Divine Grace and Walling Off

 Divine Grace and Walling Off

by Nikolaos Mannes

Whenever a heresy has made an appearance in the Church, according to all that we read in Church history, the Orthodox expeditiously (or gradually, within a reasonable interval of time) broke communion with the exponents of the heresy; that is, they proceeded to wall themselves off from them.

The Orthodox who walled themselves off were not content with breaking communion, but undertook a great and sacred struggle for the suppression of the heresy by its condemnation and by the expulsion of unrepentant heretics from the Church by way of the convocation of a Major Synod. This Major Synod constituted the culmination of that sacred struggle. [1]

Nowhere in Church history do we read that a connection was ever made between Divine Grace and walling-off. Walling-off occurred so that the Orthodox might not become participants in heresy! How the Church was then to receive back into Her bosom the heretics condemned at a Major Synod was something that She decided at the Major Synod itself. (With regard to the reception of heretics in general, see especially the Second and Seventh Ecumenical Synods.)

This connection between the existence or non-existence of Divine Grace (and, consequently, between valid or invalid Mysteries, respectively) and walling-off was only made in the recent past. For the first time, with the most recent major heresy to assail the Church, ecumenism, a pan-heresy that continues to assail it.

Thus, following the calendar innovation of 1924, the first significant step in the implementation of ecumenism in practice, a faction of the Orthodox who had walled themselves off, refusing to accept the New Calendar, asserted that the New Calendar Church did not have Divine Grace and that Her Mysteries were invalid. This view was considered to be a dogma of the Faith, and all who did not accept it were deemed excommunicates. In this way, unfortunately, the notorious Matthewite schism, the eightieth anniversary of which falls this year, was created. [2]

The Matthewites, forging for the first time a connection between two things that have no relationship with one another, viz., Divine Grace and walling-off, maintained that if there was validity in the Mysteries of the innovators, then it was wrong to wall oneself off from them. Father Evgenios Tombros [3] wrote, apropos this subject: “If they [the New Calendarists] have Grace, upon what Canon will we rely in order to disavow this Church? And why should we disavow it, since it has Grace and we can be saved there, too? In that case, why should we undergo persecution, harassment, toil, imprisonment, exile, and hardship, all to no purpose?”

This opinion filtered down to ample elements in the Synod of those in succession to St. Chrysostomos the New of Phlorina. Thus it was that one of those under the sway of Matthewitism, Father Markos Chaniotes, asserted along similar lines: “Why should we leave the New Calendar Church, since She has Grace?”

In our day, this idea has also influenced those who have lately walled themselves off from the New Calendar Church. Father Evthymios Trikamenas, [4] for example, misusing the words St. Theodore the Studite [vide infra], writes: “... St. Theodore the Studite was very clear in his opposition to the mysteries of the heretics of his time; after the Confessors of Orthodoxy had walled themselves off, he taught that such mysteries were invalid. He maintained the same clear position with regard to the Churches of the heretics, teaching that, after an official acceptance of heresy, the Guardian Angel of the Church withdraws, and it becomes an ordinary house, without a trace of sacredness. Evidently for the Saint, therefore, walling-off means that you are distancing yourself from something that has fallen away and been transformed, and not that you are leaving something that, while it is indeed fallen as regards the Faith, nonetheless does preserve the saving and sanctifying energy of the Grace of the Holy Spirit in its Mysteries. For if the sanctifying energy [of Grace] is preserved in the Mysteries, how is it possible for us to withdraw through walling-off at a time when the Holy Spirit has not departed from the Mysteries or from such Churches, and in this way to show ourselves more regal than the king? And why should the Holy Spirit wait and not withdraw until our own Synodal decision, which will, by this thinking, mandate the manner of His withdrawal?”

Father Epiphanios Theodoropoulos [5] had the same way of thinking about the connection between Divine Grace and walling-off, with the difference that he employed this connection to the opposite effect, for the purpose of attacking the Old Calendarist Orthodox who are walled off. In his well-known book Tὰ Δύο Ἄκρα (The Two Extremes), he writes: “If the New Calendarists have valid Mysteries, if the Church of Greece has Grace, then they are truly an Orthodox Church, a Church of Christ, and everyone who departs therefrom becomes a schismatic.”

Unfortunately, the connection between Divine Grace and walling-off, in these various interpretations thereof, has influenced many people, such as the eminent Father George Metallinos. [6] He writes in a letter of his to Father Theodoretos, when the latter was putting pressure on him to wall himself off: “Since sanctification exists in the New Calendar [Church], too, I am persuaded that Grace exists there as well, and therefore also the potential for confession and salvation.” Elsewhere he writes: “Seeing that the sanctity of my Church remains incorrupt, I have the assurance that I have not been torn away from our Saints and that their Trinitarian Grace acts on us as well, not through our unworthiness, but for the salvation of our people (‘God does not ordain all, but works through all,’ as St. John Chrysostomos says). I am not writing these things to provoke you—I respect your decision [as one walled off]—but to justify my hesitation...” [7]

The aforementioned injudicious connection has caused tragic losses in the sacred struggle against the pan-heresy [of ecumenism]. One faction of Orthodox [i.e., the Matthewites] has been cut off from their fellow-strugglers for eighty years, now; another faction [those allegedly resisting from within] contend against the same Orthodox strugglers, whom they see as supposedly being at the opposite extreme of ecumenism (with which pan-heresy they are in communion!); and a third faction, not wishing to enlist in the sacred struggle, resting content with the fact that there is Divine Grace [in the New Calendar Church]. To these factions, the contemporary Holy Fathers St. Chrysostomos of Phlorina and Hieromonk Theodoretos (Mavros) [8] juxtapose the Orthodox teaching on this subject, demonstrating that this notion is misguided and pernicious to the Old Calendarist struggle.

St. Chrysostomos the New emphasized that the Orthodox ought to “break ecclesiastical communion with the innovators, even before a Synodal judgment, lest they, too, be responsible before the whole Church,” [9] noting that the mentality of the Matthewites concerning the loss of Divine Grace and invalid Mysteries aims “on the one hand, [at] attracting other converts to the Old Calendar, brandishing the invalidity of the Mysteries of the New Calendarists as a bugbear, and, on the other hand, [at] keeping these followers, and especially the gullible and the lukewarm, in our sacred struggle.” [10]

The late Father Theodoretos composed many illuminating writings in which he refuted both the stands of the Matthewites and those under the sway of Matthewitism, in addition to the stands taken by the followers of Father Epiphanios and the conservative New Calendarists:

“The existence of Grace does not ensure salvation. One can very easily partake hypostatically of the ‘Body and Blood of Christ’ and, in spite of this, suffer the chastisements of Hell! Proof of this are the words of the Lord in the Gospel, according to which those who work miracles, signs, and prophecies, if they do not have personal virtue, will suffer the chastisements of Hell! (St. Matthew 7:21-23). Consequently, just as the working of miracles does not signify the assurance of salvation, so also the existence of Grace in the New Calendar Church in no way dictates or, rather, in no way permits communion with Her, insofar as She fosters misbelief and innovation. [11]

“Father Evgenios [see end note 3, supra] vigorously responds, ‘Upon what Canon, then, will we rely, in order to disavow this Church,’ if the New Calendarists have Grace? What could be more naive or anti-traditional than this? He certainly could never have read the very beautiful words of St. Nikodemos, who, in his marvelous work Concerning Frequent Communion, writes the following words, which are exceedingly appropriate to our case: ‘Time will not suffice for me to enumerate countless examples of the very many Saints who have suffered hardship and death for the sake of the institutions and Canons of the Church.’ [12] In other words, for every Canon that is trampled upon, for every ecclesiastical institution that constitutes a tradition of Holy Orthodoxy and is violated, the faithful believer is enjoined to react and even to shed his very blood in order to impede the work of innovators. It would be truly foolish for the faithful first to wait for the Mysteries of the innovating Church to be lost (and how would they be informed of this?) and then to react, abdicating their responsibilities.” [13]

[In a letter to another churchman, Father Theodoretos writes:] “What Holy Father has ever issued such a proclamation, Father Markos, [14] to wit, that if Grace exists, we should not withdraw from the Church, even if Her Shepherds innovate by trampling upon the sacred Canons and the all-honorable traditions of Orthodoxy? Does not St. Nikodemos thunder in his Concerning Frequent Communion that ‘Time will not suffice for me to enumerate countless examples of the very many Saints who have suffered hardship and death for the sake of the institutions and Canons of the Church’? [15] But even before St. Nikodemos, does not the great Athanasios Parios, together with the Divine Chrysostomos, praise the faithful people of Constantinople, who endured hell on earth because they did not wish to accept someone else on the throne of the unjustly exiled Chrysostomos, their Chief Shepherd? ‘Some were scourged, others were thrown into prison; yet others were slain, some in actual experience, others by will alone…, preferring both to do and to suffer everything, so as not to commune with the iniquity of those who dared such things.’ [16] Are you listening, Father Markos? They endured everything ‘so as not to commune,’ yet there was no talk about the loss of Grace from the faction opposed to the Holy Father. And Chrysostomos continues: ‘So, tell me, are these small matters, that the Church gains so great a company of Martyrs? For these are all Martyrs.’ Do you hear, most reverend Father? St. Chrysostomos reckons as Martyrs all who did not commune with the violators of just one sacred Canon. They never thought of proclaiming what you and your followers say: ‘Since there is Grace, then why do we not commune with the transgressors who introduced the calendar innovation?’ Or do you really doubt that there was Grace in the persecutors of the Holy Father, given that their leader and his successor, Arsakios, became a Saint?” [17]

[In yet another instance, Father Theodoretos writes that:] “The argument [of Father Epiphanios Theodoropoulos] is fundamentally deceptive and devious. This is because it is possible for a single Bishop or a single Church to have Grace, but to be potentially schismatic or heretical, a teaching which Father Epiphanios himself accepts! The believer who partakes of the Chalice of such a Church receives Christ, but unto condemnation and not unto illumination and deification, as always happens with those who commune unworthily. The foregoing condemnation will be varied in nature, depending always on the level of one’s awareness of wrong belief. Consequently, when an Orthodox believer, be he a layman or a clergyman, withdraws from such a potentially schismatic or heretical Church and severs all communion with it, he does not become a schismatic but is, according to the teaching of the sacred Canons, worthy of praise!” (To Άντίδοτον [The Antidote]).

But others too, such as the late theologian Aristoteles Delembases, proved from the Fathers the lack of any connection between Divine Grace and walling-off. Here are two telling excerpts from his pen:

“If we are walled off, that is, separated, and do not commune of the Mysteries of heretics who have fallen away from Orthodoxy ‘prior to a Synodal verdict (judgment and condemnation),’ we do so in a manner pleasing to God. It is not because the Mysteries celebrated by them are not efficacious, but lest, by communing with them, we sin, and in this way embrace heresy and, [failing to] acknowledge a heretic from the ranks of the Orthodox as a heretic, cause scandal along with him” (Καλή ‘Ομολογία [Good Confession]).

“Walling-off from a Bishop under the sway of heresy occurs, not because he has lost Grace, but because he is fallen, having preached heresy, and on account of this commandment: for, if a Bishop is ‘wicked,’ ‘for the sake of the Faith shun him and withdraw,’ commands God through the Saints.” [18]

As for the position taken by Father Evthymios Trikamenas and those with him, the only point that needs to be emphasized is that their entire ecclesiological doctrine concerning the loss of Divine Grace and invalid Mysteries is based on a misuse of the writings of St. Theodore the Studite, who expressed his relevant views after the [official and synodal] condemnation of the Iconoclasts by the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, since it was then (in the second phase of Iconoclasm, that is) that this Holy Father and Confessor of the Church flourished.

It is my sincere wish that all that I have written here will contribute to a disjunction between the two issues in question, namely Divine Grace and walling-off, which bear no relation to each other, so that this disconnection might deliver our erstwhile brethren from a grievous eighty-year-long division and our potential brethren from deadly communion with the pan-heresy [of ecumenism], to the end that we might all strive together for the day when Orthodoxy will shine forth to the ends of the world through a Major Synod of those who are truly Orthodox.

Sunday of Orthodoxy 2017

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Nikolaos Mannes is a young religious writer and educator in Greece, and also the creator of the popular Greek-language website Κρυφό Σχολείο (Secret School) at http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com. His erudite and insightful articles, in which, despite often very harsh and immoderate reactions from various critics, he courageously elucidates some very complex issues concerning the history and ecclesiological significance of the Old Calendar movement, have been featured in several issues of Orthodox Tradition, both in English and Greek. We have added to our translation of his present commentary several explanatory notes or clarifications for our English-speaking readers, who may be unfamiliar with some of the issues, events, or individuals that he cites. These appear in brackets.

ENDNOTES

[1] Hence the origin of the Ecumenical Synods, which were convened, not, as some erroneously think, to define the Faith, but to combat heresies. They defended the extant Faith, which Christ gave, the Apostles preached, and the Church Fathers and Saints preserved (cf. St. Athanasios the Great)—Trans.

[2] The three Bishops from the State Church of Greece—including St. Chrysostomos of Phlorina (Florina), the “Father” of the movement—who rejected the adoption of the Papal Calendar by the Holy Synod in the second decade of the last century, walled themselves off and restored their adherence to the traditional Church Calendar. In providing an administration for this Church in resistance, they Consecrated a fiery Athonite monk as Bishop of Bresthene (or Bresthena), who in turn declared the State Church of Greece to be without Grace, and thus effected a schism that represents a small minority of the Greek Old Calendarists to this day—Trans.

[3] One of the more vociferous of the Matthewite apologists (+1982).

[4] A Hieromonk of the State Church of Greece, Father Evthymios walled himself off from its innovating Hierarchy and was deposed in 2007 for this act of conscience.

[5] A learned Priestmonk (+1989) much revered for his spiritual accomplishments, Father Epiphanios was also, paradoxically, a frequently offensive and quite spiteful polemicist against the Old Calendarists in Greece—Trans.

[6] An erudite, pious married Priest and Dean emeritus of the Theological School of the University of Athens, Father George has always maintained a moderate view of, and sympathetic respect for, the Greek Old Calendarists. Several of his scholarly studies have appeared in Orthodox Tradition—Trans.

[7] See http://vasilevousal453.blogspot.gr/2017/02/blog-post.html.

[8] A well-known Athonite zealot and learned theologian (+2007), he was much revered by the late Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) of Platina and closely aligned with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. He reposed before its reunion with Moscow, which he did not support.

[9] “Pastoral Encyclical,” Athens, June 1, 1944.

[10] Clarification by Metropolitan Chrysostomos of His Pastoral Encyclical,” January 18, 1945. St. Chrysostomos, in short, saw this mentality as being, at best, a tactic, and thus, at worst, implicitly disingenuous and divisive.

[11] “Second Open Letter to Archpriest Evgenios Tombros,” Holy Mountain and Athens, 1972.

[12] See Hieromonk Patapios and Archbishop Chrysostomos, Manna from Athos: The Issue of Frequent Communion on the Holy Mountain in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2006), p. 164.

[13] To Ήμερολογιακόν Σχίσμα (The Calendar Schism) (Holy Mountain and Athens: 1973), p. 9.

[14] Father Markos (Chaniotes), a widely revered Old Calendarist monastic who reposed in 1977.

[15] See Patapios and Chrysostomos, Manna from Athos, p. 164.

[16] St. John Chrysostomos, “Homily to Those Scandalized at Adversities,” § 19, PG 52:518-519, cited by St. Athanasios Parios, Δήλωσις τῆς περὶ τῶν ἐν Άγίῳ Ὅρει ταραχῶν ἀληθείας (Declaration of the Truth Concerning the Disturbances on the Holy Mountain), ch. 14.

[17] “Second Reply to the most reverend Monk, Father Markos Chaniotes,” Holy Mountain, December 19, 1975.

[18] St. John Chrysostomos (PG 63:231), in Delembases’ Πάσχα Κυρίου (The Lord’s Pascha).

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Volume XXXIV (2017), Number 2, pp. 3-10.

Online: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2020/06/divine-grace-and-walling-off.html

Greek original: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/03/blog-post_5.html

Concerning so-called "Cyprianism"

 Concerning “Cyprianism”

On the Occasion of a Document Issued by the “Russian True Orthodox Church” 

by Nikolaos Mannis

1. A short time ago [2017], the Synod of the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC), under Archbishop Tikhon [of Omsk and Siberia], deposed five of its clergy “for Cyprianism.”1 Now, what is this “Cyprianism,” in the opinion of the RTOC? A document issued by the RTOC provides an analysis of the doctrine in question.2 According to this document, “Cyprianism” is, supposedly, a heretical teaching that not only acknowledges the existence of Divine Grace in the realm of the so-called “official” Churches, but also pardons their heresies, inaugurating a new relationship between the Church and heresy. “Cyprianism” is expressed (in the opinion of the RTOC, of course) in the following three basic positions:

a. that local Synods do not have the competence to excommunicate heretics from the Church;

b. that only Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Synods have the competence to excommunicate heretics from the Church;

c. that anyone who falls into heresy remains within the Church until he is expelled from the Church by an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Synod.

These are the principles that supposedly constitute the heresy of “Cyprianism” (which the late Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle [†2013] allegedly invented).

2. Is this, however, a heresy? We shall proceed directly to an analysis of this issue. Before we do so, though, it is vital that we keep in mind three basic things.

2a. It is not necessarily the case that every teaching that is represented as a heresy is an actual heresy. There are teachings that truly are heresies (e.g., ecumenism), and on this all Orthodox are in agreement. However, there is also a tendency on the part of some to devise terms to describe teachings that are anything but heresies. This happened many times in the past. The Arians dubbed the Orthodox “Athanasites” and regarded the Orthodox doctrine concerning the Ὁμοούσιος [homooúsios] as a heresy of St. Athanasios the Great, who, in their view, was nothing other than a heresiarch, influenced by Sabellianism!

2b. Oftentimes there are distortions or misinterpretations (deliberate or out of ignorance) of certain principles of a particular teaching, with the result that this teaching appears to be a heresy, whereas in reality it is not.

2c. One needs to have a good knowledge of the language of the alleged or actual heresy, and also of the country from which it derives: of the language, so as to avoid errors stemming from misunderstanding,3 and of the country, so as to avoid errors springing from ignorance.4

3. In November of 1986, the Synod of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece “deposed” Metropolitan Cyprian on the basis of a series of accusations resting on unfounded, anachronistic, or distorted facts and arbitrary judgments of a critic of his who was notorious for provoking many disturbances in the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, and who is now deceased and under the judgment of God. Nowhere in this deposition is the term “Cyprianism” to be found. This “deposition” was formally lifted in 2014 with the union of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece and the Synod in Resistance. This union (and the lifting of the deposition) aroused reactions from a very small number of naysayers who seceded, or had already seceded in the past, without canonical cause, from the Synod of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, and who were the first in our country to speak of “Cyprianism.” Their arguments were drawn from documents written by persons alien both to the struggle and the agony of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece and to the Greek language, and also to the historical sources of which an author ought to have sufficient knowledge in order to be able to put together objective texts.5

4. “Cyprianism” supposedly maintains that “Local Councils are not competent to drive heretics out of the Church.” This is a slanderous accusation.

Orthodox teaching is clear on the issue of the condemnation of heretics who appear within6 the Church.7 The successors of the Apostles, that is, Bishops, are competent to carry out excommunications.8 In proportion to the position that one who preaches heresy has in the Church, to the impact of this heresy, and to the number of its exponents, a competent body is required for their condemnation. If the one preaching the heresy is a simple layman and the heresy that he preaches has minor influence, his Bishop alone (that is, without the convocation of a Synod) is empowered to excommunicate him, since the layman is under the authority of the Bishop as one subject to him. If the heresy takes on wider dimensions and influences other people, the entire local Church needs to be assembled and to condemn the heresy through a Synod of Bishops. Similarly, if the transgressor is a Bishop, another Bishop cannot excommunicate him; rather, a Synod of Bishops must be convened. When a heresy disturbs the whole Church, drawing along with it a multitude of clergy (of high rank, including even Patriarchs, and of lower rank), monastics, and laypeople, then a General (Ecumenical) Synod is required. This occurred, for example, in the cases of Arianism, Monothelitism, and Iconoclasm.

Just as in the case of an Ordination in which “the less is blessed of the better,”9 so also in the case of deposition from the Priesthood and excommunication, the lesser cannot depose or excommunicate the greater. Did St. Basil the Great therefore not have the capacity to assemble the Orthodox Bishops of his region (such as St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Eusebios of Samosata) and convene a Synod, whereby he would anathematize all of the local Churches that had at that time fallen into the heresy of Arianism? Was he perhaps a “Cyprianite” for not having done so and having striven instead for the convocation of an Ecumenical Synod?

The author of the RTOC document without justification mentions the cases of Marcion and Sabellios in order to refute the first alleged principle of “Cyprianism.” For Marcion, after the rejection of his teaching by the local Synod of Rome, voluntarily broke away from the Church and organized his heresy in the form of a conventicle,10 founding his own Church.11 Not only was Sabellios condemned by the local Synods of Rome, in which he was active (it excommunicated him) and of Alexandria (it also condemned him, post mortem),12 but, on account of the influence that his heresy had on members of the Church at large, it was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Synod.13

As well, with regard to Nestorius, who is discussed in the RTOC document (“Nestorius was cast out of the Church by a Local Council in Rome under the presidency of St. Celestine; the Third Ecumenical Council did not make this original, completely valid decision of the Church of Rome, but merely confirmed it”), it should be known that he was not cast out of the Church either by the local Synod of Rome (430), under the presidency of the Holy Pope Celestine, or by the local Synod of Alexandria, during the same year, under the presidency of the Holy Patriarch Cyril. These local Synods condemned his teaching and not his person. In the Synodal Epistle of St. Celestine (in which he calls Nestorius a beloved brother14) there is the threat that “[unless you proclaim the same doctrine concerning Christ as the Churches of Rome and Alexandria and the Catholic Church...and repudiate this faithless novelty, which endeavors to separate those things that Holy Scripture joins together] within ten days, starting from the date of this warning, with an open and written confession, you will be expelled from all communion with the Catholic Church.”15 The expulsion of Nestorius from the Church finally took place at the Third Ecumenical Synod (431): “Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, has decreed through the present Most Holy Synod, that the same Nestorius is alien to the Episcopal office and to every sacerdotal assembly.”16

Concerning the excision of the Papists from the Church in 1054, this was not carried out by the local Synod of Constantinople of that year but by the very Act of Anathema that the Papists submitted. The thitherto Orthodox local Church of Rome, in unjustly anathematizing the other local Churches, itself succumbed to anathema, fell into apostasy, and broke away from the Orthodox Church. Thereafter, the Orthodox Church did not cease to anathematize every heresy, misbelief, and innovation that flowed from Rome, at both local and Pan-Orthodox Synods.17

5. “Cyprianism” also allegedly holds that “Only so-called ‘Unifying Councils’—that is, Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Councils at which the heretics themselves are present—can expel heretics from the Church.” This, too, is a lie. I responded in the foregoing as to when (that is, in what circumstance) an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Synod is required to deal with the issue, without the Church being concerned whether the heretics will or will not be present (that is, it summons them, but if they are not present, it condemns them in absentia). In addition, for the historical record alone, no heretic was condemned at the Pan-Orthodox Synods of the sixteenth century, at which there was a condemnation solely of the calendar innovation of 1582.18 There is, however, something else that needs to be emphasized. The calendar innovation of 1582, which was introduced to serve the heresy of Papism, is different in nature from the calendar innovation of 1923-1924, which was introduced to serve the heresy of ecumenism, but left the Paschalion intact. Consequently, a new synodal condemnation is needed for the chimerical “corrected Julian Calendar.”

6. “Cyprianism,” according to the RTOC document, professes that “he who confesses heresy openly remains a member of the Church—albeit a ‘sick’ member, until he has been expelled by an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council.” I clarified in the foregoing in what circumstance the convocation of an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Synod is required. In what follows, I shall examine whether this opinion (one who confesses heresy openly remains an ailing member of the Church until he is expelled therefrom) is a “heresy of Cyprianism” or the teaching of the Church and Her Saints.

7. Before that, however, we should stand in resistance to what was written below this third principle, namely, the following section: “If this were true, however, then if there were no Eighth Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council before the end of the world, the Church would be powerless to expel any heretics. Theoretically, then, if the Antichrist will be Orthodox and declares himself to be god, he will remain a member of the Church in spite of the fact that a countless number of Local Councils of the Orthodox Church are anathematizing him! And if he will be a priest or patriarch, he can still dispense true sacraments!”

To begin with, we are bound to say that there is no branch of theology called “hypothetical theology,” the “theology of if”! Never did the Holy Fathers, in periods in which major internal heresies19 beleaguered the Church—to such a point that the entire Church appeared to have fallen into heresy—adopt this way of thinking, even though we are aware that in every age there is a sense that we are living in the last times. Their struggle was always lawful and their hope of salvation was always directed solely to the Savior, the Head of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, let us respond to these hypothetical views, so as to make it evident that they are, in essence, hogwash.

The apostasy of the era of the Antichrist is prophesied both by Holy Scripture20 and by many Fathers. There is no doubt that ecumenism will be the religion of the Antichrist.

Therefore, even if there does not take place an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Synod21 that will expel the Orthodox ecumenists from the Church and anathematize their heresies, this does not mean that these heretics will be within the Church when the Antichrist comes. For there are two ways in which one can be unchurched, as we have said: either through condemnation or excommunication by a competent body or through breaking away from the Church. When the Orthodox ecumenists accept a “Union of Churches and Religions” (such a union is a precondition for the Antichrist to inaugurate this new [ir]religion), then, united with heretics of every description and also with those of other faiths, they will have cut themselves off from the Orthodox Church and will have placed themselves, even formally, outside Her. It will not be at all strange that the Antichrist will belong to—or rather, lead—such a “World Church of Satan.”22

8. However, until either they are condemned by a competent Major Synod or break away from the Church, the Orthodox ecumenists remain “ailing members” of the Church. In order to understand this characterization, one should keep in mind the twofold nature of the Church: on the one hand, a mystical organism and invisible communion with the Holy Trinity, and on the other hand, an external organization and a visible institution. One is aided in this by the RTOC document itself, and specifically by the following excerpt: “New Hieromartyr Mark (Novoselov), Bishop of Sergiev Posad, explained this teaching by making a distinction between the mystical organism of the Church and her visible, external organization. Until a heretic has been condemned by a canonical Council of Bishops, he remains a member of the visible, external organization of the Church. But he has already been cut off from the mystical organism of the Church by Christ Himself.” This teaching of the Holy New Hieromartyr Mark (Novoselov) is absolutely identical to the ideas of “Cyprianism,” that is, to the Orthodox teaching of the Holy Fathers.23

9. Members of the Church who cease to have communion (by reason of a fall into heresy or into some other deadly sin) with the Holy Trinity (and consequently are, in this sense, outside the Church) but formally remain within the visible organization of the Church are so-called “ailing members.” This term is not unknown in ecclesiastical literature. For example, Archbishop Antonii (Amfiteatrov) (1815-1879) writes: “Even if sinners are ailing members in the Church, yet they do not in any way defile the sanctity of the entire Church. Rather, She bears with them, awaiting their return and recovery.”24 St. Nectarios of Pentapolis (1846-1920) says: “The Church, as an organic body, is visible and joins together in one whole all of Her members, both the holy and the ailing.”25 Someone may say that the term “ailing” refers only to sinners and not to heretics. But heresy is, and is dealt with as, a sin, and is indeed one of the major spiritual sins.

At the outset of the discussion concerning the reception of Iconoclast heretics into Orthodoxy, the Holy Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod invoke first of all the Fifty-Second Apostolic Canon: “If any Bishop or Presbyter does not welcome back one returning from sin, but rejects him, let him be deposed, for he grieves Christ, Who said: ‘There is joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth.’”26

St. John of the Ladder writes the following in his Fifteenth Discourse (“Concerning Purity”): “A man endowed with spiritual knowledge questioned me about a daunting problem, saying: ‘What sin, with the exception of murder and denial of God, is more serious than all others? And I replied, ‘To fall into heresy.’”27

In his treatise “Concerning Virtues and Vices,” St. John of Damascus distinguishes between sins of the soul (spiritual) and sins of the body (carnal), and classes heresy among the former.28

Agapios Landos (seventeenth century) mentions in his famous book Salvation of Sinners, in chapter 3 (“Concerning major sins in particular”), that sins “such as heresy, theft, condemnation, and the like, should not be forgiven, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers, unless you return what you have stolen, restore the honor of the person whom you have slandered, or abandon your heresy.”29

In many of his books St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1749-1809) counts heresy among sins. In his Ἐξομολογητάριον (Manual of Confession) he calls it “spiritual adultery.”30 In his Spiritual Exercises he writes that “the vice of avarice stands in the middle among the vices (sins) that are clearly spiritual, as are pride, heresy, unbelief, and the like, and among the carnal vices, such as fornication, adultery, and the rest.”31

10. In addition, heresy is characterized by the Fathers as a disease, and a communicable one at that, which, because it assails the Body of the Church, needs to be cured, lest the healthy members also fall ill. The distinction between “healthy” and “ailing” is frequently encountered throughout ecclesiastical literature.

10a. In confronting the misbeliefs of Judaizing Christians (who demanded of Gentile Christians that they keep the Mosaic Law), the Holy Apostle Paul employs eight times in his Pastoral Epistles (as the two to St. Timothy and the one to St. Titus are called) the word “healthy” (ὑγιαίνουσα and ὑγιαίνοντες, or “sound” in the older English of the King James translation) in order to describe Orthodox doctrine and the genuine Orthodox: “sound doctrine” (I St. Timothy 1:10); “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome [sound] words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but sick [ailing or ill] about questions and strifes of words” (I St. Timothy 6:3-4);32 “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me” (II St. Timothy 1:13); “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall turn aside unto fables” (II St. Timothy 4:3-4); “that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (St. Titus 1:9); “Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth” (St. Titus 1:13-14); “But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience” (St. Titus 2:1-2). The Judaizers were ultimately censured synodally in the Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem in 48.

10b. From the pen of St. Basil the Great, during a period when the Arian-minded, who were ailing in faith, and other newly manifest heretics were disturbing the Church:33

“That which is called darnel, and whatever other spurious seeds are mixed in with foodstuffs, which it is customary for Scripture to call tares, do not come about from an alteration of the grain, but subsist from their own source, having their own genus. These things fulfill the image of those who distort the teachings of the Lord and who are not genuinely instructed in the word, but are corrupted by the teaching of the Evil One and mingle themselves with the healthy body of the Church, in order to sow in secret their mischief among those who are simpler.”34

“There is no upbuilding of the Church, no correction of error, no sympathy for the ailing, and no defense of sound brethren.”35

“Those who either have been seized beforehand by a different confession of faith and wish to be converted to unity with the Orthodox, or who now for the first time desire to be catechized in the word of truth, must be taught the Faith written by the blessed Fathers at the Synod once convened in Nicæa. This same procedure would be useful also against those under suspicion of being at odds with sound doctrine and who by specious subterfuges cast a shadow over their cacodox outlook. For these too the creed in question is sufficient. For they will either correct their hidden disease or, if they conceal it deep down, will bear the charge of deceit, while providing us with an easy defense on the Day of Judgment, when the Lord will uncover ‘the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts.’36 It behooves us, therefore, to receive them with the confession not only that they believe according to the words set forth by our Fathers at Nicæa, but also according to the sound meaning expressed by these words.”37

“And up to the present time, by the Grace of Him Who has called me by His holy calling to the knowledge of Himself, I am not conscious of having accepted into my heart any teaching hostile to sound doctrine, nor of having ever been polluted in soul by the ill-famed blasphemy of the Arians. But if I have ever received into communion any coming from that teacher, concealing their disease deep within them and uttering pious words or at least not opposing what is said by me, it is on these terms that I have admitted them, neither allowing myself to make the judgment concerning them, but following the decisions pronounced about them by our Fathers.”38

“For I shun and anathematize as impious alike both those ailing with the disease of Sabellios and those who champion the teachings of Arios.”39

“However, those wearing sheep’s clothing and presenting a mild and meek appearance, but within unsparingly ravaging the flocks of Christ and easily sowing their mischief among the simpler because they came from us, these are the grievous ones whom it is hard to guard against. It is these that we implore your diligence to denounce publicly to all the Churches of the East, so that they may either walk correctly and genuinely be with us or, abiding in their perversity, may keep their mischief to themselves alone and be unable to communicate their disease to their neighbors by unguarded communion.”40

10c. St. Gregory the Theologian writes strikingly: “Let us regard those who hold heterodox opinions as a plague against the truth and, as far as possible, let us receive them and cure them; but let us repudiate those who are incurable, lest we contract their disease rather than imparting to them our own soundness.”41

10d. Theodoretos of Kyros constantly uses the words “disease” (νόσος) and “diseased” (νοσούντες) to characterize heresy and heretics.

In his commentary on Psalm 57: “One would be correct in understanding that these things are said against heretics, I mean Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians, and those who are thought to be ill with teachings akin to theirs.”42

Commenting on the Holy Apostle Paul, he writes: “Those who depart from the truth and follow their own reasonings endeavor to teach what is not fitting, and strife and envy are the consequence of this: out of strife, blasphemy is audaciously uttered against God; when faith is banished, evil surmisings spring up. From this a pestilence is engendered, which destroys those who draw near. This is the meaning of ‘the constant wrangling of those corrupted in mind.’ Just so do diseased sheep, when they dwell with the healthy, communicate their disease.”43

Concerning heretics, he writes that “they endeavored, running hither and thither in opposition to us, to defect to those who concelebrate and are of like mind with us, in appearance pretending to seek peace and unity, but in reality striving through fair words to seize and carry some of them off to their own disease,”44 and that “concealing their disease (for they feared the multitude of Bishops) they concurred with what was set forth [at the Synod of Nicæa—TRANS.], drawing down upon themselves the reproach of the Prophet.”45

Let us look at two telling excerpts from his Ecclesiastical History.

Concerning the banishment of St. Paul the Confessor from the throne of Constantinople: “For those who shared the Arian disease indicted Paul (he was the Bishop of Constantinople, who incurred danger for the sake of correct doctrines) as the author of sedition, adding certain other charges wherewith they were wont to slander the heralds of the true Faith.”46

With regard to the election of St. Meletios to the throne of Antioch, during which he confessed his faith in the Ὁμοούσιος, with the result that the Arian-minded Bishops, who were the majority, deposed him, and thus the genuine Orthodox (the healthy faction) walled themselves off from them: “Thirdly, the great Meletios stood up and showed the straightness of the rule of faith. For, using the truth as a kind of carpenter’s rule, he avoided excess and deficiency. When the multitude offered tremendous applause and implored him to provide them with a concise summary of his doctrine, he displayed three fingers, then drew two together and left one, and uttered that praiseworthy expression, ‘In thought they are three but we speak as to one.’ Against this teaching those who bore the disease of Arios in their souls whetted their tongues and devised a calumny, saying that the Divine Meletios was of one mind with Sabellios. They persuaded that veritable Euripos47 who was easily borne this way and that, and prepared to exile him to his homeland. And immediately, they proposed in his place Euzoïos, an open advocate of Arian teachings; for the great Alexander deposed him, who had been vouchsafed the Diaconate, together with Arios. At once, therefore, the sound multitude separated from those who contracted the disease and assembled in the Apostolic Church which is situated in what is called the Old City.”48

10e. St. Photios the Great, regarding the Seventh Ecumenical Synod: “It decreed these things, having accomplished them in a wise and God-pleasing manner. After driving away from the rational flock every heretical disease and uncleanness, it showed that the Church had recovered Her own finery and beauty and set Her at the right hand of Christ the Bridegroom as a bride made comely not by gold-fringed garments but by sacred Icons, causing Her to be beheld and enjoyed by the entire body of the faithful with glad and joyous eyes.”49

10f. In his interpretation of the words of the Holy Apostle Paul (St. Titus 1:13), St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes that “healthiness of faith means not injecting into the right Faith any alien or heretical mentality.”50

In a note on another passage from the Epistles (II St. Timothy 2:17), he comments: “The evil, he says, is uncontrollable and no longer admits of a cure; since the words of heretics harm and corrupt the greater part of piety like gangrene and they are incorrigible. Gangrene is a malady and a wound that causes putrefaction to the body and consumes the healthy parts of the body.”51 And he continues: “The misbelief of heretics always goes to worse and the wound becomes greater. For this reason, Christians should avoid these and all heretics as plagues and pestilences lest they themselves catch the plague and suffer destruction.”52

Continuing his interpretation of the Apostle (II St.Timothy 2:25), St. Nikodemos comments that the Apostle Paul, while “he writes to Titus that he should give up on that heretic who is incorrigible and whom he knows to be incurable, here he speaks to Timothy about those refractory individuals who are not incurable, but for whom there is hope of their being cured and corrected.”53

11. When, therefore, it is determined (by a competent body) that the illness does not admit of healing, by reason of impenitence, it is customary for “ailing members” to be characterized henceforth as “rotten members.”54

Let us look at some striking passages, which shed yet more light on what we have said so far.

11a. From a Troparion of the Canon of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Synod: “Arios of evil fame, having, in his foolish mind adulterated the Orthodox Faith, was banished from the Church as a rotten member by the decrees of the Fathers.”55

11b. St. John Chrysostomos (†407) writes that St. Meletios of Antioch “delivered the city from heretical error and, after severing the rotten and incurable members from the rest of the body, restored health intact to the multitude of the Church.”56

11c. St. Nikephoros the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople (†828), writes about heretics: “Let them be cut off from the flock of Christ as rotten and useless members, lest the healthy members, who stand firm in the good confession, be ruined by their soul-destroying disease.”57

11d. From the Proceedings of the Synod under St. Photios the Great (regarded as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod (879-880): “We must first admonish and implore them, and, if they will not listen to us, we must excise them as rotten members, lest the healthy body be destroyed through them.”58

11e. The Church historian Metropolitan Meletios of Athens (†1714) writes: “(Through ecclesiastical history, man) learns of the assemblies (Synods), and of the solicitude of the Church that Her unity remains intact, excising rotten members, lest they pollute the healthy, true members.”59

11f.  In the “Orthodox Confession” of the wise Archbishop of Myra, John of Lindos (†1796) we read: “...abhorring those whom those thrice-blessed (Holy Fathers) repudiated in public and in private as heretics, abhorred, and with the sword of the Spirit cut off from the plenitude of the Orthodox as rotten members.”60

11g. The learned Archbishop of Cherronesos, Gerasimos Kalognomon (†1806) says, concerning Orthodox Bishops, that they “excised from the Sacred Body [of the Church] as rotten members those smelling of corrupt impiety.”61

11h. The most-wise theologian and preacher Konstantinos Oikonomos of the Oikonomoi (1780-1857) writes that “the Catholic Church investigates and condemns” Shepherds who fall into heresy “and, cutting them off from the plenitude of the Orthodox, rightly denounces them as rotten members.”62

12. On the basis of the foregoing, and as matters stand today, a Synodal judgment is necessary. Let the author of the RTOC document not adduce the Apostle Paul as their ally in order to prove the contrary. For he cites the following: “the Apostle Paul says: ‘A man that is a heretic…is self-condemned’ (Titus 3.10, 11).” Yet the answer as to when a heretic becomes self-condemned is to be found precisely where the ellipses occur. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself,” says the Apostle. St. Nikodemos concurs in his commentary on the passage in question: “When, therefore, such a man, after a first and second admonition, persists in his error, then he is self-condemned and without defense.”63

13. Consequently, the convocation of a Major Synod of all True Orthodox Bishops is required, so that they might proclaim Orthodox doctrine to the whole inhabited earth, censure heresies, and admonish the “ailing members” of the Church, excising from the Body of the Church all those who prove to be “rotten,” that is, incurable (unrepentant).

May all that I have written contribute to the unity of the True Orthodox in the difficult times in which we live. May the Lord grant this!

Nikolaos Mannis 

 March 8, 2017 [O.S], commemoration of St. Theophylact the Confessor, Bishop of Nicomedia (completed, augmented, and published on March 20, 2017 [O.S.],                          commemoration of St. Niketas the Confessor, Bishop of Apollonias)

ENDNOTES

1 http://nftu.net/rtoc-deposes-five-priests-over-cyprianism/

2 http://www.ripc.info/en/documents/doc/the-reply-of-the-rtoc-synod-to-a-series-of-questions-touched-on-in- addresses-by-clergy-of-the-omsk-s/

3 Let us remember, for example, that Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari fell into error in the case of the Antiochian Schism. The Orthodox in Antioch were divided into two factions (that of St. Meletios and that of the Presbyter Paulinos), which, although they were essentially in agreement with each other, disagreed over the word “hypostasis,” since the former understood it as “person” and professed correctly “one Essence and three Hypostases” (where “Hypostasis” = “Person”), whereas the latter understood it as “essence” and believed, correctly, in “one Hypostasis and three Persons” (where “Hypostasis” = “Essence”). When Lucifer went to Antioch, he injudiciously supported Paulinos and his circle, condemning St. Meletios and his followers as heretics. The cause of this was his ignorance of the Greek language. for through the narrowness of the Latin language he rendered the concepts of essence and hypostasis with the word substantia and thus unjustly accused the “Meletians” of being “tritheists,” being incapable of understanding that the three Hypostases of which they spoke did not signify “three Essences” but “tres Personæ,” that is, “three Persons.”

4 Thus, in our case, whereas in other countries there is uproar over “Cyprianism,” in Greece (that is, in the country that is supposed to have given rise to it) no one (with very few exceptions, which have surfaced in recent times and which are evidently influenced by the tumult that has occurred in other countries) acknowledges that there is any such heresy. This happens for the following very simple reason. Through familiarity with the Greek language, one comes to understand that this notorious “Cyprianism,” as we shall see, is nothing other than the teaching of the Holy Fathers!

5 The classic case of such a text is the article “The Kallinikite Unia” by Vladimir Moss, which is unacceptable from many standpoints. The influence of this article on the RTOC document is all too obvious.

6 There is a case in which heretics may voluntarily break away from the Church and act outside of Her. Such a case is of no concern to the Church, which does not judge those outside Her.

7 The Church’s teaching on this subject is included in the branch of theology called Ecclesiastical Law.

8 See St. John Chrysostomos, “That We Should Not Anathematize the Living or the Dead,” PG 48:945-952.

9 Hebrews 7:7.

10 “Saint Basil defines the three kinds of separation from the Church as follows: ‘By heresies they [the ancient authorities] meant men who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual Faith; by schisms men who had separated for various ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual solution; by unlawful congregations gatherings held by disorderly presbyters or bishops or by uninstructed lay- men’ (Epistle 188, ‘To Amphilochios,’ in A Select Library of Nicene and Post–Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], 2nd ser., Vol. VIII, pp. 223–224). He illustrates what he means by conventiclers (παρασυνάγωγοι) as follows: ‘As, for instance, if a man be convicted of crime, and prohibited from discharging ministerial functions, and then refuses to submit to the canons, but arrogates to himself episcopal and ministerial rights, and persons leave the Catholic Church and join him, this is unlawful assembly’ (ibid., p. 224).”.

11 Panagiotes Chrestou, Ἑλληνικὴ Πατρολογία (Greek Patrology), Vol. II (Thessalonike: 1981), p. 179; Stylianos Papadopoulos, Πατρολογία (Patrology) (Athens: 1977), pp. 142-143.

12 Meletios of Athens, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία (Church History) (Vienna: 1783), Vol. I, p. 265, n. 5.

13 Canon I of the Second Œcumenical Synod.

14 PL 50:470B.

15 PL 50:484BC (Mansi 4:1036AB).

16 Evagrios Scholastikos, Ecclesiastical History, I.4, PG 86:2429C.

17 The Hesychastic Synods of the fourteenth century have Œcumenical and Catholic validity and authority for the Orthodox and are, for this reason, acknowledged as constituting the Ninth Œcumenical Synod.

18 See “The ‘Sigillion’ of 1583 Against ‘the Calendar Innovation of the Latins’: Myth or Reality?”, http://hsir.org/p/f6b.

19 “Heresies, as teachings that distort the Truth of Orthodoxy, are divided into two categories, corresponding to their provenance. They may derive from and be expounded either by persons belonging to groups already cut off from the Church (e.g., those embracing the heresies of the Gnostics, Chiliasts, etc.) or by persons existing within the bosom of the Church, primarily clergy, such heresies being touted, in this case, as Orthodox positions (it was in this manner, for example, that the teachings of Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism were first set out)” (Nikolaos Mannis, “The Boundaries of the Church,” 2017).

20 Cf. II Thessalonians 2:3.

21 Some Saints, at any rate, such as St. Daniel the Hagarene, St. Neilos the Myrrh-gusher, and St. John of Kronstadt have expressed affirmative opinions about the convocation of such a Synod.

22 “…he will abolish all of the gods, and will order men to worship him instead of God, and he will be seated in the Temple of God, not the one in Jerusalem only, but also in the Churches everywhere” (St. John Chrysostomos, “Homily III.2 on II Thessalonians,” PG 62:482.

23 Cf. “On the Status of Uncondemned Heretics,” in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVIII, no. 2 (2001), pp. 5-6.

24 Δογματικὴ Θεολογία (Dogmatic Theology) (Athens: 1858), p. 305.

25 Μελέτη περὶ τῆς Μίας Ἁγίας Καθολικῆς καὶ Ἀποστολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας (Study Concerning the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) (Athens: 1987), p. 24. The ecclesiology of St. Nectarios sheds light on the issue that we are discussing here. I cite two characteristic excerpts from this work: “The Church is viewed in two ways, according to the Orthodox spirit and the Orthodox confession: as a religious institution and as a religious society” (p. 11); “The Church separates them (sinners) as a shepherd separates sick sheep from the healthy, but the sick ones are no less sheep of the flock. If they are cured, they are united to the healthy ones, whereas if they are incurable, they die in their sin as sheep of the flock that are incurably ill and die in their own sins” (p. 25).

26 Mansi 12:1019E-1022A.

27 The Ladder, Step 15, PG 88:889B.

28 PG 95:88B.

29 Βιβλίον ὡραιότατον καλούμενον Ἁμαρτωλῶν Σωτηρία (Venice: 1798), p. 8

30 Ἐξομολογητάριον, 4th ed. (Venice: 1835), p. 28. There are two further references to heresy as a sin in this book (pp. 12 and 76).

31 Γυμνάσματα Πνευματικά (Venice: 1800), p. 590.

32 The King James Version uses a word that has altered in meaning over the centuries; “sick craving,” as used in the Revised Standard Version, conveys the force of “νοσῶν” more effectively.

33 That St. Basil viewed the Arian-minded as “ailing members” and not as “completely broken away” from the Church is evident from the enumeration of heretics which he sets forth in his Canonical Epistle to St. Amphilochios of Iconium (Canon I of St. Basil). There he mentions as “completely broken away” (i.e., those not belonging even formally to the visible organization of the Church) the Manichæans, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and the Pepouzeni, but not the Arian-minded or the other heretics within the visible institution of the Church, who were placed formally outside Her by the Second Œcumenical Synod (Canon I: “The Holy Fathers assembled in Constantinople have decided that the Faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who met in Nicæa, Bithynia not be abrogated, but remain sovereign, and that every heresy be anathematized, and especially and specifically that of the Eunomians, or Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians, or Pneumatomachoi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians”).

34 Homily V.5 “On the Hexaemeron,” PG 29:104BC.

35 Epistle 113, PG 32:525C.

36 I Corinthians 4:5.

37 Epistle 125.1, PG 32:545BC.

38 Epistle 204.6, PG 32:753B.

39 Epistle 226.4, PG 32:849B.

40 Epistle 263.2, PG 32:976D-977A.

41 Oration VI.22 (“On Peace I,”), PG 35:752A.

42 Commentary on the Psalms, PG 80:1297C.

43 Commentary on I St. Timothy, PG 82:824C. Cf. the Apostolic Constitutions: “One scabby sheep, if not separated from those that are healthy, transmits its disease to the others” (II.27, PG 1:628C). Since heretics are characterized as ailing or scabby sheep, the necessity of avoiding communion with them is emphasized.

44 Ecclesiastical History, I.3, PG 82:889CD.

45 Ecclesiastical History, I.7, PG 82:925B. “This people honor Me with their lips, but in their hearts, they are far from Me” (Esaias 29:13).

46 Ecclesiastical History, II.4, PG 82:997A.

47 An adroit characterization of Emperor Constantios, who was inclined to change his opinions as frequently as the River Euripos, the narrow channel between Euboea and mainland Greece, the currents of which, ac- cording to Strabo, ‘are said to change seven times each day and night’ (Geography, IX.2.8)—TRANS.

48 Ecclesiastical History, II.27, PG 82:1081B-D.

49 Epistle 1.8.20 (“To Michael, the Prince of Bulgaria”), PG 102:656A.

50 Αἱ ΙΔ´ Ἐπιστολαὶ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου Παύλου (The Fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul), Vol. III (Venice: 1819), p. 235.

51 Ibid., p. 189.

52 Ibid., p. 189, n. 2

53 Ibid., p. 195.

54 The adjective “rotten” (“putrid”) expresses in a very striking way the relationship of a member of the Church who has fallen into heresy, in connection with the foregoing discussion of the Church’s twofold nature. By reason of its infirmity, the rotten member has lost its life-giving bond with the rest of the organism and remains in the body until a competent medical authority ascertains whether it will admit of a cure or should be excised, so as not to infect the rest of the body. Correspondingly, a member of the Church who has fallen into heresy has, by reason of his heresy, forfeited his life-giving bond with the mystical organism (communion with God), and remains in the Body until a competent ecclesiastical authority ascertains whether he will admit of a cure or should be excised (that is, in the event that he proves unrepentant), so as not to infect the rest of the Body.

55 The Pentecostarion, trans. Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1990), p. 360

56 “Encomiastic Homily on St. Meletios,” §1, PG 50:516.

57 “Discourse in Defense of Our Blameless, Pure, and Genuine Christian Faith,” §29, PG 100:612A.

58 Dositheos of Jerusalem, Τόμος Χαρᾶς (Tome of Joy) (Rimnic: 1705), p. 42.

59 Meletios, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία, Vol. I, pp. 3-4.

60 John of Lindos, Βίβλος Ἱερα καλουμένη Ἀποστολικὴ Σαγήνη (A Sacred Book, entitled Net of the Apostles) (Venice: 1785), p. 112.

61 Gerasimos Kalognomon, Θεωρία Ὀρθόδοξος Θεολογική (Theory of Orthodox Theology) (Venice: 1793), p. 317.

62 Konstantinos Oikonomos, Περὶ τῶν Τριῶν Ἱερατικῶν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Βαθμῶν (Concerning the Three Degrees of the Priesthood in the Church) (Nauplion: 1835), p. 345.

63 Αἱ ΙΔ´ Ἐπιστολαὶ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου Παύλου, p. 248.