Communion with Unrighteous Clergy Hinders Divine Grace

Communion with Unrighteous Clergy Hinders Divine Grace

Sulpicius Severus (a Latin-speaking Christian writer in the early 5th century) in his work "Dialogues," which is an appendix to his book "Life of Saint Martin of Tours," refers to a fearful incident concerning Saint Martin.

Before discussing this incident, let us mention the historical context. We are in the city of Trier in the year 385 AD. In the city reigns the Roman Emperor of the West, Magnus Maximus, who is persuaded by the Bishop of Ossonoba (modern-day Faro in Portugal), Ithacius, also Orthodox in faith, to persecute the heretical Priscillians.

Saint Martin reacted vehemently to the action of Ithacius because, on the one hand, he rejected the appeal of an ecclesiastical case before a civil court, and on the other hand, he considered it unacceptable for a Christian to instigate or participate in persecutions. He therefore managed to obtain from the emperor a promise that if the heretics were found guilty, they would at least not be executed.

However, when Saint Martin left the city, the emperor appointed the prefect Eudoxius as judge, who, through the actions of the zealous Ithacius, found Priscillian and some other heretical companions guilty of sorcery. As a result, the emperor ordered their execution and the confiscation of their property. This was the first execution of heretics in history, and it was carried out by burning.

As soon as Saint Martin heard what had happened, he returned to Trier and compelled the emperor to revoke the order to the army that was preparing to go to the Iberian Peninsula to exterminate the heretics. As his biographer states, "Martin felt a devout zeal not only to save the true Christians in those regions from danger, who were at risk of persecution in that campaign [because how could the army distinguish between the Orthodox and heretics], but also to protect even the heretics themselves" (Dialogue III, XI).

The attitude of Ithacius and the emperor was also criticized by Pope [Saint] Damasus I of Rome, Saint Ambrose of Milan, and Saint Augustine. Some Gallican bishops, who were in Trier under the leadership of the Bishop of Gaul, Theognitus, even severed communion with Ithacius.

But since Saint Martin himself severed communion not only with Ithacius but also with those who communed with him, the emperor tried in every way to make him commune with Ithacius, telling him “that Theognitus had created disunion, rather by personal hatred, than by the cause he supported; and that, in fact, he was the only person who, in the meantime, had separated himself from communion: while no innovation had been made by the rest. He remarked further that a synod, held a few days previously, had decreed that Ithacius was not chargeable with any fault” (Dialogue III, XII).

However, because Saint Martin once again refused to commune with Ithacius and those with him, the then Emperor Maximus, burning with rage, ordered the campaign for the massacre of the heretics to commence, which the Saint had prevented. What happened immediately, we will let Sulpicius Severus narrate:

“When this became known to Martin, he rushed to the palace, though it was now night. He pledges himself that, if these people were spared, he would commune; only let the tribunes, who had already been sent to Spain for the destruction of the churches, be recalled. There is no delay: Maximus grants all his requests. On the following day, the ordination of Felix as bishop was being arranged, a man undoubtedly of great sanctity, and truly worthy of being made a priest in happier times. Martin took part in the communion of that day, judging it better to yield for the moment, than to disregard the safety of those over whose heads a sword was hanging. Nevertheless, although the bishops strove to the uttermost to get him to confirm the fact of his communing by signing his name, he could not be induced to do so. On the following day, hurrying away from that place, as he was on the way returning, he was filled with mourning and lamentation that he had even for an hour been mixed up with the evil communion, and, not far from a village named Andethanna [between Trier and Arlon in present-day Luxembourg], where remote woods stretch far and wide with profound solitude, he sat down while his companions went on a little before him. There he became involved in deep thought, alternately accusing and defending the cause of his grief and conduct. Suddenly, an angel stood by him and said, ‘Justly, O Martin, do you feel compunction, but you could not otherwise get out of your difficulty. Renew your virtue, resume your courage, lest you not only now expose your fame, but your very salvation, to danger.’ Therefore, from that time forward, he carefully guarded against being mixed up in communion with the party of Ithacius. But when it happened that he cured some of the possessed more slowly and with less grace than usual, he at once confessed to us with tears that he felt a diminution of his power on account of the evil of that communion in which he had taken part for a moment through necessity, and not with a cordial spirit. He lived sixteen years after this, but never again did he attend a synod, and kept carefully aloof from all assemblies of bishops” (Dialogue III, XIII).

With his repentance, however, for this out-of-necessity yet evil ecclesiastical communion, Grace returned, as the same author immediately reveals: “clearly, as we experienced, he repaired, with manifold interest, his grace, which had been diminished for a time. I saw afterwards a possessed person brought to him at the gate of the monastery; and that, before the man touched the threshold, he was cured” (Dialogue III, XIV).

The above incident constitutes yet another proof that, on the one hand, the cessation of communion does not concern only cases of heresy (as claimed by those who interpret the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod according to the letter of the Canon and in isolation from the others, and the practice of the Holy Fathers), but also injustice (c.f. the 31st Apostolic Canon); on the other hand, this reprehensible communion with the unrighteous (especially when there is no greater force, as in the case we saw) constitutes a hindrance to the action of Divine Grace. This is perhaps why we experience such abandonment in our time...

May God have mercy on us and grant us understanding and repentance!

 

From the forthcoming publication [in Greek]: Anthology of Latin Patristics, by Nikolaos Mannis).

Draft translation from the original Greek source:

https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2024/03/blog-post_14.html

Citations and translations from “Dialogues” correspond to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11.