On Divisions Among Zealots: An Historical Parallel

 

On Divisions Among Zealots: An Historical Parallel

Source: Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement, by Archimandrite Cyprian Agiokyprianites (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1997).

 

…[T]he Orthodox ecumenists of Geneva seem to forget that divisions among Orthodox zealots are not unknown in Church history, especially in a time of heresy.

A brief glance at the fragmentation of the Orthodox in Antioch is very instructive, particularly when we take into account the fact that this fragmentation bitterly disturbed and troubled the Holy Catholic Church in the fourth and fifth centuries (the Antiochian Schism, 330-485).

Let us recall, in broad strokes, that in the primary phase of this Schism (330-381), the anti-Arian Orthodox were separated into two groups, which were completely out of communion with each other: the super-strict Efstathians [named after the unjustly deposed confessor St. Efstathios of Antioch] under Bishop Paulinos (uncanonically Consecrated by Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari, Sardinia), and the Meletians under St. Meletios the Confessor; while there were, of course, two further groups in Antioch: the Apollinarians, under the Presbyter Vitalios, and the Arians, under Evzoios!

—St. Basil the Great and the other Cappadocian Fathers were in communion with St. Meletios;

—St. Athanasios the Great, St. Epiphanios [of Salamis], St. Hieronymos [of Stridonium], and the West were in communion with Paulinos (who, indeed, inclined towards Monarchianism) and were cautious with regard to the Orthodoxy of St. Basil the Great (!),

—while the West, at the same time, recognized Efstathios of Sebasteia (Pneumatomachian) and Marcellos of Ancyra (Monarchian);

—The very important Synod of Alexandria (summer of 362) did not succeed in ending the disagreement.

—However, neither did the Holy Second Oecumenical Synod (381), because its election of St. Flavian to the See of Antioch (in place of the reposed St. Meletios) split the Most Holy Catholic Church: the Bishops of Palestine, Phoenicia, Illyricum, Thrace, and Pontos supported St. Flavian, while the Bishops of the West, Egypt, Arabia, and Cyprus were opposed to him!

The different currents in the case of the Antiochian Schism [1] have much to teach the Orthodox ecumenists, who lack any sense of restraint and who are ready, at a moment’s notice, to characterize those who resist the heresy of ecumenism in an Orthodox manner as supposed schismatics, reviling and slandering them in an unfraternal spirit and saying that they are allegedly "cut off from the body of the Church,” something which they have never said about the grievous heretics of the West, who are "completely broken away and alienated from the Faith itself'; [2] indeed, on the contrary:

‘They see’ them ‘not as heretics, who divide the Church, but as brothers in Christ, who are seeking unity,’ ‘the unity of the Church as the Body of Christ being understood in a broader sense,’ since— according to the ecumenists—‘the question of the boundaries of the Church can be judged in a broader way today.’ [3]

The differences of opinion among the pious zealots for Orthodoxy, which spring up at a time of heresy, neither inhibit Orthodox resistance (nor should they), nor do they impair the credibility of its witness, given that this is conducted on the basis of purely Patristic and Synodal presuppositions; indeed, these differences were not unknown even in the period of Iconoclasm, when—for example—St. Theodore the Studite wrote very typically to Bishop Theophilos of Ephesus:

I feel considerable sorrow, my most honored Father; first, because among ourselves, who teach aright the word of truth concerning the heresy of the Iconoclasts that is now raging, quarrels are breaking out and schisms are arising. [4]

 

Endnotes

1. See G. A. Tsananas, "Meletios," in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. viii (Athens: 1966), cols. 926-938; P. K. Chrestou, Greek Patrology [in Greek], Vol. iv (Thessaloniki: 1989): "Meletios of Antioch" (pp. 393-395), "Flavian of Antioch" (pp. 395-397), "Ecumenical Activity" of St. Basil the Great (pp. 32-34); Archimandrite B. K. Stephanides, Church History [in Greek], 3rd ed. (Athens: 1970), pp. 203-206; G. Konidaris, "Antioch," in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. ii (Athens: 1963), cols. 889-892; Chrestou, Greek Patrology [in Greek], Vol. iii (Thessaloniki: 1987): "Efstathios of Antioch" (pp. 448-456); Father Georges Florovsky, "Efstathios of Antioch," in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. v (Athens: 1964), cols. 1088- 1089; "Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari," in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. viii (Athens: 1966), cols. 398-399 (this bibliography is certainly instructive; direct study of the sources has much to teach us).

2. First Sacred Canon of St. Basil the Great.

3. See "Report of the First Sub-Committee of the ‘Joint Commission for the Orthodox-Anglican Dialogue’ During its Session from 20-27 July 1981 in Chambesy," entitled "The Mystery of the Church."

• See, also, the introductory text, "Concerning the Boundaries of the Church," by the "Joint Theological Commission of Orthodox and Old Catholics: Bonn, 24-28 August 1979" (Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland, Theological Dialogues: An Orthodox Perspective [in Greek] [Thessaloniki: Kyriakide Publications, 1986], pp. 169, 261).

4. St. Theodore the Studite, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. xcix, col. 1482cd (Epistle ii. 155: "To Theophilos of Ephesus").