How the Defilement of the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist Occurs When Communing with Those Who Profess Heresy

Excerpted from “Διερευνώντας το θέμα του ΜΟΛΥΣΜΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΩΝ (επίλογος),” by Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou, posted August 19, 2024.

 

 

Christ in the Holy Chalice, as Body and Blood, is undefiled and pure. The defilement comes from the corruption of faith and from the sources of the Mysteries. There are two ways in which the Mystery is defiled.

A. We receive Christ while having our soul defiled by the heretical faith of the bishop whom we commemorated in the Divine Liturgy, and we show impiety toward the Mystery.

B. We commune from the Chalice into which, during the commixture of the Holy Gifts, we have also placed a particle for the heretical bishop, which is a spiritual impurity. 

Christ, of course, is impassible and is not defiled, neither when we blaspheme Him, nor when we partake of Him unworthily, nor when we commemorate a heretical bishop in the Divine Liturgy. The defilement to which the Fathers refer is the defilement of the will; only in this sense should we strive to understand the meaning of defilement.

In the language of the Church, defilement is called sin. We read in the Supplicatory Canon to our Most Holy Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary: "Deliver me from transgressions and the defilements of the soul." Defilement, therefore, is every sin we commit. Communion with heretics (whether undiscerning or condemned—there is no distinction) is considered a great sin and, consequently, defilement.

Let us note here that it is not permitted in the Holy Proskomide to commemorate heretics, because subsequently, during the commixture, we cast spiritual impurity into the Holy Chalice.

With what we mention, we do not negate the necessity of the Mystery of Holy Communion for our salvation, but we emphasize that there are cases in which we partake unworthily and are condemned. On the other hand, in cases of necessity and a most serious reason, when we do not partake, we are sanctified as if we had partaken with the best intention.

As a conclusion to this section, we publish the following text with key points from the teaching of the Saints of the Church concerning the defilement of the Mysteries.

Fr. D.A.

Saint Theodore the Studite:

"For to commune from a heretic or from one who is manifestly accused in life alienates one from God and makes one belong to the devil. …Moreover, communion itself carries defilement merely by mentioning [his name], even if the one who mentions it is Orthodox."

(Epistle 553. To the Spatharia whose name is Machara, Fatouros, p. 846, line 16, P.G. 99, 1668C.)

"Because communion carries defilement merely by the mention of the name—(i.e., of the heretical iconoclast bishop during the time of iconoclasm or of the heretical ecumenist today)—even if the one who mentions it is Orthodox," according to Saint Theodore the Studite (P.G. 99, 1669A).

And again, the Saint teaches, referring to Saint John Chrysostom: "Chrysostom, categorically and with great clarity, did not consider only the heretics as enemies of God, but also those who commune with them." (P.G. 99, 1049A).

"Guard yourselves also against the soul-destroying heresy, whose communion is estrangement from Christ." And: "Some (i.e., the heretics) have completely suffered shipwreck in the faith, while others, although they have not sunk in mindset, are nevertheless lost along with them because they commune with the heresy." (P.G. 99, 1275C, 1164A).

"He has ordained that clerics who have been corrupted through communion with heretics be prevented from performing sacred rites... For otherwise, how will the difference be made manifest between those who have betrayed the truth and those who have remained Orthodox? (How will the difference be shown) between those who have valiantly struggled (for the Faith) and those who were entirely unwilling to suffer even the slightest for the good?" (P.G. 99, 1636D ff.)

And the Athonite Fathers, writing to the Latin-minded Emperor Michael Palaiologos, declare:

"And how will the soul of an Orthodox endure these things and not immediately separate from the communion of those who have commemorated [him]? And how will it not consider that they have profaned the Divine? …For communion carries defilement merely by the mention of his name (i.e., the Latin-minded), even if the one who mentions it is Orthodox."

Saint Mark of Ephesus explicitly teaches and urges walling off, even at the end of his life, through his testament:

"As throughout my life I was separated from them, so also at the time of my departure and even after my passing, I reject any association and union with them. And I adjure and command you that none of them should approach my funeral, my memorial services, or any other gathering of our community, so that they may not attempt to assemble together or to concelebrate with our own. For this would mean the mixing of things that do not mix. And they must remain completely separated from us in all things, until God grants the proper correction and peace to His Church."

(Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. 25, pp. 347–348, Belgium, 1973).

 

Greek source online: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2024/08/blog-post_47.html

The Vows of a Worthy Priest

 

It is well known that the brotherhood of the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery, as evidenced by the publications of the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies and many articles, over the years, in Orthodox Tradition, has a deep and special veneration for St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco. As a result, we were given a small Relic of the Saint (by way of the late Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco) and, through the kindness of several of St. John’s close spiritual children, both clergymen and laymen, in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (with which we were in communion before its reunion with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007), we have collected a treasury of gifts from his personal possessions: an episcopal staff, [1] a phelonion and mitre worn by him, several of his cassocks, and a few of his personal papers.

Among the latter items, we found a typewritten “Examination,” given to potential candidates for Ordination. In addition to providing personal data, the candidate was required to affirm a number of “Statements” and, “in witness of which,” to sign his affirmations with the oath: “I kiss the Words and Cross of my Saviour.”

This document, a precious attestation to the high regard in which a Saint of our own day held the supposed “external” aspects of the Priesthood—externals that reveal, when properly respected, the internal sobriety of a clergyman—also convicts those clergy who ignore and trivialize such priestly traditions, by not adhering to them, of deviating from a standard and ideal that all should strive to uphold. We offer the document without further comment, since it quite adequately speaks for itself. We can only hope that it will help to shape and form a future generation of clergy.

* * *

1. I have no physical infirmities which would be an impediment to my sacred service, nor do I have any contagious illness or incurable disease. I am of the Orthodox faith and have no relationship with schismatic or heretical groups.

2. I am in a first marriage with [name], daughter of [parents’ names], a virgin of Orthodox faith, blameless and of virtuous conduct.

3. I accept ordination to [rank of Priesthood] only for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, of my own free will, and with the sincere intention to serve the holy Church, and not for any profit.

4. I accept the obligation to perform all liturgical services or prayers according to the rules of the Church, piously, contenting myself with the salary assigned to me and the freewill gifts of my parishioners, never extorting payment for special services. I promise always to perform divine services on Sundays and Holy Days, not only the Divine Liturgy, but also the other services prescribed by the rubrics.

5. I promise to wear the dress proper to the clergy, not to cut my hair and beard, [2] to observe the Fasts of the Orthodox Church, not to smoke, not to indulge in drunkenness or gambling, and in general to conduct myself as befits a clergyman, taking care not to compromise my high position, and not to scandalize the faithful by unbecoming behavior.

6. I will direct my home life and raise my children as befits a servant of the Altar, according to the Christian faith and in the fear of God.

7. I will celebrate the services connected with the Sacraments [3] always with the necessary preparation, piously and with fear of God. In the holy Altar and in the Church generally, I will conduct myself in accordance with the holiness of the place, instructing others as well to be respectful of this holiness.

8. In my service I will never forget that a clergyman may do nothing without the sanction of his Bishop. I promise to be obedient to the ecclesiastical authorities and act according to the Canons of the Holy Apostles, of the Ecumenical and Local Councils [4] and the teachings of the Holy Fathers.

9. As a constant reminder of the high office that I am accepting and to kindle in me the gift of the Grace of Holy Orders, I promise to fill the time that I am free from services by reading the Holy Scriptures, the works of the Holy Fathers, and studying the “Typicon.”

 

NOTES

1. Presented as a gift to His Grace, Bishop Flavian, Abbot of the beautiful Old Calendar Monastery of the Dormition in Bucharest, Romania, by Their Eminences, Metropolitan Chrysostomos and Bishop Auxentios, where it is especially honored by the clergy, monastics, and faithful.

2. We underscore this promise, if only because it is so widely ignored among clergy today, and even those who cannot excuse themselves by reason of holding secular employment in which military or industrial safety regulations require one to trim his hair and beard to some extent.

3. I.e., the Mysteries.

4. Synods.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXIV (2017), No. 3, pp. 34-35.

The Audacity and Theological Deviation of Aspiring “Post-Patristic” Theologians

Dr. Demetrios Tselengides

Professor of Theology, University of Thessalonike

[translated from the Greek]

 

 

In order to forestall any possible terminological confusion, I will offer, right from the outset, a necessary elucidation of the newly minted term “post-Patristic.” This new term of art admits of various interpretations. However, the prevailing ones, from a technical standpoint, are, in my opinion, the following two: (1) when the first component of the word [i.e., “post-”] is given a temporal meaning, it refers, in the case under consideration, to the end of the Patristic era; and (2) when the first component of the word is given an evaluative meaning, the composite word “post-Patristic” signifies a relativization, a partial or total impugnment, a revisionist view, or a new interpretation of the theological thought of the Church Fathers, if not an attempt to go beyond it.

Contemporary academic theologians who have taken, indirectly or directly, to defining themselves as “post-Patristic” employ these two senses of the term interchangeably, though they primarily employ the second, which denotes a relativization and, ultimately, a casting off of the Fathers of the Church.

Protestants have, in my opinion, wrought the greatest havoc on the conscience of the Christian theological world at the broader level. This is because they have directly challenged the authority of the Ecumenical Synods of the Church and, in fact, her entire Apostolic and Patristic Tradition. At the same time, they have officially, fundamentally, and habitually rejected the holiness of all those universally acknowledged as Saints, thereby calling into question the experience, informed by the Holy Spirit, of the Church militant on earth.

Correspondingly, ecumenism has had, and continues to have, a most pernicious effect on the dogmatic conscience of the entire Orthodox Church. Ecumenism, today, is a malodorous channel of inter-Christian and interfaith syncretism and, consequently, the official conduit of the most dangerous heresy of all ages, since it contributes decisively to a dulling both of Orthodoxy as the criterion of Christian truth and of our Orthodox self-understanding. Specifically, through its representatives, locally and internationally, it unceasingly, albeit gradually, essays to undermine the conscience of spiritually unsuspecting Orthodox faithful to an ever greater degree. This it achieves, in particular, by relativizing or even denying in practice the authority of the teaching of the Holy Fathers and especially of their collective decisions in the context of the Ecumenical Synods. Behold, as an example, the reckless and persistent violations, for years now, of Canon II of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod, which expressly prohibits joint prayer with excommunicates and heterodox, with the clear threat of deposition, for clergy, and excommunication, for laity, who violate it. [1]

The movement of would-be “post-Patristic” theologians that has emerged in recent times belongs organically to the foregoing broadly secularized theological milieu, and is, in particular, preeminently at one with the very spirit of ecumenism as we have described it. This movement has assuredly been influenced by Protestantism, something evident chiefly in the intellectualist attitude of “post-Patristic” theologians towards the authority of the theological teaching of the Holy Fathers, which has hitherto been regarded as changeless over time.

In this brief theological appraisal, we will focus principally on the mindset, not on the persons, of the “post-Patristic” theologians, and also on the touchstones of their inchoate theology.

Unfortunately, our dear brethren in Christ, the “post-Patristic” theologians, with the reckless, or rather, audacious formulations of their ideas—which are, one might say, “not according to knowledge” [2]—give the impression, in actuality, of being completely incognizant of what holiness is and, by extension, of the true nature of the life led by the Saints in the Holy Spirit, which, according to the experience of the Church, constitutes the fundamental precondition for theologizing in an Orthodox and unerring manner. To be more precise, they convey the impression, in their writings, of being unaware that impeccable Orthodox theology is spawned, first and foremost, only by those who have cleansed themselves of the impurity of their passions, and primarily by those who have been illumined and deified by the uncreated effulgence of divinizing Grace. The arrogance of post-Patristic theologians in venturing beyond the teaching of the Holy Fathers weakens the certitude that the faithful need to have in the permanent validity of Patristic theology, and at the same time illicitly and dishonestly introduces a Protestant mode of theological speculation. [3] Moreover, in so doing, they in reality “move the boundaries which our Fathers set.” [4] Then again, it is a crude violation both of Patristic doctrine and of the Divinely inspired teaching of Holy Scripture. [5]

On the basis of the foregoing (and thereon alone), we can offer rigorous support for our thesis that the would-be “post-Patristic” theologians are manifestly lacking the requisite qualities for theologizing in a Patristic spirit. For in truth, how could they maintain that they have these qualities when they brazenly advocate the idea of going beyond the Fathers of the Church, or when they attempt to introduce into the theological thought of the Church a westernized brand of theological and epistemological speculation based on theological conjecture, clad in academic armor. Besides, this very arrogance leads to a betrayal of the charismatic presence of the Holy Spirit, which guarantees the authenticity of Orthodox theology.

The scientific and academic principles that the “post-Patristic” theologians adduce as evidence of their objectivity do not necessarily coincide with the ecclesiastical criteria for theologizing in an Orthodox and unerring manner, especially when these criteria are employed without qualification. Orthodox ecclesiastical theology operates with principles that are clearly and chiefly spiritual. The preeminent and principal criterion of the unerring nature of the Church’s theology is the sanctity of the God-bearing Fathers, who articulated this theology.

The gross nescience and resultant arrogance of the “post-Patristic” theologians, who endeavor, in a wholly anserine fashion, to replace the Patristic theology of the Orthodox Church, which they find rather embarrassing, with their up-to-date “scientific” theology, is profoundly distressing. By virtue of this attitude they plainly show that they do not know, in reality, that the Fathers are in reality God-bearing Saints of the Church. That of which they are clearly ignorant, however, is that the holiness of the Saints and the holiness of God Himself are one and the same, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa. [6] That is to say, the holiness of the Saints has an ontological character and is an uncreated attribute of God. Participating therein directly and personally, and under preconditions clearly set by the Church, the believer becomes “in all consciousness” a partaker of the holiness of God Himself. It is, therefore, obvious that the holiness of the Holy Fathers is uncreated in nature.

The great Fathers of the Church gave unerring expression to the Apostolic Tradition in their own eras, but only because they had already been living this Tradition in a Hesychastic, ascetical, and—preeminently—Mysteriological (Sacramental) manner. St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Basil the Great, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Symeon the New Theologian, and St. Gregory Palamas—to dwell only on these Fathers by way of example—made the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition relevant, putting forth in erudite theological language precisely what the other Holy Fathers, as well as charismatic, albeit less educated, individuals, such as the simple God-bearing faithful of their times, had experienced at an uncreated level and “in all consciousness.”

It is the charismatic experience of God that creates the pristine theology of the Church, regardless of whether it is expressed in simple or in sophisticated and scholarly terms. This theology constitutes a created expression and interpretation of the living and uncreated revelation of God amid the concrete historical reality of the life led by its deified exponents. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,” [7] as the leader of the eyewitnesses of the Divine majesty assures us. [8]

Let us return, however, to the criteria for theologizing. Scientific, academic criteria belong to the created realm. For this reason, apart from the most sure criterion of uncreated holiness, the only guaranty of correct, Orthodox, genuinely scientific theology to be sought by anyone, including academic theologians bereft of holiness, is a humble attitude. Such an outlook, maintained and expressed by the Church in the methodology that she has applied throughout the centuries, is encapsulated in the well- known Patristic formula: “Following the Holy Fathers.” [9] This humble attitude, moreover, which ensured their sanctity, was upheld by all of the God-bearing Fathers who took part in the Ecumenical Synods, wherein the theology of the Church was infallibly set forth. Theological conjecture, which the “post-Patristic” theologians love to invoke, and concomitant theological speculation, are not proper to Orthodox ecclesiastical theology, but to heterodox and heretical theology, which, as aptly characterized by the God-bearing Fathers, is “wordplay” rather than theology (θεολογία). [10] Noteworthy, in connection with the case at  hand, is the apt observation of St. John of Sinai (of the Ladder) that “He who does not know God [that is, experientially], merely speculates.” [11] St. Gregory Palamas, too, accuses the Latin-minded Barlaamites of engaging in unspiritual human conjecture in their theology, asserting contrariwise that “we are enriched in our confession of the Faith by following not conjectures, but God-inspired utterances.” [12] When holiness, or even the Orthodox theological methodology of “following the Holy Fathers,” is ignored or set aside, then there is no avoiding “free” theological conjecture and theological speculation. This, however, leads in essence to a “neo-Barlaamite” theology, which is anthropocentric and employs autonomous reason as its criterion. That is to say, just as Barlaam and his adherents doubted the uncreated nature of the Divine Light and Divine Grace, so also the “post-Patristic” theologians in our day fail, in practice, to acknowledge the uncreated and, therefore, abiding nature of the holiness and the teaching of the God-bearing Fathers, whom they claim to replace as teachers by producing what is, in their opinion, an original theology. This is not simply an outward warfare against the Fathers, but is, essentially, warfare against God, since what makes the Fathers of the Church truly Fathers is their uncreated holiness, which these modem theologians indirectly, though fundamentally, set aside and abrogate through all of the innovations spawned by their “post-Patristic” theology.

“Post-Patristic” theology, according to the aforementioned criteria of the Church, is proof of an arrogant mind. For this reason, it is impossible for the Church to accord it any legitimacy. The Church’s theology is humble and always “follows the Holy Fathers.” This does not mean that the Church’s theology is devoid of originality, dynamism, a spirit of renewal, or relevance. On the contrary, it possesses all of the foregoing characteristics, since it is an expression of the living presence of the Holy Spirit in one who theologizes in this spirit. The Fathers of the Church expressed their experience of Pentecost at a personal level, though always, in practical terms, “following,” and in conformity with, the God-bearing Fathers who preceded them. [13]

Orthodox academic theology is, of course, not called upon to replace Patristic, charismatic theology, nor is it, however, justified in putting forth any other theology than the authentic theology of the Church. Its task is to approach, to investigate, and to present with rigor the content of the pristine theology of the Church: to discern and communicate the criteria of true theology. It is in this way that a convergence of Patristic charismatic theology and academic theology is achieved and reinforced. Progress is made in this area when the exponents of academic theology are not personally destitute of the essential preconditions for spiritual life and when they are not without experience of the realities of Church life.

Scientific, academic theology, when it does not have the foregoing characteristics, when it is not articulated in terms that reflect the experience of the Church, is conjectural theology and is spiritually impoverished. It approaches the reality of the world and life only at a created level, expressing matters defectively, in ideal instances, and unfortunately, in certain instances, erroneously or even heretically.

I am of the opinion that, if the “post-Patristic” theologians held to the same spiritual presuppositions as the Fathers, they would be endeavoring humbly and quietly to teach aright the truth for their generation, without condescending, if not equivocating references to the Fathers. And if they did justice to them, they would assuredly be exponents of the living and sacred Tradition of the Church. But this would mean, inevitably, that whatever they said would not be in opposition to what has been said by the Holy Fathers over the centuries and, in particular, that they would not be at odds, in their pronouncements, with the Ecumenical Synods. Thus, all of this pother over “post-Patristic” theology would be superfluous. However, the would-be “post-Patristic” theologians know fully well that the teaching of the Holy Fathers sets clear boundaries, which either do not suit them personally or impede their strategic goals, which serve their beloved ecumenism. This is the truth. Everything else is merely elaborate window dressing!

In conclusion, finally, it is easy to prove that “post-Patristic” theology constitutes a clear and blatant deviation from both the method and mind of the Holy Fathers. It is, in other words, a deviation from traditional theology, both as to the way, the preconditions, and the criteria of theologizing in an Orthodox manner and as to the content of the Church’s Patristic theology.

 

NOTES

1. Professor Tselengides has, in Homeric fashion, nodded on this point, since the Canon that he cites does not specifically mention joint prayer with heretics and excommunicates. There is a Canon very similar, though not verbally identical, to the one that he mentions, namely Canon LXIV (LXV according to the Πηόάλιον) of the Holy Apostles, which decrees: “If any clergyman or layman enter into a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated” (G. Ralles and M. Potles [eds.], Σύνταγμα των θείων καί ιερών Κανόνων [Collection of the Divine and sacred Canons] [Athens: G. Chartophylax, 1852-1859], Vol. II, pp. 81-82). There are several other Canons which, taken together, corroborate the author’s point, to wit: Canons X, XI, XLV, of the Holy Apostles; Canon II of the Synod of Antioch; and Canon XXXIII of the Synod of Laodicaea. Moreover, all of these Canons were ratified by the Synod in Trullo in its Second Canon (Ralles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, Vol. II, pp. 308-310).

2. Romans 10:2.

3. Father John Romanides makes a similar point: “The most important element in Patristic epistemology is that the partial knowability of the divine actions or energies, and the absolute and radical unknowability and incommunicability of the divine essence is [sic] not a result of the philosophical or theological speculation, as it is in Paul of Samosata, Arianism, and Nestorianism, but of the personal experience of revelation or participation in the uncreated glory of God by means of vision or theoria. Saint Gregory defines a theologian as one who has reached this theoria by means of purification and illumination, and not by means of dialectical speculation” {Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine [Boston: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981], p. 78).

4. See St. John Chrysostomos, “Homily VII on St. John,” §1, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LIX, col. 63: “Let us not move the eternal boundaries which our Fathers set.”

5. “Remove not the eternal landmarks, which thy fathers set” (Proverbs 22:28).

6. In speaking about Christ as the Origin, or Source (Colossians 1:18), of every creature, St. Gregory remarks that the origin of every thing is not alien to that which is sequent to it, and that if one were to define the origin as life, anything sequent to such an origin would assuredly also be life. The same applies in the cases of light and holiness. Thus, the benefit of our believing that Christ is our Origin or Source is that we should become such as we believe our Origin or Source to be: that is, that we should be Chris- tified, and therefore deified [trans.] (see On Perfection, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XLVI, cols. 280D-281A). The only difference is that the holiness of God is fontal and natural (it is essentially an energy of the Divine nature), whereas the holiness of a Saint is charismatic, being bestowed by God according to Grace.

7. II St. Peter 1:21.

8. II St. Peter 1:16.9

9. See the Όρος of the Fourth Synod in Ioannes Karmires (ed.), Ta Δογματικά και Συμβολικά Μνημεία τής ’Ορθοδόξου Καθολικής Εκκλησίας (The dogmatic and credal monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church) Vol. 1,2nd ed. (Athens: 1960), p. 175.

10. Cf. St. Basil the Great: “The doctrines of the Fathers are contemned [disregarded with contempt], the Apostolic Traditions are set at naught, and the devices of innovators are in vogue in the Churches; men now indulge in verbal subtleties rather than theologizing, and the wisdom of this world wins first prize” (“Epistle XC,” §2, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXXII, col. 473B).

11. Discourse 30 (§13), Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXVIII, col. 1157C.

12. “Second Discourse on the Procession of the Holy Spirit,” §18, Συγγράμματα, ed. Panagiotes Chrestou, Vol. I (Thessalonike: 1962), p. 94.

13. “Pentecost occurred historically on one occasion but is reiterated in the lives of the Saints. When the deified attain to a state of spiritual life, they then share in Pentecost and become Apostles of Jesus Christ. Pentecost is the crowning point of glorification and deification. All who follow the same journey as the Disciples ascend to this vision of God and partake of the Grace and energy of Pentecost” (Archimandrite Hierotheos Blachos [Metropolitan Hierotheos of Naupaktos], Oi Αεσποτικές Εορτές [The feasts of the Lord] [Lebadeia, Greece: Hiera Mone Genethliou tes Theotokou, 1995], p. 360).

 

Greek source: An extract from Professor Tselengides’ book Προϋποθέσεις και Κριτήρια τοϋ Όρθοόόξως και Άπλανώς Θεολογεΐν: Θεολογικές και Έκκλησιολογικές Προσεγγίσεις (Preconditions and criteria for theologizing in an Orthodox and unerring manner: Theological and ecclesiological approaches) (Thessalonike: Ekdosesis P. Pournara, 2013) (pp. 101-110).

English source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXII (2015), No. 2, pp. 3-10.

The Presence and Activity of Freemasonry in the Orthodox East

The Very Reverend Father Dr. George Metallinos

 

 

The author of the following article is former Dean and Professor Emeritus of the School of Theology of the University of Athens. He is also a past recipient of the Florovsky Theological Prize, awarded by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies. We are pleased to present his informative and insightful article on the influence of the Masonic movement on the cultural and religious life of Greece. In the United States, especially, where the movement is known at a popular level for its charitable activities as a benign fraternal organization and where its role as a political force in the American Revolution and the thinking of some significant figures among the nation’s Founding Fathers is largely forgotten, Father Metallinos’ remarks may seem strange, if not provocative. However, in a firm but balanced manner, he clearly puts forth the Church’s position on the impossibility of fidelity to the Faith and membership in the Masonic movement. He also makes a compelling case for the fundamental incompatibility of Masonry with the teachings of Christianity, its relationship with occult and pagan religions and nefarious forces and ideologies, and its acknowledged hostility to its theology and soteriology.

 

Masonry is an invasive organism within Greek society, which feeds parasitically on the body politic, with grievous consequences for its cohesion and character.

More importantly, Freemasonry is the offspring of foreign parturition, is completely alien to the character of our nation, and is, indeed, essentially irreconcilable therewith.

Thus, it is causing the ideological dismemberment of Greek society, primarily in its “higher” social strata, contributing to the perpetuation and deepening of our ideological disunity.

Its activity (since the eighteenth century) in our geographical locale has confirmed that Freemasonry is identical to occultism and its sinister workings, something embodied in a disparaging expression familiar in the Ionian islands: “Just like a Mason”!

Greek Freemasonry is of English provenance. The British branch of the movement, wherever it was operative, dedicated itself to founding (English) Masonic lodges. This “missionary” enterprise was an essential factor in the furtherance of British foreign policy.

Archival data, and especially the Archives of the Colonial Office for the Heptanese (Ionian Islands) (1814-1864), belie assertions to the contrary by Freemasons in our own country.

The first lodge in the Orthodox East was established in Smyrna, with the prominent Freemason Alexander Drummond as the prime mover in this endeavor. [1]

From Smyrna, lodges spread to Constantinople, with the founding of a lodge there in 1748.

The European cultural milieu and the cosmopolitan make-up of the population favored the introduction of new ideas, which went in tandem with the undermining of the Christian Faith and its connection with Orthodox tradition.

It is, consequently, not surprising that Freemasons occupied positions both in the Phanar and in the (Ecumenical Patriarchate as far back as 1755.

By the end of the eighteenth century, moreover, lodges had been established in Athens, Zagora, Ampelakia, Ioannina, and the Ionian islands (the first “apologist” for Freemasonry was the clergyman Antonios Katephoros, in Zakynthos [2]).

Freemasonry was supported chiefly by the bourgeoisie, and enjoyed wide circulation among savants, merchants, and Phanariots.

The Greek-speaking element of the Orthodox Church took a stand early on against Freemasonry and the threat that it posed for the Greek Orthodox Tradition, which it subverts by its mere presence.

The first theoretical condemnation of Freemasonry in the domain of the (Ecumenical Patriarchate occurred almost at the same time as the founding of its lodges.

An Athonite manuscript attests to the promulgation of a synodal letter of condemnation in 1745, which denounced Freemasons as “Godless,” in the familiar sense in which this word is used in the New Testament, [3] that is, as denying the only true God, in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal excommunication of 1793 (under Neophytos VII) cited “Voltaire, Freemasons, Rousseau, and Spinoza,” namely, the architects of the French Revolution. [4]

It should be emphasized, here, that Freemasonry and its infiltration into the sphere of the Rum Millet influenced the attitude of the latter towards the French Revolution and its ideals. Moreover, Napoleon and his brothers were noted Freemasons.

According to Steven Runciman, an expert on such matters, “the ideas of eighteenth-century Freemasonry were hostile to the old established Churches. There were even a few Greek ecclesiastics among the Masons; but the effect of the movement was to weaken the influence of the Orthodox Church.” [5]

I recently published, together with the superb philologist and doctoral candidate Charalambos Menaoglou, a work from 1782 by Agapios Kolybas Papantonatos, entitled Ανατροπή τής Φραγμαοωνικής Πίοτεως (Refutation of the Franco-masonic faith). [6] This massive work evinces a sophisticated and well-documented knowledge of Freemasonry, treating it as a religion, and one destructive of Orthodoxy and of Christianity in general.

In the nineteenth century, Freemasonry, its philosophy and its aims, as well as its methods, became more evident in the English-controlled Heptanese.

In 1839, the then Superintendent (1837-1839) of the Ionian Academy and Professor of Theology, Hieromonk Konstantinos Typaldos-Iakobatos (1795-1867), later the first Principal (Σχολάρχης) of the Theological School of Halke ((Ecumenical Patriarchate), composed a lengthy refutation of Freemasonry (as yet unpublished, but presented in a scientific manner).

The anti-Masonic activities of Kosmas Phlamiatos (1786-1852) [7] and Apostolos Makrakes (1831-1905) [8] are also well known, as are the works of Professor Panagiotes Trembelas, [9] Father Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, [10] Nikos Psaroudakes, [11] Kostas Tsarouchas, [12] Basilios Lambropoulos, [13] N. Philippopoulos, and others.

The Church of Greece, through its widely published Encyclical of 1933, in which it follows the appraisal submitted by the Theological School of the University of Athens, has maintained a clear and strong stand against Freemasonry.

Basing itself on texts from the Orthodox tradition and on books about Freemasonry, and echoing the opinion of the Inter-Orthodox Commission (Holy Mountain, 1930), it “condemns” Freemasonry, as it also later did in other statements in 1972,1984, and 1996.

As far back as 1933, the Holy Synod characterized Freemasonry as a religion, emphasizing the dangers that it posed:

Freemasonry is not simply a charitable association or a philosophical school, but constitutes a mystagogical system reminiscent of the ancient pagan mystery religions or cults, from which it is descended and of which it is a continuation and a revival. Prominent teachers in their lodges not only admit this, but even take pride in proclaiming it... [14]

The Encyclical concludes: “Thus, Freemasonry is demonstrably a mystery religion, entirely different from, separate from, and foreign to the Christian Faith.” [15]

Of course, Freemasons officially deny these points; however, in so doing, they disagree with their own texts and with the pronouncements of well-known Freemasons at different times.

In addition, the Inter-Orthodox Commission of 1930 characterized Freemasonry as “an anti-Christian and erroneous system.” [16]

In other words, there is an uninterrupted continuity in our Church’s understanding of, and attitude towards, Freemasonry.

In 1782, Agapios Papantonatos stated: “Of all the false religions that have existed from the dawn of time to the present day, the Masonic faith is the most impious and the most detrimental to the human race.”

His conclusion is that Freemasonry is anti-Christian and a complete subversion of Christianity.

Freemasonry, by virtue of its syncretistic nature (“all from the same pot”), functions as a super-religion (its supreme deity being the “Great Architect of the Universe”), which swallows up the different religions, no matter how much it may profess that it does not impinge on them.

Orthodox Christians, in particular, cannot have anything to do with Freemasonry, since it places Christ on the same level as various “initiates,” crudely denying the soteriological uniqueness and exclusivity [17] of the only True God, Jesus Christ, Who alone can guide us to deification qua union with Him. For Christ, as God-Man, gives to man that which He possesses, namely Divinity, His uncreated and deifying Grace.

By contrast, Christ is described by a prominent Freemason (Bratsanos) as “the great Nazarene Initiate.” In his book To Βιβλίο τοϋ Μαθητοϋ (The book of the disciple) he states: “Today’s Freemason knows well that his initiation into the Masonic mysteries makes him a Mason on a par with Poseidon, Apollo, Amphion, and Christ”!

The assertion by Greek Freemasons, therefore, that they (supposedly) remain faithful Orthodox Christians shows either that they are ignorant of Christianity as a whole or that they are deceivers. Tertium non datur.

For this reason, there is a perpetual incompatibility between being a Freemason and being an (Orthodox) Christian, according to the proclamations of the Holy Synod, which were reaffirmed by the late Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens in 1998, in an encyclical entitled “Γιατί δέν μπορεί νά είμαι μασώνος· Ώς Έλλην καί ’Ορθόδοξος Χριστιανός δέν μπορεί νά άνήκω στην Μασονία” (Why I Cannot Be a Freemason: As a Greek and an Orthodox Christian I Cannot Belong to Freemasonry).

In this document he sets forth ten points, which justify his abhorrence of Freemasonry. In point 10 he writes, by way of conclusion:

Freemasonry, according to our Church, is an anti-Christian and erroneous system, and for this reason being a Freemason is incompatible with being a Christian. The faithful ought to refrain from Freemasonry, and all who have been led astray are called to repent and return to the bosom of our Orthodox Church.

In the final sentence of the document he says: “If I become a Freemason, I must cease to be Orthodox and Greek”!

Consequently, it will entail no problem if the Hierarchy acts to reiterate yet again its earlier declarations concerning Freemasonry.

 

Greek source: Κοσμάς Φλαμιάτος, Vol. VII (March-April 2011), pp. 51-53. The text is taken from the following book by Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos, Professor Emeritus at the University of Athens, Μαρτυρίες για θέματα πνευματικά και κοινωνικά (Testimonies on spiritual and social issues) (Thessalonike: Ekdoseis “Orthodoxos Kypsele,” 2011), pp. 53-58.

 

NOTES

1. Alexander Drummond, Travels Through Different Cities of Germany, Italy, Greece (London: 1754), p. 120. Drummond (+ 1769), an English diplomat, served as “His Majesty’s Consul” in Aleppo, Syria, from 1754-1756.

2. Ironically enough, κατήφορος in Modem Greek means, inter alia, “downhill.” Thus, this clergyman’s surname somehow betokens the spiritual fall that he and those of like mind would suffer as a result of their involvement with Freemasonry—trans.

3. Ephesians 2:12.

4. Manouel I. Gedeon (ed.), Κανονικοί Διατάξεις των Άγιωτάτων Πατριάρχων Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (Canonical decrees of the Most Holy Patriarchs of Constantinople), Vol. I (Constantinople: Ek tou Patriarchikou Typographeiou, 1888), p. 281.

5. The Great Church in Captivity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 392.

6. Hieromonk Agapios Kolybas Papantonatos, Ανατροπή τής Φραγμασωνικής Πίστεως, ed. Father George Metallinos and Charalambos Menaoglou (Κατά Μασώνων, Vol. i; Trikala and Athens: Protypes Thessalikes Ekdoseis, 2007).

7. According to Nikolaos Bougatsos, Phlamiatos saw in the policies of the English occupiers of the Ionian Islands a clear attempt to undermine the Orthodox Church, to which attempt Freemasons contributed through their influence on the ecclesiastical policies of the Greek state and the Ottoman Empire (“Κοσμάς Φλαμιατος,” in Θρησκευτική και Ηθική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, Vol. XI [Athens: 1967], col. 1175).

8. See Ό έν Έλλάδι Ελεύθερος Τεκτονισμός εν Όρισμφ και έν Συγκρίσει προς τον έν Έλλάδι ’Ορθόδοξον Χριστιανισμόν (Freemasonry in Greece Defined and Compared with Orthodox Christianity in Greece) (Athens: Typographeion A. Kallarakes, 1899).

9. See Μασσωνισμός (Freemasonry) (Athens: 1970).

10. See Ή Μασονία υπό το φως τής άληθείας (Freemasonry in the Light of the Truth) (Athens: Ekdoseis “Patmos,” 1965).

11. See Μασονία (Freemasonry) (Athens: Ekdoseis “Orthodoxo Metopo,” 1991).

12. See Ή Μασονία στήν Ελλάδα (Freemasonry in Greece) (Athens: Ekdoseis “Hellenika Grammata,” 2004).

13. See To μαϋρο Λεξικό τής Μασονίας (The Black Dictionary of Freemasonry) (Athens: 2001).

14. Εκκλησία, No. 48 (December 4, 1933), p. 1.

15. Ibid.

16. Πρακτικά τής Προκαταρκτικής Επιτροπής των Άγιων ’Ορθοδόξων Εκκλησιών τής συνελθούσης έν τή έν Άγίφ ’Όρει Τερςί Μεγίστη Μονή τοϋ Βατοπεδίου (8-23 ’Ιουνίου 1930) (Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission of the Holy Orthodox Churches, Which Convened at the Holy and Great Monastery of Vatopedi [June 8-23,1930]) (Constantinople: Typois “Phazilet” Tassou Bakalopoulou, 1930), pp. 127-128.

17. Acts 4:12.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXI (2014), No. 1, pp. 35-40.

Heresies, Schisms and Uncanonical Acts Require a Living Synodical Judgment

Stavros Markou

[Excerpt from the introduction of the Greek translation posted by Mr. Nikolaos Mannis: “…an important text by the beloved brother in Christ Mr. Stavros Markos, a former Matthewite who lives in Australia… If all the factions of the G.O.C. — Matthewites and pseudo-Florinites — had understood what our brother writes, the fragmentation would not have existed. May they understand it, even at the eleventh hour...”]

 

An Introduction to Councils and Canon Law

The Orthodox Church, since the time of the Holy Apostles, has resolved quarrels or problems by convening Councils. Thus, when the issue arose regarding circumcision and the Laws of Moses, the Holy Apostles met in Jerusalem, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (Chapter 15). The Holy Fathers thus imitated the Apostles by convening Councils, whether general, regional, provincial or diocesan, in order to resolve issues of practice. These Councils discussed and resolved matters of Faith, affirming Orthodoxy (correct doctrine) while condemning heresies (false teachings). The Councils also formulated ecclesiastical laws called Canons, which either define good conduct or prescribe the level of punishment for bad conduct. Some canons apply only to bishops, others to priests and deacons, and others to lower clergy and laymen. Many canons apply to all ranks of the clergy collectively. Several canons apply to the clergy and the laity alike.

The level of authority that a Canon holds is discerned by the authority of the Council that affirmed the Canon. Some Canons are universal and binding on the entire Church, while others are only binding on a local scale. Also, a Canon is only an article of the law, and is not the execution of the law. For a Canon to be executed, the proper authority must put the Canon in force. The authority differs depending on the rank of the person accused. According to the Canons themselves, a bishop requires twelve bishops to be put on trial and for the canons to be applied towards his condemnation. A presbyter requires six bishops to be put on trial and condemned, and a deacon requires three bishops. The lower clergy and the laymen require at least one bishop to place them on ecclesiastical trial or to punish them by applying the canons to them. But in the case of laymen, a single presbyter may execute the Canon if he has been granted the rank of pneumatikos, and therefore has the bishop’s authority to remit sins and apply penances. However, until this competent ecclesiastical authority has convened and officially applied the Canons to the individual of whatever rank, that individual is only “liable” to punishment, but has not yet been punished. For the Canons do not execute themselves, but they must be executed by the entity with authority to apply the Canons.

The Canons themselves offer three forms of punishment, namely, deposition, excommunication and anathematization. Deposition is applied to clergy. Excommunication is applied to laity. Anathematization can be applied to either clergy or laity. Deposition does not remove the priestly rank, but is simply a prohibition from the clergyman to perform priestly functions. If the deposition is later revoked, the clergyman does not require reordination. In the same way, excommunication does not remove a layman’s baptism. It only prohibits the layman to commune. If the excommunication is later lifted, the layman does not require rebaptism. Anathematization causes the clergyman or layman to be cut off from the Church and assigned to the devil. But even anathematizations can be revoked if the clergyman or layman repents.

There Is a Hierarchy of Authority in Canon Law

The authority of one Canon over another is determined by the power of the Council the Canons were ratified by. For example, a canon ratified by an Ecumenical Council overruled any canon ratified by a local Council. The hierarchy of authority, from most binding Canons to least, is as follows:

Apostolic Canons (Universal) refer to those compiled by the Holy Apostles and their immediate successors. These Canons were approved and confirmed by the First Ecumenical Council and again by the Quinisext Council. Not even an Ecumenical Council can overrule or overthrow an Apostolic Canon. There are only very few cases where Ecumenical Councils have amended the command of an Apostolic Canon by either strengthening or weakening it. But by no means were any Apostolic Canons overruled or abolished. For instance, the 1st Apostolic Canon which states that a bishop must be ordained by two or three other bishops. Several Canons of the Ecumenical Councils declare that even two bishops do not suffice, but that a bishop must be ordained by the consent of all the bishops in the province, and the ordination itself must take place by no less than three bishops. This does not abolish nor does it overrule the 1st Apostolic Canon, but rather it confirms and reinforces the “spirit of the law” behind that original Canon. Another example is the 5th Apostolic Canon states that Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons are not permitted to put away their wives by force, on the pretext of reverence. Meanwhile, the 12th Canon of Quinisext advise a bishop (or presbyters who has been elected as a bishop) to first receive his wife’s consent to separate and for both of them to become celibate. This does not oppose the Apostolic Canon because it is not a separation by force but by consent. The 13th Canon of Quinisext confirms the 5th Apostolic Canon by prohibiting a presbyters or deacons to separate from his wife. Thus the 5th Apostolic Canon is not abolished, but amended by an Ecumenical Council for the good of the Church. After all, the laws exist to serve the Church and not to enslave the Church. In the same way, Christ declared: “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath (Mark 2:27).”

Ecumenical Canons (Universal) are those pronounced by Imperial or Ecumenical Councils. These Councils received this name because they were convened by Roman Emperors who were regarded to rule the Ecumene (i.e., “the known world”). Ecumenical Councils all took place in or around Constantinople, also known as New Rome, the Reigning City, or the Universal City. The president was always the hierarch in attendance that happened to be the first‐among‐equals. Ecumenical Councils cannot abolish Apostolic Canons, nor can they abolish the Canons of previous Ecumenical Councils. But they can overrule Regional and Patristic Canons.

Regional Canons (Universal) refer to those ratified by Regional Councils that were later confirmed by an Ecumenical Council. This approval gave these Regional Canons a universal authority, almost equal to Ecumenical Canons. These Canons are not only valid within the Regional Church in which the Council took place, but are valid for all Orthodox Christians. For this reason the Canons of these approved Regional Councils cannot be abolished, but must be treated as those of Ecumenical Councils.

Patristic Canons (Universal) refer to the Canons of individual Holy Fathers that were confirmed by an Ecumenical Council. Their authority is only lesser than the Apostolic Canons, Ecumenical Canons and Universal Regional Canons. But because they were approved by an Ecumenical Council, these Patristic Canons binding on all Orthodox Christians.

Pan‐Orthodox Canons (Universal) refer to those ratified by Pan‐Orthodox Councils. Since Constantinople had fallen to the Ottomans in 1453, there could no longer be Imperial or Ecumenical Councils, since there was no longer a ruling Emperor of the Ecumene (the Roman or Byzantine Empire). But the Ottoman Sultan appointed the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as both the political and religious leader of the enslaved Roman Nation (all Orthodox Christians within the Roman Empire, regardless of language or ethnic origin). In this capacity, having replaced the Roman Emperor as leader of the Roman Orthodox Christians, the Ecumenical Patriarch took the responsibility of convening General Councils which were not called Ecumenical Councils (since there was no longer an Ecumene), but instead were called Pan‐Orthodox Councils. Since the Ecumenical Patriarch was also the first‐among‐equals of Orthodox hierarchs, he would also preside over these Councils. Thus he became both the convener and the president. The Primates of the other Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches were also invited, along with their Synods of Bishops. If the Ecumenical Patriarch was absent or the one accused, the Patriarch of Alexandria would preside over the Synod. If he too could not attend in person, then the Patriarchs of Antioch or Jerusalem would preside. If no Patriarchs could attend, but only send their representatives, these representatives would not preside over the Council. Instead, whichever bishop present who held the highest see would preside. In several chronologies, the Pan‐Orthodox Councils are referred to as Ecumenical. In any case, the Canons pertaining to these Councils are regarded to be universally binding for all Orthodox Christians.

National Canons (Local) are those valid only within a particular National Church. The Canons of these National Councils are only accepted if they are in agreement with the Canons ratified by the above Apostolic, Ecumenical, Regional, Patristic and Pan‐Orthodox Councils.

Provincial Canons are those ratified by Councils called by a Metropolitan and his suffragan bishops. They are only binding within that Metropolis.

Prefectural Canons are those ratified by Councils called by a single bishop and his subordinate clergy. They are only valid within that Diocese.

Parochial Canons are the by‐laws of a local Parish or Mission, which are chartered and endorsed by the Rector or Founder of a Parish and the Parish Council. These by‐laws are only applicable within that Parish.

Monastic Canons are the rules of a local Monastery or Monastic Order, which are chartered by the Abbot or Founder of the Skete or Monastery. These by‐laws are only applicable within that Monastery.

Sometimes Canons are only recommendations explaining how clergy and laity are to conduct themselves. Other times they are actually penalties to be executed upon laity and clergy for their misdeeds. But the penalties contained within Canons are simply recommendations and not the actual executions of the penalties themselves. The recommendation of the law is one thing and the execution of the law is another.

Canon Law Can Only Be Executed By Those With Authority

For the execution of the law to take place it requires a competent authority to execute the law. A competent authority is reckoned by the principle of “the greater judges the lesser.” Thus, there are Canons that explain who has the authority to judge individuals according to the Canons.

A layman can only be judged, excommunicated or anathematized by his own bishop, or by his own priest, provided the priest has the permission of his own bishop (i.e., a priest who is a pneumatikos). This law is ratified by the 6th Canon of Carthage, which has been made universal by the authority of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Canon states: “The application of chrism and the consecration of virgin girls shall not be done by Presbyters; nor shall it be permissible for a Presbyter to reconcile anyone at a public liturgy. This is the decision of all of us.” St. Nicodemus’ interprets the Canon as follows: “The present Canon prohibits a priest from doing three things… and remission of the penalty for a sin to a penitent, and thereafter through communion of the Mysteries the reconciliation of him with God, to whom he had become an enemy through sin, making him stand with the faithful, and celebrating the Liturgy openly… For these three functions have to be exercised by a bishop…. By permission of the bishop even a presbyter can reconcile penitents, though. And read Ap. c. XXXIX, and c. XIX of the First EC. C.” Thus the only authority competent to judge a layman is a bishop or a presbyter who has the permission of his bishop to do so. However, those who are among the low rank of clergy (readers, subdeacons, etc) require their own local bishop to try them, because a presbyter cannot depose them.

A deacon can only be judged by his own local bishop together with three other bishops, and a presbyter can only be judged by his own local bishop together with six other bishops. The 28th Canon of Carthage thus states: “If Presbyters or Deacons be accused, the legal number of Bishops selected from the nearby locality, whom the accused demand, shall be empaneled — that is, in the case of a Presbyter six, of a Deacon three, together with the Bishop of the accused — to investigate their causes; the same form being observed in respect of days, and of postponements, and of examinations, and of persons, as between accusers and accused. As for the rest of the Clerics, the local Bishop alone shall hear and conclude their causes.” Thus, one bishop is insufficient to submit a priest or deacon to trial or deposition. This can only be done by a Synod of Bishops with enough bishops present to validly apply the canons. The amount of bishops necessary to judge and depose a priest are seven (one local plus six others), and for a deacon the minimum amount of bishops is four (one local plus three others).

A bishop must be judged by his own metropolitan together with at least twelve other bishops. If the province does not have twelve bishops, they must invite bishops from other provinces to take part in the trial and deposition. Thus the 12th Canon of Carthage states: “If any Bishop fall liable to any charges, which is to be deprecated, and an emergency arises due to the fact that not many can convene, lest he be left exposed to such charges, these may be heard by twelve Bishops, or in the case of a Presbyter, by six Bishops besides his own; or in the case of a Deacon, by three.” Notice that the amount of twelve bishops is the minimum requirement and not the maximum. The maximum is for all the bishops, even if they are over one hundred in number, to convene for the sake of deposing a bishop. But if this cannot take place, twelve bishops assisting the metropolitan suffice. Therefore, unless a bishop is judged and condemned to deposition by his own metropolitan and at least twelve other bishops, the accused bishop is not legally condemned nor deposed. This is also confirmed by the 2nd Canon of the Regional Council of Constantinople: “We enact that hereafter that a responsible Bishop when being tried can be deposed neither by three nor much less by two, but only by vote of a larger Council, and if possible of all the provincials, just as the Apostolic Canons also decreed, in order that the condemnation of one deserving to be deposed may be shown by a vote of the majority, in the presence of the one being tried, with greater accuracy.” Thus any bishop accused of heresy or uncanonical acts can only be deposed by a living council of bishops that has the authority to do so, which means a council called by the Metropolitan and all the bishops of the province, or, according to Carthage, no less than twelve bishops. As for a Metropolitan, he can only be judged by a Synod presided over by his own Patriarch or Ethnarch, and attended by all the bishops of the local Church. In the case wherein the Patriarch or an Ethnarch is to be deposed, this trial an deposition can only be enacted by an Ecumenical or Pan‐Orthodox Council consisting of other Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Bishops, and such was always the case in ecclesiastical history. Thus Patriarch Nestorius of New Rome was deposed by the Third Ecumenical Council. Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria was deposed by the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Several Patriarchs were deposed by the Sixth Ecumencial Council. In 1054, the Pope of Rome was deposed by a Pan‐Orthodox Council. Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril Lukaris was deposed by a Pan‐Orthodox Council held in Jerusalem. And so on and so forth.

Thus there is a hierarchy of authority in Canon Law, but there is also a hierarchy of authority when it comes to who is eligible to execute the Canon Law. A layman can only be excommunicated by his own bishop, or by his own presbyter who has the blessing of the bishop. A reader or subdeacon can only be deposed by his own bishop. A deacon can only be deposed by his own bishop and three other bishops. A presbyter can only be deposed by his own bishop and six other bishops. A bishop can only be deposed by his own metropolitan and twelve other bishops. A metropolitan can only be deposed by his own patriarch and at least twelve other metropolitans and bishops. A patriarch can only be deposed by an Ecumenical or Pan‐Orthodox Council consisting of several patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops. Thereby the “lesser is judged by the greater.” If this procedure is not carried out, then even if the accused are liable to excommunication, deposition or anathematization, they remain only liable and not truly condemned until a valid authority condemns them. This is the law of the Church and it cannot be abolished.

Until the Accused are Judged by Their Canonical Authority, They Are Not Yet Truly Deposed, Excommunicated or Anathematized

Until the above canonical process takes place, the accused layman, reader, subdeacon, deacon, presbyter, bishop, metropolitan or patriarch is neither deposed nor anathematized. Even if the Holy Canons of the Apostles, Ecumenical Councils, Regional Councils or Holy Fathers, may suggest that the one accused be penalized, this penalty does not fall upon the accused until the living authority (be it the diocesan council, regional council or general council) executes the excommunication, deposition or anathematization. For the Holy Canons themselves are simply recommendations or penalties. They are not automatic executions of the law. The execution of the law must take place by the competent ecclesiastical authority depending on the case.

It is for this reason that the majority of canons word the penalty as “let him be deposed,” or “let him be excommunicated,” or “let him be anathema,” instead of “he is already deposed,” or “he is already excommunicated,” or “he is already anathema.” This is not only true in regards to violations of practice, but even in regards to violations of the Faith. For even anathemas are not executed by the Canons themselves. On the contrary, the anathemas only fall upon the head of the accused when a living ecclesiastical authority applies the Canons and hurls the anathemas upon the accused individual by name. Thus, if a layman, reader, subdeacon, deacon, presbyter, bishop, metropolitan or patriarch begins preaching heresy “with bared head,” and they fail to repent of this heresy, and especially if this heresy has been condemned by previous Councils of the Church, then such an individual is most certainly “worthy of anathema,” or “liable to be anathematized,” but it is only when a competent ecclesiastical authority actually judges and anathematizes the accused, that the latter can be called “already anathematized.”

St. Nicodemus of Athos, in a footnote contained in the Rudder, makes this perfectly clear. His explanation is provided below:

We must know that the penalties provided by the canons, such as deposition, excommunication, and anathematization, are imposed in the third person according to grammatical usage, there being no imperative available. In such cases in order to express a command, the second person would be necessary. I will explain the matter better. The canons command the council of living bishops to depose the priests, or to excommunicate them, or to anathematize laymen who violate the canons. Yet, if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of the laymen, they are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized.

They are, however, liable to stand judicial trial – here, with regard to deposition, excommunication, and anathematization, but there with regard to divine vengeance. Just as when a king commands his slave to whip another who did something that offended him, if the slave in question fails to execute the kingʹs command, he will nevertheless be liable to trial for the whipping.

So, those silly men make a great mistake who say that at the present time all those in holy orders who have been ordained contrary to the canons are actually deposed from office. It is an inquisitional tongue that foolishly twaddles thus without understanding that the command of the canons, without the practical activity of the second person, or, more plainly speaking, of the council, remains unexecuted, since it does not act of itself and by itself immediately and before judgment.

The Apostles themselves explain themselves in their c. XLVI unmistakenly, since they do not say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts a baptism performed by heretics is already and at once deposed, but rather they command that he be deposed, or, at any rate, that he stand trial, and if it be proven that he did so, then ‘we command that he be stripped of holy orders,’ they say, ‘by your decision.’

Therefore, even if a previous council, be it even Ecumenical or Pan‐Orthodox, has directed that innovators be anathematized, this is only the recommendation and not the execution of the anathema. The anathema only becomes executed upon the innovators when a competent ecclesiastical authority applies the canons and the anathemas to the innovators in question. If the innovators are layman, a bishop suffices to do this. If the innovators are deacons, then only their own bishop and three other bishops have the authority to anathematize them. If the accused are priests, then only their own bishop and six other bishops have the authority to do this. If the innovators are bishops, then only their own metropolitan, and twelve other bishops have the authority to anathematize them. If those preaching heresy are patriarchs or ethnarchs, then only a Pan‐Orthodox Council consisting of patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, presbyters and deacons, can anathematize them.

The Meaning of Anathema and Who Has the Authority to Hurl It

In order to understand the meaning of anathema, the explanation of St. Nicodemus of Athos, as contained in the rudder, is provided below:

The word anathema (written with epsilon in Greek) means, on the one hand, that which has been separated from men and consecrated to God — in which sense it is also written with eta in Greek — and, on the other hand, that which has been separated from God and from the Christian Church and consecrated to the devil, in which sense the spelling with epsilon has prevailed for the most part, and not that with eta. And just as one does not dare take hold of or even to touch anything that has been anathematized (in the first sense), or consecrated to God, because of one’s being bound to honor and respect God — for “every anathema that any man may devote unto the Lord shall be a holy of holies to the Lord” (Lev. 27:28), says the Bible — so and in like manner also in the case of that person who has been separated from God and from the Church, and has become an anathema to the devil, no one dares to associate or communicate with him, but, on the contrary, all the faithful keep away from him. So that both the one and the other anathema, in so far as they imply separation from men, do not differ from each other, but in so far as one implies consecration to God, and the other implies consecration to the devil, each is exceedingly contrary to the other.

Hence Chrysostom in speaking about the second kind of anathema, in the discourse he has written to the effect that one ought not to anathematize anyone living or dead (Vol. V), says: “What else can be the meaning of the anathema you utter, Ο man, than that you wish the person in question to be consecrated (or, as we say in English, consigned) to the devil, and to have no longer any possibility of salvation, to be estranged, in fact, from Christ?” And again (he says): “An anathema utterly separates and cuts off a person from Christ.” In Vol. IV (page 880. 3.), in interpreting ch. 23 of the Acts, wherein it is said that those forty Jews anathematized themselves (Note of Translator. — The English Version has this translated “bound themselves under a great curse,” though the Greek text of the New Testament says verbatim “we have anathematized ourselves with an anathema”) if they failed to have St. Paul put to death — in interpreting this passage, I repeat, he says: “What is the meaning of ‘they anathematized’?” It stands for “they said they would outside of faith in God unless they did what seemed fit to them against Paul.”

In the justificatory appendix to the Seventh Ec. C. Tarasius says: “An anathema is a terrible thing, because it puts a man far away from God, and chases him from the kingdom of heaven, and sends him to the outer darkness” (page 724 of vol. II of the Conciliar Records). These facts having been thus made known beforehand, some persons (such as Blastaris and Balsamon) have unseasonably criticized the present Council for the anathema it pronounces, as they have done in citing in evidence divine Chrysostom: first, because in the foregoing discourse Chrysostom, true enough, does forbid any man to anathematize anyone, living or dead, where he says: “What then? Do you dare, Ο man, to utter that anathema which no one dared to pronounce of those who received authority to do so, when you are doing something that is contrary to the Lord’s death, and are forestalling the King’s judgment?”

But he does not prohibit a Council from doing this. For he himself says again in the same discourse: “So what? Did you receive so great authority as be entitled to anathematize anyone? — which authority to anathematize is something that was received by only the Apostles and those who became in all strictness successors of the Apostles and who were full of grace and power?” For it is patent that the Fathers of this just as all the other Fathers of the rest of the Councils, and especially those of the Ecumenical Councils, anathematized in their Acts heretics, on the score that they too possessed the same authority as successors of the Apostles, as is to be seen in their minutes. Secondly, because at the end of the above discourse the same Chrysostom says that we ought to anathematize heretical tenets, and to censure them, though as regards the men, the heretics, that is to say, he says that we ought to be sorry for them (St. Barsanuphius adds that one ought not to anathematize not merely heretics, but even the devil himself, because he is anathematizing himself in that he is guilty of liking and doing the wishes and works of the devil).

The truth of the matter, however, is that the present Council [i.e. that of Gangra] made excessive use of the anathema, not only as against the heretical and schismatical views of Eustathius, but also as against those improprieties which are remedied by other Canons with only excommunication of laymen and deposition of those in holy orders. For in regard to one who fasts on Sunday, and one who goes to church privately, the Apostolic Canons merely depose him from office if he is a person in holy orders, or merely excommunicates him if he is a layman; whereas the present Council anathematizes him. But it prescribed this chastisement for two reasons: first, as Blastaris says, to prevent the evil, which had at that time become excessively rampant, by means of this excessive penalty; secondly, in order to have the adherents of Eustathius anathematize every view of theirs exactly as is prescribed in every Canon, when they came to join the Orthodox faith, by declaring, for instance, as fellows: “If anyone disparages marriage, let him be anathema. If anyone do this, and the rest, let him be anathema.” This, or the like, they were to say, in order to ensure belief and conviction in others that they had truly come to hate their own views and on this account were anathematizing them. In verification of this explanation we find the letter of the present Council to Armenia saying: “But if the Eustathians regret and anathematize each one of these wrong utterances, they are to be accepted. For this reason the holy Council has set forth each single view which they must anathematize in order to be accepted.”

Note that the Apostle uttered an anathema only four times: once against those who do not love the Lord, in 1 Cor. 16:22: “If anyone love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema”; and twice in the Epistle to the Galatians, against those who preach anything outside of the gospel which has been handed down; and once in the Epistle to the Romans. The rest of the Canons pronounce an anathema only eleven times. For c. II of Chalcedon (i.e., the 4th Ec. C.) anathematizes those laymen or monks who act as go‐betweens to have someone ordained for money; c. VII of the same C. anathematizes monks who go into the army or seek to obtain worldly offices or dignities and fail to return. Its c. XV anathematizes a deaconess who gives herself in marriage to a man. Its c. XXVII anathematizes those men who grab women. The Council held in Laodicea pronounces an anathema three times, in its cc. XXIX, XXXIV, and XXXV; and that held in Carthage, in two of its canons, namely, X and XI. The third Canon of the Council held in St. Sophia (Holy Wisdom) (in Constantinople) anathematizes anyone who strikes a bishop or puts him in prison. Canon LXXXVIII of St. Basil said that Presbyter Gregory should be anathematized if he failed to get rid of the housekeeper he was harboring.

Note, moreover, the fact that, since, according to Chrysostom, Christians ought not to be anathematized, so long as they cherish Orthodox views about God, that is to say, therefore, according to Balsamon and Philotheus (patriarch) of Constantinople, both the Tome made in the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, and that made in the reign of Manuel Comnenus and of Palaeologus have become void and invalid because they anathematized persons who deserted Emperors or Kings (page 288 of Juris Graeco‐Romani).

Thus it is quite clear from the above explanation by St. Nicodemus that only a valid Council of Bishops with authority (that is, of a higher level in the hierarchical structure explained earlier) has the ability to hurl an anathema on a layman, reader, subdeacon, deacon, presbyter, bishop, metropolitan or patriarch. The competent authority varies according to the rank of the one accused of heresy and liable to the anathema. By no means can a laymen anathematize a priest. Nor can a priest anathematize his bishop. Nor can a bishop anathematize a metropolitan or a patriarch. But a council of patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops can anathematize a patriarch. A council of a metropolitan and twelve bishops can anathematize a bishop. A council of a bishop and seven neighboring bishops can anathematize a priest. A council of a bishop and three neighboring bishops can anathematize a deacon. And a bishop alone can anathematize a subdeacon, reader or layman, if the canons suggest that this should be done. To enact anything contrary to this structure is a defiance of the canons, a defiance of the canonical law of the Church, and a defiance of the Church itself, which exists in this God‐given structure.

Severing Communion Prior to the Synodal Condemnation

Just as it is impossible for a layman to anathematize his priest, or for a priest to anathematize his own bishop, for a bishop his metropolitan, or a metropolitan his patriarch, in a like manner, it is forbidden for any layman to sever communion with his priest, or a priest from his bishop, or a bishop from his metropolitan, or a metropolitan from his patriarch. For only the higher authority can judge, anathematize and excommunicate (that is, remove from communion) anyone subject to their authority. The only exception is if it is a matter of heresy previously condemned by Ecumenical Councils. Aside from this exception, it is absolutely unacceptable for severing of communion to take place by any means. This rule is defined by the following Holy Canons of the First‐and‐Second (Twice‐Held) Council under Patriarch St. Photius the Great:

The 12th Canon condemns priests who abandon their churches and begin praying in private homes or prayer houses when there is no reason of heresy for them to be doing so: “Besides the fact that the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council has made liable to deposition from office clerics who are officiating or baptizing within a home in prayer‐houses without the consent and approval of the bishop, we too join hands with that Council in condemning them likewise. For inasmuch as the holy Church is expounding the faith straightforwardly and soundly, and is professing and defending the true word, and is both maintaining and teaching outright the decorum regulating conduct in actual life, it is dissonant and undevout to relegate those living together with uneducatedness to their own roles, to vitiate her good order, and to permeate her with troubles and scandals galore. Wherefore the present sacred Council in coop‐eration with God, and in agreement with the Ecumenical and holy Sixth Council, has decreed that those who are officiating within a private home in prayerhouses are declericated, that is to say, the declerication being awarded them by the local bishop. But if any other persons than these, without the bishop’s lending his good will, should fall into those roles and dare to touch the liturgy, they are to be deposed from office, whereas those on the other hand who partook of their communion are to undergo excommunication.”

The 13th Canon forbids presbyters and deacons from separating from their bishop prior to the investigation, trial and condemnation of a Synod of Bishops with authority to conduct these: “The All‐evil One having planted the seed of heretical tares in the Church of Christ, and seeing these being cut down to the roots with the sword of the Spirit, took a different course of trickery by attempting to divide the body of Christ by means of the madness of the schismatics. But, checking even this plot of his, the holy Council has decreed that henceforth if any Presbyter or Deacon, on the alleged ground that his own bishop has been condemned for certain crimes, before a conciliar or synodal hearing and investigation has been made, should dare to secede from his communion, and fail to mention his name in the sacred prayers of the liturgical services in accordance with the custom handed down in the Church, he shall be subject to prompt deposition from office and shall be stripped of every prelatic honor. For anyone who has been established in the rank of Presbyter and forestalls the Metropolitan’s judgment, and, judging matters before a trial has been held, insofar as lies in his power, condemns his own father and Bishop, he is not even worthy of the honor or name of Presbyter. Those, on the other hand, who go along with him, in case any of them should be among those in holy orders, they too shall forfeit their own rights to honor, or, in case they should be monks or laymen, let them be utterly excommunicated from the Church until such time as they spew upon and openly renounce all connection with the schismatics and decide to return to their own Bishop.”

The 14th Canon forbids bishops from separating from their Metropolitans prior to the convention of a Synod of Bishops to judge the Metropolitan: “If any Bishop, on the allegation that charges of crime lie against his own Metropolitan, shall secede or apostatize from him before a conciliar or synodal verdict has been issued against him, and shall abstain from communion with him, and fail to mention his name, in accordance with consuetude, in the course of the divine mystagogy (i.e., liturgical celebration of the Eucharistic mystery), the holy Council has decreed that he shall be deposed from office, if merely by seceding from his own Metropolitan he shall create a schism. For everyone ought to know his own bounds, and neither ought a presbyter treat his own bishop scornfully or contemptuously, nor ought a bishop to treat his own Metropolitan so.”

The 15th Canon likewise forbids a Metropolitan to sever communion with his own Patriarch prior to a Synodal trial and condemnation: “The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter’s name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgment against him, creates a schism, the holy Council has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting those persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church…”

In the same Canon, however, an exception is made: “But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheadedly in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo‐bishops and pseudo‐teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”

But this walling off from one’s ecclesiastical president prior to his official condemnation does not mean that the condemnation is unnecessary. It most certainly is necessary and must take place in the future. But in order to protect oneself from the heresies preached by the president, one is permitted to sever communion prematurely. Thus, this canon by no means disqualifies the necessity of a Council of Bishops to judge the one preaching heresy. For without the judgment, the heretic retains his post. To repeat the words of St. Nicodemus: “Yet, if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of the laymen, they are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized.”

 

Original English Source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110812082647/http://www.genuineorthodoxchurch.net/images/livingsynodofbishops.pdf

Partial Greek translation:

https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2026/04/blog-post_24.html