The Misinterpretation of "Potentially and in Actuality" as the Justification for Communion with Heretics and its Refutation

 The Misinterpretation of "Potentially and in Actuality" as the Justification for Communion with Heretics and its Refutation

Nikolaos Mannis | November 29, 2014

INTRODUCTION

In the previous section (http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.gr/2014/11/blog-post_25.html), we explained the term "potentially and in actuality" and discussed the necessity of a Synodal Judgment. In this, the third and final part, we will address an entirely unorthodox position concerning the justification of communion with heretics who have not been judged in a Synod, because they are not “actual” heretics. 

Some therefore argue that it is not necessary to sever communion with those who have not been condemned by a Synod. They misinterpret the "potentially and in actuality" mentioned in the penalties of the Sacred Canons and advocate that since there is no condemnation of the transgressors, we should not separate from them.

However, this position is erroneous and is in conflict with the teaching of the Orthodox Church.

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE UNORTHODOX POSITION

1. When Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople proclaimed heresy, the righteous Hypatius, the abbot of the Monastery of Rufinus in Constantinople, immediately ceased the commemoration of Nestorius. At that time, Bishop Eulalius admonished Hypatius with the following words: "Why have you removed his name, not knowing what will come of it?" [1], in other words, "Why did you erase his name before seeing what will happen?", meaning before a Synod was convened to condemn Nestorius. However, this did not prevent the righteous Hypatius from IMMEDIATELY severing communion with the “potentially” heretical Patriarch [2].

2. After the false Synod of Ferrara-Florence (1439), when a significant portion of Orthodox clergy became Latin-minded and accepted union with the Papists, the Orthodox, as in any similar case, reacted and IMMEDIATELY severed communion with those leaning towards the Latin side. John Plousiadenos, one of the most prominent Unionists of that era, accused the Orthodox "that before the occurrence of an Ecumenical Council and our repudiation, you turned away and rejected us as heterodox" [3]. He similarly wrote in his work "Dialogue of John the Presbyter," where, once again addressing the Orthodox, he wrote: "An Ecumenical Council, as happened in every heresy, must convene and discuss and set the terms, and based on those terms, pronounce judgment, and then turn away from them as heretics. It does not seem just but rather impious and inhumane to expel fellow believers without a universal and ecumenical criterion" [4].

3. Following the calendar innovation, the Orthodox of Greece, zealots for the Patristic Traditions, who saw in this innovation the heresy of Papism, began to sever communion with the Innovating Hierarchy. At that time, defenders of the innovation, such as Archimandrite Athanasios Vittos Danielides and the notable fathers of the Great Lavra Monastery, used the same argument. Danielides wrote, "Which Ecumenical Council, after this innovation, declared it heretical and, for this reason, proclaimed it as such?" [5]. The Great Lavra commemorators blamed the Zealots and wondered, "For what reason do they separate from their brothers, instead of commemorating while awaiting the decision of the Church?" [6].

4. This very unorthodox position became the central idea of the ecclesiological heresy of Epiphanius Theodoropoulos [7], according to which it is generally not allowed (except as a last resort and under a multitude of arbitrary conditions) to sever communion with those who hold heretical beliefs before a synodal judgment, so as to avoid the alleged risk of schism [8]. He writes characteristically: "There is no danger in our being defiled, whether we commemorate the Patriarch (as long as he has not been condemned) or, even more so, by communing with those who commemorate him" [9]. Again, he states, "Since the Church has not proceeded to depose them, we should not renounce them nor cease to commemorate them" [10].

THE REJECTION OF THE UNORTHODOX POSITION BY THE SAINTS AND THE DISTORTION OF PATRISTIC TEACHING BY THE CACODOX

In contrast to the misguided mindset mentioned above, the Holy Fathers advocate the Orthodox approach when dealing with those who, within the Church, begin to preach heresy or commune with heretics. From their vast written legacy, we draw a few points that refute unorthodox views.

(To further highlight the extent of the distortion by the cacodox, we provide in parentheses the distortion of the teachings of the Saints if they were to accept the above anti-Orthodox position.)

1. Saint Basil the Great: "Those who pretend to profess the sound Orthodox faith but commune with those of a different mind, if they do not withdraw from them after giving them a warning, not only should be excluded from communion, but should not even be called brothers" [11].

(According to the cacodox, Saint Basil should have said: "Those who pretend to confess the sound Orthodox faith, but commune with those of different beliefs, such people, if after admonition they do not desist, not only should be called brothers but also not be excluded from communion," and he would have urged to wait for a Council!).

2. The same Saint: "We should not even for a brief moment admit their companionship if we find them wavering in matters of faith" [12].

("Not even for an hour," says the Saint, "do we not accept the companionship of those who falter in the faith," according to the cacodox, "until the end of time," while exhorting to wait for the convening of a Synod!)

3. Saint Cyril advised the Orthodox of Constantinople not to commune with the then Patriarch Nestorius. He made this recommendation BEFORE the convening of the Third Ecumenical Council, which ultimately deposed Nestorius. In a letter to the Orthodox, he wrote: "Always kindling this faith within yourselves, keeping yourselves pure and blameless, neither communing with the aforementioned, nor regarding him as a teacher, if he remains a wolf instead of a shepherd" [13].

(To satisfy the cacodox, Saint Cyril should have said: "Keeping this faith always kindled within yourselves, keeping yourselves spotless and without blame, communing with the aforementioned, regard him as a teacher, even if he remains a wolf instead of a shepherd" and simply wait for the convening of a Synod!).

4. Saint John Chrysostom, interpreting "Obey your leaders," writes: "If, for the sake of faith, flee and separate from him, not only if he is a man, but even if he is an angel descending from heaven" [14].

(The cacodox teach that even for matters of faith, we should not flee from them but rather await the convening of a Synod!)

5. Saint Photios writes: "Is the shepherd a heretic? He is a wolf. Flee from him and avoid him, do not be deceived and approach, even if he seems to be gentle; flee his communion and his conversation as you would the venom of a serpent." [15].

(What do the unorthodox say today: "Is the shepherd a heretic? Stay with him, do not flee from his communion and wait for a Synod to take place!")

6. The Holy Fathers of Mount Athos in the 19th century composed a letter to the emperor, who pressured them to commemorate Patriarch John Bekkos of Constantinople (who was Latin-minded but had not yet been deposed by a Council). In this letter, we read: "How can an Orthodox soul endure these things, and not immediately withdraw from the communion of those who commemorate him, and regard them as peddlers of divine matters?" [16].

(No comment needed!)

7. Saint Mark Eugenikos [of Ephesus] made the following profound and revealing statements on the day of his repose:“I wish to express my opinion in more detail, especially now that my death is approaching, so as to be consistent with myself from beginning to end, and lest anyone should think that I have said one thing and concealed another in my thoughts, foe which it would be just to shame me in this hour of my death. Concerning the Patriarch I shall say this, lest it should perhaps occur to him to show me a certain respect at the burial of this my humble body, or to send to my grave any of his hierarchs or clergy or in general any of those in communion with him in order to take part in prayer or to join the priests invited to it from amongst us, thinking that at some time, or perhaps secretly, I had allowed communion with him. And lest my silence give occasion to those who do not know my views well and fully to suspect some kind of conciliation, I hereby state and testify before the many worthy men here present that I do not desire, in any manner and absolutely, and do not accept communion with him or with those who are with him, not in this life nor after my death, just as I accept neither the Union nor Latin dogmas, which he and his adherents have accepted, and for the enforcement of which he has occupies this presiding place, with the aim of overturning the true dogmas of the Church. I am absolutely convinced that the farther I stand from him and those like him, the nearer I am to God and all the saints; and to the degree that I separate myself from them am I in union with the Truth and with the Holy Fathers, the Theologians of the Church; and I am likewise convinced that those who count themselves with them stand far away from the Truth and from the blessed Teachers of the Church. And for this reason I say: just as in the course of my whole life I was separated from them, so at the time of my departure, yea and after my death, I turn away from intercourse and communion with them and vow and command that none (of them) shall approach either my burial or my grave, and likewise anyone else from our side, with the aim of attempting to join and concelebrate in our Divine services; for this would be to mix what cannot be mixed. But it befits them to be absolutely separated from us until such time as God shall grant correction and peace to His Church.” [17]  It should be noted that at that time, the then Patriarch Gregory [III] Mammas, with whom Saint Mark had no communion, had not been condemned by a Synod (which finally took place in 1450, five years after the death of Saint Mark, when the Synod deposed Gregory and elected the anti-papist Athanasios II as Patriarch).

(What do the cacodox say about what Saint Mark is saying? The only thing we can think of is that if they had lived in his time, they would have called him a "schismatic" and a "fanatic." However, it is worth looking at what the Latin-minded people of that time had to say, as found in the aforementioned work of the Uniate Plousiadenos [18]:

Latin-minded person: "And who remained steadfast in the Greek faith, O you who zealously embrace it?"

Orthodox person: "I told you that only the Bishop of Ephesus remained in the Orthodox faith, to which I submit, and have as my teacher."

Latin-minded person: "I told you also that one should not follow the one, but the many. First, because a single person does not make a Church; then, he was superstitious and was frightened in mind."

Don't the cacodox today use similar terms against those who do not commune with the heretics?).

8. The same Saint finally summarizes the patristic teaching: "All the teachers of the Church, all the Synods, and all the divine Scriptures exhort us to flee from those who uphold other doctrines and to separate from communion with them." [19]

(The proponents of this dangerous delusion proclaim in conferences, speeches, and books that breaking communion with heretics is a crime and that one should engage in a struggle "within the Church," considering communion with heretics as proof that we are not "outside the Church!" And simply wait "until the time is right"...)

RECTIFYING AN INJUSTICE

The blessed leader of the Holy Struggle of the Genuine Orthodox, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, was unjustly accused of aligning with the abovementioned cacodox position through the use of the term "potentially and in actuality."

However, we saw that it wasn't the terms "potentially and in actuality" that was the cause of this position, but the incorrect interpretation of it.

The Metropolitan of Florina, as a genuine successor of the Holy Fathers, was a staunch supporter of breaking communion with the transgressors BEFORE a synodal judgment.

The Uniates of the 16th century, and the Innovationist New Calendarists like Athanasios Vittos Danielides (as well as Epiphanios Theodoropoulos later), DECEPTIVELY used the principle of "potentially and in actuality" for an entirely different reason. Their aim was to reinforce their ERRONEOUS position that it is not allowed to break communion with those who have not been condemned as heretics by a Synod and to undermine the Orthodox teaching, according to which Orthodox Christians must IMMEDIATELY avoid and repudiate the un-Orthodox.

However, the phrase "potentially and in actuality" was used by the Metropolitan of Florina to denounce the notion of the automatic (from the moment of the transgression) loss of God's Grace for those in violation, and not to support the idea that the transgressors were not truly transgressors and that communion should not be severed with them.

This is clear evidence that the Metropolitan of Florina, since 1935 when he denounced the innovators, remained faithful to the Orthodox Confession until his repose and never communed with them.

CONCLUSION:

The Necessity of Separation from Heretics and the Struggle for the Restoration of Orthodoxy

Today [in 2014], 90 years after the Ecclesiastical Calendar Innovation, which was one head of the Hydra of Ecumenism, there is no excuse for those who continue to have communion with the Modernists, Ecumenists, Freemasons, Latin-minded, and generally all the heterodox.

Tomorrow, once again, the heretical Patriarch will receive on his throne, at the obliterated Phanar, the two-horned beast from Rome. It is the duty of all who wish to be called Orthodox to cut off communion with the Ecumenists and those who commune with them, and to close their ears to the sirens of the pseudo-zealots who recently, in a mockery of a conference on the subject [in the Official Church’s Metropolis of Piraeus], showed themselves unworthy to bear the title of "champions of Orthodoxy." We hope the Lord grants them repentance…

Therefore, cutting off communion with the heretics, uniting all the healthy Orthodox forces, and striving for the convening of the Great Council of truly Orthodox members [is necessary]. This council will proclaim the Orthodox Doctrines, admonish the wandering, and, in the words of the Holy Fathers, cast off as putrid members those unrepentant heretics.

However, it is evident that only those bishops who do not have communion with the heretics can convene such a Council. Otherwise, who will judge the heretics? Those who remain united with them? But then, first and foremost, they must judge themselves!

ENDNOTES

[1] See in the works of Hieromonk Theodoretos, Monasticism and Heresy (Athens, 1977, p. 42) and The Antidote (Athens, 1990, p. 109).

[2] The Orthodox practice of immediately severing communion with those who preach heresy was affirmed and became a Canon during the Council of 861 (First-Second Synod). Canon 15 of this Council is clear: "For those who, for some heresy, have been condemned by the holy Synods or the Fathers, and thus have separated themselves from communion with the president [bishop] openly declaring that heresy, and teaching it to the Church bareheaded, such persons not only will they not be subject to the canonical penalty before a Synodal judgment, but they will be considered worthy of their due honor by the Orthodox."

[3] Eleftherios Gkoutzidis, "The Position of the Genuine Orthodox Church Against New Calendarism and Ecumenism from 1924 to 1935" (5/18-3-1991).

[4] P. G. 159, 969

[5] Calendar Correction or the Transfer of the Calendar, Athens, 1926, page 45.

[6] The Zealots and Monks of Mount Athos, Thessaloniki, 1933, page 52.

[7] This heresy, which the Church must condemn in the future, is responsible for the deplorable and unprecedented situation we have experienced all these years. It allows so-called Orthodox (who are essentially pseudo-Orthodox) to tolerate and commune with heretical ecumenists without any remorse. They even consider themselves as "champions of Orthodoxy" and supposedly "shepherds of the Church." But where have we ever heard of shepherds dining with wolves? And what kind of nourishment is this, if not their own flocks?

[8] Epiphanius Theodoropoulos considers the breaking of communion with heretics as a schism from the Church and the cessation of communion before a Council as a division. However, the practice of the Church and the 9th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council, as we've seen above, teach exactly the opposite.

[9] The Two Extremes, Athens, 1986, page 91.

[10] See Hieromonk Theodoretos, The Antidote, Athens 1990, page 53 (where this position is refuted).

[11] P.G. 160, 101

[12] P.G. 32, 993-996

[13] Mansi 4, 1096

[14] P.G. 63, 231

[15] Photios, Speeches and Addresses, Constantinople, 1900, Volume I, page 268.

[16] Kallistos Vlastos, A Historical Essay on the Schism of the Western Church from the Orthodox Eastern Church, Athens, 1896, page 108.

[17] P.O. 17, 484-486

[18] P.G. 159, 980. The characterizations "Latin-minded" and "Orthodox" are our own, based on the ideas expressed by the fictional characters in this dialogue, in which Plousiadenos is supposed to eventually convince the Orthodox person to become Latin-minded

[19] P.G. 160, 101

Original Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2014/11/blog-post_29.html