many children, and became both a mother of
many and a noble mother, giving birth through the water of Baptism and
nourishing the newborn through the Body and Blood of the Lord.” [15]
***
Romanidism claims
that one is a member of the Church only if he has at least the “prayer” (noetic
prayer), as it interprets the “kinds of tongues” mentioned by the Apostle.
Without this prayer, not only can one not be a member of the Church, but all
the Mysteries are deemed fraudulent—“a system of magic”! Orthodoxy, and
especially the Hesychast tradition, emphasizes the great importance of noetic
prayer, but it does not claim that whoever lacks it is outside the Church, nor
that without it the Mysteries are ineffectual!
On the contrary,
both the unprecedented division of Baptism (into that of water and that of the
Spirit), and the absolute exaltation of the significance of the “prayer,” are
encountered among the so-called Messalians (or Euchites). They taught: “Divine
baptism is unable to uproot the roots of sins. Yet our Lord Jesus Christ says,
‘Unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the
Kingdom of God.’ Now, the Holy Spirit is divine fire; for it descended upon the
disciples in the form of tongues of fire, concerning which the Forerunner also
bore witness to the superiority of Christ to the crowds, saying, ‘He shall
baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.’ Just as sensible fire, falling
upon a field filled with underbrush, burns up all that is on the surface and
dries up their roots, and renders the field clean from such filth, so also the
Holy Spirit—much more indeed… They say that every child born draws from the
forefather Adam, just as his nature, so also his slavery to the demons, and he
carries with him a demon united to him and dwelling with him; and that neither holy
baptism nor any other most divine operation is able to expel it, but only
fervent and intense prayer, through the gnashing and spitting of the one who
prays.” [16]
As Professor of
Dogmatics Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos rightly observes (so that no one may think we
are the only ones offering criticism of these positions), “The erroneous
disparagement of the ‘baptism of water’ by Fr. Romanides, in view of another,
distinct ‘baptism of the Spirit’ supposedly offered only through prayer,
strongly recalls the heresy of the Messalians, who likewise disparaged Baptism,
seeking through ‘prayer’ the realization of salvation—or, in Romanidic
language, incorporation into the Body of Christ. In any case, the acceptance of
two Baptisms, one without the Spirit and a second with the Spirit, through
prayer, is entirely unknown to the Patristic tradition—and especially to the
Hesychast tradition.” [17]
***
Continuing the
examination of Sakarellian ecclesiology, we read: “The Fathers, on the basis of
Holy Scripture, consider as members of the Church the saints. In them is found
the deifying divine grace. They consider the Church to be the ‘communion of
saints.’ For this reason, although it is composed of human beings, who are
created, because the saints, being deified, became uncreated by grace, the true
Church also, according to the Fathers, is uncreated” (P, 191).
“In the Symbol of Faith we confess that the Church is ‘holy.’ This is so not
only because her head, Christ, is holy, but also because her members must be
holy! A Christian is holy when he reaches the state of ‘vision of God,’ that
is, illumination or deification” (P, 95). The second position we thus encounter
is the following: The true Church, which is “uncreated,” is composed of the
saints (“communion of saints”) and is holy because its members must also be
holy.
Let us first
examine the matter of the “uncreated Church.” No matter how much one searches,
he will not find among the Fathers the view that the Church is uncreated. This
was first asserted by Romanides. [18] Yet here Mr. Sakarellos diverges somewhat
from his mentor, since whereas Romanides considers the Church to be (also)
uncreated “as the hidden-in-God kingdom and glory, in which God dwells with the
Word and the Holy Spirit,” the former (Sakarellos) considers it uncreated
“because the saints, being deified, have become uncreated by grace” (and
therefore, since the Church consists only of “uncreated” saints, it is likewise
“uncreated”!) However, the Saints teach that the Church is not uncreated
(=unmade), but created:
1. According to the
Apostle Paul, the Church is the true tabernacle “which the Lord pitched, and
not man” [19] and the city “whose builder and maker is God.” [20]
2. Saint Clement of
Rome: “By doing the will of God our Father, we shall belong to the first
Church, the spiritual one, which was created before the sun and the moon.” [21]
3. Saint Hermas:
“Behold, God of hosts, who by His invisible and mighty power and His great
understanding created the world, and by His glorious counsel adorned His
creation with beauty, and by His powerful word established the heaven and
founded the earth upon the waters, and by His own wisdom and providence created
His holy Church, which He also blessed… And it was revealed to me, brethren, as
I was sleeping, by a very handsome young man who said to me: ‘Whom do you think
the elderly woman is, from whom you received the little book?’ I said, ‘The
Sibyl.’ ‘You are mistaken,’ he said, ‘she is not.’ ‘Who then is she?’ I asked.
‘The Church,’ he said. I said to him, ‘Why then is she elderly?’ ‘Because,’ he
said, ‘she was created before all things; for this reason, she is elderly, and
for her sake the world was prepared.’” [22]
4. Saint Athanasius
the Great, in his discourse Against the Arians concerning the incarnate
appearance of the Word of God, explains to these heretics that the passages of
Scripture which speak of Christ as a creature do not refer to His divine
nature, but to His human nature—that is, to His Body, the Church: “Thus also
when it says, ‘The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways,’ it speaks
concerning the Church, which is being created in Him… Whatever the Scripture
says that the Son has received, it speaks on account of His body, which body is
the first-fruits of the Church. And when it says, ‘Before all the hills He
begets me,’ it is spoken from the person of the Church, which, though first
created, is afterwards begotten of God. For this reason, in Proverbs it is
first written, ‘The Lord created me,’ and afterwards, ‘He begot me’… And when
Peter says, ‘Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this
Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ,’ he does not speak concerning
His divinity, that He was made both Lord and Christ, but concerning His
humanity—which is the whole Church.” [23]
5. Euthymios
Zigabenos, in his interpretation of the verse from the 44th Psalm, “The queen
stood at Thy right hand,” writes (in the simplified rendering by Saint
Nikodemos): “Here David calls the Church and the assembly of devout Christians
‘queen,’ whom the King Christ, who was previously joined to idols, has
betrothed to Himself through faith in Him; for she reigned on earth over the
passions, and reigned together with her Bridegroom and King Christ in the
heavenly kingdom. The Bridegroom and King Christ sits at the right hand of the
Father, being of one essence and equal in honor with Him according to the
Godhead; but His bride and queen, the Church, does not sit, but stands at the
right hand of her Bridegroom and King, together with the bodiless Angels,
because although she is both bride and queen, yet she is by nature created.”
[24]
***
We now come to the
position that only the saints constitute members of the Church (and that this
is supposedly why the Church is called the “communion of saints”); and that,
because the Church is holy, its members must be holy; and if they are not holy,
then they are not members of the Church.
First, in
Scripture—as well as in the Fathers—the term “communion of saints” is absent,
apart from a very few exceptions in the West (in Latin, it is called “Communio
Sanctorum”). The first reference to it is found in the so-called “Apostles’
Creed,” which the Westerners claim was composed by the Apostles themselves,
though the Church considers it apocryphal. There we read: “[Credo in]
sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem” (“[I believe in] the
holy catholic Church, the communion of saints”). And yet, Saint Augustine in a
certain text (whose real author, according to modern scholars, is Saint
Caesarius [†543], Bishop of Arles in Gaul), interpreting this phrase, writes: “Sanctorum
communionem: quia dona sancti Spiritus licet in hac vita diversa sint in
singulis, in aeternitate tamen erunt communia in universis” [25]
That is: “Communion of saints: because the gifts of the Holy Spirit, though
different in each individual in this life, will in eternity be common to all.”
This has absolutely no relation to the Sakarellian/Romanidean interpretation of
the term, which, by asserting that only the saints—that is, the elect and the
“pure” (the “deified”)—are members of the Church, aligns more closely with
elitist ecclesiological positions expressed, among others, by the following
heretics:
1. The Montanists.
“In the early centuries of Christianity, a heretical movement appeared known as
‘Montanism.’ This movement taught that the Church ought to consist exclusively
of perfect and holy beings, and it demanded that sinners and the imperfect be
removed from its ranks.” [26]
2. The Novatianists
(the “Pure”). “The Novatianists further observed that, since the Church had
already accepted into her ranks those who had committed mortal sins, she had
become defiled and profaned; and for this reason, only they, as the pure ones,
still constituted the true, apostolic Church.” [27]
3. The Donatists.
They maintained that “the true Church must be called that in which there are no
sinners.” [28] According to Saint Optatus of Milevis (†4th c.), the confusion
of the Donatists arose “from their general understanding of the Church as a body
of saints, elect, and sinless ones. Thus, the Donatists identified the Catholic
Church with the elect saints, who alone, they claimed, could validly perform
the Mysteries.” [29] “They insisted on limiting the membership of the Church
only to irreproachable believers.” [30]
4. The Anabaptists:
“The Mennonites or Anabaptists… According to them, the Church is a communion of
saints and therefore must be preserved in its purity through the strictest
discipline.” [31]
5. The Lutherans. The
Augsburg Confession professes belief in the Church as “congregatio
Sanctorum” (= congregation of saints). The great 19th-century theologian
Nikolaos Damalas observes: “If we finally examine Melanchthon’s definition, in
what relation it stands to the catholic and apostolic Church of the seven
ecumenical councils, we shall find it to be entirely opposed to it. For that
Church, considering and proclaiming itself as the catholic and apostolic, would
nurture the faithful and discipline those among them who sinned, and in every
way strive to shepherd and save the flock of Christ, and to make them into the
very kind of righteous and holy persons that Melanchthon demands as a
prerequisite for entering his church. Thus, the ancient catholic Church was not
composed exclusively of the pious and the righteous, but was a communion of the
faithful, whose final purpose was to make them truly righteous and holy.
“Therefore, the
church of Melanchthon and his associates is neither the Church of Scripture,
nor the apostolic Church, nor the Church of the Symbol of Faith, nor the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven ecumenical councils. What,
then, is it? To understand this, let us examine the doctrine of the so-called
Evangelical [i.e., Protestant] Church regarding the Church itself. What does
this definition say to us first of all? That the Church is a communion of
saints—that is, of truly pious and righteous persons… And Luther himself
inscribed on the door of his church: ‘Let no one enter who is not holy and
righteous.’ Therefore, we may justly ask him: ‘If your church is a communion of
saints, what are we, who are corrupted by ancestral sin, wretched and miserable
and half-dead, and in need of cleansing, discipline, and nurture unto
sanctification, to do in order to become holy? What answer will Luther give to
such as these? That apart from his own assembly of saints—or of truly pious and
righteous ones—there exist also other visible Churches?’” [32]
In another section
below, we shall see what consequences the adoption of such views had upon our
Church of the Genuine Orthodox.
***
At this point,
before proceeding, let us engage in a hypothetical dialogue with a
Sakarellian/Romanidean in order to better understand where these positions
lead:
– Do you claim that
only the saints, the “pure,” the “elect,” the “deified,” and not sinners, are
members of the Church?
– Of course!
– Are you such a
person?
– Um, no, I’m
not...
– Then you are
outside the Church, and therefore I cannot pay heed to what is claimed by
someone who does not belong to the Church.
– Alright then,
I’m not a sinner, I’m “pure,” a saint.
– Wretched man, “If
we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
[33] I am sorry, but “whoever declares himself pure has utterly condemned
himself as unclean.” [34]
***
We Orthodox believe
that the only Holy One, in the absolute sense of the term, is God, who is the
source and origin of all holiness and of every sanctification. He is the one
who sanctifies both the Church [35] and her members, [36] whom He calls to become
holy. [37] For this reason, the members of the Church are considered not only
the “elect saints” (as the aforementioned heresies believed), but all the
“called saints,” that is, all believing and baptized Christians who have been
called by God. “To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints”
[38] writes the Apostle Paul, and Saint John Chrysostom interprets: “He calls
all the faithful ‘saints.’” [39] “Paul calls all the faithful Christians
saints,” agrees Saint Nikodemos, and continues: “He added the word ‘called’ to
remind them of God’s benefaction, and that—even if, he says, you were born of
consuls and governors according to the flesh—nevertheless, God called you with
the same calling with which He called the common and poor, having loved and
sanctified you equally with them.” Note: “Oikoumenios says that Paul first put
the phrase ‘beloved of God,’ then ‘called to be saints,’ as if to say: ‘From
where were you called? From what labors? From what accomplishments? How are you
holy? But it is solely from the love of God. For He, having loved us freely and
having shed His blood for us, called us to sanctification and to the
inheritance of His Church.’” [40] Moreover, interpreting the Catholic Epistle
of the Apostle Jude, and specifically the first verse: “Jude, a servant of
Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those who are sanctified by God the
Father and preserved in Jesus Christ, called,” [41] this same Father (Saint
Nikodemos) writes concerning the faithful: “They do not have sanctification of
themselves, but from the Father, who drew them and sanctified them.” [42]
***
The visible Church
in time and space includes within her fold both sinners and the righteous—Abel
and Cain, wheat and tares, sheep and goats, clean and unclean, evil and good,
sound and sick members, gold/silver and wooden/earthen vessels—without this in
any way affecting the holiness of the Church, which, as we said, derives from
her Head and not from her members. The members of the Church, during their time
in the Church Militant, may remain in the same state, but they may also change
(e.g., from sheep, wheat, or righteous, they may become goats, tares, and
sinners—and naturally, the reverse is also possible); nevertheless, they remain
members of the Church. Of course, there are cases of Church members who are cut
off from her, either voluntarily (i.e., by apostasy), or by decision of the
Church for a pedagogical purpose, through her competent organs. And naturally,
on the Day of Judgment, when the final separation takes place, the Church in
Paradise will include only the sheep, the wheat, the righteous, and the saints.
Let us consider the teaching of the Lord and of the Fathers and Teachers of the
Church on all this:
a) The Lord said:
“The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his
field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and
went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then
appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto
him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it
tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him,
Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye
gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow
together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the
reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn
them: but gather the wheat into my barn.” [43]
b) Saint John
Chrysostom, interpreting this parable, writes: “Many of the leaders, by
introducing evil men into the churches—heresiarchs in hiding—have provided
great opportunity for such a plot. For the devil no longer needs to exert
effort, once he plants such men in their midst… Observe also the affection of
the servants. For they already press to uproot the tares, even if they do not
do so deliberately; which shows their concern for the seed, and that they are
focused solely on this—not so that the enemy be punished, but that what has
been sown might not perish; for this is what is most pressing. Wherefore, they
aim to first remove the disease. Yet they do not even seek this simply; for
they do not act on their own, but await the will of the Master, saying: “Do you
will it?” What then does the Master say? He forbids it, saying: “Lest you
uproot the wheat along with them…”
Therefore, He
restrains them with two considerations: first, that the wheat not be harmed;
second, that the tares—being incurably diseased—will most certainly be
overtaken by punishment. So, if you wish both that they be punished and that
the wheat remain unharmed, await the proper time. What does “Lest you uproot
the wheat with them” mean? Does He say this because, if you were to raise arms
and slaughter the heretics, it would be inevitable that many of the saints
would be destroyed together with them? Or because it is likely that many from
among the tares may change and become wheat? If then you preemptively uproot
them, you are harming those who are going to become wheat, killing those who
could have changed and become better. Therefore, He does not forbid restraining
heretics, silencing them, cutting off their boldness, dissolving their councils
and alliances—but rather their execution and slaughter. And observe His
gentleness, how He does not merely declare, nor even just prohibit, but
introduces reasoning. What then, if the tares remain until the end? Then I
shall say to the reapers: “First gather the tares, and bind them in bundles to
burn them.” Again, He reminds them of the words of John, which present Him as
Judge, and He says that while they stand near the wheat, they must be spared;
for it is possible for them to become wheat. But when they depart without
having gained anything, then necessarily the inescapable judgment will overtake
them. For I shall say to the reapers: “First gather the tares.” Why first? So
that they are not afraid, as though the wheat would be taken away together with
them. “And bind them in bundles, so as to burn them; but gather the wheat into
my barn.” [44] And Saint Cyprian of Carthage: “Nam etsi videntur in Ecclesia
esse zizania, non tamen impediri non debet aut fides aut caritas nostra, ut,
quoniam zizania esse in Ecclesia cernimus, ipsi de Ecclesia recedamus.”
[45] (Translation: “For, although tares appear to be in the Church,
nevertheless neither our faith nor our love ought to be hindered, such that,
seeing tares in the Church, we ourselves should depart from the Church.”)
c) Again, the Lord
said: “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, and
gathering from every kind; which, when it was filled, they drew it up on the
shore, and sitting down, they gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad
away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall go forth, and
shall separate the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the
furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” [46] And the
holy Chrysostom makes the following noteworthy observation: “And how does this
differ from the parable of the tares? For there also some are saved, and others
perish. But there, through evil doctrines—heresy; and those even before that,
through not paying attention to what was said. These, however, through
wickedness of life, who are more wretched than all, having attained to
knowledge and having been caught [by the net], yet were not even thus able to
be saved.” [47]
d) And again, the
Lord said: “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man, a king, who made a
marriage for his son. And he sent forth his servants to call them that were
bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other
servants, saying: Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my
dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto
the marriage. But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his farm,
another to his merchandise; and the remnant took his servants and treated them
shamefully and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he
sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers and burned up their city.
Then saith he to his servants: The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden
were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall
find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways and
gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding
was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw
there a man who had not on a wedding garment, and he saith unto him: Friend,
how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Then said the king to the servants: Bind him hand and foot, and take him away,
and cast him into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
For many are called, but few are chosen.” [48] After the rejection of the
once-chosen Jewish people from the divine calling, the Lord, after His presence
on earth, calls all to His Church, into which both evil and good enter, until
the day that He shall come a second time and shall inspect their garments, and
shall cast out those who have not the “wedding garment.”
e) Saint Augustine,
in many of his writings against the Donatists (who at that time disturbed the
Church of North Africa, drawing with their excessive zeal — which was
attractive to the simpler — thousands of faithful into their schismatic
heresy), explains that the Church is at once the “holy Church” (Ecclesia
sancta), but also the “mixed Church” (Ecclesia permixta). This
distinction is not a distinction between different realities, but between
different perspectives: the Church in its present (temporal and worldly
visible) reality is Ecclesia permixta, that is, mixed — containing
saints and sinners — while from an eschatological point of view — as will be
manifest after the Judgment, in eternal life — it is Ecclesia sancta,
that is, pure, which will include only the saints and the righteous. He writes
in his magnificent works (which, unfortunately, even after so many centuries,
have not been translated into our language for us to enjoy [49]) on this
subject: “Veniant in mentem illae de Scripturis similitudines et divina
oracula vel certissima exempla, quibus demonstratum et praenuntiatum est, malos
in Ecclesia permixtos bonis usque in finem saeculi tempusque iudicii futuros.” [50]
(Translation: “These comparisons from the Scriptures come to my mind, and the
divine oracles and the most certain examples, by which it has been demonstrated
and foretold that the wicked will be mingled in the Church with the good until
the end of the world and the time of judgment.”) One of the most characteristic
examples he uses is the well-known comparison of the Church with the Ark of
Noah: “Agnoscamus arcam illam quae praefiguravit Ecclesiam: simul illic
munda animalia simus; nec in ea nobiscum etiam immunda portari usque in finem
diluvii recusemus. Simul in arca fuerunt, sed non simul Domino in odorem
sacrificii de immundis obtulit Noe. Nec ideo tamen a mundis aliquibus arca ante
tempus propter immunda deserta est. Corvus tantum deseruit, et se ante tempus
ab illius arcae communione separavit; sed de binis immundis, non de septenis
mundis fuit.” [51] (Translation: “Let us acknowledge that the ark
prefigured the Church: let us be the clean animals therein, and let us not
refuse that the unclean animals also be carried with us until the end of the
flood. They were together in the ark, but Noah did not offer any of the unclean
animals as a sacrifice to the Lord in the savor of an offering. Nevertheless,
some of the clean animals did not abandon the ark early on account of the
unclean ones. Only the raven abandoned it, and separated himself prematurely
from the communion of that ark; but he was of the two unclean, not of the seven
clean animals.”)
Saint Jerome, in
his discourse Against the Schismatic Luciferians, says: “Arca Noe
Ecclesiae typus fuit, dicente Petro Apostolo: ‘In Arca Noe pauci, id est, octo
animae salvae factae sunt per aquam, quod et nos nunc similis [Al. similiter]
formae baptisma salvos facit [Al. faciat]’ (I Pet. III, 20). Ut in illa omnium
animalium genera: ita et in hac universarum et gentium et morum homines sunt.
Ut ibi pardus et haedi, lupus et agni: ita et hic et justi et peccatores, id
est, vasa aurea et argentea, cum ligneis et fictilibus commorantur. Habuit arca
nidos suos: habet Ecclesia plurimas mansiones.” [52] (Translation: “The Ark
of Noah was a type of the Church, as the Apostle Peter says: ‘In the Ark of
Noah few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water — which now saves us
also, baptism of like [or similar] form’ (1 Peter 3:20). As in it were all
kinds of animals, so also in the Church there are people of every race and
character. As there were in the ark the leopard and the goats, the wolf and the
lambs, so too in the Church there are both the righteous and the sinners — that
is, vessels of gold and silver dwelling together with wooden and earthen ones
(cf. 2 Tim. 2:20). The ark had its nests: the Church has many mansions.”)
f) Saint Basil the
Great: “For in this great house, the Church, there are not only vessels of all
kinds—of gold and silver and of wood and of clay—but also crafts of every
sort.” [53]
g) Saint Theodoret
of Cyrrhus: “For even the three youths, adorned with the highest virtue and
having been crowned with the victor’s wreath, while praying in the furnace,
said: ‘We have sinned, we have acted lawlessly, we have done wrong, and we have
departed from Thy commandments, and we have not kept Thy ordinances.’ So also
did the wondrous Daniel, so too the divinely inspired Jeremiah, so too the
godly Isaiah, and likewise the most wise Paul. For, he says, ‘Christ Jesus came
into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first.’ And again, ‘I am not
worthy to be called an apostle.’ Thus, then, the Church of God, though being
assailed by the storms of the impious, does not boast, as one who contends in
battle, but attributes what happens to sins and transgressions, and entreats to
partake of the help that comes from the Savior. Moreover, the Church of God is
not composed solely of the perfect, but also includes those who live in ease,
those who cleave to a lax way of life, and those who choose to be enslaved to
pleasures. And since it is one body, both these and those are spoken as from a
single person.” [64]
h) The wise Patriarch of Constantinople,
Jeremias II Tranos, teaches the Lutherans in the excellent Chapter VIII of his
First Response, titled “That in the Church there are also base [men],” [55]
that the unworthiness of certain members of the Church—even of priests—does not
in any way hinder the holiness of the worthy members, who receive
sanctification from God, Who operates even through the unworthy.
i) Saint Meletios
Pegas, in his dialogical work Orthodox Christian Dialogue, writes:
Stranger: “But what if someone is a Christian, indeed holding correct doctrine,
but his deeds are perverse?” Boy: “He is indeed a member, proper yet weak, whom
we bear, restoring in a spirit of meekness, watching lest we also be tempted.
He too is a Christian, though in need of healing, lest, remaining a withered
branch, he be cut off from the vine and cast into the furnace of fire.”
Stranger: “And what if his doctrine is also weak?” Boy: “We too, doing the work
of brethren, heal such as these also, holding fast to the faithful word in
accordance with the teaching of the Father. But those who resist and oppose the
truth in a manner opposing God, we apostolically reject after the first and
second admonition.” [56]
j) The most
theological Teacher of the Nation, Eugenios Voulgaris, writes: “Do those who
are entangled in mortal sins fall away from ecclesiastical communion? By no
means; for they are as suffering members, moved least of all by the Head, which
is Christ, but languishing in their own afflictions—yet they are not altogether
cut off from the body, nor do they dissolve the unity with the rest. For by
faith they are joined to the Church, they listen to the pastors and teachers,
and accept what is said as true. And in them flourishes the hope of recovering
from their sins, of receiving forgiveness and being revived in Christ and
strengthened again—things which are not possible for those who have fallen into
heresy.” And after citing the Lord’s relevant parables on the subject and
refuting the Protestant heresy concerning an “invisible Church of saints,” he
explains what “heretic” and “heresy” mean so that misunderstandings may not
arise. The heretics “are members cut off from the body of the Church; for
heresy overturns both faith and love, through which the members of the Church
are united and held together in one body. Heresy is a false opinion concerning
something directly revealed, contended for with stubbornness and boldly
proclaimed with insolence. Therefore, if someone errs out of ignorance or
carelessness, and being admonished, departs from the unstable opinion, such a
one could not properly be called a heretic. Hence, what was said by Saint
Augustine seems elegant: ‘I may be deceived, but I will not be a heretic.’”
Therefore, those who fall into some heresy out of ignorance or negligence are
not automatically outside the Church, especially when, being admonished, they
repent; on the contrary, when they are admonished by the Church and refuse to
be corrected, then they are cut off from it as “putrid and alien members.”
k) Saint Athanasios
of Paros writes: “And indeed, it is not unknown that in the holy Church there
are also some who are impure due to a base way of life, not having a wedding
garment. Yet the Church endures even these through the hope of repentance, that
they may wash away the stains of their sins, praying for them in imitation of
God, and that they may return to the rank of the proper and elect. But the
obstinate and unrepentant become alien and estranged from the present communion
of the saints. For just as the leper who remained in his condition lived
outside the camp, so also the one who sins without repentance is cast out of
the Church... And if someone should question, saying: ‘How is it fitting for it
to be called holy, when even those who live wickedly are found in it, and
perhaps more numerous than the righteous and pious?’ — the solution is readily
available from what has already been said. First, because it is called holy as
being purified through holy baptism, and as a body formed from it that is undefiled
and spotless, having as its Most Holy Head Jesus Christ. And because it is
nourished and constituted through the dread Mysteries of the Lord’s Body and
Blood. Second, because it is rightly called holy from its greater part. For
even one person who does the will of God is greater than ten thousand lawless
ones.” [60]
l) The very
prolific and most ascetical Archbishop Antony Amfiteatrov, one of the foremost
Russian theologians, writes: “Even if there are sinful persons as weak members
within the Church, they in no way defile the holiness of the entire Church, but
she bears with them, awaiting their return and recovery.” [61]
m) The
wonderworking Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis: “The Church, as an organic body,
is visible and unites into one whole all its members, both the holy and the
weak. As weak members of the Church, they by no means cease to be functioning
members of her body... and if they are healed, they are united with those who
are healthy; but if they are incurably ill, then they shall die in their sin,
as sheep of the flock having become incurably ill and having died in their own
sins.” [62]
And elsewhere: “The
Church includes within her bosom also those who have fallen into sins and do
not live according to her laws, and considers these as suffering members.” [63]
n) The Hieromartyr
and Confessor Hilarion Troitsky: “In their dogmatic notions about the Church,
the Donatists proceeded from a strict concept of the holiness of the Church and
of its unity. A Church that receives traditors into communion cannot be holy. Traditor-bishops
cannot communicate any grace; therefore,
in a Church that has bishops who are traditors, there are no Mysteries. The
personal unworthiness of the bishop deprives the whole Church of grace. In the
Church, even Baptism has no meaning, and for that reason, anyone wishing to
pass from the Church to the Donatist community—which alone is the one true and
holy Church—must be baptized. One can observe that the Donatists adopted some
ideas of St. Cyprian and turned them against the Church... But the Mysteries do
not depend on the person of the priest: they are holy in themselves. Likewise,
the holiness of the Church does not depend on the holiness of its members; on
the contrary, the very members of the Church receive holiness from the Church.
The Church is one, and her holiness is in the Mysteries, not in the pride of
individuals.” [64]
***
On the contrary to
what the Fathers of the Church profess, Mr. Sakarellos claims that one loses
the status of being a member of the Church — and, additionally, the Priesthood,
if he is a cleric — automatically:
→ Whoever falls away from “illumination” and “theosis”: “From the
Church, as defined by Christ and taught by the holy Fathers (note by us: we
have seen that they taught the exact opposite!), a member departs when he
falls away from that blessed state of “illumination” and “theosis,” that is,
of ‘the vision of God.’ Then he ceases to be a member of the Church. These
cases occur when the mind of man is again darkened and slain by sins and
passions, or if he falls into heresies and erroneous beliefs” (P, 194). “Every
believer who is deemed worthy to reach the state of ‘illumination’ or
‘theosis’ acquires the sense of Christ’s presence within him. If a person has
not acquired this sense, even if he is baptized, he is not a member of the
Body of Christ, according to the Fathers [note by us: the beloved tactic of
the Sakarellians when expressing an opinion is to use the phrase 'according to
the Fathers', almost never citing them, except for very small excerpts (some
verbatim, others altered, as we shall see], which they interpret arbitrarily)”
(P, 213).
→
Whoever is led astray: “Whichever of her members happened to be led astray, no
matter how many they are, these are immediately cut off of their own accord
from her body and cease automatically to constitute her members” (A, 5).
→
Whoever falls into heresy: “From the moment a believer—whether a layman, monk,
or clergyman—accepts some heresy, even if he has not proclaimed it to anyone
but keeps it hidden to himself, he becomes an enemy of God, according to Saint
John Chrysostom. This is explained by the fact that a believer, by accepting
false doctrines, loses the Right Faith, which is the Apostolic Tradition. It
means that Apostolic Succession is cut off for him. It means that this heretic
ceases henceforth to constitute a member of the Church of Christ! He himself,
then, exits of his own accord from the body of the Church. He cuts himself off
from the Church on his own, even if he says, formally, that he remains! He
self-condemns—meaning, he himself condemns himself! This is also stated by the
Apostle Paul, when he writes of every heretic that: 'he sins, being
self-condemned,' that is, he is now self-condemned!” (A, 8). “A heretic is not
only he who introduces new dogmas into the Church, but also whoever has not
reached ‘illumination’ or ‘deification.’ Whoever, that is, is not a member of
the Church. This person is not Orthodox!” (P, 194).
→ Whoever has ecclesiastical communion with such persons: “From the
moment that a member of the Church, regardless of what position he may hold in
its body, falls into heresy or 'communes' with one of those who have fallen
into heresy, he no longer continues to be a member of it. He can no longer be
a Patriarch, nor an Archbishop or bishop, nor a priest or monk, not even a
simple member of it, nor can he be called a Christian! ...Much more so, he
cannot be a Patriarch, Archbishop, or other clergyman, because he does not
have Apostolic Succession and priesthood” (E, 3).
***
Here, then, we see
not merely a complete opposition to what the Fathers teach, as we previously
saw, nor simply a revival of Donatistic heresies, but an ecclesiology of
unprecedented reductionism (surpassing even that of the Matthewite), according
to which so few members remain in the Church, about whom we are not even
certain whether they are truly members, since we are unable to ascertain in any
way whether they have “illumination” and "deification" (or whether
they feel it...), nor whether their mind has been "darkened" by sins
and passions, nor whether they have fallen into some delusion or heresy (even
if they keep it hidden to themselves!), nor whether they commune—either
indirectly or directly—with someone who has "fallen"!
These clearly
unorthodox views aim, of course, at supporting a more central position, which
constitutes a fundamental pillar of the Sakarellian ecclesiology: that clergy
belonging to the above categories, being automatically “outside the Church,”
automatically lose the Priesthood as well.
But if there is an
automatic loss of the Priesthood, then why do Synods convene to depose
transgressing clergy? To this reasonable question, the Sakarellians respond:
“The ‘defrocking’ imposed by the Church on unworthy ‘bishops’ of hers is an act
in which the Church ascertains that a certain clergyman of hers does not have
divine Grace, and therefore cannot perform the sacraments! This means that the
Church, by this act of hers, confirms a condition that was created due to the
unworthiness of this particular bishop. Because he does not have ordination
from God — something clearly proven by his confirmed conduct against the right
faith and upright life — God does not operate the sacraments this person
performs as a clergyman! A simple example will help us better understand the
declarative character of ‘defrocking.’ When someone dies, a death certificate
is issued. The death of the person is not caused by the certificate. The
certificate simply certifies the death that has occurred. The same happens with
the defrocking of a clergyman. The defrocking simply confirms, in an
indisputable manner, that the said person no longer has the authorization of
the Church to perform sacraments because he ceased to have the “ordination from
above.” Therefore, the sacraments he performs are “without Grace,” i.e., they
have no Grace of God! (P, 184). A similar line of argument is also developed by
the currently active Sakarellians of our circle, only that instead of
presenting the Synod as the Registrar of their teacher, they present it as the
Forensic Examiner: “When the Hierarchs in Synod pronounce on the spiritual
death of a heretical community, they are not the spiritual executioners who
spiritually kill the heretics through the anathema, but the ‘spiritual forensic
examiners,’ who ascertain the spiritual necrosis of the heretics, which came
about precisely from the deadly disease of heresy... Just as, when we have
before us a dead body, the forensic examiners may not agree among themselves
about the exact time of death and may try to calculate in various scientific
ways when the fatal moment occurred — but the indisputable fact is that death
has occurred.”
And others,
however, within the broader ecclesiastical sphere, claim that the condemnation
of a clergyman “by a synod to deposition on account of heresy, insofar as he
does not repent and return to the right faith, has significance only as a
recognition of the already inoperative state of divine grace in the sacraments
performed by him, and not formative significance (i.e., that from the
deposition onward the divine grace ceases to operate in the sacraments
performed by him).” [66]
***
In support of this
central position, certain patristic phrases are enlisted in a fragmentary
manner, which we shall examine one by one immediately, in order to reveal the
extent of the misinterpretation.
a) “But when such a
clergyman ‘falls’ from this state of spiritual perfection, in reality he
‘leaves’ the Church as well. The Canons of the Church consider heretical
bishops, even before their condemnation by a Synod, as false bishops and false
teachers. We read in the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, that those who
wall themselves off from heretical bishops ‘have condemned not bishops, but
false bishops and false teachers’” (P, 194).
Here we have a
literal interpretation of the word “false bishop,” which, however—as we shall
see—is rejected by the practice and teaching of the Church. A literal
interpretation, if it is not supported by the practice and teaching of the
Church, leads to entirely erroneous and absurd conclusions, “falls into
absurdities,” according to Saint Nikodemos, since “the letter killeth” (2
Corinthians 3:6). To make this understandable, let us consider an example: the
Apostle Paul says that the covetous man “is an idolater” (Eph. 5:5). Yet we
know that there are clergymen who are covetous, and thus, by the literal
interpretation of this passage, they are idolaters. But idolaters do not
perform Mysteries, and therefore the Mysteries performed by any covetous
clergyman are non-existent—which, of course, the practice and teaching of the
Church have never upheld! Therefore, the Apostle’s word has a deeper meaning.
So also with the
term “false bishop” in the Canon. This does not mean that he is not still (that
is, “prior to synodal judgment”) formally a bishop who performs Mysteries, but
rather that he is unworthy—or more precisely, worthy of punishment and deposition
from the episcopal office, as one who has fallen into heresy. This, moreover,
is confirmed not only by the Canon itself, which provides for “synodal
judgment,” but also by the practice and teaching of the Church. Let us look at
some characteristic examples, which also serve as a response to those
Sakarellists (who consider it heresy to say that “whoever falls from the faith
does not also supposedly fall from the priesthood”!) and who ask us, “Which and
when did an Ecumenical Council ever recognize the priesthood in heretics at the
time they were in heresy?”
1) The case of
Nestorius: Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople from the years 428–431,
although he had preached heresy, was treated as an active Bishop of the Church
by the Third Ecumenical Council, which summoned him three times to appear
before the Council before finally deposing him in absentia. It calls him “most
reverent,” “most beloved of God,” and “most devout” “Bishop” [67] throughout
the entire course of the examination of his views, recognizing him not only as
a member, but also as a Bishop of the Church until his deposition and anathema,
which clearly shows that whoever falls into heresy does not automatically lose
either the status of member of the Church or the Priesthood, which is removed
by the Lord Himself with the cooperation of the Council: “Our Lord Jesus
Christ, who was blasphemed by him, has determined through this present most
holy Council, that the same Nestorius is to be alienated from the episcopal
rank and from every clerical assembly.” [68] From the time of his deposition
onward, he is referred to simply as “Nestorius,” “the new Judas,” [69]
“infamous,” [70] “unholy,” [71] and so forth.
2) The case of
Dioscorus: Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria during the years 444–451,
although he had not only preached heresy but had also supported it synodally
(at the Robber Council of Ephesus), condemning the Orthodox, was treated as an
active Bishop of the Church by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, at which he
himself was initially present as an equal member!!! This provoked the reaction
of the representatives of Pope Leo of Rome, who demanded that he make his
defense, and thus (as we read in the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council),
“Dioscorus, the most reverent Bishop of Alexandria, having been seated in the
midst,” [72] the Council began its proceedings by first examining the
accusation of Eusebius of Dorylaeum against the “most reverent Bishop of the
great city of the Alexandrians.” [73] However, after the first session,
Dioscorus abandoned the Council, and so it summoned him three times to appear
before finally deposing him in absentia. At the first summons, bishops were
sent “to summon the most beloved-of-God Bishop of the great city of
Alexandria.” [74] At the second, “the holy and ecumenical Council, to the most
beloved-of-God Bishop of the Alexandrians, Dioscorus,” wrote to him saying that
“we have issued a second canonical summons to your God-revering self.” Finally,
for the third time, “the most holy and great ecumenical Council, to the most
pious Bishop Dioscorus,” [75] summoned him, but he refused, so that at last the
Council informed Dioscorus (no longer calling him “most beloved-of-God” or
“most pious Bishop” [76]) that “he is deposed from the episcopate by the holy
and ecumenical Council.” [77] And because Dioscorus remained unrepentant, the
Fourth Ecumenical Council proceeded to anathematize him.
3) The case of John
Bekkos: John XI Bekkos, Patriarch of Constantinople from 1275–1282, avoided
being anathematized before the Synod of 1282 because he appeared before it and
delivered a Libellus against the Latin doctrines. However, he did not
escape deposition, because he had ascended the throne unlawfully, using secular
power and while the canonical Patriarch, Saint Joseph I, was still living. He
accepted his deposition in writing (in the said Libellus) and remained a
simple member of the Church. Yet Bekkos, “though being required by the Holy
Synod to provide words of repentance and having laid his hand, so to speak,
upon the Gospel plow and having pledged to follow the Church, turned again
backwards.” [78] Thus, a new Synod, in January 1283, declared: “We cut off John
Bekkos and those who follow him... [79] from the full communion of the Orthodox
and declare them cast out of the Church of God and of the flock.” [80] And the
Synod concludes with the following noteworthy words: “For even though we cut them
off from us, even though we expel them from the Church of the pious, even
though we subject them to the dreadful and great condemnation of
excommunication and estrangement from the Orthodox, we do not do this as
rejoicing in their sufferings, nor as delighting in the expulsion of men—on the
contrary, we grieve, and bear the separation with revulsion.” [81]
***
b) “But Dositheos
of Jerusalem says concerning heretical bishops: ‘He who has become a heretic is
neither Patriarch, nor bishop, nor even a member of the Church’” (A, 8 / B,
195).
Mr. Sakarellos
often hurls, like hand grenades, fragments of phrases which, being presented in
isolation (and given that most readers are unable to consult the sources for
verification), serve his ecclesiological views.
What conclusion
does the author urge us to draw from the above mutilated phrase? That whoever
falls into heresy automatically loses his Priesthood and his status as a member
of the Church. But let us see whether Dositheos of Jerusalem actually supports
such a claim (essentially Saint Maximus, as we shall see — if the Sakarellists
had in fact studied Dositheos of Jerusalem, they would have been shocked by his
views on the actual existence of the priesthood among heretics).
The phrase in
question is from Paragraph A of Chapter VIII of Book VII of his so-called Dodekabiblos,
which paragraph refers to Saint Maximus the Confessor. Indeed, the genuine
phrase is as follows: “Ὁ δὲ Αἱρετικὸς γενόμενος, οὔτε Πατριάρχης ἐστίν, οὔτε
Ἐπίσκοπος, οὔτε κᾄν μέρος τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.” [82] [“But the one who has become
a heretic is neither a Patriarch, nor a Bishop, nor even a part of the
Church.”] Thus, we see that there is initially a small falsification, since the
word μέρος [part] is replaced by Mr. Sakarellos with the word μέλος [member].
Before we examine
the full sentence in which this phrase is found, let us consider the context of
the paragraph. In this paragraph, Dositheos refutes the view of the Papists
that Saint Maximus the Confessor supposedly considered the Pope of Rome to be
the Head of the Church, because in his dialogue with Theodosius of Caesarea he
urges him, if they have repented of Monothelitism, to send a written confession
to the Bishop of Rome, Saint Martin. Dositheos explains that Saint Maximus did
this not because he believed that the Roman bishop had universal authority over
all the Churches, but because at that historical period he was the only Primate
who rightly divided the word of truth. For the Bishops of
Constantinople—Sergius (and his successors Pyrrhus and Paul), of
Alexandria—Cyrus, and of Antioch—Macedonius, were Monothelites, while the see
of Jerusalem, after the capture of the city by the Arabs and the repose of
Saint Sophronius, was vacant. Dositheos continues by saying that Saint Maximus
could not commune with the Monothelites on his own initiative, because first,
as he told them, "your heresy has been condemned synodically... and I am
unable to undo what has been repeatedly judged and condemned synodically."
[83] Secondly, "even though this heresy was judged and anathematized first
by the holy Sophronius, yet since there is now no Patriarch there, especially
as the place is being ravaged by the onslaught of the Arabs, and moreover the
Antiochian Macedonius sympathizes with you and sits and forms a faction together
with your Patriarch Peter against the apostolic faith, and indeed in Alexandria
Peter is of the same mind with you, the one who has become a heretic is neither
Patriarch, nor Bishop, nor even a part of the Church, and only in Rome is piety
spoken with boldness and triumphs; therefore seek also union with that
Church." [84] Here, then, the one considered a heretic is the one who
preaches a heresy that has been condemned by Synods or by the Fathers. The
heresy of the Monothelites at that time had been condemned both by Synods
(Lateran, Africa, Jerusalem) and by Fathers (Saint Sophronius, Saint Maximus,
Saint Martin), and therefore those who preached it were neither Patriarchs, nor
Bishops, nor part of the Church—not in the sense that they automatically lost
the Priesthood and their status as members of the Church, but in the sense
that, because of their stance, they no longer represented the Church nor
expressed the word of Truth. They were thus "false bishops" according
to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, which we saw earlier (and it is
not a coincidence that this Canon was based on Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem:
"If certain persons separate from someone, not on the pretext of a charge,
but because of heresy condemned by a Synod or by the holy Fathers, they are
worthy of honor and acceptance as Orthodox"). [85] And the greater proof
that the Monothelite “false bishops” did not automatically lose the Priesthood
is the fact that most of the Holy Fathers who later convened the Sixth Ecumenical
Council, which anathematized them, had themselves been ordained by them!
***
c) “Saint Theodore
the Studite, referring to heretical clergy, considers that ‘it is a profanation
of the holy things for such a one (the clergyman) to perform the sacred rites’”
(P, 195).
Here Mr.
Sakarellos, promoting the aforementioned position—that every clergyman who
falls into heresy automatically loses his Priesthood and therefore constitutes
a “profanation of the holy things” when he serves—proceeds to yet another
misinterpretation.
This particular
phrase of Saint Theodore is found in his 28th Epistle (addressed to Basil, the
monk). In this letter, reference is made to the well-known case of the priest
Joseph, who, by blessing the unlawful second marriage of Emperor Constantine
VI, fell into an offense punishable by deposition from the Priesthood. When the
unlawful marriage took place (in 795), Patriarch Saint Tarasius did not depose
Joseph because the emperor had threatened that if he did, he would reinstate
Iconoclasm. After the fall of Constantine, however (in 797), Saint Tarasius
deposed and excommunicated Joseph. In 806 (that is, after the repose of Saint
Tarasius), the new Patriarch, Saint Nicephorus, pressured by the new emperor
Nicephorus and fearing that he too might harm the Church, reinstated Joseph.
This very reinstatement is what Saint Theodore considers unacceptable (indeed,
he breaks communion with the Patriarch over it), and writes to the monk Basil,
among other things, the following: “For how, as your reverence correctly writes
us, does not know the divine canons, that according to them the man is deposed?
For if they do not even allow a presbyter to be invited to a marriage of a
digamist, what shall we say about him who crowns a digamist? And what about
being invited to an adulterous marriage for thirty whole days? And what is
worse, to even crown an adulterer, according to the word of the Lord, who
declares the sacred prayer upon the union, calling upon divine grace impiously
upon the profane? He is detestable before God, according to the divine
Dionysius, and such a one is unholy; for it is superfluous to write here the
other canons that apply to him. And since he was also excommunicated by the
previous patriarch for a period of nine years, and the canon does not permit
release unless it occurs within a year, where shall we place this? The answer
will surely be: that he was released. And if he was released, how is it that he
does not serve? And if he was released, how is it that he now seeks release by
synod? Clearly, the one who is bound seeks to be released, not the one unbound;
so then even here, he who wishes to act against the truth falls into
self-contradiction. Therefore, O brother, for this man to serve is a
profanation of the holy things, and a total confusion of the canons is the
failure to uphold such matters. For what does Chrysostom also say? That it is
not without danger for the priest to be unexamined—not concerning the faith, as
you suppose he says this, but concerning accuracy of life. It is necessary, therefore,
to examine and investigate each person’s state; for grace descends even upon
the unworthy on account of those approaching. But in the case of those who have
been clearly condemned, of whom one is Joseph, who has openly committed a great
lawlessness before the whole world, which the Lord has condemned, and the one
who joined him in marriage being more defiled than the adulterer himself, to
not make a distinction, according to the Theologian, is clearly a betrayal of
the truth and a nullification of the canons.” [86]
Therefore, Saint
Theodore, in writing “it is a profanation of the holy things for this man (the
cleric) to serve,” is referring to a specific cleric who had been deposed and
excommunicated, and not generally “to heretical clerics,” and especially not to
those who have not been condemned (deposed/excommunicated), as the Sakarellian
theory misinterprets.
***
d) “Saint Gregory
Palamas is also clear on this matter. Heretics, according to him, from the
moment they embrace a heresy, cease to belong to the Church. He says: ‘They are
not even of the Church of Christ, as they are not of the truth!’” (A, 8–9).
Let us also look in
this case at the entire relevant passage and what the Saint actually means.
This phrase comes from the text of the Saint entitled Refutation of the
Letter of Ignatius of Antioch. The Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius, had
unfortunately sided with the then Patriarch of Constantinople, John Kalekas
(who had imprisoned, “defrocked,” and “anathematized” Saint Gregory Palamas),
and had composed a letter against the Saint. Saint Gregory, while imprisoned
and also being “defrocked” and “excommunicated,” refutes this letter. He
explains how matters truly stand, for it seems that Ignatius of Antioch had
been misinformed about the issue. He begins his refutation by noting, regarding
the unjust penalties he had received, the following: “For in every accusation,
a synod is convened and a tribunal is seated, and with the accused present and
the accuser standing face to face, an honest examination and judgment—if indeed
the judges of the case are impartial—takes place; and then the decision
follows, and the ruling of the judgment is properly recorded and signed by the
hierarchs and judges for confirmation. But if someone, being a hierarch and
judge, then without lawful and canonical examination and judgment, issues a
verdict, he is justly to be condemned, as truly not a legitimate judge. And if
he dares even to commit his arbitrary verdicts to writing, how much more is he
worthy of condemnation? And if the matter concerns piety, and there has been an
examination and judgment and decision by a synod—and such a one at that, where
even the Emperor himself presided, and the entire Senate was present, along
with the general Roman judges and the issuing of conciliar letters, and those
condemned were subjected to written excommunications and the most dreadful anathema—then,
if afterward someone receives those justly condemned as communicants and deems
them worthy of holy ordinations, and makes them fellow celebrants and leaders
of the Church, while he condemns and rejects those who were publicly vindicated
and praised as advocates of piety, such a person is not simply guilty but is
clearly the inheritor of the condemnation of those earlier condemned; and even
if they were impious, neither is he pious.” [87]
So, what is the
Saint telling us here, in short? That for every transgression (crime), a Synod
and a tribunal is convened, with the accused and the accuser present, and an
honest investigation and judgment is made (if the judges are impartial), and
then the decision follows, which is recorded and finally signed by the
hierarchs and judges for confirmation. But if it happens that one of these
hierarchs and judges renders a verdict without a lawful and canonical
examination, he is not truly a judge, but condemnable! And if he even dares to
deliver these unexamined decisions of his in writing, how much more worthy of
condemnation is he? And if the matter concerns the faith (piety), and an
examination, judgment, and decision has already taken place by a Synod (and
indeed by such a Synod, in which even the king himself and the entire senate
and the civil judges participated), and synodal letters have been issued and
the condemned have been subjected to written excommunication and dreadful
anathema—if someone afterward receives those justly condemned into communion
(into ecclesiastical communion), deems them worthy of priestly ordination,
co-serves with them and makes them presidents of churches—then this person is
not merely responsible, but is manifestly the inheritor of the condemnation of
all those condemned ones, and if they are impious, neither is he pious.
Saint Gregory
Palamas writes these things because Patriarch John Kalekas, despite the fact
that a Synod had been convened (in 1341)—indeed, in the presence of the king
and the civil authorities—which condemned Barlaam and Akindynos along with
their doctrines, not only “rendered a judgment without lawful and canonical
examination,” but also dared to deliver “his unexamined decisions” in writing
against the Saint (“deposition” and “excommunication”). Furthermore, he scorned
the earlier Synod and thus is “manifestly the inheritor” of its condemnatory
decisions.
“Having acted
thus—or rather, having suffered thus—those who now boast themselves as
arch-pastors of the holy Church, do they not offer, more destructive than any
poison, a draught mixed with impiety and injustice, by means of the letters
presented here for examination, to those who obey them? They themselves, having
previously been so abundantly filled with this wicked and impious mixture, now,
as if from certain fountains—namely, from their own mouths—pour forth and spew
out, alas, the manifold falsehood and the profuse deception of impiety, of
which also this letter is a specimen. ‘For,’ it says, ‘our humility departs to
her Church, which by the grace of Christ has been truly allotted to her.’ What
sort of allotment, what portion, what genuineness unto the Church of Christ,
for him who is an advocate of falsehood? The Church, according to Paul, is ‘the
pillar and ground of the truth,’ and she remains by the grace of Christ ever
secure and unshaken, firmly founded upon those things upon which the truth itself
is established. For those who are of the Church of Christ are of the truth; and
those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ either—and this
all the more insofar as they falsely claim themselves to be, and are called by
one another, shepherds and sacred arch-pastors. For we have been initiated into
the knowledge that Christianity is to be defined not by persons, but by truth
and exactitude of faith." [88]
That is, in short,
what does the Saint say those who boast of being arch-pastors of the Church
have done? Do they not offer to those who obey them a drink more destructive
than any poison, mingled with impiety and injustice, by means of their
letters—having first themselves drunk so abundantly of this evil and impious
mixture, that from their mouths overflows the manifold falsehood and the
poured-out deceit of impiety, of which this letter is a specimen? “For our
humility departs,” it says (in the letter of Ignatios of Antioch), “to her
Church, which she has truly inherited by the grace of Christ.” What
inheritance, what portion, what genuineness with respect to the Church of
Christ, the Saint asks, can there possibly be for one who is an advocate of
falsehood—with the Church which is “the pillar and ground of the truth,”
according to the Apostle Paul, and which remains, by the grace of Christ, ever
secure and unshaken, firmly established upon that which truth itself is
established? For those who belong to the Church of Christ are of the truth; and
those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ either—much more
so, the more they lie against themselves, calling themselves and being called
by others sacred shepherds and arch-pastors; for we have been taught that it is
not persons, but truth and precision of faith, that characterize Christianity.
The Saint therefore
considers his persecutors to be false bishops—in the sense we mentioned
earlier—namely, that they do not express the Church and, naturally, cannot
impose penalties in her name. Not that they have automatically lost the
priesthood! This latter point is also proven by the continuation of the text,
when the Saint writes concerning Ignatios: “For whence came to him, and that in
Constantinople, the authority to compose tomes concerning dogmas? For without a
synod altogether, it is unlawful. And if he was present at a synod duly
convened, he would not himself have omitted to mention this—especially since
that tome would then have belonged jointly to both these Patriarchs. But if he
convened a private synod, not even within his own province, then he is subject
to full deposition according to the holy canons.” [89] From what deposition
would he be at risk, if he had already lost the priesthood? And as for Kalekas
himself, and Akindynos, and all the clerical Barlaamite followers—if they had
automatically lost the priesthood, why did the Hierarchs of the Synod of 1347,
with regard to the former, “unanimously subject him to deposition,” [90] and
with regard to Akindynos, “strip him of all priesthood,” [91] while concerning
the latter they declared: “As for those who remain unrepentant, we subject them
to the same [penalties]; but those who truly repent and anathematize both such
heretical doctrine and those who persist in it, we most gladly accept not only
into communion according to piety, but also into the priesthood—by no means
degrading them.”? [92]
***
There is,
therefore, no such thing as “automatic defrocking” from the Church, nor, much
less, “automatic loss” of the priesthood. After all, the priesthood is one and
belongs to Christ—as is evident from the fact that the cleric, during the
celebration of the Mysteries, does not say “I baptize,” “I crown,” or “I
ordain,” but rather, “is baptized,” “is crowned,” or “is ordained”—that is, by
God (using the third person). For according to Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, “Grace
is not from men, but the gift is from God through men.” [93] This is why Saint
Augustine also writes that Baptism—whether performed by Paul, or Peter, or
Judas, or a drunken, adulterous, or murderous cleric—it is Christ Himself who
baptizes. [94]
By ordination
through the cooperation of God and the Synod, the ordained cleric receives
participation in the Priesthood of Christ. But just as there is no “automatic
ordination,” neither is there “automatic deposition.” Thus, likewise, with
deposition—by the cooperation of God and the Synod (recall above the
depositional decision against Nestorius)—the priesthood is rendered inactive.
For this reason,
Saint Gregory the Theologian writes: “Do not say: Let a Bishop baptize me, and
this one a Metropolitan, or of Jerusalem (for grace is not of places, but of
the Spirit), and this one among those of good repute... But for you, anyone
trustworthy is sufficient for purification; only let him be of the approved,
and not of those clearly condemned, nor alien to the Church.” [95] Therefore,
any cleric may perform Mysteries, provided he is approved (that is,
recognized—not, for example, unordained), not clearly condemned (that is, not
deposed), nor alien to the Church (that is, neither having defected from it,
nor excommunicated by it).
This is also agreed
upon by Saint Nikodemos, who, interpreting a related passage from Saint John
Chrysostom (“God indeed does not ordain all, but through all He Himself works,
even if they be unworthy, because the people must be saved”), emphasizes: “He works
through all who are not deposed, but not through those who have been deposed
and unfrocked… For he who is justly deposed, both inwardly by reason of his
unworthiness and outwardly by the Synod, has lost the operation of the
priesthood.” [96] Thus, when a cleric falls into some transgression, he is not
automatically (in actuality) deposed, but only potentially, as we learn from
the Fathers and the Synods:
a) Saint Nikodemos
writes: “We must know that the penances appointed by the Canons, that is to
say, ‘let him be deposed,’ ‘let him be excommunicated,’ and ‘let him be
anathema,’ these, according to grammatical usage, are in the third-person
imperative, in absentia. And for this imperative to be enacted, the second
person must necessarily be present. I explain more clearly: the Canons command
the Synod of the living Bishops to depose priests, or to excommunicate or
anathematize laymen who transgress the Canons. However, if the Synod does not
practically enact the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication or
anathematization of the laymen, then those priests and laymen are not in
actuality deposed, excommunicated, or anathematized. They are, however, liable—here
to deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, and there to divine
judgment… Hence, those foolish ones greatly err who say that in the present
times all those ordained contrary to the Canons are in actuality deposed. It is
a slanderous tongue that foolishly babbles such things, not realizing that the
command of the Canons, without the practical action of the second person, that
is, of the Synod, is ineffective and not operative in itself immediately and
before judgment. The divine Apostles themselves clearly explain this with their
2nd Canon, since they do not say that a Bishop or Presbyter who accepts the
baptism of heretics is already and immediately deposed in actuality, but
rather, ‘we command that he be deposed’—that is, he must be brought to trial,
and if it is proven that he did this, then let him be stripped of the
priesthood by your decision; this is our command.” [97]
The Sakarellists,
of course, claim that these things supposedly apply “only to canonical
transgressions and not to matters of faith,” but not only are they utterly
unable to substantiate this view, they are immediately refuted by Saint
Nikodemos himself, who cites as an example a Canon (the 66th Apostolic Canon)
that concerns a matter of Faith!
b) Saint Athanasios
of Paros: “Those who are liable to deposition are not deposed in actuality, and
possess an active power of the Priesthood equal to that of the innocent. For,
according to the Chrysostomic maxim, ‘God does not ordain all, but He works through
all.’ This is shown also by what follows. For that which they bind remains
bound, and what they loose appears loosed. And the waters which they sanctify
are seen to remain unspoiled for many years. These indeed become an irrefutable
proof of the truth of our Faith against the heterodox religions.” [98] Those
guilty of deposition, says the Saint (that is, those whom the Sakarellists
consider to have automatically lost the Priesthood), are not deposed in
actuality and possess the operative power of the Priesthood just as the
innocent do. This, he continues, is demonstrated by the subsequent events.
Namely, that which they bind remains bound, and that which they loose appears
loosed. And the very waters which they sanctify are seen to remain unspoiled
for many years, which constitute an irrefutable proof of the truth of our Faith
to the heterodox! Let us hope, then, that the Sakarellists—the followers of
“invalid Mysteries”—have understood why the Holy Water celebrated by those
clergy whom they consider pseudo-clerics (despite no depositional sentence
against them) remains incorrupt.
***
It is indeed
remarkable that, although many proponents of these ideas possess legal
training—that is, they have the very competence which enables them to
understand such matters far more easily than others—they deny the indisputable
fact that no penalty is executed automatically upon the transgression, but only
after a condemnatory decision! What thief is found automatically in prison
immediately upon committing theft? What murderer is automatically executed upon
committing murder? The distinction between “potentially” and “actually”
penalized is something we learn not only from Law (both penal and
ecclesiastical), but also from the Justice of God. What did God say to Adam?
“From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat; for in the
day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.” [99] Did Adam die on the very
day he ate of the forbidden fruit? In potential, yes, he died—that is, he laid
the foundation for mortality, since, on account of the transgression, God cast
him out of Paradise. [100] But he did not die physically at the moment he ate
the fruit! [101] So too with the transgressing cleric: by his transgression he
lays the foundation for his deposition—that is, he becomes a pseudo-cleric—but
he does not lose the Priesthood automatically.
Thus, the Synod is
neither a registrar nor a coroner, but a physician, who does not ascertain an
already existing fall from grace, but rather the condition of the fallen one’s
spiritual health. Specifically, in the case of heresy, if this condition is reversible—that
is, if there is repentance—then it does not impose penalties and recognizes the
Priesthood. At the Seventh Ecumenical Council, its President, Saint Tarasios of
Constantinople, explicitly declared, “We accept those ordained by heretics”
(referring, of course, to the repentant heretics who had not yet been deposed,
such as the Iconoclasts at that time), because “ordination is from God.” [102]
But if the Synod determines that there is no repentance among the heretics—that
is, that decay has set in—then it proceeds to the deposition of the clergy,
namely the suspension of the Priesthood, and performs a surgical operation by
cutting off the decayed members from the Church, “lest,” according to the
Eighth Ecumenical Council under the Great Photius, “the healthy body also
perish because of them.” [103] This medical character of the Synod (which is
affirmed by many Councils and many Fathers, as well as by the Hymnography of
our Church when it speaks of the cutting off of “decayed members” from the Body
of the Church [104] is also referenced by Saint Palladius in his work on the
life of Saint John Chrysostom, titled Historical Dialogue of Palladius.
In this work, referring to the decision of the Church of Rome not to recognize
the unjust deposition of the Saint and to break ecclesiastical communion with
his persecutors, he writes: “The purpose of the Church of the Romans is this:
not to commune with the Eastern bishops, especially Theophilus, until the Lord
grants an Ecumenical Council that will heal the decayed members of those who
committed these acts.” [105]
Thus, the Synod
heals and surgically removes the decayed members that are beyond healing—it
does not merely ascertain their severance! The adoption of the Sakkarellian
theory regarding the Synod’s role as merely declarative (like a registrar or a
coroner) has tragic ecclesiastical consequences. By transforming the role of
the Synodal Bishops from dynamic and active (healing/admonition/therapy and
removal/excision/excommunication), with the “sling” and the “sword,” [106] into
a will-less and passive one (mere observation/declaration of death), it
nullifies the entire anti-heretical struggle and leads to self-justifying and
simultaneously divisive solutions that fragment the Church.
***
According to
Sakkarellian ecclesiology, the Saints do not err: “Whatever a saint believes or
teaches is correct, and this is what the faithful must also believe” (B, 125).
“Only the saints—and among the living, only those who have attained the ‘vision
of God’—are infallible!” (A, 4). “If someone has not reached this state, or has
fallen from it, then he can be led into error!” (A, 5). If some Saints are in
error and do not agree with the other Saints on certain matters, then it is not
possible that they are Saints, for this would mean that “these individuals were
never deemed worthy to attain theosis. Therefore, they cannot be ranked among
the saints” (B, 216). “Those who are a ‘communion of saints’ cannot be led
astray. But these are the Church” (A, 5).
The Fathers,
however, as we shall also see below, teach that even the Saints can fall into
certain errors. We read in the Book of the Venerable Barsanuphius and John,
published by Saint Nikodemos, concerning the Saints: “Do not think, however,
that even though they were saints, they were truly able to comprehend all the
depths of God.” [107] This occurs because at times they received something
distorted from their teachers and did not pray to God to reveal to them the
truth on that matter. [108] As an example, Saint Gregory of Nyssa is mentioned,
who “having received the opinion concerning the restoration [ἀποκατάστασις]
from the teachers before him without discernment, did not pray to God that He
might reveal to him whether it is true… Yet it should also be noted that the
Saint stated this not with insistence, nor after a conciliar determination on
the matter; for later the Fifth Ecumenical Council rejected this opinion as
blasphemous.” [109]
Therefore, someone
being imbued with views of the Church as consisting of infallible Saints, it
follows that he is unable to accept that it is possible even for Saints to be
deceived, and thus he ends up in opposing the Saints!
***
The Saints whom Mr.
Sakarellos rejected were the following:
1) Saint Augustine.
Under the influence of Fr. Romanides, who was the greatest adversary of Saint
Augustine, he likewise adopted the same stance. In 1977, Mr. Sakarellos, as a
New Calendarist, submitted a “Memorandum to the Church of Greece on the matter
of the canonization of Saint Augustine,” a text completely flawed, both from a
historical and theological perspective, which, as was natural, was rejected by
the official Church. But even later, as an Old Calendarist, he attacked the
Saint: "[The Franks] when they learned to read, discovered the writings of
Augustine (354–430), who was bishop in Hippo of North Africa. In these they
read the heresy of ‘absolute predestination.’ This heresy of Augustine, which
taught that God predestines each man whether he will be saved or not, whether
he will be free or a slave, etc., pleased them greatly. It served them in
persuading the serfs that they ought to be content with their slavery, because
God had predestined them to be slaves! Just as God had predestined themselves
to be the lords of the Romans! With theological arguments, they justified the
slavery of the Romans as being the will of God! Thus, according to this heresy
of Augustine, any enslaved Roman who desired his freedom was not a good
Christian! He was a heretic! Together with this heresy, the Franks accepted the
other heresies of Augustine, such as the Filioque, etc. Thus, aided also by the
audacity of their ignorance, they began to present themselves as great
theologians! They promoted Augustine as the greatest Father of the Church. They
even began to accuse the truly Orthodox Roman theologians as heretics, because
they did not embrace the delusions and heresies of Augustine!" (P, 19).
"In the ancient Church, the only one who did not agree with the Holy
Fathers regarding the ‘procession’ of the Holy Spirit appears to have been
Augustine, who is considered the father of the Filioque heresy!" (P,
228). An even harsher text (equally
baseless and without documented arguments) he also published online, in an old
forum. [110]
Here we shall not
undertake a detailed refutation of the Sakarellian (=Romanidian) attacks
against Saint Augustine. The lover of truth reader may refer to the following,
highly enlightening, texts. [111]
1. Fr. Seraphim
Rose, The Place of Saint Augustine in the Orthodox Church, publ.
Myriovivlos, 2010 (the best book on the subject).
2. Michael Rackl, Die
griechischen Augustinusuebersetzungen, Rome, 1924
3. Georgios
Martzelos, The Theological School of Thessaloniki and Saint Augustine
4. Generally, on
the subject of the errors of the Saints, we also recommend the very fine work
of Fr. Nikiforos Nassos, “The Saint of Aegina and the Disputed Matters
Concerning Him (Refutation of Opposing Arguments/Objections),” [112] which
is a summary of his book “With All the Saints: Recognitions of Saints –
Disputes,” Volos, 2009.
We simply declare
that we, the Genuine Orthodox, honor Saint Augustine as a Saint and Father of
the Church, in agreement with the Councils (e.g. the Third, Fourth, and Fifth
Ecumenical, the Local Council of Jerusalem [415], Lateran [649], etc.) and the
Fathers (e.g. Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint
Martin of Rome, Great Photios, Saint Mark of Ephesus, Saint Nikodemos, Saint
Nektarios, etc.).
However, we cannot
fail to mention the irony that the Sakarellian (=Romanidian) position is a
purely "Frankish" one!
And here is the
evidence: a) Saint Photios the Great, in his letter of exceptional importance
to John, Metropolitan of Aquileia (who was defending the filioque as
supposedly a teaching of Saints Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome), wherein he
refutes the delusion concerning "infallible" Saints, addresses the
following opinion: "If they taught correctly," he says (i.e. those
Fathers who made some dogmatic errors), "then those who consider them
Fathers must uphold their views; but if they expressed heretical doctrine, then
together with their heretical opinion, they themselves must also be
rejected." [113] To this purely Frankish opinion (upon which later
the “infallibility” of the Pope would be based), which unfortunately is being
repeated in our time, Saint Photios responds that "the faithful of the
Church, and those who do not forget the sacred teachings, according to the
example of Shem and Japheth, [114] know very well how to cover the nakedness of
their father, but they also condemn and turn away from the imitators of
Ham." [115] And Saint Photios covers the errors of the Saints in the
following manner: "For how many circumstances have compelled many to speak
some things offhandedly, others out of economy, others again because of the
resistance of the disobedient, and still others even from ignorance, into which
it is human to fall. For one contending against heretics, another accommodating
the weakness of his listeners, another acting otherwise—while the moment called
him to overlook precision for some greater purpose—spoke and did things which
are not permitted to us even to say or to do… But if they did not speak well,
or for some reason which we now do not know they deviated from the truth, and
no investigation was made into them, nor were they summoned to learn the truth,
then by no means should we refrain from considering them Fathers, both on
account of the brilliance of their life, and for their venerable virtue, as
well as for their otherwise blameless piety; their words, however, in which
they deviated, we shall not follow… And we, since we find some of the other
blessed Fathers and teachers of ours in many places to have deviated from the
precision of the correct dogmas, do not accept the deviation as a contribution,
but we do accept the men; likewise also, if some of them have gone so far as to
say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, we do not accept this deviation from
the word of the Master Christ, but we do not separate them from the choir of
the Fathers." [116]
b) Saint Mark of
Ephesus, during the Council of Ferrara-Florence, encountered a similar position
from the Latins. The latter, attempting to convince that their theory
concerning purgatorial fire was a correct teaching, cited certain passages from
the Fathers, such as from Saint Gregory of Nyssa. However, Saint Mark, agreeing
with Saint Photios the Great, explained to them that even Saints are capable of
erring. Specifically, he wrote to them that: "If Saint [Gregory of Nyssa]
truly believed something of this sort, yet even this occurred because the dogma
was still at that time disputed and not entirely clarified, nor had the
opposing opinion been definitively rejected—which occurred at the Fifth
Ecumenical Council. If therefore, being a man, he too erred in something with
regard to precision, it is not at all a matter of wonder or astonishment, since
indeed many before him [Saints] experienced something similar, such as Irenaeus
of Lyons, Dionysius of Alexandria, and others." [117]
The Latins were
shocked by this response (“it seemed to us exceedingly offensive”) [118] and
replied that this position leads to the questioning and ultimately the
overthrow of the Faith! And they conclude: “We too confess that it is possible
for man to be deceived, since he is a man and does something by his own
strength alone; but when he is led by the divine Spirit and has been tested by
the judgment of the Church in matters pertaining to the common dogmatic faith,
we say that whatever has been written by him is most certainly true.” [119]
However, Saint Mark
replies in turn, repeating that: “And yet, it is possible for the same person
to be both a teacher and not to have said everything with absolute precision;
otherwise, why would the Ecumenical Councils have been necessary for the Fathers,
if no one were ever going to fall at all from the truth?” [120]
Whoever therefore
wishes to be a Genuine Orthodox is obliged to accept the patristic teaching
(that it is possible for a saint to err, and for this reason we accept not the
opinion of one or two Saints, but the general agreement of the Holy Fathers [consensus
patrum]) and not the “Frankish” notions of the Romanidists concerning
“infallible” saints.
2) Abba Isaac the
Syrian. Mr. Sakarellos does not accept even the sainthood of Saint Isaac the
Syrian: "Isaac was a heretic! He was a Nestorian! ...The fact that
nowadays various Ecumenists have inserted him into the Orthodox hagiology
proves its corruption, which is being attempted in our days!" [121]
We, of course,
rejecting the theories concerning the supposed Nestorian identity of Saint
Isaac, [122] and also knowing very well, from experience, the miraculous effect
of the Saint’s writings in the lives of the faithful, confess together with all
the Genuine Orthodox the sainthood of Abba Isaac the Syrian, agreeing with the
Holy Fathers (e.g. Saint Gregory Palamas, Saint Nikodemos, Saint Hieronymos of
Aegina, etc.), who in no way were… Ecumenists!
3) Saint John
Maximovitch. Neither the vast multitude of his miracles, nor especially the
incorruptibility of the relics of Saint John Maximovitch, was sufficient to
prevent Mr. Sakarellos from writing the following (speaking, moreover, in the
name of our Church!) to a New Calendarist acquaintance of his: "I
explained to you that the Church which, even after 1924, continues to follow
the traditional calendar, after the first two or three years of the 1980s, has
had no ‘communion’ with the Russian bishops of the Diaspora. Therefore, no
ecclesiological problem exists for the Church of the Old Calendar, which
considers the Russian Synod to have fallen away from the true faith, since even
after the accomplished Union of the Churches, it continued—even indirectly, as
you yourself admit—in ‘communion’ with the innovating Churches of the New
Calendar, which have Latinized. On account of this, the Church of the Old
Calendar does not recognize as saints those declared by the Russian Synod, such
as the members of the last Tsarist family or John Maximovitch. You may honor
them yourselves!" [123] As he explains elsewhere, [124] communing with
heretics (meaning that Saint John Maximovitch communed with the Serbs, who
communed with the Phanariots, who communed with the Papists after the—supposed,
as we shall see elsewhere—“union” of 1965) is, according to him, proof that one
is not a Saint...
Naturally, the
Fullness of all the Orthodox especially honors the great Father and Teacher of
the latter times, Saint John Maximovitch the Wonderworker, because God Himself
honored and glorified him.
4) Saint Philaret
of New York, Saint Edward of England, the New Martyrs of Russia, and the Holy
Royal Martyr Saints of the Romanov Family. The negative stance of Mr.
Sakarellos toward the Russians (see P, 24–31: “The Frankification of
the Russians”) derived from the ideas of Fr. Romanides [125] (it is not
accidental, after all, that the anti-Russian attitude of the theoretician of
the union between the official Church of Greece and the Ukrainian
Schismatics—who recognized the American Patriarchate of Constantinople—Hierotheos
Vlachos of Nafpaktos, is of Romanidean origin, since Fr. Romanides, in a report
to his Archbishop Seraphim, claimed that the supposed dissolution of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate was “...an old plan of the Russians and the Masons” (P,
48)). He expressed this stance against the Russians particularly both as a New
Calendarist and as an Old Calendarist. As a New Calendarist, he published in Orthodox
Typos (1983–1984) two delirious articles (“The Anathema Against
Ecumenism by Metropolitan Philaret” in sixteen installments, and “Once
Again on the Issue of Philaret” in six installments), attacking the Russian
Church Abroad—which had just anathematized the doctrine of Ecumenism! It is
indeed sorrowful that after the anathema of Saint Philaret against Ecumenism
(1983), the Ecumenists did not react—but a supposed Orthodox did... In those
articles, all kinds of arguments are marshaled—some the product of the author’s
legalistic sophistry, others drawn from earlier accusations (mostly from the
Matthewite circles), others based on texts mutilated by a method of
“cut-and-sew editing”—with the aim of stigmatizing the Russians of the Diaspora
as “Slavophiles” and “anti-Hellenes,” as “deserters” and “traitors” who
“abandoned their homeland to save their bodies” rather than stay and be
slaughtered by the Communists (an accusation reminiscent of the Novatianists
against Saint Cyprian of Carthage for hiding during the Decian persecution), as
“schismatics,” “simoniacs” (regarding the ordinations of the Genuine
Orthodox!), as “heretics” and even “ecumenists”! Later, as an Old Calendarist,
he not only failed to repudiate his earlier views but attempted to combine them
with his new identity. Thus, he invented the claim that the Church of the
Russians in the Diaspora became heretical in 1984! He writes: "The Church
of the Old Calendar, to which by the grace of God I belong, and to which I will
belong so long as it remains Orthodox, had communion with the Russian Synod in
the Diaspora under Metropolitan Philaret until 1982. Then both Philaret and his
Synod were Orthodox! Philaret accepted the Filioque in his encyclical of
July 20 / August 2, 1984, which I cited earlier in my post of December 4, 2007.
From that time, Philaret and his Synod became heretics!" [126]
But why does he
claim that Saint Philaret accepted the Filioque in 1984 and that both he and
the Synod of the Russians in the Diaspora became heretical? The reason was the
glorification, by the Russian Church Abroad, of Saint Edward of England, who
was martyred in 978. Some expressed doubts regarding his sainthood, because by
that time the filioque had already been introduced in the West. But
Saint Philaret, in a Synodal Encyclical (dated July 20 / August 2, 1984),
responded with the following: "It has been stated that Saint Edward cannot
be considered a saint on the grounds that the addition of the filioque had
already been introduced into the Symbol of Faith in England during his time. To
maintain such an opinion is contrary to the expressed views of the great
Fathers of the Church, who refuted the Filioque, namely the venerable
Maximus the Confessor and the holy Hierarch Photius, Patriarch of
Constantinople. Moreover, justice demands that many other saints, who
unknowingly professed the same addition to the Symbol of Faith, be likewise
removed from our hagiology, such as Saints Vyacheslav and Ludmilla of Bohemia,
Saint Martin the Confessor, Pope of Rome, etc… Both bodies—the Synod and the
Council of Bishops—examined the matter of the Filioque carefully in
relation to the case of Saint Edward, and, in light of the expressed opinions
of the Fathers of the Church, concluded that this (the Filioque) did not
constitute an obstacle, in the time of Saint Edward, for a Christian to attain
holiness." [127]
Mr. Sakarellos
writes to his interlocutor:
"From the
above, we arrive at the following conclusions:
a. Not even in
thought can an Orthodox consider that the Anglo-Saxon king of England is a
saint of the Orthodox Church! The reason is simple: He was a member of a
heretical Church, the Anglo-Saxon one, which at that time had accepted the
heresy of the Filioque, taught by the Franks under the influence of
Augustine. He was, therefore, a HERETIC! Neither can he be considered a martyr,
because he did not suffer martyrdom for the Faith of Christ.
b. However, the
further problem that arises is this shameful and heretical Encyclical of the
Russian Synod of the Diaspora, which, unfortunately, was signed by
then-Metropolitan Philaret. In this Encyclical, Philaret claims that the Filioque
does not constitute an obstacle to the salvation of man—an opinion clearly
contrary to what the Fathers teach! And what is even worse, Philaret, together
with his Synod, slanders the Fathers, portraying them as supposedly agreeing
with him! These views of the Russian Synod of the Diaspora render the Synod
HERETICAL, and the members of this Church HERETICS, who can in no way ever be
not only saints of the Church, but not even be saved. As such, the opinion of
brother Misha—that Metropolitan Philaret was deified and a saint—does not
stand!” [128]
Here we clearly see
a distortion of both the words and the spirit of Saint Philaret, for Saint
Philaret writes that to accept the Filioque at that time (that is,
before the Schism of 1054—during which Saint Edward lived and when the Church
of England still belonged to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) and
to do so unknowingly does not constitute an obstacle to the attainment of
sanctity, since there is no automatic fall from the Church. (As we saw above,
Saint Photios the Great exhorts the one who accepts the Filioque out of
ignorance and delusion as “most God-beloved, most pious, most holy bishop,
brother and concelebrant, the most admirable archbishop and metropolitan of
Aquileia”.) [129]
But he did not stop
there. He also condemned Saint Philaret for the glorification of the Royal
Martyrs Romanov [130]—just as he had previously condemned him for the
glorification of all the Russian New Martyrs—writing the following unacceptable
things, for anyone who knows the life and martyrdom of these thousands of
Confessor New Martyrs of Russia: “We have in the past condemned many times the
Ecumenical Patriarchate because, without the traditional criteria of our
Church, it proceeds to proclaim certain persons as saints.” (Editor’s note:
Whom exactly does he mean in the year 1984? For until then, the Patriarchate’s
glorifications were Saint Nikodemos, Saint Kosmas of Aitolia, Saint
Nektarios...) “But if the Ecumenical Patriarchate proclaimed in such an
unacceptable way one or two or three or five individuals, Metropolitan Philaret
proclaimed... two thousand and five! Namely, three years ago he proclaimed as
‘saints’ of the Orthodox Church—as ‘New Martyrs’—the entire family of Tsar
Nicholas, and two thousand of their followers, mostly ‘nobles,’ who were killed
by the atheistic Bolsheviks in 1917 as enemies of their revolution! …The
proclamation by the Synod of Metropolitan Philaret of these persons as ‘saints’
constitutes a pan-Orthodox scandal and a condemnable ‘innovation,’ for which
the Russians will give a dreadful account on that Day before the Just Judge.
And this, because for reasons of cheap chauvinistic and ethnophyletic
propaganda, they corrupted the hagiology of our Church, which twenty
generations of Orthodox Christians over two thousand years have revered, and
into which the grace of God placed the victorious martyrs and God-bearing
saints of our faith. The Russians, among these saints, wanted to place the
tyrants and oppressors of the Orthodox Russian people” (Editor’s note:
tyrants and oppressors, according to the author, are not the Communist butchers
and persecutors of the Christians, but their victims!), “the tsars and the
other ‘nobles.’” [131]
We, of course, the
true Orthodox, stand with the Saint and Confessor Metropolitan Philaret, whose
relic is incorrupt, whom God glorified and honored, whose sainthood we
acknowledge—as well as that of the great multitude of thousands of New Martyr
Confessors, of every class, age, and origin, who shed their blood for Christ
during the dreadful Communist Persecution—and not with those critics of theirs
who, instead of Christ, seize His Judgment Seat.
***
Unfortunately,
then, saint-fighting has come to characterize even our own sphere, and this
stain we are called today, among other things, to remove—on the one hand, by
honoring the Saints whom the Church honors, and on the other hand, by remaining
silent and not reviling those persons concerning whom God, the People of God,
and the Church as a whole have not yet pronounced judgment.
***
After usurping the
Judgment of God concerning who are members of the Church and who are not, as
well as who are Saints and who are not, Mr. Sakarellos also seizes the Judgment
of the Church as a whole and pronounces, as if he were an Ecumenical Council, which
Local Churches have become Schismatic and Heretical and have been cut off from
the Church of Christ. These, according to the Sakarellian diagnosis, are all
without exception—except for the “Church of the Old Calendarists”! All the
Local Churches have become schismato-heretical and have fallen away from the
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!
How did this
happen?
He initially holds
that the Local Church of Greece fell away from the Church of Christ, yet he is
unable to determine the exact time and cause, expressing that this occurred:
a) In 1924! He
writes: “In 1924, after the change of the Calendar. The faithful were divided
into two factions. One faction had no ‘communion’ with the other. But which was
the Church then? The faithful who did not change the Old Calendar in their
worship and walled themselves off from the bishops who followed the New, there
is no doubt, continued to be members of the Church, just as they were before
March 10, 1924. …Those bishops who accepted the New or Frankish Calendar on
March 10, 1924, must be considered ‘pseudo-bishops’ and fallen from the
Orthodox faith.” (P, 110–111). And elsewhere: “…Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, who
tore the Church in 1924 with the change of the calendar, only five years
earlier had declared that no Church can accept the New Calendar without
becoming schismatic! This means he admits that the Church of the New Calendar
became schismatic!” (P, 186).
b) Or in 1930...
Further down,
however, he claims that this fall occurred in 1930, when “the Synod of the
state Church accepted the heretical Report of Professor Christos Androutsos!
Thus, it itself became heretical!” (P, 127).
c) Or in 1935!
In another passage,
the author again claims that the Church of Greece was cut off in 1935:
“Several reasons support this opinion. The most important is that when the
three bishops joined the Old Calendar in 1935, in their Encyclical they
proclaimed the Church of the New Calendar as schismatic.” (P, 112).
However, the above
"pronouncements" regarding the Church of Greece cannot stand, because
it did not fall away:
a) In 1924.
First, because Mr.
Sakarellos’ claim that “after the change of the Calendar... one faction had no
‘communion’ with the other” is not valid. Immediately after the change of the
calendar, there was no break in communion and no walling off, but only protest
and the faithful’s demand to be served according to the Old Calendar by the
parish priests. According to all the testimonies of the time, the faithful who
insisted on the Old Calendar were asking the parish priests—who were now
following the New Calendar—to celebrate the feasts according to the Old.
Most characteristic
is the case of Saint Nicholas Planas, who served also according to the Old
Calendar, thus ministering to the first Old Calendarist strugglers. Therefore,
there was no schism at that time, in the sense of a break in communion with the
ruling Church.
Secondly, because
if the Bishops who accepted the New Calendar became “pseudo-bishops,” as the
author claims, then the three Hierarchs who returned to the Old Calendar in
1935 are also “pseudo-bishops,” and the ordinations of bishops and priests
which they performed were invalid—and therefore, even the Old Calendarists have
no Priesthood. To this argument the Matthewites attempted to respond by saying,
on the one hand, that the two Hierarchs (Germanos of Demetrias and former
Chrysostomos of Florina) had been consecrated before 1924, and thus…
self-restored by their “Confession” and return (which, however, contradicts the
practice of the Church, according to which only a Synod of Bishops removes the
Priesthood and only it restores it), and on the other hand, that Chrysostomos
of Zakynthos was supposedly restored “by cheirothesia” by the other two
Hierarchs. This claim, however—unsupported by any proof whatsoever—constitutes
a great and unfounded myth (in which the Matthewites specialize), fabricated to
counter their double humiliation: on the one hand, due to the resounding collapse
of their heretical theory of automatic loss of Priesthood, and on the other
hand, due to the fact that their “Holy Father” Matthaios was consecrated by a
New Calendarist Bishop.
Thirdly, because
the citation of the specific text by Chrysostomos Papadopoulos from 1919 to
support the above position is entirely misguided, since that text does not mean
what Mr. Sakarellos and his followers want it to mean. When Papadopoulos writes
that “the Church of Greece, as well as the other Orthodox Autocephalous
Churches, although internally independent, are nonetheless connected to each
other and united by the principle of the spiritual unity of the Church,
constituting one and only Orthodox Church, and consequently none of them can
separate itself from the others and accept a new Calendar without becoming
schismatic in relation to the others,” he is not expressing the view that if a
Church accepts a new Calendar it automatically becomes schismatic, as
Sakarellos misinterprets it, but rather he is expressing a concern that
it might become schismatic from the other Churches—that is, that it
would give occasion for the other Churches to declare it schismatic, something
which did not happen, since the other Churches (wrongly) showed tolerance and economy
toward the New Calendarist Churches. And even if one were to suppose that
Papadopoulos was so foolish as to consider, on the one hand, that any Church
accepting the new Calendar becomes automatically schismatic, and on the other
hand, to proceed himself to change the calendar of his own Church—what value do
his words have that Sakarellos should invoke him? We Orthodox, when supporting
a position, appeal to the opinions of the Holy Fathers—not of those who are in
delusion!
b) Nor in 1930.
Quite simply
because the supposedly heretical Report of the ever-memorable Androutsos did
not teach the imaginary heresy of the “two holinesses”! It should be noted that
this “heresy” was discovered by the well-known excommunicated saint-fighter,
Nun Magdalene—in her book “Contemporary Heretics” (1974)—whom Mr.
Sakarellos himself praises as supposedly Orthodox! He writes of her: “She was
excommunicated, as we saw, for the Orthodox faith of the Church, that Christ
has ‘one holiness.’ But by excommunicating Magdalene, the bishops of the state
Church excommunicated the holy Fathers, such as Saint Dionysios the Areopagite,
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint Athanasius the Great, Saint Basil the Great,
John Chrysostom, Maximos the Confessor, and so many others! Of course, as a
pretext for this excommunication, certain characterizations were used, which
the said Abbess unfortunately included in her books against Saint Nektarios of
Aegina, concerning some of his views found in his writings.” (see P, 128).
However, Magdalene
did not simply include, supposedly “unfortunately,” “certain characterizations”
in her books against Saint Nektarios, but dedicated many of her books
exclusively to the slandering and reviling of the great Saint—so that he, even
after death, might receive the crown of unjust calumny. And for this she was
excommunicated both by the New Calendarists (in 1976) and by the Old
Calendarists (in 1979). As for the combative positions of Mr. Sakarellos
against Christos Androutsos, and also against the ever-memorable Panagiotes
Trembelas, they were refuted by the distinguished Professors of Theology, the
late Andreas Theodorou and Konstantinos Mouratidis (especially the latter’s
book was to such a degree devastating to these slanders that Mr. Sakarellos
never dared to reply).
c) Nor in 1935.
And the very author
of the 1935 declaration responds to Mr. Sakarellos: “The right to proclaim
individuals and Churches as schismatic was not granted by the divine and
God-bearing Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils either to individuals or to the
local Churches, but to an Ecumenical Council, representing the entire Orthodox
Church, whose decisions are made under the inspiration of the All-Holy Spirit.
For this reason, we, respecting the Canons and Ordinances of the Ecumenical
Councils, refused to proclaim the Greek Church as schismatic, and we confined
ourselves only to breaking ecclesiastical communion with the Archbishop of
Athens and the like-minded Hierarchs, so that we might not become participants
in the responsibility for the calendar innovation. And this we did in
accordance with the 15th Canon of the First-Second Ecumenical Council, which
grants only the right to break ecclesiastical communion with those who violate
the traditions, prior to a synodal judgment—by which alone can individuals and
Churches be declared schismatic, and their Mysteries invalid.” [132]
“If we, departing
into exile, called the Archbishop of Athens and the Church of Greece
schismatic, we employed the term schism not in the sense in which the
Church uses it—to signify separation from the Orthodox Church and, as a result
thereof, alienation from the grace of Christ and the Mysteries—but in the sense
that the Archbishop of Athens, through the festal innovation, separated himself
and the hierarchy following him from the other Orthodox Churches in the
celebration of the feasts and in the observance of the fasts. This separation
of the Most Blessed and the hierarchy following him grants us the right to
express our personal and wholly individual opinion, that the Most Blessed and
the bishops who follow him, as having knowingly disrupted the unity of the
entire Orthodox Church in the simultaneous celebration of the feasts and
observance of the fasts, have become only potentially—but not actually—fallen
from divine grace, as being under the curses and anathemas which the divine
Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils hurled against those who transgress
the traditions and move the eternal boundaries which our Fathers have set. But
the Most Blessed and the like-minded bishops of his will become actually
fallen from divine grace and estranged from the Orthodox spirit of the
Mysteries only when they are declared such—and actually schismatic—by a
pan-Orthodox Synod, which alone is authorized to do so according to the
statutes of the Orthodox Eastern Church.” [133]
***
He also considers
the Patriarchate of Constantinople as being outside the Church of Christ, on
account of the “Union of the Churches” which supposedly took place in 1965, as
Mr. Sakarellos claims in his related book entitled “The Union of the
Churches Took Place in 1965!”
There he argues
that the “Union” took place because:
a) Athenagoras
commemorated the Pope; and he presents the following reasoning:
“Athenagoras was
not a mere individual. He was not a simple member of the Church. He was the
Patriarch of the Orthodox Church. And when the Primate of a Church—such as the
historic Patriarchate of Constantinople—unites with the heretical Pope, not
only the ‘Most Reverend Metropolitans around him,’ as it is written, who
commemorate him and concelebrate with him become heretics, but all the Orthodox
as well, such as:
●
all the clergy under him, who
concelebrate with him or commemorate him;
●
all his flock, which receives
sacramental services from clergy who commemorate him;
●
all the other Patriarchs and
Archbishops who are in ‘communion’ with him.”
●
all the other clergy of the
remaining Patriarchates and Churches who concelebrate with or commemorate their
Patriarchs or Archbishops who are in “communion” with Athenagoras!
●
all the flocks of those
Patriarchates and Churches whose presiding Patriarchs and Archbishops are in
“communion” with Athenagoras!
In
other words, if a Patriarch of any Orthodox Church commemorates the pope, that
fact alone renders all the local Churches with which he is in “communion”
papal! (E, 7–8).
Before this
irrational reasoning is refuted, let a specific absurdity be noted, for which
the following rhetorical question is posed:
How is Athenagoras
not “a simple member of the Church,” but also “Patriarch of the Orthodox
Church,” when—as we have seen according to Sakarellian ecclesiology—whoever
does not have “illumination” and “deification,” “falls from being a member of
the Church,” and “regardless of what position he holds in its body, if he falls
into heresy or ‘communicates’ with one of those who have fallen into heresy, he
ceases to be a member of it”?
The above
absurdity—that supposedly not only Athenagoras, but also his Metropolitans, his
clergy and his flock, and the other Patriarchs and Archbishops, and their
clergy and their flocks “become heretics”—is refuted not only by plain reason
but also by similar events from Church history. For example, when Nestorius
fell, then according to this logic, all the Bishops of the Church of
Constantinople would have to be considered “heretics,” as well as the other
Patriarchs and Bishops of the other Churches who were still in communion with
him. Then, according to Sakarellian illogic, the Third Ecumenical Council that
condemned Nestorius would have been convened by “heretics”! The same would have
to apply every time a Patriarch fell into heresy (which happened quite often!),
or recognized the Pope (also not a rare occurrence), and automatically all
those (whether aware or not of his fall) communing with him, and those
communing with the communicants, and so forth, would all have to become
“heretics”…
Never, however, was
the fall of a Patriarch considered the fall of the entire Local Church, but
only a personal fall, for which the Church would usually—sooner or later—take
action and resolve the matter (deposition and excommunication of the
transgressor, etc.). And the walling off of the Orthodox from the fallen one
had precisely that purpose.
b) the “Lifting of
the Anathemas” took place, the original text of which supposedly contains the
term “non-communion” and not “anathema.”
Mr. Sakarellos
writes: “The original French text of the 1965 agreement states that Pope Paul
VI and Patriarch Athenagoras lift the ‘non-communion’ between the two Churches.
…Specifically, in the French original, the word excommunication appears.
This word undoubtedly means ‘non-communion,’ excommunication. The ‘official
Greek translation’ renders it with the word ‘anathema.’ This is a deliberate
error. The French render the Greek word ‘anathema’ with the word anathème.
If, therefore, the French original intended to say that the anathemas are being
lifted, it would have used the French word anathème and not the word excommunication!
In French, the word excommunication means ‘non-communion’ (footnote 33:
That the French word excommunication means non-communion is also proven
by the very French text of the agreement, in which the expression la
communion ecclésiastique is used twice and means ‘ecclesiastical
communion,’ as the ‘official Greek translation’ rightly renders it, and not
‘ecclesiastical anathema’!). It is clearly distinguished from the word anathème,
which means ‘anathema.’ The words ‘non-communion’ and ‘anathema’ are terms with
theological content. The term ‘non-communion’ means separation
(excommunication) from the other members of the Church. The term ‘anathema’
means separation from Christ, delivery to Satan, and deprivation of salvation.
Therefore, the terms ‘non-communion’ (excommunication) and ‘anathema’ are not
identical. Since, then, in paragraph 4 of the agreement the word excommunication
is used, this means that by this agreement the ‘non-communion,’ the ‘schism’
between the two Churches, has been lifted!”
Here the distortion
reaches another level, namely the one which lawyers are fond of reaching, by
falsifying the truth. Mr. Sakarellos claims that the word excommunication
in the French original supposedly means only “non-communion.” He justifies his
view not by consulting any dictionary, but with the following reasoning: since communion,
he writes, means “communion,” therefore excommunication means
“non-communion”! And thus, he continues the absurdity, since there was a
“lifting of non-communion,” we now have “ecclesiastical communion” and a “Union
of the Churches”!!!
The refutation of
this view is likewise twofold. Firstly, and primarily, by consulting reliable
French-Greek dictionaries, in which it is clearly demonstrated that the French
word excommunication is rendered as “anathema” / “excommunication,” and
not as “non-communion”!
The proofs are
presented alongside. A second proof that there is no “lifting of non-communion”
and “Union of the Churches” is the fact that, officially, openly, and
universally (and without the betrayals of the Ecumenists from among the
Orthodox being absolved), there exists no official Act of Communion, that is,
the so-called “Common Chalice.”
To condemn,
therefore, millions of simple Orthodox—clergy and laity—as supposedly
“Papists,” I do not know whether this is merely the absurdity of some
individual or a deliberate and conscious act of tarnishing the ecclesiology of
the Genuine Orthodox, so that our Church may be rendered entirely unreliable
and cease to be a refuge for the faithful of the official Churches, who have
been betrayed by their shepherds. Let us consider: whom does this
inward-looking, indifferent, self-justifying, conservative, and extreme
ecclesiological stance serve—and whom would be benefited by an outward-looking,
enlightening, brother-loving, discerning, and correct ecclesiological stance?
With the former, we shall continue to appear as members of some kind of sect,
who by their rigidity and self-righteousness repel every humble and reasonable
person. On the contrary, with the latter we will show that we are indeed truly
and genuinely members of the Orthodox Church, that our objection and testimony
have theological foundation and patristic substantiation, and we will be able,
with the Grace of our Lord, to bring concern to every sound and upright
believer, who will join our Struggle—thus weakening the decayed domain of the
official Churches.
***
Mr. Sakarellos
considers that the Church of Russia fell away from Orthodoxy and became...
“Frankish” already from the time of Peter the Great (see his anti-Russian rant
in P, 24–31).
And he considers
the Russian Church Abroad to be heretical from 1984 onward, as we saw in the
previous section.
As for this claim,
only he himself could answer how it is possible that from this “Frankish,”
according to his view, Church, so many great Saints emerged (Seraphim of Sarov,
Ignatius Brianchaninov, Theophan the Recluse, John of Kronstadt, etc.), as well
as thousands of New Martyrs under Bolshevism, and furthermore that a Genuine
Orthodox Church (that of the Russian Diaspora, with great Saints and incorrupt
relics) arose from it—from which, indeed, we have Apostolic Succession.
***
In any case, he
considers all the Local Churches to be heretical due to their participation in
the World Council of Churches: “When the shepherds of the Orthodox Church
become members of the so-called ‘World Council of Churches,’ this hodgepodge of
heretical ‘churches,’ what does this mean? It means that the unworthy shepherds
who made her a member of it—whether they are Patriarchs, Archbishops, bishops,
or other clergy and theologians—have fallen from the Orthodox faith and become
heretics! And those who follow them and ‘commune’ with them are, before God,
the same. They too are equally heretical and heterodox!” (P, 43)
However, this
position was likely not even accepted by its own author, not only because he
knew that the “World Council of Churches” does not (at least not yet)
constitute a “Pan-Church” (regardless of whether that is the direction it is
heading and aiming for), but also because, if he were to accept this position,
he would have to be the first to condemn as a heretic his own mentor, Fr. John
Romanides, who, as is well known, participated for many years in the dialogues
of the “World Council of Churches” and who considered it a reproach to be
regarded as an “anti-ecumenist”! Behold what Romanides himself reveals in a
report published, in fact, by Mr. Sakarellos, his disciple:
"Indeed, we
were informed in a private conversation that actions were taken in 1981, by
order of the General Secretary, based on the appointment from the Church of
Greece in 1976 for the appointment of the undersigned to ‘Faith and Order.’ But
it was rejected because I was accused of being an anti-ecumenist, and our own
people in charge did not do what was necessary to neutralize the accusation.” (P,
47)
It is therefore
truly astonishing that Mr. Sakarellos considered Fr. John Romanides (that is,
not merely a member of the “schismatic-heretical”—according to
Sakarellos—Church of Greece, but also a longtime participant in “Dialogues” and
a chief architect of the disgraceful Chambésy Declaration!) as “blessed” and a
“foremost Theologian” (P, 169), whose teaching he embraces! This madness is
perpetuated by the (knowingly or unknowingly) followers of Sakarellism, who,
while likewise considering Romanides as great (“who opened our eyes so we could
see the theology of light,” as they write!), nevertheless combat as supposedly
deluded the authentic exponents of the true Orthodox Ecclesiology in Greece
(the blessed Metropolitan Cyprian Koutsoumpas, Aristotelis Delimbasis, Fr.
Maximos Agiovasiliatis, Fr. Theodoritos Mavros, and others)—that is, the
Genuine Orthodox, whom Romanides himself considered heretical!!!
Behold the
unacceptable things the latter writes in the introduction to his work ORTHODOX–HETERODOX
DIALOGUES and THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES: [134]
“Fifth column of
Augustinians posing as Traditional Orthodox Old Calendarists.
“The fifteen
canonical Orthodox Churches, numbering approximately 300 million Orthodox
Christians, sent their representatives to Thessaloniki to meet between April 29
and May 2 in order to confront a new heresy of the Old Calendar. This new
phenomenon of Anti-Ecumenist Augustinians is directed in Greece by the
so-called Orthodox Metropolitan of Phyle, Cyprian, and in the U.S. by the
so-called Orthodox Archbishop of Etna, California, Chrysostomos. It has become
evident that they are attempting to establish their Augustinian heresy by
presenting themselves as enemies of Ecumenism in countries such as Russia,
Bulgaria, Serbia, Georgia, etc.
This Cyprian of Phyle was originally a New Calendar priest of the official
Church of Greece. A few years ago, he became a member of the Old Calendar
Church. There is suspicion that behind this movement are those who are trying
to infiltrate Orthodox countries with the heresies of Augustine under the guise
of Traditional Old Calendarist Anti-Ecumenist Orthodoxy. Presenting themselves
as ultra-conservative traditional Orthodox, Cyprian of Phyle and Chrysostomos
of Etna have been quite busy trying to promote and defend the heresies of
Augustine among the Orthodox, as can easily be seen in their publications. What
is interesting is the fact that both Latins and Protestants consider Augustine
as the founding father of both Latin and Protestant theologies. Therefore, what
is said in this introduction about treating the disease of religion applies
equally to both Cyprian of Phyle and Chrysostomos of Etna and their attempt to
infiltrate traditional Orthodox countries with the disease of religion.” (our
translation)
Here we see, first
of all, the well-known demonic and saint-fighting obsession of Romanides
against Saint Augustine (at this point it must be emphasized that those of our
own—thankfully very few—who have been misled and consider Saint Augustine as an
exponent of an ecclesiology contrary to that of Saint Cyprian of Carthage are
mistaken—the Hieromartyr Hilarion Troitsky in particular has demonstrated that
he is an exponent of the same Orthodox Ecclesiology).
He accuses the
Hierarchs of the Synod in Resistance, now of blessed memory, Cyprian and
Chrysostomos, who with their titanic work in the 1990s enlightened the entire
Orthodox world regarding Ecumenism, at a time when the New Calendarists and
Ecumenists of the Romanides type had fallen into great apostasies (e.g.
Canberra, Chambésy), while the rest of the G.O.C. were consumed with disputes
and schisms (1995, 1998), with one of the central figures—and one of the main
culprits of the harm—being Mr. Sakarellos!
Romanides also
refers to the infamous “Inter-Orthodox Conference of Thessaloniki” held from
April 29 to May 2, 1998, which was convened by the Ecumenists of the official
Churches (greatly alarmed by the anti-ecumenist work of the Resisting Genuine
Orthodox), under the presidency of the well-known ecumenist Chrysostomos of
Ephesus (with the permission, of course, of Mr. Bartholomew), and which
condemned the true Orthodox. [135]
This was the “great
Romanides,” whose heretical teachings were introduced into our circle by Mr.
Sakarellos.
***
In order for Mr.
Sakarellos to be done, once and for all, with all the Churches and to prove the
“Church of the G.O.C. of Greece” as the only Church in the world, he employs
the “Finnish argument.” What exactly this is, we shall see immediately based on
the analysis of his presenter (P, 151–157).
Mr. Sakarellos
writes that the First Canon of the Council of Antioch “cuts off from the Church
every believer who transgresses the ‘Decree’ of the First Ecumenical Council.
That is, it cuts off anyone who does not celebrate Pascha as defined by the
First Ecumenical Council, as it ought to be celebrated by the Orthodox. Every
clergyman who does not celebrate, or who in the future will not celebrate
Pascha on that date, is already deposed from that time—that is, from the day
the Council of Antioch, which issued this Canon, made that decision” (P,
152). He also writes: “Any clergymen who ‘commune’ with clergymen already
deposed by the Council, because they transgress the ‘Decree’ of the First
Ecumenical Council, are likewise deposed!” (P, 153). He concludes, then:
“The Church of Finland, however, accepted the calendar change. Eighty years
ago, it altered not only the Old Calendar, but also the Paschalion!
Since then, it celebrates Pascha with the Papists, which often coincides with
or even precedes the Jewish Passover. This means, according to the above Canon
of Antioch, that its clergy are already deposed and its faithful cut off from
the Church. Someone might ask: what concern is it of ours if the Church of
Finland accepted the Papal Paschalion? It concerns us directly. Because
Orthodox clergymen, as the First Canon of Antioch prescribes, must not have
‘communion’ with the clergy of Finland. Any clergymen who have ‘communion’ with
the clergy of that Church are likewise deposed, according to the above Canon.”
Which clergymen
have “communion” with the Church of Finland? Only those clergymen who have
accepted or tolerate the New Gregorian Calendar! Therefore, some bishops may
not have changed the Paschalion themselves, but since they have
“communion” with the Church of Finland, it is as if they too have changed the Paschalion.
The consequences are exactly the same!
According to the above Canon, any clergymen who behave arrogantly toward the
“Decree” of the First Ecumenical Council by seeking to alter the date of the
celebration of Pascha are already preemptively deposed by the Council of
Antioch! …From the above, it follows that, indeed, those who changed the
Calendar may not have directly changed the Paschalion; however, since
they have communion, on the one hand with the Church of Finland, which accepted
the Papal Paschalion, and on the other with the Patriarchs of
Constantinople, who are seeking to change the date of the celebration of Pascha
and are, as a result, preemptively deposed, it is evident that they are
transgressing the “Decree” of the First Ecumenical Council, which, according to
the First Canon of Antioch, is a matter of faith (P, 153–154).
Therefore,
according to Mr. Sakarellos, all the clergy of all the official Churches of the
world, because they have communion with the Church of Finland, have fallen from
the Priesthood—and the only clergy remaining on earth are the Old Calendarists
(and not even all of them, as we shall see from what he himself writes in the
next section).
***
To examine whether
the above views are correct, let us first look at the text of the relevant
Canon (Canon I of the Council held in Antioch): “All those who dare to nullify
the decree of the holy and great Council held in Nicaea, convened in the
presence of the piety of the most God-loving emperor Constantine, concerning
the holy feast of the saving Pascha, are to be cut off from communion and cast
out of the Church, if they persist contentiously in opposing the things rightly
and properly defined; and let this be said concerning the laity. But if any of
those set over the Church—bishop, or presbyter, or deacon—after this decree
shall dare to hold a private celebration, and to perform Pascha with the Jews,
to pervert the people and disturb the Churches: this holy Synod has from this
point already judged such a one to be alien to the Church, as not only heaping
sin upon himself, but also becoming the cause of corruption and perversion for
many. And not only does it depose such persons from ministry, but also those
who dare to commune with them after their deposition. And the deposed are to be
deprived also of the external honor, which the holy Canon and the priesthood of
God confer.”
Two observations
must be made on this point:
a) The critical
phrase upon which Mr. Sakarellos (mis)interprets the Canon (in a rationalistic
manner) is the following: “ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος ἐντεῦθεν ἤδη ἀλλότριον ἔκρινε τῆς
ἐκκλησίας.” [“The holy synod, from this point already, judged him alien to
the Church.”]
b) The Canons are
interpreted and explained by the approved Canonists and by the Praxis of the
Church (who understand the above phrase as equivalent to the imperative “let
him be deposed”), and not by just anyone according to his own reasoning.
If, then, the
notion of “automatic deposition/loss of Priesthood” proclaimed by Mr.
Sakarellos were valid, then:
1. Already from the
4th century, the Priesthood would have been extinguished in the Church. How so?
Through communion with the Church of Rome, which only in 444, under Saint Pope
Leo the Great, finally accepted the correct calculation of the date of Pascha—having
until then (for over a hundred years) celebrated it, due to miscalculations, up
to a month earlier, thus violating the Decree of the First Ecumenical Council.
According to Sakarellian ecclesiology, therefore, not only the clergy of Rome,
but also the clergy of all the Local Churches—since all then had communion with
Rome—would have been automatically deposed and devoid of Priesthood, which is
absurd!
2. It would not
have been necessary, toward the end of the 16th century, for three Pan-Orthodox
Synods to be convened in order to condemn the shifting of Pascha caused by the
Gregorian calendar (1582), since the “automatic penalty” of the First Canon of Antioch
(which was repeated verbatim by the Great Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1593) would
have sufficed.
3. Nor would the
"Church of the G.O.C. of Greece" have Priesthood. For the Church of
Finland accepted the Gregorian Paschalion in 1921, that is, three years
before the Calendar Innovation of 1924 in Greece! And since in 1921 all the
Local Churches were in communion with the Church of Finland, therefore
automatically (according to Sakarellos, of course) all the clergy lost the Priesthood
and consequently it was abolished before there were even Old Calendarists!
And the eminent
Canonists likewise align themselves with the Orthodox Ecclesiology of the
“potential and not actual” nature of the penalties of ALL the Holy Canons.
Specifically, concerning the said Canon, Zonaras in his interpretation uses,
for the transgressors, the imperative “let them be deposed” (καθαιρεῖσθαι
αὐτούς)—that is, he commands “that they be deposed” and does not consider
them automatically deposed—and he refers to the 7th Apostolic Canon (“If any
Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon celebrate the Holy Day of Pascha before the
vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed”)—upon which, moreover, the
1st of Antioch is based. Balsamon also agrees (“laymen are to be subjected to
the penalty of complete excommunication; clergy, however, are to be
deposed”), as does Saint Nikodemos, who likewise refers to the 7th Apostolic
Canon.
Nevertheless, while
by the above-mentioned act and theory the error of the Sakarellian
(mis)interpretation is demonstrated, one could reasonably ask the following:
“then why in this Canon is the usual ‘let him be deposed’ (καθαιρείσθω)
not used, but rather ‘he has already been judged a stranger’ (ἤδη
ἀλλότριον ἔκρινε)?” According to Ecclesiastical Law, [136] for every
violation there must be, on the part of the competent authority, a summons of
the transgressor, his defense, and an examination of the violation before any
decision is made ([St. Nikodim] Milaš writes: “The corresponding penalties for
the crimes committed are imposed by the law of the Orthodox Church either by a
condemnatory [accusatory] or by a declaratory [explanatory] sentence. In the
case of a condemnatory verdict, an unconditional requirement is that the proper
ecclesiastical court comply with all instructions regarding the trial in order
to verify the case subject to punishment in this manner and, accordingly, to impose
the appropriate punishment upon the guilty party”). In the particular case we
are examining, however, the above-mentioned process (summons, defense,
examination) is rendered superfluous, since “the Church has already judged him
a stranger” (ἤδη ἀλλότριον ἔκρινε ἡ Ἐκκλησία)—and nothing further is
awaited except the activation/proclamation of the penalty by the competent
authority. (On this point Milaš writes: “In this case, the court does not need
to initiate the investigation of the violation, because by the very commission
of it, the perpetrator has incurred the corresponding penalty against himself,
and only the declaration of the criminal act and punishment remains pending,
which is declaratory [explanatory]. According to this distinction in penalties,
the corresponding punishments are also named differently. In the first case of
the condemnatory [accusatory] sentence, the penalty is called judicial, whereas
in the second, where the verdict is of a declaratory [explanatory] nature, then
the penalty is called and is legal”). Both types of penalties are
activated/proclaimed by the competent authority.
Even if it be
assumed that the transgressors of the First Canon of Antioch were deposed in
actuality, even then this would not mean that those who commune with them
are automatically co-deposed, as Mr. Sakarellos asserts, using as an argument
the famous—and falsified—saying, “he who communes with the excommunicated, let
him be excommunicated” (P, 86), for even for such communicants the relevant
Canon (the 10th Apostolic) also uses the imperative “let him be excommunicated”
(ἀφοριζέσθω). (Phrysanthos of Jerusalem writes in his treatise on
excommunication that when the Canon “says ‘whoever does this or that, let him
be excommunicated,’ then the canon does not excommunicate, but leaves the
execution of the excommunication to the superiors”). That is, patristically, “let
them be excommunicated”—and not, Sakarellianly (and Matthewite-ly and
Magdalene-ly and hyper-zealously, etc.), “they are automatically
excommunicated”!
***
Also, the
supporters of Sakarellian ecclesiology, in order to reinforce their view
concerning the loss of Priesthood by the clergy of the official Churches, add
the year 1998 on account of the “anathema against Ecumenism” by the “Church of
the G.O.C. of Greece.” The said text, although signed by the then Hierarchs of
the Synod of the G.O.C. (most of whom have now reposed), was composed by Mr.
Sakarellos, who, acting as advisor to the then Archbishop and the then Chief
Secretary, misled them and the other Hierarchs into placing their signatures
beneath a text that is utterly untheological, problematic in every respect, and
regrettably shameful—a text that deserves nothing but to be cast into oblivion.
It begins as
follows:
“To those who say
that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, existing as the Church of
the firstborn in the heavens, and having become the Body of Christ through the
coming of the Holy Spirit at Holy Pentecost, has ceased to exist in the world, as
having been divided into many branches, each of which possesses a part of the
revealed truth and grace of the mysteries, according to what the novel
ecumenists teach—wherefore it must be re-established anew by us men, through
the union of all the branches into a single tree, that is, through the
assimilation into one whole of all heresies and schisms together with the true
Orthodox Church, and thereafter of all these together with the other religions,
unto the formation of a single pan-religion, which shall thus constitute the
‘church’ of the Antichrist: Anathema.”
At the outset, a
question arises: Who are the ones that “say” that “the One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church, existing as the Church of the firstborn in the heavens,”
became “the Body of Christ through the coming of the Holy Spirit at Holy
Pentecost”? The “novel ecumenists” or Mr. Sakarellos? We, of course, know that
this is the ecclesiology of the latter, who sought to insert, in the manner of
a lesson, his own ecclesiological theory—clearly heretical—into a text of
“anathema”!
And one more thing:
Instead of this legalistic construct, why did the Synod at that time not simply
copy the profoundly theological text of the anathema against Ecumenism from the
Russian Church Abroad under Saint Philaret in 1983?
Perhaps because the
mastermind, Mr. Sakarellos, did not approve of it, since he had fiercely
opposed it—as we have mentioned—(with a series of articles in the Orthodox
Typos under the title “Ecumenism and Slavophilia: The Anathema against
Ecumenism by Metropolitan Philaret”), and had not repented for this polemic of
his?
Among other
distortions and falsehoods, he wrote at the time that “there is NOT A SINGLE
Greek Orthodox Bishop who is… ‘ecumenist’!”, while he reproached Saint Philaret
for supposedly usurping the function of an Ecumenical Council by inserting the
text of the Anathema into the Synodikon!
And yet the true
usurpation was committed through the text of Mr. Sakarellos, which later on
(where the following is written: “To Joachim III, Patriarch of Constantinople,
Meletios Metaxakis, and Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, the chief architects of the
heresies of Ecumenism: Anathema”) proves that the so-called “Church of the
G.O.C. of Greece,” which signed the above absurdity, is indeed usurping the
function of an Ecumenical Council—the only competent body to pronounce
anathemas by name against Primates of Churches, and moreover, against those who
have reposed! [137]
The authority,
moreover, that an “anathema” of a Synod of a remnant of a Local Church holds
against the Primates of Churches is equivalent to the condemnation of a
Hierarch by an Ecclesiastical Court meant for Priests—that is to say,
nonexistent.
And this is not
said in order to justify those indeed utterly blameworthy individuals—well
known, in any case, for their corrupting activity—but so that the name of the
Genuine Orthodox and the righteous in every respect Sacred Struggle may not be
degraded by such reprehensible excesses.
The text continues
with the following “anathema”:
“To those who raged
in assemblies against the Orthodox faith in Constantinople in the year 1923 and
on the Holy Mountain in the year 1930: Anathema.”
Here, by what
criteria is the Synod (more precisely, the “Preliminary Committee”) held on the
Holy Mountain in 1930 anathematized, and in what way exactly did it “rage”
“against the Orthodox faith”?
And yes, Mr.
Sakarellos had his opinion, since he wrote: “The bishops of those who followed
the New Calendar, at the Inter-Orthodox Conference (note: bishops who followed
the Old Calendar also participated, such as the Serbian Bishop of Ohrid, Saint
Nicholas Velimirovich), which convened in 1931 (note: 1930) at the Vatopedi
Monastery on the Holy Mountain—the preeminent place of ‘hesychasm’—decided [sic]
to replace hesychasm with the Frankish monasticism of the West, with their
missionary orders” (P, 194).
And yes, the
Hierarchs of that time, either due to lack of education or due to lack of
access to the original sources, were unable to correctly assess these fantasies
of Mr. Sakarellos.
But is it
permissible in our time—when we have more educated Hierarchs and an abundance
of sources available to any interested party—for this “anathema” text to still
be circulated, and even read aloud in churches (thankfully, only in a few) on
the Sunday of Orthodoxy?
In the Acts of that
Conference in question, [138] anyone may verify with their own eyes to what
extent Mr. Sakarellos’ baseless accusations—about an alleged replacement of hesychasm
“with the Frankish monasticism of the West, with their missionary orders”—are
justified.
And the degradation
continues with Mr. Sakarellos’ personal obsession (against Trembelas—because of
Romanides—and Androutsos, supposed exponents of the imaginary heresy of the
“two sanctities” discovered by the well-known Magdalene—see also the previous
section), now being clothed in a synodal mantle, as if the Church of the
Genuine Orthodox ever faced such an issue!
"To those who
say that Christ had two sanctities, both divine and human, and that His human
sanctity progressed: Anathema."
No comment,
truly...
After the
“anathemas,” we pass on to the “blessings”:
"To those who
struggled for the Orthodox Faith—Jeremias Tranos, Sylvester of Alexandria,
Sophronius of Jerusalem, and all the others who participated in the
Pan-Orthodox Synods of the years 1583, 1587, and 1593, which condemned the
calendar innovation and cut off from the body of the Church those who accepted
and would accept it—Eternal be their memory."
Here the knowledge
of History, as well as of Ecclesiology, is deficient and shameful for a synodal
text.
First of all, it is
unacceptable that there is no mention of the chief architect of the rejection
of the Gregorian Calendar—Saint Meletios Pegas—who surpassed even Jeremiah
Tranos in this matter. It is as if one were to commemorate the First Ecumenical
Council without Saint Athanasius the Great, or the Second without Saint Gregory
the Theologian, etc...
Secondly, the said
Synods of the 16th century condemned—as is evident both from the genuine texts
of the time and from later documents related to the matter—the shifting of
Pascha resulting from the new Gregorian Calendar.
Thirdly, these
Synods did NOT “cut off from the body of the Church those who accepted it,”
because none of the Orthodox at that time accepted it. They rejected the
innovation of the Papists—who were already outside the Church—in order to
protect the Orthodox from that temptation.
Fourthly, they did
NOT “cut off from the body of the Church” even those who “would accept it,”
because no Council can condemn in advance some future transgression—much less
so when we know that in 1924 the Gregorian Calendar and Paschalion were
not adopted, but only the Gregorian reckoning for the fixed feasts, while the Paschalion
remained untouched. Therefore, a new synodal condemnation is required for this
deception and for the hybrid “Revised Julian” calendar of the ecumenists from
within Orthodoxy (let us also recall the words written by Saint Chrysostomos,
former of Florina, to Germanos of the Cyclades: “Your Grace also hypocritically
and shamelessly lies when you insist that the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox
Synod or a Great Local Synod is superfluous and unnecessary for the valid and
final condemnation of the calendar innovation of the Archbishop, since the Pan-Orthodox
Synods of 1583, 1587, and 1593 condemned the Gregorian Calendar. This is
because you know full well that the said Synods indeed condemned the Gregorian
Calendar, but that this condemnation refers to the Latins, who applied the
entire calendar, whereas the Archbishop received from it only the half,
applying it to the fixed feasts and retaining the Old Calendar for Pascha and
the movable feasts—precisely in order to bypass the stumbling block of that
condemnation. Accordingly, this innovation of the Archbishop, who applied the
Gregorian Calendar only for the fixed feasts and not for Pascha (for which the
Gregorian Calendar was primarily condemned, as being contrary to the 7th
Apostolic Canon), constitutes an issue appearing for the first time in the history
of the Orthodox Church. Consequently, the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod
is not only not superfluous, as Your Grace dogmatizes from a tripod like
another Pope, but it is in fact imperative for the canonical and valid
condemnation of this matter.” [139]
The view of
automatic condemnation and loss of Priesthood and Divine Grace on account of
earlier Synods on similar matters (a view which constitutes one of the
fundamental pillars of the heresy of Matthewitism and other forms of so-called
“Extreme Zealotism”) is refuted by the very fact that new Synods are convened
each time an issue arises—even if that issue has already appeared in the past.
The same delusion
had been refuted earlier by the ever-memorable Fr. Theodoretos, in his book “The
Calendar Schism: Potentially or Actually?” (1973), written in response to
the Matthewite-leaning monk Markos Chaniotis (who, by his own admission, was
one of the chief instigators of the Matthewite Schism), whose argument Mr.
Sakarellos merely copied.
c) That which
demonstrates more clearly than the sun the absurdity of the reasoning—that is,
that no new condemnation of the innovators of 1924 is required, since this
innovation has already been condemned from as early as 1583—is none other than
the very Synod of 1583 itself, as well as the two others following it, namely
those of 1587 and 1593.
We ask: why was
there a need for these Synods to be convened at the moment when the innovation
of changing the Paschalion had already been condemned by the 7th
Apostolic Canon—an innovation which causes compulsory celebrations of Pascha
either together with the Jews or before their Pascha, both of which are
forbidden? Or do you perhaps think, or reason slavishly, that the Apostolic
Canons are of lesser authority than the decisions of the above-mentioned
Orthodox Synods and that, consequently, their convocation was unnecessary? But
according to the above: why then was the Synod of 1587 convened, if that of
1583 had preceded it? And why also the one of 1593, if the other two had
preceded it?!!...]
The text continues,
rather oddly, as follows:
“To Anthimos,
Ecumenical Patriarch, and to those who participated in the Synod of
Constantinople in the year 1848: Eternal be their memory.”
The ever-memorable
and sharp-witted Metropolitan Cyprian Koutsoumpas wondered about this:
“What possible relation can the laudatory mention of the Ecumenical Patriarch
and ‘those who participated in the Synod of Constantinople in the year 1848’
have with anti-ecumenism? And if, perchance, the intention was to connect it
with anti-papism—despite the paradox that the ‘Anathema’ concerns Ecumenism—why
were countless Synods and Fathers, who fought vigorously against the
multi-heresy of Papism and even proclaimed anathemas against it, passed over in
silence?” [140]
To this question,
we respond as follows:
But quite simply,
the Synod of 1848 contains a passage which Mr. Sakarellos, along with his
followers—as well as all manner of Reductionists (Matthewites, Matthewtizing,
Hyper-zealots, and other adherents of the “automatic condemnation”)—use as
confirmation of their ecclesiological heresy. That passage is the following
(note the underlined parts): “We hold fast to the confession which we have
received unadulterated from such great men, turning away from every innovation
as an inspiration of the devil; for he who accepts innovation reproaches the
proclaimed Orthodox faith as deficient. But this faith is already complete and
sealed, admitting neither diminution, nor increase, nor any alteration
whatsoever. And whoever dares either to act, or to counsel, or to think such a
thing, has already denied the faith of Christ and has already willingly
subjected himself to the eternal anathema, for he blasphemes against the Holy
Spirit, as though He had not spoken perfectly in the Scriptures and through the
Ecumenical Councils.”
But since,
Sakarellists, those individuals have already been anathematized (as you
misinterpret) and have fallen away from the Church, why did you hasten to
“anathematize” them again in 1998—so many decades later? Are those who are
already, and automatically, outside the Church to be anathematized—that is,
cast out of the Church—again?
The text, however,
ends beautifully—with the only part that could, in its entirety, be used in the
future within a theologically sound text of this kind:
“To all who have
struggled, in deed and in word, for the Orthodox Faith and against the
innovations of the New Calendar and the heresy of Ecumenism: Eternal be their
memory.”
Eternal be their
memory!
***
The examination of
the ecclesiological reasoning of Mr. Sakarellos concludes with the presentation
of yet another unorthodox position, which perhaps constitutes the very core of
the ecclesiological heresy we call “Sakarellism.” This position concerns the
identification of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ with
a specific Local Church or Hierarchy, or even with a part thereof.
He writes: “The
Church, because it is ‘one,’ possesses indivisible unity. [141] This is a
fundamental dogmatic teaching of hers. If her unity is divided into two or more
parts, one of those parts will be the ‘One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church.’ The other part will be a schism! There are not other or many churches!
Therefore, whoever cuts himself off from the body of the ‘One, Holy, Catholic,
and Apostolic Church’ necessarily becomes a schismatic, a heretic! If a priest
or deacon refuses to commemorate his bishop, this means that the clergyman has
separated himself from the local Church. And when someone separates himself
from the local Church to which he belongs, he separates himself from the entire
Church of Christ. He is ‘outside the Church’!” (P, 84–85).
Mr. Sakarellos had
developed this view already from the period when he followed the New Calendar,
and he used it in his argumentation against the Genuine Orthodox, believing
that in 1924, with the calendar schism, the “portion” that did not follow the
Innovation (namely, the Old Calendarists) became schismatic and outside the
Church. When he joined the Church of the G.O.C., he maintained precisely the
same ecclesiology, simply inverting and extending it. That is, he now claimed
that the faction which followed the Innovation (namely, the New Calendarists)
became schismatic and outside the Church; but he added that all the factions of
the Old Calendarists also became schismatic and outside the Church, except for
only one, because the Church, he insisted, must be “one” administratively! He
characteristically writes: “…which faction, into which the faithful were
divided on March 10, 1924, is the ‘Church of Christ’? If the ‘Church of Christ’
is the New Calendarists, then those who continued to follow the Old Calendar
are necessarily ‘outside the Church,’ without priesthood and grace of the
mysteries! But if the ‘Church of Christ’ is those who follow the Old Calendar,
then necessarily the New Calendarists are ‘outside the Church,’ without
priesthood and grace of the mysteries!” (P, 120). And elsewhere: “If, then, the
divisions of the members of the Church that occurred up to 1924 did not
eliminate the Church of Christ, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,
in the same way the Church did not cease to exist after 1924—even though
certain faithful who follow the Old Calendar unfortunately detached themselves
from the One Church (of the Old Calendar) and joined four Factions and certain
other small groups that exist! The Church of Christ—even when divided—remains
One!” (P, 207). And elsewhere: “It is a fact that today those who continue to
follow the Old Calendar are scattered among many Factions…” It is also a fact
that each one of the above-mentioned Factions arbitrarily presents itself as
the only true “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” and all the others
as schismatic. However, this cannot be entirely true, because all of the above
Factions cannot each truly be the “One” Church of Christ. Christ founded only
one Church. And indeed, each one of the above Factions has the “right,”
according to worldly criteria, to believe that it is the “Church of Christ,” or
anything else it wants. “There is the ‘One’ Church of Christ, that is, one of
all the above Factions is the Church.” What is to become of the above Old
Calendarist Factions, which present themselves as the “Church of Christ”?
Should they not at some point cease to exist, so that only the “One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic Church” remains? “Some wish the union of the Old
Calendarist Factions to take place according to the above-mentioned models of
Ecumenism! Thus, they cultivate a new kind of Ecumenism: Old Calendarist
Ecumenism, according to which all the Old Calendarist Factions are the same
thing, all are ‘Churches of Christ,’ and therefore all can be united into one
Church—the ‘Church of Christ’! This is Ecumenism ‘from the right’! And we call
it Ecumenism ‘from the right,’ because, as the Apostle Paul says, there is a
war ‘from the left’ and a war ‘from the right.’ In this way, we distinguish the
two types of Ecumenism. This type of Ecumenism in the realm of the Old Calendar
signifies that none of its Factions constitutes the Church of Christ.” [142]
This ecclesiology
was also evident in the now infamous “Constitutional Charter” of 1998. In it,
we read: “Article 1. CONCERNING THE CHURCH IN GENERAL. a) The ‘Church of the
Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece’ is the local Orthodox Catholic Church in
Greece, which was founded by Christ. b) The ‘Church of the Genuine Orthodox
Christians of Greece,’ or ‘Orthodox Catholic Church,’ constitutes the canonical
and unbroken continuity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
founded by Christ, after the separation from it of all heretics and schismatics
up to the innovators—the New Calendarists of 1924—and of certain groups of
members of our Church, who follow various defrocked former clergy of ours or
unordained individuals. “It believes and confesses that it is the only secure
path of salvation for its members and recognizes as salvific and grace-bearing
only the holy mysteries performed by itself.” [143]
Traces of this
ecclesiology unfortunately also exist in the text “Confession of Faith of
the Genuine Orthodox Christian,” which was formulated and approved by the
Inter-Orthodox Conference. [144] It is noteworthy that the original version of
this text—distributed to the faithful for signing in view of the actions toward
the implementation of Law 4301/14—did not contain elements of Sakarellian
ecclesiology. However, the said text was subsequently modified, with the result
that the faithful signed one “Confession,” while another is now the official
one!
The disputed
passage from the original text intended for signing, without the addition
The disputed
addition to the original text of the “Confession” is found in the following
passage (noted here in italics):
“I willingly
submit, in ecclesiastical matters, to the Holy Synod, as the Highest Authority
of the Genuine Orthodox Church in Greece, constituting the continuation of
the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in Greece.”
***
This confusion
between the concepts of the Catholic and the Local Church, through the
transference of the attributes of the former to the latter, leads to an
identification of their boundaries, as well as to impasses—as can easily be
understood. It proves Sakarellism to be an ecclesiological heresy, which (like
the similar heresy of Matthewitism) contracts the boundaries of the Church.
[145]
That this
ecclesiological position is unacceptable is also demonstrated by Church
History. In order for this to be fully understood, it is absolutely necessary
to present certain historical data, which will aid in a more complete
understanding of the subject under examination.
From Church History
we learn that a schism, although it begins as a division within the One,
Catholic Church (either as a rupture between Local Churches or as a division
among the members of a Local Church), may end up (either almost immediately or
after some period of time) in the secession of one side from the entire
Church—through voluntary and manifest defection from Her and through Synodal
Judgment, by which the Church “marks those who separate themselves.” [146] In
such a case, those who have seceded—by their separation from the whole
Church—no longer partake in Her Body, can no longer perform Mysteries in Her
name, and have lost Divine Grace, according to patristic teaching. [147]
There is, however,
also the case in which such a division does not develop into a secession from
the entire Church, as the following is observed: a division may indeed
exist—either between Local Churches or as divisions [148] among the members of
a Local Church—yet both of the mutually divided parties remain in communion
with the One Catholic Church through their shared communion with the other
Local Churches, thereby maintaining an indirect communion with one another!
As is therefore
evident from what has been written thus far, the word “schism” may
denote either a secession from the Catholic Church or a division within Her.
The latter, however, cannot persist indefinitely, for in the course of time
there will either occur a definitive rupture (and we will have a schism in the
first sense), or the division will be resolved. However, the things that apply
to schismatics in the first sense (those severed from the One, Holy, Catholic,
and Apostolic Church) do not apply in the second case (those separated from one
another, yet remaining within the Catholic Church and indirectly in communion
with each other).
In order for this
second case to be better understood, it is necessary to present some examples
from Church History and to offer certain observations on them:
a) Toward the end
of the 2nd century, the first great schism within the Church arises, which is
twofold, since we observe a break in ecclesiastical communion both between
Local Churches and among the members of a Local Church. Specifically, due to
the then-existing disagreement over the date of the celebration of Pascha, the
Bishop of Rome, Victor, cuts off from ecclesiastical communion the parishes of
the Asians in Rome, because the latter celebrated Pascha on the 14th of Nisan,
according to the tradition of the Apostles John the Theologian and Philip (a
tradition followed by all the Local Churches of Asia Minor), in contrast to the
Romans who, following the tradition of the Apostles Peter and Paul, celebrated
Pascha on the first Sunday after the vernal full moon. Thus, a schism arises
within the Local Church of Rome. At the same time, Victor also breaks
ecclesiastical communion with the Local Churches of Asia Minor, which had
gathered in Synod under the leadership of Polycrates of Ephesus and declared their
insistence on celebrating Pascha on the 14th of Nisan. A schism thus also
arises between the Local Churches of Rome and those of Asia Minor. However, the
rest of the Local Churches continued to maintain ecclesiastical communion both
with Rome, with the parishes of the Asians within it, and with the Churches of
Asia Minor. Led by Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, they succeeded in lifting this
twofold intra-ecclesiastical schism. [149] (As is well known, the issue of the
celebration of Pascha was definitively resolved by the First Ecumenical
Council, [150] after which liturgical agreement begins to be stabilized.)
b) The schism
between Saint Hippolytus and Saint Callistus within the Local Church of Rome is
also considered an intra-ecclesiastical schism. In 217, after the repose of
Pope Zephyrinus, Callistus was elected as the new Pope, but a faction within
the Church reacted and elected Saint Hippolytus as Pope (he is the first
antipope in the history of the Church of Rome). The party of Saint Hippolytus
accused the "Callistians" (whose Church they contemptuously referred
to as a "School" [=Philosophical]) of monarchian tendencies and of
excessive leniency regarding the return of heretics and the fallen, as well as
with respect to the sins of the clergy. The party of Saint Callistus, in turn,
accused the "Hippolytians" of excessive strictness and Montanist
influences. The schism lasted for 17 years, continuing even during the
episcopates of Saint Callistus’ successors—Saint Urban (martyred in 230) and
Saint Pontian. The latter was exiled to Sardinia together with Saint
Hippolytus, with whom reconciliation was achieved and the schism lifted. Both
were martyred shortly thereafter, in 235. [151]
c) The events
related to the so-called “Antiochian Schism” are more or less well known. The
Orthodox were divided from 360 onward into two parties—“Eustathians” and
“Meletians”—for over 50 years. The Local Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and
Cyprus maintained communion with the Eustathians, while the Local Churches of
Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Asia Minor were in communion with the Meletians.
The lifting of the schism was accomplished thanks to the boldness of a saintly
man, Bishop Alexander of Antioch, who—with his entire flock—went to the church
of the Eustathians and concelebrated, thereby uniting the divided Local Church
of Antioch (in the year 413). [152]
d) The “Johannite”
Schism was yet another intra-ecclesiastical schism—and indeed a multifaceted
one—since, due to the “deposition” and exile of Saint John Chrysostom (404),
there was a break in ecclesiastical communion both between Local Churches (Rome
with Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch) and among the members of at least
two Local Churches: Constantinople and Antioch. In the former, the followers of
Saint Chrysostom—under the guidance of his disciples, such as the presbyter
Germanos, the deacon Cassian, and the deaconess Olympias—broke communion with
the successive patriarchs: namely, Saint Arsacius (Patriarch 404–405), Saint
Atticus (406–425), Saint Sisinnius (426–427), Nestorius (428–431), Saint
Maximian (431–434), and Saint Proclus (434–446), until the latter transferred
the relics of Saint John Chrysostom back to the City (438). Thus, the schism
lasted 34 years. In Antioch, in 404, the presbyter Constantius, who had been a
co-candidate with the eventually elected Patriarch Porphyrius, together with a
multitude of faithful, led the break in communion with the latter. The schism
was lifted during the episcopate of the next Patriarch, Saint Alexander, who
restored the “Johannite” bishops Elpidios and Pappos to their sees and
inscribed the name of Saint John Chrysostom in the Diptychs (413), an act which
also led to the restoration of communion with the Local Church of Rome (under
Pope Innocent). [153]
e) Another example
of an intra-ecclesiastical schism is the nearly twenty-year schism between
Saint Photios the Great and Saint Ignatius (858–877). Due to political
intrigues and ecclesiastical disputes, as well as papal interference, the Local
Church of Constantinople became divided into two factions. Concerning this
internal division, Saint Photios lamented in a letter, referring to a
"Church being torn and divided." [154] The schism was further
entrenched—as Saint Photios himself later acknowledges—because “we accepted
many others who had been deposed for offenses by the most holy Ignatius, and
those whom we had deposed were accepted by Saint Ignatius.” [155] The schism
between the “Photian” and “Ignatian” parties was resolved shortly before the
repose of Saint Ignatius [156] (who was then in his second official
patriarchate), when he came to recognize the sanctity of Saint Photios and his
support during his painful illness. In fact, Saint Ignatius proposed the
restoration of Saint Photios, but the latter declined, and only after the
former’s repose did Saint Photios (for the second time officially) ascend to
the episcopal throne of the City, thereby formally lifting that division. [157]
f) Concluding the
series of examples, it is worth mentioning the so-called “Schism of the
Arsenites.” In 1261, Saint Arsenius Autoreianus, then Patriarch of
Constantinople, excommunicated Michael VIII Palaiologos because he had blinded
the lawful minor heir to the throne, John IV Laskaris, and usurped the throne,
thereby becoming perjured. Michael gradually won over the majority of the Synod
members, which was convened and deposed Saint Arsenius on false charges in the
year 1264. The deposition caused a great schism in the Local Church of
Constantinople, since many supporters of the Saint, under the slogan “touch
not, neither draw near,” separated from the official hierarchy and from the
new Patriarch, Germanus III (patr. 1265–1266). This intra-ecclesiastical schism
was so extensive that, according to the historian Pachymeres, “even households
were divided within themselves.” It continued during the tenure of Saint Joseph
I of Galessios (first term: 1266–1274; second term: 1282–1283). In 1274, the
false Union of Lyons was signed, which Saint Joseph refused to accept. He was
replaced by the well-known Latin-minded John XI Bekkos (patr. 1274–1283). The
followers of Saint Joseph broke ecclesiastical communion with the official
hierarchy, and thus three factions arose in the City: the “Unionists,” who now
represented the “official Church,” and the two Orthodox factions—the
“Arsenites” and the “Josephites”—who were not in communion even with each
other, and from whom martyrs and confessors emerged. [158] Within the “Arsenite”
camp, however, a fragmentation developed, [159] and two main tendencies
emerged, one of which—an extreme faction—rejected the Mysteries not only of the
“Unionists,” but also of the “Josephites.” [160] After the death of Michael and
the ascent to the imperial throne of the most pious Andronikos II, the new
emperor—following actions through which he convened a Synod and restored
Orthodoxy by anathematizing the Union of Lyons and the “Unionists”—sought to
lift the schism between the “Arsenites” and the “Josephites” by electing a new
Patriarch (Saint Joseph had just reposed) who would be acceptable to both
factions. The new Patriarch was Gregory II of Cyprus (patr. 1283–1289), under
whom the Synod of Adramyttium (1284) was convened to address the issue of the
schism. At this Synod, the moderate faction of the “Arsenites” proposed a
divine judgment (theokrisia): that two volumes—one containing the views of the
“Arsenites” and the other those of the “Josephites”—be placed into fire. The
two documents were sealed in a silver container and left in the fire throughout
the night, during which the participants in the Synod remained in prayer. The
next day the container was opened, and both volumes had been consumed by fire.
One faction of the “Arsenites” then united with the official Church, but the
others continued the break in communion and were excommunicated. Another group
of “Arsenites” was reconciled with the official Church after the translation of
the relics of Saint Arsenius, which took place in 1285 by order of the emperor,
who ardently desired the lifting of the schism. This was followed by the
patriarchates of Saint Athanasios I (first term: 1289–1293; second: 1304–1310)
and of John XII (patr. 1294–1304), a period during which gradual returns of “Arsenites”
to the official Church occurred. As the historian George Pachymeres writes:
“The members and parts of the Church, which until yesterday and even earlier
had been divided and separated by a powerful opposing current, were being
brought together and restored—yet not to the extent that the Church could be
said to enjoy complete peace.” [161] The final extreme “Arsenites” (whom Saint
Athanasios, paraphrasing the word zealots, called “rippers” [xēlōtai]!)
returned to the official Church in 1310, under Patriarch Niphon I (patr.
1310–1315), after a special ceremony was held in Hagia Sophia before the relic
of Saint Arsenius. All receptions of the “Arsenites” into the official Church
took place without the repetition of the Mysteries or any other rite (i.e., no
re-chrismation, re-ordination, etc.). [162]
As is evident, the
aforementioned intra-ecclesiastical divisions cannot possibly be equated with
condemnable schisms such as those of the Novatians, the Donatists, the
Encratites, the Raskolniki, and all those, that is, who had truly
separated themselves from the One Catholic Church of Christ. [163]
Based on the above
historical examples, it has been demonstrated that indeed, in certain
circumstances, a Local Church can be temporarily divided into valid and
salvific “factions” or “parties,” which are still considered within the One
Catholic Church, without this in any way implying acceptance of the ecumenist
“branch theory.” When, for example, Saint Basil the Great wrote that the Church
“is torn apart even by those who profess to believe the same things,” or when
Saint Photius the Great spoke of a Church “being cut and divided,” referring
respectively to the Local Churches of Antioch and Constantinople of their time,
could anyone possibly accuse them of being adherents of the ecumenist
ecclesiology of a “divided Church”?
If we accept the
Sakarellian ecclesiology, then we must answer clearly, for each of the
aforementioned examples, which “faction” constituted the Church. If, for
example, in the case of the Antiochian schism we answer, “the Church was the
faction of Saint Meletios,” then we must explain how Saint Athanasius (and the
Local Churches of Alexandria, Cyprus, and Rome) were in communion with the
“outside the Church” faction of Paulinus and were not themselves rendered
“outside the Church,” according to the principle “he who communes with the
non-communicant becomes non-communicant.” The position that the Church is One,
and therefore, in cases of division and the appearance within a Local Church of
multiple Administrations (synods, jurisdictions, factions, bodies, sections,
parties—call them as you will), only one of these can possibly constitute the
Church, leads also to other questions that must be answered, which concern us
more directly. For example: “Which one Jurisdiction was the Church in Greece in
1983?” Since, as is well known, in that year (besides the “official Church” and
the still unified “Matthewite Church”), [164] the Church of the G.O.C. of
Greece was divided into three Synods (those of Auxentios, Gerontios, and
Callistos–Antonios).
***
Concluding this
work, we hope that the Church of the G.O.C. will be liberated from the
Babylonian captivity of Sakarellism (through the active repentance of its
current bearers who administer it), and that, having stretched forth her hands
wide, she may unconditionally embrace into her bosom the ADJACENT Fathers and
Brethren who, though outside her bosom, are within the One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church, so that together we may journey onward in these difficult
years for True Orthodoxy.
Amen, may it be so!
NOTES
1.
Ecclesiastical Synods and Civilization: http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/1995_4_4_Romanides.pdf
2.
Jesus Christ – The Life of the World:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.e.21.insous_xristos_i_zoi_tou_kosmou.01.htm
3.
Religion is a neurobiological illness, whereas Orthodoxy is its cure:
https://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/cure_gr.html
4.
Empirical Dogmatics:
http://arxetyposkaitelos.blogspot.com/2017/07/blog-post_32.html
5.
Catechesis and Baptism of Adults, 2nd ed., Apostolic Ministry (Apostoliki
Diakonia), 1998, pp. 7–8.
6.
Acts 8:15–17.
7.
Ibid.,5.
8.
Ibid., 12.
9.
P.G. 60, 144.
10.
"The Holy Spirit, coming upon the believer, anoints him. This is the
'baptism of the Spirit' and constitutes the well-known mystery of
'Chrismation'" (P, 174).
11.
Num. 20:17.
12.
John 3:5.
13.
Gal. 3:27.
14.
E.P.E. 30, 386.
15. Eortodromion,
Venice, 1836, p. 13.
16.
P.G. 130, 1276-1277.
17. The
Apophatic Ecclesiology of the Homoousion, Armos Publications, 2002, p. 140.
18.
Uncreated and Created Church: http://www.oodegr.com/oode/orthod/genika/aktisth_ktisth_1.htm
19.
Heb. 9:2.
20.
Ibid., 11:10.
21. The
Two Epistles to the Corinthians, Constantinople, 1875, p. 133.
22.
E.P.E., Apostolic Fathers 4, pp. 386, 392.
23.
P.G. 26, 992, 1004–1005, 1021.
24. Interpretation
of the One Hundred and Fifty Psalms of the Prophet-King and Ancestor of God
David, vol. 1, Constantinople, 1819, p. 369.
25.
P.L. 39, 2189.
26.
N. Berdyaev, Christianity and Social Reality:
https://www.pemptousia.gr/2013/04/prepi-na-ise-apetitikos/
27.
A. Diomidis-Kyriakou, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, Athens, 1881, p.
117.
28.
Konstantinos Kontogonos, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, Athens, 1866,
p. 493.
29.
Stylianos Papadopoulos, Patrology, vol. 2, Athens, 1990, p. 686.
30.
Vlasios Feidas, Ecclesiastical History I, Athens, 1994, p. 308.
31.
A. Diomidis-Kyriakou, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2, Athens, 1881, p.
448.
32. On
First Principles, Leipzig, 1865, pp. 108–109.
33.
1 John 1:8
34.
St. Epiphanius, P.G. 41, 1028
35.
Eph. 5:26
36.
John 18:19
37.
1 Pet. 1:16
38.
Rom. 1:7
39.
P.G. 60, 399
40. The
Fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, vol. 1, Venice, 1819, p. 8
41.
Jude 1:1
42. Interpretation
of the Seven Catholic Epistles, Venice, 1806, p. 324
43.
Matt. 13:24–30.
44.
P.G. 58, 476–478
45.
P.L. 4, 344
46.
Matt. 13:47–50
47.
P.G. 58, 484
48.
Matt. 22:2–14.
49.
Cf. St. Nikodemos, Synaxaristes, vol. 3, Venice, 1819, p. 110.
50.
P.L. 40, 201
51.
P.L. 33, 417
52.
P.L. 23, 185
53.
E.P.E. 6, 224–226
54.
P.G. 80, 1160
55.
Ioannis Karmires, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments, vol. I, Austria,
1960, pp. 461–463
56. Epeteris
of the Society for Byzantine Studies, vol. 54 (2012–2013), P. V. Paschos,
“An Orthodox Catechesis of Meletios Pegas,” p. 126.
57. Theologikon,
Venice, 1872, p. 50.
58.
Ibid., pp. 55–56.
59.
Ibid., p. 50.
60. Epitome
or Collection of the Divine Dogmas of the Faith, Leipzig, 1806, pp. 38–39.
61. Dogmatic
Theology of the Orthodox Catholic and Eastern Church, Athens, 1858, p. 305.
62. Study
on the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, Athens, 1987, pp. 24–25.
63. Orthodox
Sacred Catechesis, publ. by Rigopoulos (2nd ed.), Thessaloniki, p. 25,
footnote 1.
64. The
Question of the Church in the Dogmatic Polemic with Donatism https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ilarion_Troitskij/vopros-o-tserkvi-v-dogmaticheskoj-polemike-s-donatizmom/
65.
He thus reaches the point of absurdity, considering that everyone who is not
deified is automatically a heretic!
66. http://aktines.blogspot.com/2016/10/blog-post_902.html
67.
Spyridon Milias, The New and Most Abundant Collection of the Holy Synods,
vol. 1, Paris, 1761, pp. 469–482.
68.
Ibid., p. 494.
69.
Ibid., p. 497.
70.
Ibid., p. 498.
71.
Ibid., p. 501.
72.
Spyridon Milias, The New and Most Abundant Collection of the Holy Synods,
vol. 2, Paris, 1761, p. 45.
73.
Ibid., p. 46.
74.
Ibid., p. 115.
75.
Ibid., p. 116.
76.
Ibid., p. 123.
77.
Ibid., p. 130.
78.
P.G. 142, 238–239.
79.
“We cut off,” not “we ascertain his … self-severance!”
80.
Ibid., 239.
81.
Ibid., 246.
82. History
Concerning Those Who Were Patriarch in Jerusalem, Bucharest, 1715, p. 681.
83.
Ibid., pp. 680–681.
84.
Ibid., p. 681.
85.
P.G. 87, 3369–3371.
86.
P.G. 99, 997-1000.
87.
St. Gregory Palamas, E.P.E. 3, pp. 604–606.
88.
Ibid., pp. 606–608.
89.
Ibid., p. 624.
90. Jus
Graeco-Romanum, part 3, Leipzig, 1857, p. 699.
91.
Ibid.
92.
P.G. 152, 1282.
93.
P.G. 33, 1009
94.
Cf. P.L. 35, 1424
95.
P.G. 36, 396
96.
Footnote 2 to the 68th Apostolic Canon.
97.
Footnote 1 to the 3rd Apostolic Canon.
98. Epitome
of the Divine Dogmas of the Faith, Leipzig, 1806, pp. 378.
99.
Gen. 2:17
100.
Gen. 3:24
101.
Cf. Neophytos Kausokalyvites, Epitome of Sacred Canons, Athens, 2002, p.
168.
102.
Mansi 12, 1042
103
Dositheos of Jerusalem, Volume of Joy, Rimnic, 1705, p. 42
104.
Cf. also here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3tuH122XTsxOG1LX2VtbkRWU3c/view?resourcekey=0-oO-dabJ60I8xam2FNQU9pA
105.
P.G. 47, 78
106.
There are many examples showing how descriptively the Fathers of the Synod
present their active role, both in the Hymnography (“with the sling of the
Spirit, having slung away those who had fallen from the fullness of the Church
as unto death, and as incurably diseased”) and in the writings of our
Church (“with the sword of the Spirit they cut off as putrefied members from
the entirety of the Orthodox”).
107.
Venice, 1816, p. 296.
108.
Ibid.
109.
Ibid., footnote 1, pp. 296–297.
110.
The online forum “Orthodoxy” has now been discontinued. Republishing of the
said text here: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2009/09/blog-post_8625.html
111.
We also made a small reference here: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/06/blog-post_41.html
112.
http://intpvolou.weebly.com/thetaepsilonomicronlambdaomicrongammaiotakappa940/46
113.
“But if, he says, they dogmatized rightly, then it is necessary to embrace
their mindset, those who call these men Fathers; or—may I not speak
impiously—they dogmatized impiously, and must be cast out together with the
heretical mindset” (P.G. 102, 809).
114.
Cf. Gen. 20:20–27.
115.
“Those nourished by the Church and not forgetful of sacred lessons, like Shem
and Japheth, know how to cover their father’s shame, and turn away condemning
the imitators of Ham” (P.G. 102, 812).
116.
“For how many circumstances of events have compelled many to misinterpret, or
to say something for the sake of economy, or because of revolts of those
resisting, or even due to ignorance, as human beings are indeed subject to
deficiency. One speaks in opposition to the heretics; another accommodates the
weakness of his listeners; another is engaged in some other matter, and,
because the time invites much leniency of precision for the sake of a greater
end, he both said and did things which it is not permitted to us either to say
or to do... And if they did misinterpret, or deviated for some reason now
unknown to us due to human weakness, but no charge was brought against them,
nor did anyone call them to learn the truth, then we shall call them Fathers no
less—even if they did not say this—on account of the brilliance of their life,
the reverence of their virtue, and the blamelessness of their other piety; but
as for their words, in which they deviated, we shall not follow them... And we,
since we also find some other of our blessed Fathers and teachers having
deviated in many other doctrines of exactness, we do not accept the deviation,
but we embrace the men; thus also those who perhaps dared to say that the
Spirit proceeds from the Son—we do not accept that which is contrary to the
Master’s voice; but we do not exclude them from the company of the Fathers”
(Ibid.).
117.
“Even though he was truly a saint of such glory, yet at that time the dogma was
still genuinely disputed and had not yet been fully clarified, nor had the
opposing opinion been altogether cast out—which took place at the Fifth
Council. If, therefore, as a man, he too in some matter of exactness slipped,
it is nothing remarkable, since even many before him did likewise—Irenaeus of
Lyons, Dionysius of Alexandria, and others” (P.O. 17, 53–54).
118.
Ibid., 84.
119.
“We too confess that it is human to err and to be deceived, insofar as one is a
man and acts by his own power; but insofar as he is moved by the divine Spirit
and tested by the judgment of the Church in matters relating to the common
faith of the dogma, we affirm that his writings are altogether true” (Ibid.).
120.
“For it is possible for one to be a teacher and yet not speak everything with
precision; otherwise, for what reason would the Fathers have needed Ecumenical
Councils, if no one ever failed at any point in the truth?” (Ibid., 123).
121.
https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2017/04/blog-post_88.html
122.
Two interesting texts here: https://www.hsir.org/Theology_el/3d5088AbbaIsaak.pdf and here: https://proskynitis.blogspot.com/2019/10/blog-post.html
123.
http://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2016/08/blog-post_163.html
124.
https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post_556.html
125.
See especially “The Romiosyne of 1821 and the Great Powers.”
126.
https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post_43.html
127.
“Orthodoxos Týpos” (no. 645, 22‑3‑1985).
128.
https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post_47.html
129.
P.G. 102, 793
130.
See these anti-hagiographical articles of his here: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2015/08/blog-post_787.html and here: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2017/03/blog-post_893.html. For their refutation, see
the excellent work of the periodical St. Cyprian titled “The Russian Holy New
Martyrs and Tsar Nicholas II” (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WCDth_zGbm6dPxYgGtvlvMPa-Qcw-TWI/view).
131.
“Orthodoxos Týpos” (no. 591, 27‑1‑1984).
132.
Letter of Saint Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina to the Community of the
G.O.C., 17/10/1937, https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2020/09/blog-post_20.html
133.
Letter of Saint Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina to Germanos of the
Cyclades, 9/11/1937, http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2019/09/blog-post.html
134.
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.12.en.orthodox_heterodox_dialogues.01.htm#1
135.
See the full text in the ecumenist periodical Kath’ odon, issue 14, June
1998.
136.
There is a relevant analysis by the Serbian Canonist Nikodim Milas in his
interpretation of the said Canon — a work unfortunately untranslated.
137.
So as not to even express our astonishment regarding the criteria by which, for
example, Joachim III is condemned, but not Athenagoras!
138.
Here: https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/metadata/0/0/9/metadata-1367319936-959923-23197.tkl
139.
http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2019/09/blog-post.html
140.
https://www.imoph.org/Theology_el/3a3a008EnhmGramma.pdf
141.
By “unity” here is meant administrative unity, as is immediately evident
afterwards. However, the unity of the Church lies in the same Faith and in the
communion of the same Mysteries, and not necessarily in uniformity of worship
or administration.
142.
http://orthodoxia.forumup.gr/about492-orthodoxia.html, under his online
pseudonym “Kosmas.”
143.
Periodical Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, no. 23, November – December 1998, p.
25.
144.https://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%81%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B7/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/%E1%BC%90%CE%BA%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/879-omologia-pistews
145.
Cf. http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/09/blog-post.html
146.
St. Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 380.
147.
“They no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them, for the
transmission [of grace] ceased with the breaking of succession. …They had
neither the authority to baptize nor to ordain, nor could they grant the grace
of the Holy Spirit to others, since they themselves had fallen away from it,”
according to the 1st Canon of St. Basil the Great.
148.
“Divisions,” as the Apostle Paul calls them (1 Cor. 1:11).
149.
Details in Vlasios Feidas, Ecclesiastical History I, 2nd ed., Athens,
1994, pp. 278–284.
150.
He confirmed the tradition of the Chief Apostles.
151.
Details in Vlasios Feidas, op. cit., pp. 294–296 (he calls it the “Schism of
Hippolytus”) and in Philaretos Vafeidis, Ecclesiastical History I,
Constantinople, 1884, pp. 115–116 (he calls it the “Schism of Callistus”).
152.
Details in our work The Antiochian Schism, Athens, 2014.
153.
Details in Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History (P.G. 67, 1572–1592) and
Diomidis Kyriakou, Ecclesiastical History I, Athens, 1881, p. 233.
154.
P.G. 102, 900
155.
P.G. 104, 1229–1232
156.
St. Photius the Great describes before the Eighth Ecumenical Council the
lifting of the schism with the following moving words: “When both fell at each
other’s feet, and whatever wrong had been done by either against the other,
forgiveness of these was mutually granted” (Mansi 17, 424).
157.
Details in Ioannis Valettas, Letters of Photius the Most Wise and Most Holy
Patriarch of Constantinople, London, 1864 (Prolegomena), and Vlasios
Feidas, op. cit., pp. 97–125.
158
Better known is the “Josephite” Saint Meletios of Galisia.
159
The “Josephite” Saint Theoleptos of Philadelphia (teacher of Saint Gregory
Palamas) writes concerning the “Arsenites” that “they had split into many
factions and different arrangements—rather, factions than arrangements—having
been established, and indecently dignifying themselves with the names of
various leaders, and being designated by the names of many chiefs. One says, ‘I
belong to such-and-such a patriarch,’ another to another, one to this hierarch,
another to that one… they were cut into schisms and factions, and each one
chose for himself as head whomever he wished among men” (Revue des Études
Byzantines, V (1947), Bucharest, 1947, p. 131, note 1).
160
“For they teach the people of God to abstain from the Church, to avoid the holy
things, not to submit to the pastors of the churches… they leave their children
unbaptized, and it happens that they die without illumination; and even those
who are of age, when they depart from this life by death, reject the reception
of the holy Body and Blood of the Lord” (Ibid., pp. 122–123).
For
this reason, Saint Theoleptos considered the extreme “Arsenites” to be
heretics, and when the official Church later accepted all the “Arsenites”
unconditionally, he ceased commemorating the Patriarch!
161.
P.G. 144, 205–206
162.
Details in Paris Gounarides, The Arsenite Movement, Athens, 1999
163.
At this point, and in order to avoid any misunderstanding, it must be
emphasized that there is no intention here to justify an intra-ecclesiastical
division (nor, of course, is the responsibility of those who cause it
overlooked), but such a division must be examined on an entirely different
basis from that on which one examines the schism par excellence (= separation
from the Catholic Church).
164.
Today we have five or six Matthewite “Holy Catholic and Apostolic” “Churches,”
a fact that is to be expected if one examines their ecclesiology, which is by
nature divisive.
Source: Translated from “Συμβολή στην Απελευθέρωση
της Εκκλησιολογίας των Γνησίων Ορθοδόξων από τη Σακαρλλείo (ήτοι Ρωμανίδειο)
Αιχμαλωσία,” serialized at https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/.
