The Canonicity of Esphigmenou

 

The Canonicity of the Break in Communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate by the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou, Mount Athos

By Panagiotes Iliopoulos

Translated and edited by Vladimir Moss

…About 35 years ago eleven monasteries on Mount Athos and some metropolitans in Northern Greece stopped commemorating the name of Patriarch Athenagoras because of his well-known ecumenist behaviour…

At that time the Holy Community [the governing body of Mount Athos] declared that "every monastery has absolute freedom in how it acts according to its own judgement and conscience" (13/11/1971). A little later the other monasteries recommenced the commemoration in spite of the fact that the situation had not improved - in fact, the opposite had happened, it had got worse. The Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou... continues the break in commemoration to this day.

In the short time that is available to us let us cite from the history of the Church some details of how the leading Fathers of the Church carried out the cessation of commemoration when the Patriarchs did not rightly divide the word of truth...

"If any one comes to you and does not bring this teaching (of Christ), do not receive him into your house and do not greet him. For he who greets him shares in his evil works" (II John 10-11).

This is an excerpt from the second epistle of the Holy John the Theologian, verses 10 and 11. That is, absolutely no communion is allowed with the forgers of the faith, the heretics, nor can we greet them. For he who has good relations with them communes with their evil works.

…The other Holy Apostles think in the same way on this subject. I will not cite their opinions because of lack of time.

Fourth Century Constantinople. The Arians were dominant for forty years. In accordance with the decision of the Council of Antioch (379), St. Gregory the Theologian was sent to the queen of cities in order to strengthen the Orthodox there. When he arrived there..., he did not commemorate, and had absolutely no communion with, the 'lawful' Archbishop of Constantinople, Demophilus, since he was an Arian. Within two years St. Gregory changed the capital from being Arian to being Orthodox. In accordance with the decision of the Second Ecumenical Council (381), he was declared Archbishop of Constantinople. And after the death of St. Meletius of Antioch… he was elected president of the Second Ecumenical Council…

In this story we see that one great saint of the Church did not commemorate the "lawful" but cacodox Archbishop of Constantinople...

Fifth Century Constantinople. When, in 428, the heretic Nestorius became Patriarch of Constantinople, the people resisted, and when his name was commemorated they came out of the churches shouting: "We have a king, we do not have a bishop." The priests stopped mentioning his name in the sacred services and were fiercely persecuted. As proof of this we cite the case of St. Hypatius, who in defending himself before his bishop, Eulalius, courageously declared: "I have no communion with him, neither do I commemorate his name... He is not a bishop..." (Acta Sanctorum, 2, 257).

Also, St. Cyril, who was then Patriarch of Alexandria, in his epistle to the clergy and laity of Constantinople, exhorted them to struggle against Nestorius, and among other things wrote: "... Keep yourselves spotless and guiltless, neither having communion with the person commemorated (Nestorius), nor attaching yourselves to him as a teacher, if he remains a wolf instead of a shepherd" (Mansi 5, 1096).

Seventh Century Constantinople. When, during the seventh century, the heresy of Monothelitism appeared, and all the patriarchs without exception had accepted this heresy, the banner of the right faith was upheld by two monks, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Sophronius, later Patriarch of Jerusalem.

About twenty years at least before the convening of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680), St. Maximus had ceased to commemorate the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople..., and was cruelly persecuted for this. They anathematized him, they cut out his tongue and his right hand, and they exiled him to the Caucasus at the age of 80, where he died in 662.

Eighteen years later, under Emperor Constantine Pogonatos, the son of Justinian II, the Sixth Ecumenical Council assembled in the Troullos palace and "subjected to anathema" four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome, one Patriarch of Alexandria, one Patriarch of Antioch, and others...

Eighth Century. St. John of Damascus (680-750), the great father and teacher of the Church, in the first phase of Iconoclasm (754-787). At first he was the first counsellor of the Caliph of Damascus, then he became a monk and a priest. He struggled earnestly against Iconoclasm. The iconoclast emperor of the time, Leo the Isaurian, slandered him to the caliph, who commanded that they cut off his right hand. However he was miraculously healed through persistent prayer before the icon of the All-Holy. The stunned caliph restored him to his post...

In this case we should observe that: (a) the struggle of St. John of Damascus took place before the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and (b) the "lawful" Council of that time (754), which was iconoclast in mind, anathematised St. John of Damascus. Now the Synod of the Phanar, which is ecumenist, has characterised the Orthodox monks of Esphigmenou as schismatics. The events are parallel.

In the eighth-ninth centuries St. Theodore the Studite, the abbot of the renowned monastery of the Studion near Constantinople, was a great struggler and theologian of the Church in the second phase of Iconoclasm (813-843). Three times he stopped commemorating the Patriarchs of Constantinople, and three times he was defrocked, anathematized, maltreated and exiled. He reposed during his third exile in 826 at the age of 67.

Now the Esphigmenite monks, like new Studites, have stopped commemorating the Patriarch, not three times, but once and well, for very serious reasons of the faith. If St. Theodore the Studite were living now, would he be commemorating Athenagoras, Demetrius or Bartholomew, he who once in the three times that he stopped commemorating the Patriarch did it because of an unlawful marriage? "Even if the commemorator is Orthodox he has a defiled communion from the single fact that he commemorates him" (PG 99, 1669A.

1204: The Capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders. The Latins rule over the whole of the Byzantine state. Suffocating pressure is applied to force the commemoration of the Latin bishops. The situation is especially intolerable on Cyprus. Some clergy give in to the tyrannical pressure and commemorate Latin bishops out of necessity. The Constantinopolitan Patriarch of the time, Germanus, forbids any yielding and condescension in the matter of the commemoration of a Latin bishop by Orthodox clergy. In his epistle to the Cypriots (1229) he says, among other things: "Whoever among you is a genuine child of the [Orthodox] Catholic Church must flee hotfoot from obedience to the Latins and not receive any blessing from their hands. For it is better to pray alone in your houses to God than to gather in the churches with the Latin-minded."

The Council of Lyons, 1274. Union with the Latins was decided on. The Latin dogmas of the [papal] primacy and the Filioque, together with commemoration of the pope, was accepted. The clergy and laity were worried and aroused. The Fathers of Mount Athos sent a monumental letter of confession to Emperor Michael VIII Paleologus… because of his opinions. But many clergy and hieromonks broke communion with Patriarch John Beccus.

In 1280 the Emperor and Patriarch arrived on Mount Athos with an army in order to impose the commemoration "by fire and sword". As many Fathers as remained faithful were martyred and are honoured as monk-martyrs...

However, history is unfortunately repeating itself. The Athonite Fathers of that time stopped commemorating the Latin-minded Patriarch. Today, the Esphigmenite Fathers are doing the same because of the pan-religious behaviour of the Patriarch, which the Church has certainly condemned. If the Athonite Fathers who were martyred under Beccus did well, then why are the Esphigmenite Fathers persecuted for doing the same thing today? If those Fathers did not do well, then why are they Saints of the Church?

Fourteenth Century: St. Gregory Palamas, 1286-1360. The Calabrian Latin-minded monk Barlaam played the part of an Orthodox and transferred to Byzantium the deceptive, heretical views of Papism. He influenced the views of the learned men of Byzantium, such as Grigoras, Akindynus and other. Also Patriarch John Calecas and other bishops. St. Gregory Palamas then ceased to commemorate the Patriarch. ... He was anathematized and put in the palace prison for about four years. He reposed in 1360 at the age of 64, and his feast is on November 14...

Fifteenth Century: St. Mark Evgenikos of Ephesus (1392-1444). One of the greatest theologians and strugglers among the Fathers of the Church. As is well known, at the council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439), he was the only one who did not sign the unia, that is, the abolition of Orthodoxy. From that time he stopped commemorating the Patriarch and never again concelebrated with any bishop from among those who had signed the unia or were Latin-minded.

He left a will in which he forbade the Patriarch and the other bishops who had signed the unia to come to his funeral and pannikhidas. He was persecuted, but he did not yield. He reposed in 1444 at the age of 52. His memory is celebrated on January 19...

"In every way flee his communion (of the Patriarch) and do not concelebrate with him, neither commemorate him at all, nor consider him to be a hierarch but a wolf and a hireling" (St. Mark of Ephesus, PG 160, 1097).

However, after these quotations from events in the history of the Church, I must mention that the justification and the duty of ceasing to commemorate the Patriarch who innovates in relation to the faith is secured by the 31st canon of the Holy Apostles and the 15th canon of the First-and-Second Council of Constantinople (861),... which took place under Photius the Great. This very important canon defines that those who cease commemorating an innovating Patriarch not only do not create a schism in the Church (and consequently are not schismatics), but also are worthy of honour from the Orthodox. It especially decrees that this can happen before a synodical decision. 

Truly, how can any Patriarch dare to conduct pan-religious prayers when the Fathers forbid it?

"If a bishop or priest or deacon only prays with heretics, let him be excommunicate, but if he has allowed them to do anything as clergy, let him be defrocked", decrees the 45th canon of the Holy Apostles.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council orders: "To those who commune knowingly (with heretics and those of other religions), anathema" (Mansi 13, 128). And the 33rd canon of the Council of Laodicea decrees: ""We must not pray with heretics or schismatics". 

How can we commune with those who are excommunicated according to the Sacred Canons?... "Let him who communes with an excommunicate be excommunicated", is the eternal and unchanging law of the Church.