The Necessity of Synodal Judgment

"Potentially and in Actuality" and the Necessity of Synodal Judgment

By Nikolaos Mannis | November 25, 2014

 

"No one from the old or new heretics and heresiarchs has ever been declared schismatic and excommunicated by individual dissenting hierarchs without trial and defense, but rather by Synods and Ecclesiastical Courts duly constituted by Canon Law, before which they are called to defend themselves. Only then are they deprived of the priestly authority and the power to govern the Church and validly perform any Church ritual, when, after sufficient enlightenment by the Synodal Court, they refuse to renounce their heretical beliefs and misguided doctrines, persisting obstinately and unrepentantly in their erroneous ideas and distorted faith."

- St. Chrysostomos Kavourides of Florina

 

INTRODUCTION

In the [previous] article (http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.gr/2014/11/blog-post_12.html), we saw who first used the phrase "potentially and in actuality" [namely, the Kollyvades Fathers], a distinction that relates to Ecclesiastical Law, as we then mentioned. In this article, we will delve into the interpretation of this term (in as simple terms as possible to be understood by all) and the necessity of Synodal Judgment that arises from the "potentially and in actuality" distinction.

 

BASIC CONCEPT OF LAW

The "potentially and in actuality" distinction is related to the field of Law. It constitutes a fundamental concept in both Criminal and Ecclesiastical Law, and it pertains to the activation of penalties prescribed for offenses. [1] To better understand its significance in Ecclesiastical Law, we will draw a parallel with Criminal Law, as it is more readily comprehensible to the lay reader who lacks knowledge of ecclesiastical matters.

 

CRIMINAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LAW

Someone who commits a criminal offense is, of course, an offender; there is no doubt about that. However, only when they are convicted by the court does the penalty prescribed by the Criminal Code come into effect. In other words, if the articles of the Code specify, for example, imprisonment for a particular punishable act, this penalty becomes active not at the moment of the offense, but at the moment of the offender’s conviction. From the moment of the offense until the moment of conviction, the offender is a suspect, not a convict.

The same applies in the case of an ecclesiastical offense. When a clergyman is alleged to have committed an ecclesiastical offense, a punishment is imposed; for example, the penalty of deposition, which is not activated automatically (i.e., at the moment the crime is committed) but when the competent authority (i.e., the Bishop or the Synod) enforces this penalty, as prescribed by the Holy Canons. From the moment of the offense until the convicting decision, the offender is only potentially deposed and not actually deposed. [2]

It is worth noting that automatic conviction, which many accept by misinterpreting the term "self-condemned" used by the Apostle Paul, exists only in the Canon Law of the Papist Church and is known as "latae sententiae." [3]

Based on the above, just as we have for a violator of Criminal Law, with their conviction, stigmatization through their criminal record, and the loss of their rights (e.g., fines or deprivation of freedom), similarly, for a violator of Ecclesiastical Law, we have stigmatization (e.g., as deposed, heretical, etc.) and the loss of their rights (e.g., suspension of the priesthood, deprivation of the Church's blessing and sanctification, etc.), also upon their conviction.

 

FORMATION OF THE COMPETENT COURT

Just as in Criminal Law, a group of citizens, even if they are judges by profession, cannot impose a penalty on an offender without bringing them before the competent court and with the judges appointed for the specific trial; in the same way, in Ecclesiastical Law, a group of faithful cannot enforce a penalty, but the competent synodal body must convene, case by case, and adjudicate the matter, as prescribed by the Divine and Holy Canons.

 

OFFENSES OF SCHISM AND HERESY

Schism and heresy are offenses under Ecclesiastical Law and incur strict penalties.

In Treatise on Ecclesiastical Law by [Archimandrite] Apostolos Christodoulos (Constantinople, 1896, p. 390 et seq.), crimes that incur penalties are classified into four categories, with the third category being "crimes against faith and the Church," which includes heresy and schism.

In Ecclesiastical Law by [Archimandrite, later Metropolitan of Messenia] Meletios Sakellaropoulos (Athens, 1898, p. 425 et seq.), we read the following enlightening passage: "Therefore, those falling into heresy from Orthodoxy, the clergy are deposed and excommunicated, while the laity are excommunicated."

Likewise, in Ecclesiastical Law by [Bishop of Dalmatia] Nikodim Milaš (Athens, 1906, p. 697 et seq.), heresy and schism are included among general ecclesiastical offenses, where in both cases, the penalties prescribed by the Holy Canons are specified.

 

THE CALENDAR INNOVATION

On March 10, 1924, the Synod of the Local Church of Greece, by accepting the Calendar Innovation, committed the offense of schism. This occurred as Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos (who took responsibility for this action) "separated himself and the hierarchy following him from the other Orthodox Churches in celebrating holidays and observing fasts." [4] In fact, Papadopoulos, participating in a committee related to the matter in 1923, had declared that no Local Church "can separate itself from the others and accept the new calendar without becoming schismatic in the eyes of the others." [5]

Unfortunately, this violation was not adjudicated, as the expected Pan-Orthodox Synod, which had been planned since that time, has not yet convened. [6] Furthermore, paradoxically, the Local Churches that did not commit the offense continued to maintain ecclesiastical communion with the Churches that are subject to trial.

Therefore, according to Ecclesiastical Law, the Local Churches that accepted the new calendar are potentially schismatic [7] due to the offense of schism, and subject to a Pan-Orthodox Synod, but the penalty has not been imposed on them to make them actually schismatic.

 

THE HERESY OF ECUMENISM

As proven, the Calendar Innovation is closely linked to the heresy of Ecumenism, of which it constitutes just one aspect. Ecumenism was officially proclaimed for the first time by the Local Church of Constantinople in 1920 with its famous Encyclical, and it is not at all coincidental that the first three Local Churches that accepted the calendar innovation, namely Constantinople, Greece, and Cyprus, were also among the founding members of the World Council of Churches in 1948. Today, almost all so-called official Orthodox Churches are members of the WCC, and from 1920 to the present, their lapses have been numerous and varied, at a universal level (resembling earlier cases of Arianism, Monophysitism, and Iconoclasm, where almost all Local Churches fell into heresy). It is therefore imperative to immediately convene a Pan-Orthodox Synod that will proclaim the Orthodox positions on the issues touched upon by the heresy, enlighten the misled, and cut off the unrepentant heretics as members in decay.

Please note that the Synod will also address other related heresies, such as Freemasonry and Sergianism.

 

CONVENING A PAN-ORTHODOX SYNOD IS ESSENTIAL

The distinction of "potentially and in actuality" does not overly emphasize, but merely establishes, the validity of the Mysteries and the presence of Divine Grace in the accused offenders. However, their violation has serious soteriological consequences, both for them and for those who knowingly commune with them. Therefore, what is emphasized is the necessity of convening a competent body, which alone can competently and authoritatively decide on the matter.

Indeed, when the Hierarchy of the Genuine Orthodox under the late Archbishop Auxentios issued the uncanonical encyclical "Thus Do We Believe, Thus Do We Speak" [8] in 1974, which declared the new calendar Hierarchy of Greece schismatic and the Mysteries it administered invalid, Metropolitan Petros Astyfides of Astoria (the only one, along with Metropolitan Chrysostomos Naslimes of Magnesia, who did not sign it), expressed the canonical teaching on the matter, which is encapsulated in his phrase: "Only a Pan-Orthodox Synod of Old Calendarists can make decisions on such matters, such as the validity of the Mysteries celebrated by the official Church." [9]

The recognition of the "potentially and in actuality" distinction therefore necessitates the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod. In such a Synod, Ecumenists and others subject to judgment for heresy [10] cannot participate. Therefore, such a Synod can only be convened by true Orthodox Christians.

And if the earlier strugglers and the Leader of our Holy Struggle, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, spoke then only about the Calendar Innovation, now, after the Ecumenist apostasy has spread to all the Churches, we are talking about a Pan-Orthodox Synod of those in each Local Church who were not contaminated by this heresy, in other words, clearly a Synod of genuine Orthodox Bishops.

While maintaining respect for the Canonical teaching of the older and excellent theologians like Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, and taking into consideration the consensus of more recent Orthodox fathers and theologians, such as, for example, Fr. Maximos of St. Basil’s Skete, Fr. Theodoretos Mavros, Fr. Chrysostomos Spyros, Fr. Basil Sakkas, Aristotle Delimbasis, our united Synod of Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece proclaims this same position in its official ecclesiological text. Specifically, we cite paragraph XI of this text, the main points of which are presented as an epilogue:

[Original Greek - https://www.hsir.org/pdfs/2014/03/22/20140322aCommonEcclesiology15%20Folder/20140322aCommonEcclesiologyPROTOTYPO-TELIKO.pdf

Official English translation - https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2014/03/22/E20140322aCommonEcclesiology15/E20140322aCommonEcclesiology15.pdf]

 

TOWARDS THE CONVOCATION OF A MAJOR SYNOD OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH

1. In the preceding twentieth century, True Orthodox Hierarchs, whenever this could be brought to fruition, issued Synodal condemnations, at a local level, both of Ecumenism and of Sergianism, and also of Freemasonry.

[...]

3. These Synodal censures, especially of the heresy of ecumenism, are assuredly important steps in the right direction towards the convocation of a General Synod of True Orthodox, which, with expanded authority, will arrive at decisions concerning the calendar innovation and syncretistic ecumenism, which contradicts the Gospel.

4. What is necessary today, on the basis of a common and correct confession of the Faith, is the union in a common Body of all the local Churches of the True Orthodox, for the purpose of creating the antecedent conditions for assembling and convoking a Major General Synod of these Churches, Pan-Orthodox in scope and authority, in order to deal effectively with the heresy of Ecumenism, as well as syncretism in its diverse forms, and also for the resolution of various problems and issues of a practical and pastoral nature, which flow therefrom and which concern the life of the Church in general, and of the faithful in particular, so that the bond of peace and love in Christ might be ensured.

5. This necessity becomes comprehensible from the fact that the True Church, as the actual Body of Christ, is by Her very nature Catholic in the fullness of Truth, Grace, and salvation, and that through Her Bishops She puts forth Synodal declarations in the face of heterodox teachings and the global scandal that derives therefrom; thus, She ought to pursue, on the one hand, the articulation of the Truths of the Faith, for the delineation of the Truth in contrast to falsehood, and on the other hand, the denunciation and condemnation of the error and corruption that stem from heresy and heretics, for the protection of the Flock, confirming and proclaiming the already existing exclusion of heretics.

6. Thus, in a Major General Synod of the True Orthodox Church it is necessary that there be proclaimed to all of creation, on the one hand, the Sole Hope among us as the only way out of all impasses “for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14), and, on the other hand, the complete and definitive antithesis between Orthodoxy and syncretism of an Ecumenist and a Sergianist bent as mutually exclusive, unto the glory of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, by the intercessions of the Mother of God, the Apostles, and the Fathers.

 

ENDNOTES

[1] Criminal Law includes the legal rules that define punishable actions and the penalties imposed on them, while Ecclesiastical Law includes rules governing the organization of the Church in relation to the State, ecclesiastical offenses, and the penalties imposed on them.

(https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%AF%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BF)

[2] See also the positions of the Kollyvades Fathers Neophytos and Saint Nikodemos, mentioned in the previous article. [http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.gr/2014/11/blog-post_12.html]

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae

[4] Chrysostomos Kavourides, former Metropolitan of Florina - Letter to His Grace Bishop of the Cyclades, Mr. Germanos Varykopoulos (Athens, November 9, 1937).

[5] Φ.Ε.Κ. [Government Gazette], January 25, 1923

[6] Here, to avoid misunderstandings, we mention the words of Saint Athanasius of Paros: "The name Synod is not always venerable and honorable. But that which is venerable, honorable, and holy is a Synod recognizing the things handed down, written and unwritten, by the holy Apostles and the Catholic Church. We accept and observe the decisions of such a Synod, but we neither know nor obey the voice of the others" (Declaration on the Disturbances of Truth on Mount Athos, Athens, 1988, p. 39). Thus, when speaking about the Synod that will adjudicate the Calendar Innovation today, we do not mean the one expected in their time by the earlier champions when most of the Local Churches had not yet utilized the Calendar Innovation and, even more so, had not fallen into the heresy of Ecumenism. Instead, we refer to a Pan-Orthodox Synod of true and genuine Orthodox believers who reacted to the schism and heresy.

[7] Saying that a Local Church is "potentially schismatic" does not mean that it is not schismatic. It means that it has not been officially labeled as schismatic by a competent authority, and the penalties prescribed for schismatics have not been imposed upon it.

[8] This encyclical was drafted in 1973 but was published on June 5, 1974.

[9] Macedonia, July 7, 1974. The same opinion was expressed by the Synod of Russian Church Abroad, from whom our bishops have Apostolic Succession: "Regarding the question of the presence or absence of grace among the New Calendarists, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia does not consider itself or any other Local Church to have the authority to make a final decision, since a categorical assessment of this matter can only be made by a duly convened, competent Ecumenical Council" (September 12/25, 1974).

[10] "For it is impossible to count among the assembly those who are impious concerning the faith." - Saint Athanasios (from The Pan-Orthodox Synod, Aristotle Delimbasis, Athens, 1976, page 21).

[11] "Church leaders who stand in opposition and apostasy are subject to trial before a competent Synod." (Separation and Schism, Athens 1981, page 33).

[12] "A synodal decision is always necessary, not so much to condemn the professed heresy, which might be prejudiced, as in the case of the calendar, but rather to judge and condemn the persons and agents, such as the preachers of heresy, who must always be tried and condemned by contemporary Orthodox bishops." (The Calendar Schism: Potential or Actual?, Mount Athos - Athens, 1973, page 6).

[13] "Continuous struggle, a 'steadfast and undaunted opposition' for the sake of truth, is required. This practically speaking begins with the 'Walling Off', continues with the proclamation of Truth and the refutation of error, and is completed with the condemnation of heresy and unrepentant heretics by an Orthodox Synod." (My Walling Off, [Elder Chrysostomos Spyrou], Spetses, 2008, page 33).

[14] "So, the primary goal is to continue the good start that was made, to unite all the Orthodox under one Orthodox confession, with which we will be consistent by following a common line. Then, we should convene a Pan-Orthodox Synod, which is the official voice of the Church, and will issue official statements regarding those who deviate and depart from traditional piety. However, until that moment, we cannot have any communion with them in the mysteries and prayer. We will be like 'partakers of other men’s sins,' confessing that we reject and spurn what has been innovated with the calendar, their Ecumenism, and their new-fashioned baptism, or rather their pouring. From what I know, the Fathers acted in a similar manner toward the heretics. They broke off communion with the heretics immediately and awaited the convocation of the competent authority, namely the Ecumenical Synod. This was not to learn and decide if the false teaching was indeed heresy, but so that through the official voice of the Church, all official clarifications and expressions about true doctrine could be made, and the official condemnation of the heretics. It should be noted that the Synod was composed solely of Orthodox." (From the comments here: http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.gr/2014/03/blog-post_24.html)

[15] "Resistance aims at convening a General Orthodox Synod to condemn heresy and uphold Orthodoxy." (Pascha of the Lord, Athens 1985, page 801). It's worth noting the following important points from the late theologian Aristotle Delimbasis: "A truly Orthodox and great Synod will undoubtedly be convened in the future, but it will be convened to condemn the unrepentant Ecumenists, with their heresy, not to cooperate with them. The participation of the Ecumenists in any Synod would violate the canons of the Church regarding the Synods of the Orthodox Church. Such a Synod would not be Orthodox but rather Ecumenist." (The Heresy of Ecumenism, Athens, 1972, page 285).

 

Original Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2014/11/blog-post_25.html