Mihai-Silviu Chirilă
"Participation in Heresy" – A Biblical and Patristic Expression
Tașca, 2017
“But it is not necessary to investigate and inquire further if someone has eaten with someone who ate together with a heretic and another with this one, because if we continue this chain, we must separate from everyone. And this is the way of those who love their own will, not of the St.s.”
(St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle 49 to his son [St.] Naucratius)
Argument
St. Theodore the Studite gives us a succinct definition of heresy, which he calls "a departure from right thinking," [1] that is, from the correct faith professed by the Orthodox Church. Canon 1 of St. Basil the Great states: "They called heretics those who have completely renounced and alienated themselves even from the faith." [2] Explaining how heresy has evolved, St. Theodore tells us that initially heresies openly opposed the Gospels, but later, as grace multiplied and the devil was cast out, he began to distort the meanings of the Gospel words. Seeing that the world listened to and followed him, towards the end of the world, to prepare for the coming of the Antichrist, the devil will once again directly attack the Gospel, in order to produce unbelief towards it. [3]
Asking rhetorically, "Who is the originator and teacher of all heresies," St. Amphilochius of Iconium answers: "The originator and [teacher] of all heresies is the devil." [4] In the history of the Church, the devil has tempted various people to rise against the right teaching of the faith and to try to alter it through soul-destroying human thoughts. These individuals became the founders of the respective heresies, heresiarchs, and were condemned by the ecumenical councils convened by the Holy Fathers to combat them, especially their erroneous teachings, and to cleanse the Church of their heresy. The heresies that have appeared in the Church are usually named after the heresiarchs who made them known. Once they were nominally condemned by a council, they were expelled from the Church, and all those who continued to be in communion with them were, from that moment, also outside the Church, [5] being called heretics. Their liturgical works were not recognized as valid sacraments, and any communion of the Orthodox with them was forbidden by the holy canons and the thinking of the Holy Fathers. From the moment of their condemnation, the "principle of communicating vessels" began to operate, applied to the commemoration of the hierarch, to remove from the Church all those who maintained communion with the heretics excluded from the Church by deposition and excommunication. The importance of the condemnation by a council of the heretics and their heresy is discussed by the clerics who responded to the unionist emperor, in 1443, to the question of why they did not accept the union at Ferrara: "All the interpretations that have been made on the words of the Holy Fathers and which are based on the good foundation laid by Christ, we hold as a 'rock' (Mt. 16:18) of faith, on which we too build, according to our ability. But we do not in any way accept the foolish interpretations and misinterpretations brought by some to the words of life, driven by their own thoughts and by the 'foolish wisdom' of philosophers dead in body and soul. Moreover, the Church has never accepted them either but has anathematized them, cutting off from its body those who wrote them. Likewise, we consider them foreign to sound teaching and have no communion with those who use them to this day." [6]
If, in terms of adherence to the truth of the faith, anyone who holds a teaching foreign to Orthodox tradition is a heretic in thought until they return to Orthodox thinking, in terms of the canonical reality created by the acceptance of heresy at a local or pan-Orthodox church level, clarifications are necessary regarding how heresy spreads and how people adhere to it, especially for the purpose of establishing a correct canonical approach toward those who have fallen and the efforts to recover them.
From this perspective, the expression "participation in heresy" designates, on the one hand, the manner in which all those who are not the actual originators of the heresy adhere to it, and on the other hand, the assumption by the one who participates in heresy of the responsibility of becoming "an enemy of God," [7] just like the one who, through heretical thinking, has risen against the true faith. Among those who participate in a heresy, some become direct preachers of it, being convinced by its doctrine, meaning they become actual heretics, while others accept it for various reasons (fear, convenience, ignorance, etc.) without openly preaching it.
The expression is found both in Holy Scripture and in the thought of some of the Holy Fathers, referring to how an Orthodox Christian begins to fall into heresy. In Letter 452, St. Theodore the Studite explains the term by saying that "participation (metalepsis) and communion (koinonia) are the same thing, one deriving its name from sharing in something together (metechesthai), and the other from making participants of those who share something together." [8] In our case, those who partake in heresy share the same judgment as those who are preachers of heresy if death finds them in this state, and they share both the heretical teaching and communion with the preachers of heresy. [9] The difference in sharing the same heretical teaching is determined by the manner and level of assimilation and awareness of the one who has become a participant in heresy. In the same place, St. Theodore completes the definition by saying: "the light of the world [the apostle Paul] also showed here that communion is participation." Participation means shaping one's mind, confession, and way of life according to the heretical teaching to which one has become a participant.
Biblical Context
In his second catholic epistle, St. Apostle and Evangelist John teaches: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds" (2 John 1:10-11). Participation in the evil deeds of heretics means both assuming guilt before God for sharing their teachings and adopting this teaching and putting it into practice, that is, acquiring heretical thinking and living, foreign to the gospel preached by the Apostle to the Gentiles. For the same reason, in the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul advises: "Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them" (Romans 16:17). In the first epistle to the Corinthians, St Apostle Paul refers to participation in the evil deeds of sinners as "mixing": "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner..." (1 Corinthians 5:11).
St. Irenaeus of Lyon, in Adversus Haereses, [10] considers that the exhortation given by St. Apostle Paul: "A man who is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject" (Titus 3:10) is an exhortation to guard ourselves from communion with heretics, because, as St. Irenaeus says: "The apostles and their disciples had such reverence that they did not even have communion (koinonia) by word with anyone who falsified the truth (parachorasso)." [11]
St. John Chrysostom interprets the words of St. James, from his catholic epistle, as referring to communion with heretics: "James said: 'Whoever appears to be a friend of theirs [the heretics] is an enemy of God'" (cf. James 4:4). [12]
St. Gennadius Scholarius interprets a passage from the Holy Gospel according to John as urging avoidance of communion with heresy and heretics: "But above all, our Lord says that 'they will not follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers' (John 10:5)." [13]
St. Apostle Paul also urges us to avoid communion with heretics in the Second Epistle to Timothy, where he says: "But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:13), from which it is evident that heretics also experience a continuous fall, from bad to worse, not only those who are in communion with them. To the Corinthians, the saint says: "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14), from which it is clear that participation in heresy is considered a joint work with heretics.
Patristic Context
The expression is also used by some of the Holy Fathers, particularly by St. John Chrysostom and St. Theodore the Studite. In the correspondence of St. Theodore the Studite, it appears very frequently, defining various aspects of association with heretical teaching.
Throughout his life, St. John Chrysostom combated the Arians, particularly the Anomoeans, in his writing Against the Anomoeans. The Anomoeans were the radical branch of the Arians, also called Eunomians, condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council. Their heresy was considered so different from Christian teaching that it was required to rebaptize them when they wished to return to the Orthodox faith. St. John also refers to communion with such heretics in his writing about false prophets.
In his writing against false prophets, St. John Chrysostom, commenting on the passage from James 4:4, states: "James said: 'Whoever appears to be a friend of theirs [the heretics] is an enemy of God' (cf. James 4:4). Hear, all of you who eat together with heretics, the painful judgment: you are enemies of Christ. For neither can he who is a friend of the enemies of the king be a friend of the king; and he is not deemed worthy of life, but perishes together with the enemies and suffers even worse things." [14] In the Letter to Thalelaios, St. Theodore the Studite affirms that in this matter "the judgment is that of Chrysostom, but also of every saint," [15] meaning that in this regard there exists a consensus Patrum. [16]
In the Epistle to Monk James, St. Theodore the Studite quotes the words of St. Athanasius the Great to the monks, in which he says that "not only must we not have communion with heretics, but not even with those who have communion with the unbelievers." [17] This advice was practically applied to avoiding communion with the Arian heretics, who were condemned by the First Ecumenical Council. St. Gennadius Scholarius quotes in a letter the words of St. Athanasius the Great, addressed to those who pursue the solitary life, in which he says: "We must flee from those whose thinking we find abhorrent." [18]
Speaking at the unionist council of Ferrara, after 13 sessions without any concrete result, on December 8, 1438, Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit, reaffirmed the Orthodox position, saying: "I do not accept and do not recognize these testimonies of the Western Fathers and teachers who speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, because I suspect they are falsified. In matters of faith, there can be no condescension... Do not receive them into communion with you, as long as they remain in this innovation." [19]
Writing to Hieromonk Theophanes of Evia, St. Mark of Ephesus advises him to flee from communion with the union established by the unionists at Ferrara, through which Orthodoxy was united with the papist heresy, condemned since the time of the Eighth Ecumenical Council, led by St. Photius: "Brothers, brothers! Flee from communion with the uncommunicable and from the commemoration of the uncommemorated. Behold, I, Mark, the sinner, tell you that whoever commemorates the Pope as an Orthodox hierarch is guilty. And whoever thinks the Latin doctrines, will be judged with the Latins and will be considered a betrayer of the faith." [20] Elsewhere, he says: "Brothers, flee from them and from communion with them!" [21] To remove any doubt about the Orthodoxy of his thinking and to prevent the patriarch and clergy from deceiving the people into thinking he had any communion with the heretics, "in front of trustworthy men, he stated without hesitation that he never accepted communion with the pro-unionists and that he rejects the union and the Latin doctrines. Then he said: 'The further I stand from him [the Patriarch], the closer I am to God and to all the Saints.'" [22]
Participation in heresy, in many of St. Theodore's letters, has both an aggravating and a mitigating circumstance. In his letters, the saint addresses two major issues:
1. "The Moechian dispute," [23] meaning the scandal created by the decision taken in 795 by Emperor Constantine VI the Blind to repudiate his wife and remarry, the approval of this decision by a synod held in 806, and the condemnation of those who opposed this decision by the "adulterous synod" of 809. [24]
2. The resurgence of the iconoclast crisis in 813 with the ascension to the throne of Emperor Leo the Armenian.
When speaking about the Moechian crisis, St. Theodore refers to participation in an "open heresy, non-dogmatic and easily understood by a child," [25] as he calls it, meaning a heretical act that consists of reinterpreting and mocking Holy Scripture and the Holy Canons regarding marriage, not condemned by an ecumenical council. [26] The saint considers only those bishops who did not participate in the adulterous synod to be Orthodox [27] and denounces the rest as a false assembly, referring to them in the text as "heretics," in the sense that through their joint decision, they became the originators of that deception among the people.
When discussing participation in iconoclasm, the aggravating circumstance is the association with a heresy already condemned by an ecumenical council along with its heresiarchs [28]—in this case, the iconoclastic heresy, condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787, which resurfaced during the saint's time in 813 with the enthronement of the Byzantine Emperor Leo the Armenian. The mitigating circumstance is that participation in heresy occurred during a period of severe official persecution, when Orthodox Christians were forced to adhere to the heresy, including by signing, as can be seen in two of the epistles. These circumstances are reversed in the situation created in the Orthodox world after the council of Crete, as the aggravating circumstance of communion with condemned heretics turns into the mitigating circumstance of communion with heretics not yet condemned, and the mitigating circumstance of brutal persecution turns, in our case, into the aggravating circumstance of the absence of persecution or of a persecution milder than that endured by the iconodules in the early decades of the ninth century. The term "heretic" in the saint's letters designates, with specific canonical differences, both those who accepted the marriage of the adulterous emperor, who were not officially condemned, deposed, and excommunicated by an ecumenical council, and the iconoclasts, condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
A great help in understanding why the saints so insistently recommend avoiding communion with heretics, as well as how this communion affects the believer who accepts it, is an explanation from a footnote by the translator accompanying the writing of St. John Chrysostom against false prophets in the volume The True Faith in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, published by Sofia Publishing House in Bucharest: "Heretical dogmas are not mere statements, but powers, which, once accepted, develop and gradually transform a person, without them realizing it. That is why the saints forbade any communion, even a trivial one, with heretics, especially for those not firmly established in the true faith" [29] (emphasis added). This very pertinent explanation shows us, first of all, the reason why the Holy Fathers and the holy canons forbade not only dogmatic and liturgical communion with the heretics condemned by the ecumenical councils and expelled from the Church, but even social communion (such as eating together), and secondly, it highlights an essential aspect for understanding the process of communion with heresy by those who accepted the false council in Crete: communion with heresy is a process of continuous downfall, which begins with the acceptance, in one form or another, of heretical teaching and can degenerate, if the one who has become a participant does not renounce it by ceasing to commemorate the hierarch who propagates that heresy, to the point where the one who has participated in heresy becomes a heretic in every respect.
To correctly understand what the saints, whose works we are dealing with here, are saying, it is necessary to note from the outset that, when they speak about the spread of heresy, they evidently divide those affected by it into two categories: heretics, in the cases analyzed, both in the sense of uncondemned heretics (supporters of the imperial adulterer) and of heretics condemned by an ecumenical council and excluded from the body of the Orthodox Church (iconoclasts), and those who partake in heresy, about whom St. Theodore tells us that they can return to Orthodoxy (including fallen clergy) through sincere repentance and a penance of repentance. It is noteworthy that even in the case of those who are on the verge of death or even beyond it, the saint maintains this distinction: "But if none of these things happened, [30] but he was in communion with heresy and did not come to partake of the body and blood of the Lord (...) it should not be dared to perform liturgies for him... he is not counted among the Orthodox, the one who has no communion with Orthodoxy, even if it is at the last hour" (emphasis added). [31]
In Letter 40 to Naucratius, St. Theodore says that the Orthodox priest can go to someone's house to chant with them, "if those who invite him and the chanters are Orthodox and if both [the host and the chanters] avoid communion with heretics." [32] The context refers to the heresy of the adulterer, which had not been condemned by a council.
In Letter 49 to his son Naucratius, when asked whether it is appropriate to have communion with a priest who leads a pious life but, out of fear, commemorates a heretical bishop (not condemned by a council), the saint says that we must refrain from divine communion, but it may be acceptable for him to bless and chant with us "but only if he has neither served nor knowingly had communion with any heretic, his bishop, or anyone else" (emphasis added). [33] In Letter 40 to the same Naucratius, the saint concludes that "such a priest, who is not involved and does not have communion with heretics, is now rarely found" (emphasis added). [34]
In Letter 223, also addressed to his son Naucratius, this time concerning iconoclasm, [35] St. Theodore calls the adoption of heretical ideas and practices "communion with heretics": "They had communion [with the heretics] based on the denial of Christ, of the Mother of God, of all the saints. For this entirely means the rejection of the icon." [36]
It is very important to observe that when St. Theodore speaks of distancing oneself from a priest who commemorates a bishop involved in the Moechian heresy, which has not been condemned by an ecumenical council, he recommends distancing oneself from that priest's "divine communion." However, when he speaks about participating in the communion of neo-iconoclast bishops and priests, who were already condemned at Nicaea in 787, the saint is decisive and says: "You have chosen well to suffer for Christ rather than to partake in heretical communion, which separates one from Christ. For whoever partakes of it is estranged from the inheritance of Christ, like Judas, and shares with those who handed the Lord over to be crucified. For persecutors and crucifiers of Christ are those who defame and despise the icon of Christ, as well as that of the Mother of God and each of the saints." [37] He makes the same distinction in a letter to the wife of a spatharios named Mahara, where he tells her that "now the heresy that reigns in our Church is that of the adulterers," and continues: "What can I tell you about this matter now, [38] except that communion is tainted simply because he [the heresiarch] is commemorated, even if the one celebrating the Holy Liturgy is Orthodox." [39] Therefore, not only does he call the priest who serves the Holy Liturgy while commemorating a heretical bishop Orthodox, but his communion continues to be communion, even though it is tainted by participation in heresy, and both the one who takes it and the one who gives it do so unworthily, to their own condemnation.
In Letter 384 to his son Naucratius, St. Theodore speaks about "total communion with heresy." The expression is used in the context where he talks about an Orthodox person who, when invited to receive communion from a heretic, promises to do so but internally says he will do it from an Orthodox priest. For this deceit, "the penance [for such a one] is half of that given to someone who has total communion with heresy" (emphasis added). [40] Unlike the advice given to Mahara, this time "Orthodox priest" refers to a priest who has no communion with condemned heretics.
From this example, we see that there are multiple levels of communion with heresy: there is a communion with heresy through the acceptance of it out of cowardice (as in the case of the one who said he would partake with heretics but intended to do so with the Orthodox), and there is total communion with heresy, which is done by those who fully accept the heretical teaching or willingly and out of theological conviction participate in the pseudo-sacraments of heretics excommunicated by the Church. In this latter case, total communion with heresy is the state of being an actual heretic.
In Letter 294, addressed to Abbot Macarius, the saint speaks about a priest who "subscribed to heretical unbelief," meaning he became a participant in heresy by signing a document in which he expressed agreement with the heresy. For this betrayal of Orthodoxy, which is more severe than the unconscious acceptance of heresy but less severe than actual participation in the pseudo-sacraments of heretics (who have been condemned), the saint recommends that this priest repent, cease serving, and wait for an Orthodox council to decide his fate. And if he has participated in heresy by taking communion, "he should keep away from the Holy Mysteries for one or two years." [41] It is clear that this refers to the sacraments of heretics who have been condemned and expelled from the Church, as evidenced by the terms "cup of demons" or "table of demons," and by the analogy with attending churches where heretics serve, which was condemned by the Holy Synod invoked by St. Theodore, held in Constantinople under the presidency of St. Nicephorus. Canon 46 of that synod decrees that "in churches taken over by heretics, one should enter as into an ordinary house, and only chant if necessary, placing a cross in the middle, and one should not enter the altar, nor offer incense, nor perform prayer, nor light candles or lamps." [42]
In Letter 340 to Talaleus, St. Theodore the Studite shows that anyone who partakes in heresy, whether voluntarily or out of fear, is an enemy of God, not His friend, meaning they are in danger of being condemned by God just like the heretic with whom they are in communion: "If someone gives all the money in the world and has communion with heresy, they are not a friend of God but an enemy." [43] Here, the saint indicates that the expression "communion with heresy" in this context refers to participating in the same Holy Mysteries or prayers with the heretic (condemned by a council), but he also adds that even someone who eats and drinks with the heretic (condemned) [44] is guilty, as the holy canons also prohibit both prayer with heretics (Apostolic Canons 10, 11, 45, 46, 64; Canons 2, 4 of the Third Ecumenical Council; Canons 6, 9, 32-34, 37 of the Council of Laodicea; Canon 9 of Timothy of Alexandria), receiving their pseudo-sacraments (Apostolic Canons 46, 47, 68; Canon 19 of the First Ecumenical Council; Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council; Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo; Canons 7, 8 of the Council of Laodicea; Canons 1, 47 of Basil the Great), and social communion (Apostolic Canons 7, 45, 64, 70-71; Canon 11 of the Council in Trullo; Canon 1 of the Council of Antioch; Canons 6, 29, 33, 37-38 of the Council of Laodicea). These observations are prompted by the account of an Orthodox priest who was eating with a heretical bishop. The saint says that for this fall, the priest, if he ceases eating with the heretic, may be reinstated in service after a period of repentance and refraining from serving for a time. Furthermore, in his dialogue with Talaleus, St. Theodore emphasizes that it is no excuse for someone to have Orthodox beliefs if they partake in heresy, because whoever does this does so voluntarily and is therefore guilty before God.
To Sergius, the spatharios and his first cousin, St. Theodore recommends, "but above all, flee from communion with the heresy that fights against Christ, for partaking in it darkens and destroys the soul." [45]
In Letter 500 to Hesychius the protonotary, St. Theodore states that it is forbidden to eat, drink, and chant with heretics (those who have been condemned), [46] disagreeing with the practice of some monks who had been persecuted for their faith but limited their interactions with heretics to merely avoiding their blessing, chanting with their leaders, and receiving communion from them. [47]
In Letter 531, addressed to his son Dorotheus, St. Theodore advises that if someone who had been in communion (sharing) with heresy confessed this before death, repented, and received Orthodox communion, then they may be commemorated in memorial services for the dead. However, if they died in communion with heresy (iconoclasm), no services should be held, because "that bread is heretical, not the body of Christ." [48] This idea is reiterated in his discussion with the monk Simeon, where he says, "with the communion [they died with], so too is their portion," because "the [heretical] bread and the heretical cup is communion with the adversary." [49]
The context of the heresy of ecumenism after the pseudo-synod of Crete
In the case of the heresy of ecumenism, the initiators of the heresy are all Orthodox theologians and hierarchs who, by participating in the activities of the World Council of Churches, have made a direct contribution to the alteration of Orthodox ecclesiological teaching and/or have violated the holy canons of the Church, which forbid communion in prayer and in any way with heretics, by participating in various ecumenist worship manifestations.
In the case of the pseudo-synod of Crete, the initiators of the heresy are those who directly conceived the heretical documents that were signed by the hierarchs present there (Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Bishop Ioannis Zizioulas, and all members of the dogmatic commissions who participated in the drafting of these documents). All the hierarchs who signed those documents, either directly in Crete or later, became participants in the ecumenist heresy through the signature they placed on those documents. For this reason, in all the documents I presented to the Romanian hierarchs who participated in that synod, I called them "participants in heresy," also taking into account the reports of some foreign hierarchs, such as Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, an open critic of the Cretan documents, who stated that the Romanian delegation defended the Orthodox doctrine in the debates but eventually gave in and signed the documents in their final form.
By placing their signature and by the subsequent public acceptance of these documents as Orthodox, they became open propagators of the ecclesiological heresy contained in the Cretan documents, thus meeting the necessary condition for ceasing their commemoration in holy services. The situation is somewhat similar to that of the "adulterous synod" of 809, with the difference being the much more serious heresy propagated by the signatories of the documents from Crete.
By analogy with how St. Theodore the Studite labeled the hierarchs who participated in the synod of 809, it can be considered that the Romanian hierarchs, either by directly signing the heretical documents from Crete, by approving them in the local synod of Bucharest, or by not taking a public stand against them, by propagating them to the people as Orthodox, and by persecuting the Orthodox priests and faithful who oppose these documents, have become the initiators of heresy in the Romanian Orthodox Church. They imported it through their participation in the signing of the Cretan synodal acts, and from this point of view, they can be considered heretics [50] (condemnable, [51] though not yet condemned synodally, like those from the "adulterous synod"). The same analogy can be applied to the other Orthodox hierarchs worldwide who, by their own signature, became participants in the synod and thus legalized heresy on a pan-Orthodox level, subsequently implementing it locally.
As for those who remained in communion with the hierarchs who participated in the synod of Crete, they became participants in the ecumenist heresy, legalized in Crete, by the fact that they did not cease commemoration of the bishops who, in one way or another, accepted that pseudo-synod. Commemoration of the hierarch means confessing the teaching that he propagates, as St. Gennadius Scholarios teaches us: "The spiritual communion of those of the same mind and complete submission to the true shepherds is shown through commemoration. The synods, like the other Fathers, establish that 'we ought to flee from communion with those whose thinking we abhor.'" [52] [53]
Here, a few necessary distinctions must be made, as also operated by St. Theodore the Studite, which are very important for determining the behavior we should have towards those who remained in communion with those who adopted the decisions from Crete.
When speaking about the acceptance of the already synodally condemned iconoclastic heresy, St. Theodore identifies six categories of participation in heresy (which in this epistle he calls "yielding [to] heresy"), each corresponding to six distinct types of penance for those who renounce it. Here are the six categories: [54]
1. "Some yielded to heresy willingly, without anyone compelling them. [55]
2. Others due to beatings.
3. Others only through threats.
4. Others without threats or torture, merely out of fear.
5. Others so as not to lose their own possessions.
6. Some out of ignorance."
For their recovery, the saint recommends abstaining from Holy Communion for three years for those who accepted heresy willingly, three for those who yielded due to beatings, two for those who gave in to threats, fear, or convenience, and one year for those who were ignorant. For those who fell among the priests, the saint recommends reinstating them in the priestly rank if they cease to partake in the mysteries of the unbelievers. However, if they signed an adherence to heresy, they should be suspended from serving until an Orthodox synod decides whether they are worthy to remain priests. The situation of the priest is also discussed in the epistle to Abbot Macarius.
We see from this passage that the manner in which participation in heresy (the fall) occurred is important in determining the degree of guilt and the penance through which the guilty one can cleanse themselves of their guilt and return to the fold of the Orthodox community. St. Theodore also considers the aggravating circumstance of communion with heretics already condemned by a synod and the mitigating circumstance of adhering to heresy as a result of persecution.
When recommending the breaking of communion with those who synodally approved Emperor Constantine VI's adultery, after establishing the criteria according to which an Orthodox bishop who did not participate in the synod and denounces it as robber-like but commemorates the heretical metropolitan out of fear can be visited, as well as his priests, while an Orthodox priest who commemorates the heretical bishop out of fear should only be invited for the blessing of the table and psalmody, provided he has not served with heretics, the saint forbids eating together with those who have carelessly associated with the one who blessed the imperial adultery or with other heretics (probably among those who approved it synodally). However, he adds an essential piece of advice from which we can also learn how we should behave in all situations that do not involve liturgical communion with those who accept the synod of Crete: "But do not inquire and investigate further if someone has eaten with one who ate with a heretic and another with him, for then, if we continue in this chain, we would need to separate from everyone. And this is the way of those who love their own will, not of the saints. Remain with this one [who eats with heretics] and do not go further. Is it possible that the saints, out of ignorance, did not investigate and inform us of these things? By no means. Therefore, do not strive to go beyond the boundaries set by our Fathers." [56] In this recommendation, the saint considers breaking communion only with those who directly partake with the promoters of heresy, without caring that their actions are a clear violation of God's law, but not with the rest of the people who, in one way or another, come into communion with them. Yet, even with those who sit at the table of heretics, meaning in close communion with them, only after their obstinacy has been confirmed following an effort to explain it to them once or twice: "And from those with whom we do not eat, neither should gifts be accepted if, taught once or twice, they remain indifferent and are not persuaded by us." [57]
Taking all these distinctions into account, we must observe, as applied to our current situation, that there are Romanian hierarchs who signed those documents out of ecumenist conviction, having been heretical in mind, preaching, and action long before the synod of Crete, as evidenced over time through various actions (participation in ecumenist meetings of the WCC, [58] scandalous statements with heretical character, [59] signing of heretical ecumenist documents, [60] Eucharistic intercommunion [61] or co-serving of Sacraments and rituals with heretics). [62] There are hierarchs who signed those documents with reservations and a troubled conscience (the Metropolitan of Oltenia made a point under his signature that he strongly believes in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Orthodox Church). [63] There are bishops who did not sign those documents directly but acknowledged them during the synod meeting on October 28, 2016. Some of these did so with a heretical ecumenist mindset, while others had previously criticized the documents (such as the Bishop of Alexandria, who was reported by the press [64] to have declared, a few months before the synod, his opposition to it, and Bishop Macarie of Northern Europe, who reportedly criticized those documents at one point). [65] There are bishops who did not even attend the synod meeting in October 2016 (such as the Archbishop of Suceava), yet they too became participants in the documents from Crete by not taking an open stand against them. Regardless of the way they became participants in the ecumenist heresy, all Romanian bishops are in communion with it because none of them took a clear stand against that synod, as St. Theodore the Studite teaches, stating that, to be considered Orthodox, a bishop must not have participated in the "adulterous synod and must call it a lying assembly." [66] Through their attitude, they allowed heresy to enter the Romanian Orthodox Church, becoming its initiators at the local level. None of them is innocent of having participated in heresy, but, in the words of St. Theodore the Studite, "if the mind of the one who partook does not agree with the act [of partaking], this is even more of a renunciation, because—knowing that he is doing something foreign [to the faith]—he sinned knowingly, not fearing God, Who kills both soul and body by casting into hell, but [fearing] the one who only beats the body in this world (cf. Mt. 10:28)." There are only two Romanian Orthodox bishops who did not accept the documents from Crete in any way: Bishop Justinian of Sighet, who passed away on the day the documents were accepted by the local synod, considering them unorthodox, and Bishop Vasile of Someș, whose severe health condition prevented him from making any statement regarding this synod.
This guilt must be precisely established in relation to the stage of the fall in which they find themselves, just as the correct attitude toward the hierarchs must be precisely determined, in order not to fall into schismatic thinking or action. From this perspective, it is essential to consider that all hierarchs who became participants in the heresy of Crete (or heretics, as explained above) are condemnable but have not yet been condemned by an ecumenical synod, by name, along with the founders of this heresy. They are to be avoided in the sense that priests and faithful have the right and duty [67] to cease commemorating them, but they have not yet been defrocked and excommunicated, meaning that the severe canonical sanctions of defrocking or excommunication do not yet apply to all those who maintain communion with them. And not least, they still have time to repent and renounce the heresy in which they have participated and which they are imposing in our Church, just as other bishops throughout history have done, recognizing their error and returning. The position of some leaders of the iconoclastic heresy, such as Gregory of Neocaesarea, is very relevant; he asked to be received back into Orthodox communion at the third session of the Council of Nicaea in 787. Under the leadership of St. Tarasius, the ecumenical synod received with much compassion all the bishops who recognized their error and reinstated them in their sees. [68] Their reinstatement in the episcopal rank was disputed at the synod, but in the end, even the strict monks accepted it: "As the Holy Ecumenical Councils received those who returned from heresy, so do we receive them." [69]
This guilt must be precisely determined in relation to the stage of the fall in which they find themselves, just as the correct attitude towards the hierarchs must also be precisely determined, in order to avoid falling into schismatic thinking or action. From this perspective, it is necessary to consider that all the hierarchs who have become participants in the heresy of Crete (or heretics, in the sense mentioned above) are condemnable, but they have not yet been condemned by an ecumenical synod, by name, along with the founders of this heresy. They are to be avoided in the sense that priests and faithful have the right and duty to cease commemorating them, but they have not yet been defrocked and removed from the Church, so the harsh canonical sanction of defrocking or excommunication does not yet apply to all those who maintain communion with them. And not least, they still have time to repent and renounce the heresy in which they have participated and which they are imposing in our Church, just as other bishops have done throughout history, who recognized their mistake and returned. The position of some leaders of the iconoclastic heresy, such as Gregory of Neocaesarea, who asked to be received back into Orthodox communion at the third session of the Council of Nicaea in 787, is very relevant. Under the leadership of St. Tarasius, the ecumenical council received with great compassion all the bishops who recognized their mistake and reinstated them in their sees. Their reinstatement in the episcopal rank was disputed at the council, but in the end, even the strict monks accepted this: "Just as the Holy Ecumenical Councils received those who returned from heresy, so do we receive them."
In turn, the clergy and faithful became participants in heresy through their communion with their bishops who participated in or agreed with the synod of Crete. Regarding them, there are differences in how they became contaminated with ecumenism, which are very important, especially from a pastoral perspective, for their recovery in the effort to cleanse the Holy Church of heresy.
There are clergy and faithful who have embraced a heretical ecumenist mindset formed many years before the synod of Crete. This includes certain priests, hieromonks, monks, nuns, abbots, abbesses, theologians, university professors in theology faculties, high school theology teachers, diocesan and deanery officials, lay intellectuals, and ordinary believers, especially from areas of confessional convergence, who have lived alongside heretics for so long that they are incapable of making theological and dogmatic distinctions. These individuals adhere to the idea that there are no significant differences between Orthodoxy and the Christian-derived heresies, only minor theological disagreements that should be overcome through ecumenist dialogue to "restore the lost unity of Christians." A motto under which they could be gathered is the frequently used expression, "we all worship the same God," which they apply even in interreligious relations, not just in inter-Christian ones. The formation of these people's consciousness has been heavily influenced by violations of the canons that strictly prohibit communion with heretics, as well as by the "practical ecumenism" vigorously promoted in this globalist society, which tends to erase all boundaries between people and religions (including dogmatic ones). They are the most fervent opponents of those who have ceased commemorating the hierarchs because, having already developed a heretical mindset, they simply do not understand the motivation behind the struggle of those who contest the synod of Crete.
There are priests who remain in communion with the hierarch and in participation with the heresy out of inertia, because they were taught that obedience to the bishop is the most important aspect of a priest's duties. Many of them contest the decisions made in Crete, if they understand them, or believe that they are not so serious as to warrant the "mortal sin" of breaking communion with the hierarch. Some have an Orthodox mindset and even Orthodox preaching, but they maintain communion with the bishop because they have grown accustomed to the semblance of struggle that has been practiced for generations in the Romanian Orthodox Church, where priests, especially hieromonks, would more or less publicly contest the ecumenist decisions of the hierarchy but would continue to be in communion with it, deceiving themselves into thinking they were fighters against ecumenism and that one day this type of struggle would bear fruit. Unfortunately, the fruits were the documents from Crete.
There are priests who do not know or understand much about what happened in Crete, preferring to believe the official version of the situation that was created. To these reasons for remaining in participation with heresy can also be added indifference, cowardice, complacency, ignorance, and fear.
None of these reasons protect the commemorating priests from the danger imposed by their participation, nor from the guilt of aligning themselves with a heretical mindset through the commemoration of the hierarch (even if, in some cases, it is done superficially or formally), and of keeping the people they shepherd in ignorance and in participation with heresy.
The risk imposed by the people's continued participation in heresy is illustrated by St. Basil the Great in a letter he addressed to the bishops of Gaul and Spain, in which he describes the devastation caused among the people by Arianism, the heresy condemned at the First Ecumenical Council but revitalized during the reign of Emperor Valens: "The ears of the simple have been deceived and accustomed to the delusion of heresy. The little children in the Church are being trained in corrupted teachings—but what can they do? Baptisms are performed by heretics, as are the burial rites for the departed, the visitation of the suffering, the comforting of the sorrowful, the support of those in distress, and all kinds of help, including the performance of the Holy Mysteries. Through all these, a connection with them is established among the people, and they come to be of one mind with them, so that in a short time, even if we were granted some freedom, there would be no hope of bringing back those who have been long ensnared in this deception to the knowledge of the truth." [70]
We observe that St. Basil refers to the "little children of the Church" as the ordinary faithful, who, by remaining in prolonged contact with heresy and heretics (condemned by a synod), "a connection is formed with them among the people, and they come to share the same mindset," or a "bond of harmony," as the official version of the PSB collection calls it. The process of participation in heresy is dynamic, beginning with the acceptance, whether willing or not, of heresy and continuing through prolonged exposure to liturgical and social coexistence with heretics.
There are many faithful who oppose granting church status to the papist or Protestant heresies but who remain obedient to their priests for various reasons. Most of them have not understood what happened in Crete or have accepted the official version from the hierarchy, conveyed through their priests. Many have never heard of ecumenism. A great number are preoccupied with the concerns of daily life and do not dedicate the necessary time to spiritual matters. Some treat spiritual and ecclesiastical issues with the same superficiality with which they approach political or worldly matters. Many lack the theological education and spiritual preparation needed to understand the situation and to take a correct stance on it.
Regardless of the reason why bishops, clergy, and the faithful have become participants in heresy, the reality is that they are in communion with heresy and risk sharing the same fate in eternal life as those who created and propagate that heresy if they do not free themselves from it by breaking communion with ecumenism and with those who promote it. St. Theodore the Studite writes about this in a letter addressed to Patriarch Theodore of Jerusalem: "Some have completely shipwrecked in matters of faith; others, although they have not sunk due to heretical beliefs, have perished together with those heretics because of their communion with them." [71] Those who cannot be considered participants in the decisions from Crete are those who genuinely did not have the opportunity to become aware of them, for various reasons (they are too old, too young, too ill, medically incapacitated to understand, live in isolation, or face other situations that objectively prevented them, not out of negligence, from informing themselves, lack the education and intellectual capacity to understand what is happening, were deceived by official propaganda and lacked the ability to see through the deception due to an excess of good faith, etc.).
As long as they are in communion with heresy, partaking of the Holy Mysteries administered by bishops and priests who are participants in heresy is done to the condemnation of those who receive them, just as it happens with those who partake unworthily for various reasons (not confessing, irresponsible confession, not fulfilling their penance, etc.), as St. Apostle Paul says: "For he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason, many are weak and sick among you, and many have fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 11:29-30).
Lastly, those who are in communion with heresy risk being condemned by an Orthodox ecumenical council and being cast out of the Church, along with those who openly and convincingly propagate the heresy and those who are its initiators. At this moment, they are condemnable but not yet condemned by a council. For this reason, from a canonical standpoint, they cannot yet be subjected to the treatment applied to heretics who have been condemned by a council and already cast out of the Church, where those who remain within the Church are forbidden to have any connection with them, under the penalty of defrocking or excommunication. [72]
Many of those concerned with the developments in the Church after the synod of Crete believe that those who have participated in the ecumenist heresy by accepting the synod's decisions no longer need to be condemned, as the ROCOR synod has already condemned ecumenism, and they are implicitly condemned by that condemnation.
Indeed, the local synod of ROCOR anathematized ecumenism in general in 1983 in Vancouver, along with those who propagate it and consciously associate with heretics (the Protestant and Catholic members of the WCC). [73] However, it did not condemn by name or defrock the initiators of the heresy and those who remain in communion with them. Only after an official condemnation of the heresiarchs and those in communion with them do they fall outside the Church and become heretics in the sense that the holy canons prohibit any connection with them. Until then, our duty is to distance ourselves from those who are in communion with heresy, while also trying to persuade them to make the decision to distance themselves from heresy (in the case of hierarchs, to renounce it entirely).
Those who have already labeled all members of the Romanian Orthodox Church who remain in communion with the hierarchy as heretics and treat them as if they are entirely outside the Church are viewing the Romanian Orthodox Church as something foreign, as something other than the ancestral Church, which we have a duty to cleanse of heresy so that one day we can resume our church life together with the faithful, priests, and bishops who are now participants in heresy, but whom we hope to recover through an effort that must be made until the last moment. Labeling them all as heretics and thinking of the Romanian Orthodox Church as something foreign is the beginning of schismatic thinking. If St. Theodore the Studite made a distinction between heretics and those who participate in heresy, not labeling them all as heretics even though he admitted they are participants in heretical thinking and in the enmity with God that derives from it, why should we, at this stage of the struggle, erase this distinction, thus leaving room for misinterpretations and incorrect attitudes towards those who have accepted ecumenism in one form or another in our Church?
Some say that we no longer need to wait for an ecumenical council because it will never come, believing that ecumenism is all-powerful. However, the history of the Church has seen heresies dominate church life for decades, only for God to eventually have mercy on His people and bring deliverance. Those who believe that an Orthodox council can no longer be convened are hasty in trying to do God's work themselves, ignoring the fact that, according to Canon 15 of the First-Second Council, we are called to distance ourselves from heresy and wait, not to pronounce anathemas, defrock, or excommunicate heretics from the position of clergy or laity.
If there is no ecumenical council to expel those who remain faithful to ecumenism from the Church, then the ecumenists will continue the centrifugal movement they committed to at the synod of Crete and will eventually reach the point where they achieve their long-desired "unity of Christians," meaning they will actually unite with the heretics, thereby leaving the Orthodox Church on their own and joining a religious structure foreign to Orthodoxy, along with all those who follow them. In doing so, they will fulfill the condemnation and expulsion from the Church that an ecumenical council was unable to enact (as the Greek Catholics did when they left the Orthodox Church). The cessation of commemoration of hierarchs who have participated in the heresy of ecumenism at this moment is intended precisely to avoid the point where they would reach the "common chalice," at which time they would be fully heretical and beyond salvation. A similar warning signal would be an ecumenical council, which would stop the Orthodox hierarchy and those following it from the path they are currently on, leading them outside the Church.
From all that has been said so far, it follows that it is not appropriate to label all those within the Romanian Orthodox Church as heretics without any distinction. It is true that all who accept participation in the ecumenist heresy are in communion with it, but the different reasons for doing so mean that some do not have a heretical mindset or actions, even though they all bear the risk and responsibility of associating with heresy, from which they must immediately renounce. Can we truly consider a priest a heretic who preaches and believes that the papists and Protestants do not have sacraments [74] and that ecumenism is the heresy of all heresies, but remains in communion with his bishop out of fear, a misunderstanding of the decisions made in Crete, a lack of exact understanding of the canonical provisions that allow him to separate from his bishop, or for another reason than conscious and deliberate adherence to the heresy being preached? And what about the layperson who is in communion with their bishop but knows nothing about the ecumenist heresy or ecumenism in general? What kind of heretical confession is this person making?
Our duty is to warn those who continue their connection with hierarchs who preach ecumenist teachings (and even the hierarchs who have associated with heresy out of fear or convenience) that remaining in communion with them exposes them to the risk of adopting their heretical ecumenist teachings and practices and of continuing the fall that began with the acceptance of participation in heresy, to the point where, imperceptibly, they will think, confess, and behave heretically, reaching what St. Theodore calls "total participation" with the heresy, meaning becoming the same as those with whom they are in communion. Beyond this, it is not our place to label them as heretics, to treat them as heretics, or to behave as if we are the only Orthodox left in the world. Humility, love, sorrow, hope, and patience [75]—these should be the traits of our attitude towards those who are still connected with heresy.
How we should conduct our work, both towards those who are already heretics in thought and deed, and especially towards those who are participants in this heresy, we are taught by St. John Chrysostom himself, who tells us, in another place, that the participant in heresy and the heretic are together enemies of God: "Therefore I beg all of you, regarding these heretics who converse with you, to try to treat them with gentleness and kindness as people who are afflicted with madness. For their erroneous teaching was born out of their boundless pride. And great is the arrogance of their minds! Swollen wounds do not tolerate being touched, nor even slightly touched. For this reason, skilled doctors reduce the inflammation of such wounds by using a soft sponge. Therefore, because the Anomoeans also have a swollen wound in their souls, let us use the words spoken here as a soft sponge soaked in good and soothing water, trying to calm their pride and bring down all their arrogance. If they insult you, if they kick you, if they spit, whatever they do, do not cease to heal them, beloved! Those who care for a person afflicted with fury must endure many such things. Nevertheless, even if you suffer so much, you must not distance yourself from them; but especially for this reason, you must mourn for them and consider them unfortunate, for such is their illness."
These words I say to those strong in faith, to those who cannot be tempted, to those who are capable of not being harmed by conversations with these heretics. However, if someone is weaker, let them flee from association with them; let them distance themselves from their gatherings, lest friendship becomes a cause of unbelief. [76]
NOTES
1. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 36. To Euprepian and those [with him], in The True Faith in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, vol. I, Sofia Publishing House, Bucharest, 2006, p. 35.
2. Archdeacon Prof. Dr. Ioan N. Floca, The Canons of the Orthodox Church. Notes and Comments, f.e., Sibiu, 2005, p. 373.
3. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 36. To Euprepian and those [with him], in The True Faith in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, cited edition, pp. 35-36.
4. St. Amphilochius of Iconium, Against the Apotactites and the Ghemellites, in The True Faith in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, vol. I, Sofia Publishing House, Bucharest, 2006, p. 215.
5. "From now on," according to the decision of Canon I of the Third Ecumenical Council, meaning from the moment of condemnation by the council.
6. Archimandrite Vasilios Papadakis, Guardians of Orthodoxy. The Struggles of Monks for the Defense of Orthodoxy, Egumenița Publishing House, Galați, 2015, pp. 449-450.
7. St. John Chrysostom, Homily on False Prophets and False Teachers and Godless Heretics and on the Signs of This Age, in The True Faith in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, vol. I, cited edition, p. 172.
8. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 452. To Nicetas the Abbot, in The True Faith in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, vol. I, cited edition, p. 131.
9. In the case of the departed, with whom they shared communion [when they died], for that reason they also share (Letter 534. To Simeon the Monk, cited edition, p. 156).
10. III,5
11. Ibidem.
12. St. John Chrysostom, Homily on False Prophets and False Teachers and Godless Heretics and on the Signs of This Age, in The True Faith in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, vol. I, cited edition, p. 172.
13. Archimandrite Vasilios Papadakis, Guardians of Orthodoxy: The Struggles of Monks to Defend the Faith, cited edition, 2015, p. 455.
14. St. John Chrysostom, Homily on False Prophets and False Teachers and Godless Heretics and on the Signs of This Age, in The True Faith in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, cited edition, p. 172.
15. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 340. To His Son Talaleus, in cited edition, p. 97.
16. Ibidem, note 4.
17. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 466. To Jacob the Monk, cited edition, p. 137.
18. Archimandrite Vasilios Papadakis, Guardians of Orthodoxy: The Struggles of Monks to Defend Orthodoxy, cited edition, 2015, p. 455.
19. St. Mark of Ephesus (Mark Eugenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus), Anti-Unionist Works, ed. by L. Petit, vol. X, fasc. II, Rome, pp. 127(8-9), 130(18-24), 132(5-8, 34-35), 133(1-6); Vasilides, pp. 102-103; PG 160, 69C, 97C, in Pillars of Orthodoxy: The Life and Struggles of Our Holy Father Mark Eugenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, Egumenița Publishing House, Galați, n.d., p. 79.
20. The Epistle of Kyr Mark of Ephesus to Theophanes, PG, 160, 1096-1100, in Pillars of Orthodoxy: The Life and Struggles of Our Holy Father Mark Eugenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, cited edition, p. 151.
21. Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 160.
22. Ibidem, p. 167.
23. "At that time, Emperor Constantine, the son who was utterly unlike his good and Christ-loving mother, namely Empress Irene, exiled her from the throne and began to rule alone. And being young and of bad character, he indulged in passions without measure and in debauchery. For that reason, he also exiled his wife Maria, whom he forcibly tonsured into the monastic order, and in her place, he took another woman named Theodote, who was related to his father. The Most Holy Patriarch Tarasios did not want to bless their marriage, but a certain priest named Joseph, who was the steward of the church, defying divine laws and disobeying the patriarch, became the supporter and performer of that unlawful marriage... So, such a lawlessness, beginning in the imperial household, spread everywhere, not only through the surrounding cities but also to the farthest regions. Thus, the rulers and lords in Bosporus and the Goths and those who ruled in other parts began to do the same, separating from their wives, forcibly keeping them in a monastic manner, and taking others in their place." (The Life of Saint Theodore the Studite, https://doxologia.ro/viata-sfant/viata-sfantului-cuvios-teodor-studitul).
24. Interpreting the Meletian schism, Archimandrite Vasilios Papadakis, in Guardians of Orthodoxy: The Struggles of Monks to Defend Orthodoxy (cited edition, p. 292), warns: "Finally, others, among the lovers of divisions and schisms in the Church, have given his temporary separations from Saints Tarasios and Nikephoros the character of church law and an inviolable canon, asserting, in disagreement with the holy canons [13-15 I-II, see note 524] and with Holy Tradition, that we have the duty to cease communion with our bishops not only for doctrinal reasons but also for the violation of certain Church canons."
25. Letter 36. To Euprepian and those [with him], cited edition, p. 38. There is, however, some overlap between the Meletian heresy and iconoclasm, as the life of St. Theodore tells us that Emperor Constantine threatened Patriarch Tarasios with the revival of iconoclasm if he did not accept his decision. Thus, an attempt is made to justify the decision of the 806 council to accept the emperor's marriage on the grounds that it would avoid the enormous risk of the revival of iconoclasm. A very important detail is that the originator of the Meletian heresy, the priest Joseph, who married the adulterous emperor, is also the leader of those who revived the fight against icons: “But the old plague, the evil within the bosom, Joseph, formerly known as the officiator of the adulterous union, and now the mocker of Christ, himself became the leader of those whom he previously had in his care” (Letter 223. To His Son Naucratius, cited edition, p. 85).
26. "By accepting the one who officiated the adulterous marriage, they synodally established a dogma against the Gospel, against the Forerunner, and against the canons, legitimizing lawlessness as an economy and anathematizing and expelling the priests and hierarchs who wanted to uphold the authority of the canons and those who did not share the same view [as the adultery they accepted], as you know" (Letter 53. To the Reader Stephen and those with him, cited edition, p. 68). The dispute ended with the death of the emperor and the final deposition of the priest Joseph, who had married the emperor.
27. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 40. To His Son Naucratius, cited edition, p. 58.
28. "In the sixth and seventh sessions of the council, three patriarchs of Constantinople and other iconoclast bishops were anathematized" (Archim. Vasilios Papadakis, Guardians of Orthodoxy: The Struggles of Monks to Defend Orthodoxy, Egumenița Publishing House, Galați, 2015, p. 268). "And this council was convened against the pagans and the slanderers of Christians, the fighters [iconoclasts] against the Holy Icons, whom they anathematized, especially Anastasius, Constantine, and Nicetas, who during the time of the iconoclasts served as false patriarchs of Constantinople..." ("Prolegomena on the Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council," Pidalion: The Rudder of the Orthodox Church, n.p., Credința Strămoșească Publishing House, 2007, p. 320). The three heretical patriarchs are referred to by the saint in Letter 53. To the Reader Stephen and those with him (cited edition, p. 65).
29. Ibidem, p. 169, note 1.
30. If he has not sincerely repented.
31. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 531. To His Son Dorotheus, cited edition, p. 154.
32. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 40. To His Son Naucratius, in cited edition, p. 50.
33. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 48. To His Son Naucratius, in cited edition, p. 60.
34. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 40. To His Son Naucratius, in cited edition, p. 49.
55. The distinction between the two themes he addresses is made by the saint in this epistle, when he speaks about the fall of Flubutus: "not confessing in their first defeat—for adultery and adulterous union—they behaved exactly the opposite in the present situation."
36. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 223. To His Son Naucratius, in cited edition, p. 85.
37. Letter 244. To an Abbess, cited edition, p. 89.
38. About the fact that he was afraid to ask the priest not to commemorate the heresiarch at the liturgy (Letter 553, to the wife of a spatharios whose name was Mahara, cited edition, p. 159).
39. Letter 553, to the wife of a spatharios whose name was Mahara, cited edition, p. 159.
40. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 384. To His Son Naucratius, in cited edition, p. 111.
41. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 294. To Macarius the Abbot, cited edition, p. 91.
42. Archdeacon Prof. Dr. Ioan N. Floca, The Canons of the Orthodox Church. Notes and Comments, cited edition, p. 511.
43. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 340. To His Son Talaleus, in cited edition, p. 97.
44. The prohibition is reiterated in Letter 393, where, in response to the question of whether one can eat, in times of great need, with those who are entirely unbelievers or with those who have fellowship with them, the saint replies, "under no circumstances, not at all unless it is an extreme case and not indifferently, but only if there is a true necessity, [and even then] only once or twice" (St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 393. To My Holy Spiritual Fathers Who Are Exiled for the Lord, Theodore, the Least Priest and Abbot of Those in Studion, Rejoice in the Lord, cited edition, p. 121).
45. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 144. To Sergius, the Consul and First Cousin, cited edition, p. 79.
46. That he speaks about condemned heretics is evident from the reference to the imperial prison in Smyrna, where Leo the Armenian had thrown him.
47. Letter 500. To Hesychius the Protonotary, cited edition, pp. 152-153.
48. Letter 531. To His Son Dorotheus, cited edition, p. 155.
49. Letter 534. To Simeon the Monk, cited edition, p. 156.
50. Of the canonical reality created by facilitating the emergence of heresy in the Church.
51. The condemnation by an ecumenical council does not mean that those condemned become heretics only from the moment of condemnation or that they become more heretical from that moment, but that from that moment they and their teachings are completely separated from the right thinking of the Church. This severance from the body of the Church creates a new canonical reality, which obliges all those who wish to remain in Orthodoxy to break any ties with those condemned by the council.
52. St. Athanasius the Great, To Those Who Devote Themselves to the Solitary Life.
53. Archimandrite Vasilios Papadakis, Guardians of Orthodoxy: The Struggles of Monks to Defend Orthodoxy, cited edition, p. 455.
54. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 393. To My Holy Spiritual Fathers Who Are Exiled for the Lord, Theodore, the Least Priest and Abbot of Those in Studion, Rejoice in the Lord, cited edition, p. 121.
55. That is, they became heretics through voluntary participation, out of conviction, accepting the heretical teaching and believing in it.
56. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 49. To His Son Naucratius, in cited edition, p. 60.
57. Ibidem.
58. At various meetings, at general assemblies of the WCC, such as those in Porto Alegre or Busan.
59. Of the kind that claim the unity of the Church has been lost and that none of the current Christian communities can claim to be the true one, holy, apostolic, and catholic Church; that the Church was one only in the first millennium and that the Orthodox Church and papism are almost the same thing; that Muslims also believe in Christ; that there is a need to redefine the Church's dogmas; that the holy canons are outdated or applicable to a certain historical period and need to be "contextualized," etc.
60. The agreements of Busan, the agreements recognizing the Monophysites as Orthodox, the agreements of Ravenna or Chieti, which recognize the papal primacy, etc.
61. Communion with Greek Catholics, the admission of heretics to communion in Orthodox churches, etc.
62. Various sanctifications, the blessing of the Great Holy Water with Greek Catholics, etc.
66. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 40. To his son Navcratie, ed. cit., p. 58. On this topic, St. Paisios of Mount Athos says: "When it comes to making a decision that is contrary to the commandments of the Gospel, and one [bishop] does not agree with it, if he does not ask for his opinion to be written down, it means that he agrees with that decision. If he does not agree, but signs without his opinion being recorded, he does wrong and is responsible for it: he is guilty. However, if he expresses his opinion and the majority is against it, he is blameless before God" (Spiritual Words, I. With Pain and Love for the Contemporary Man, Evanghelismos Publishing, Bucharest, 2003, p. 344). The reasoning has a secular counterpart in the legal principle Qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset, "It is considered that he who remains silent consents, if he ought and could have spoken."
67. Archdeacon Ioan N. Floca, op. cit., p. 346; Dr. Nicodim Milaș, The Canons of the Orthodox Church Accompanied by Commentary, vol. II, part I, translated by Dr. Nicolae Popovici and Uroš Kovinčić, Diocesan Printing House, Arad, 1934, p. 323.
68. Archimandrite Vasilios Papadakis, Guardians of Orthodoxy, ed. cit., p. 267.
69. Ibid., 265.
70. Archimandrite Vasilios Papadakis, Guardians of Orthodoxy. The Struggles of Monks for the Defense of Orthodoxy, ed. cit., p. 63. The translation of the PSB collection by the Romanian Patriarchate provides the following version: “The ears of simple people have been deceived and accustomed to the iniquities of heresy. The children of the Church are being educated with corrupted teachings. What are we to do? Heretics baptize, give the dying provisions for the journey to eternity, visit the sick, comfort those in suffering and need, provide all kinds of assistance, and distribute the gift of the Holy Sacraments. Through all these things done by them, a bond of harmony with them is born among these people, so that in a short time, even if we were granted freedom, there would be no hope of bringing back those caught in this prolonged deception to the path of truth” (St. Basil the Great, Letters, Basilica Publishing House of the Romanian Patriarchate, Bucharest 2010, p. 396).
71. Epistle 15, Book Two, in Archim. Vasilios Papadakis, op. cit., p. 279.
72. This distinction was attempted to be made during the summer by Father Claudiu Buză, defending himself after being accused that, by participating in prayer with members of the Metropolitan Consistory in Bucharest, he had become... complicit in heresy. He tried to demonstrate that the state of those who have become complicit in the heresy from Crete is not identical to that of heretics condemned by an ecumenical council and excommunicated from the Church, in the sense that those who have become complicit in heresy are condemnable but have not yet been condemned by an ecumenical council, and therefore he cannot be judged as if he had violated the canons that prohibit prayer with heretics already condemned by the Church (can. 45, 46 of the Apostolic Canons, etc.). In this sense, he stated that those who have become complicit in the heresy from Crete are "innocent" (in the legal sense in which someone enjoys the presumption of innocence, even if the evidence incriminates them in the eyes of all, until the decision of their condemnation becomes final and enforceable), not because they are actually innocent of participating in heresy. When asked by the fathers present at the meeting in Beiuș whether he agreed that, regardless of how they became complicit in heresy, those who remain in communion (for the reasons mentioned above by St. Theodore the Studite, which also determine their degree of guilt) with the heresy and with the hierarchs who propagate it are guilty and risk facing the same treatment as those, Father Claudiu Buză agreed, which is why the fathers gathered in Beiuș considered that there was no reason for him to be regarded as the initiator of a new heretical teaching (an intermediate state of innocence for those who have become complicit in heresy). It goes without saying that Father Claudiu does not agree with the innocence of those who have become complicit in heresy; otherwise, why would he have sacrificed everything to break communion with them? Why would he have risked being called "the second Judas" by the local bishop if he believed that the participants in heresy risk nothing concerning their salvation?
73. "Anathema to Ecumenism - Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so-called 'branches' which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all 'branches' or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!": (https://ortodoxiacatholica.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/anatema-oficiala-a-bisericii-impotrivaecumenismului/).
74. One such priest was even one of the members of the consistory who confessed this in front of Father Claudiu Buză during the hearing of his appeal.
75. Regarding the limits of patience in this matter, I recommend the study by Father Hieromonk Grigore Sanda, the abbot of Lacu Frumos, published a few weeks ago on this topic.
76. https://ioanguradeaur.wordpress.com/category/cuvantari-impotriva-anomeilor-catre-iudei/.
Source: https://saccsiv.wordpress.com/2017/11/06/teolog-mihai-silviu-chirila-studiu-despre-partasia-la-erezie/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.