Pangiotis Simatis, theologian
After the first two
parts concerning the cessation of commemoration and invalid-valid Mysteries
(https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2020/05/blog-post_646.html
and https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2020/05/blog-post_382.html),
today is the third
part. I dedicate this effort with love to those brothers who have fallen into
the delusion of claiming arbitrarily, with excommunicative logic, interpretive
acrobatics, and confusion of concepts concerning heresy and ecclesiology, that
the Mysteries of uncondemned heretics and of those who commune with them are
invalid, while they have not presented even
one patristic text that calls
the Mysteries of uncondemned heretics invalid. Those of the condemned, of
course, are invalid—no Orthodox denies that.
And conversely, at
the same time when there exist perhaps hundreds of texts (and we ourselves have
presented dozens) from our ecclesiastical tradition, in which it is exceedingly
evident and clear that the Councils, in times of heresy, treat the accused as
having Mysteries, and for this reason, either absolve them upon repentance or
condemn them when they persist in their false belief. The supporters of the
invalid Mysteries, however, have unfortunately been led astray—through
excessive zeal and despite their good intentions—by the mistaken interpretation
they give either to passages and words of Holy Scripture or to passages of the
Holy Fathers.
I believe that by
reading this article with good intent, they will ascertain with their own eyes
that Saint Gregory Palamas (and his disciple Joseph Kalothetos), at no point,
neither uses the word "invalid" for the Mysteries of Kalekas, nor at any
point questions them. It is, of course, evident that he has ceased communion
with Kalekas; it is evident that he considers Kalekas no longer to express the
faith of the Church and not to belong to it, but to be a pseudo-bishop, exactly
like the “presiding” bishop from whom the 15th Canon of the First-Second
Council urges us to wall ourselves off; and certainly, one walls himself off
from someone who has valid Mysteries; it is therefore evident that Kalekas is
subject to deposition and worthy of the anathema of the councils, since he
allied himself with two condemned heretics, Barlaam and Akindynos, and for this
reason must be condemned by a council.
I will repeat: the
Saint, however, neither speaks of invalid Mysteries nor implies such a thing in
his writings, as is evident from the texts themselves. The Saints, when it came
to the Church and the salvation of the flock, did not speak in innuendos, nor
did they speak in a shadowy manner. If the Mysteries of uncondemned
heretics—such as Zizioulas and Bartholomew—were invalid, they would have said
so clearly, not once, but dozens of times, in order to protect the faithful
from the mortal danger of being baptized with mere water instead of divine
Mysteries, or of communing with mere bread and wine. And there were millions of
faithful (clergy and laity) who communed for years with uncondemned heretics.
Historical outline:
(For a better
understanding of the events and the actions of the individuals involved during
the time of Saint Gregory Palamas, it is important to present a brief
historical outline, so that we may keep in mind which of their texts were
written before the synodal condemnatory decisions and which after, and draw our
conclusions regarding the stance the Orthodox held toward the heretics during
those distinct time periods.)
1337 - Barlaam
denounces the Hesychasts at the Synod of Constantinople under the presidency of
Patriarch John Kalekas.
1340–1341 - The
"Hagioritic Tome" is composed by Saint Gregory Palamas.
1341 (June 10,
1341) - Synod of Constantinople. The positions of Barlaam are condemned;
Barlaam asked for forgiveness and was pardoned. He then fled to the West and
recanted.
1341 (June 15) -
Gregory Akindynos reawakened the issue once again.
1341 (August) - The
monks requested the convocation of a Synod, which took place in Constantinople.
In it, the teaching of Barlaam and Akindynos was condemned, and a “Synodal
Tome” was issued.
Let us recall that
the following is also mentioned therein: “But even if anyone else should again
appear as an accuser of the monks—or rather of the Church herself—regarding
anything else blasphemously and wrongly spoken or written by him (Barlaam), or
should in any way attack them in such matters, he shall likewise be subjected
to the same condemnation by our humility, and he shall be anathematized and cut
off from the holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ and from the Orthodox
body of Christians.” (Dositheos of Jerusalem, Tome of Love, chs. 52, 53, p. 50).
1341–1342 - Kalekas
turns toward/allies himself with Akindynos, who had been condemned by a Synod
(1341), and persecutes Saint Gregory. In 1342, he even condemns him
synodically.
In the autumn of
1342, Kalekas “communed and joined himself to Akindynos and the others.” “Thus
he accepted communion and introduces into the Church, instead of ‘the disciple,
the traitor…, the false apostle…, the apostate’” (Saint Gregory Palamas, Letter to ... elders, in the edition of
the Holy Monastery of St. Gregory, The
struggles of the monks…, p. 267).
1342 - Saint
Gregory Palamas, treatise: That Barlaam
and Akindynos are the ones who divide...
1341–1342 - Joseph
Kalothetos, Discourse 6.
1344 (November 4) -
Kalekas (with Ignatios of Antioch and Gerasimos of Jerusalem) anathematizes
Saint Gregory Palamas.
1344 (late) - Saint
Gregory Palamas, treatise: Refutation of
the Letter of Kalekas.
1344 - Saint
Gregory Palamas, treatise: Refutation of
the Letter of Ignatios of Antioch.
1344 (December) -
Ordination of Akindynos by Kalekas.
1344 - Joseph
Kalothetos, Discourse 1, To Monk Sabbas.
1344 (late) – 1345
(early) - Joseph Kalothetos, First Letter
to Monk Sabbas.
1346 - Saint
Gregory Palamas, treatise: Refutation of
the Interpretation of the Tome of Kalekas.
1347 (February) -
Synod of Constantinople. Kalekas was deposed, the synodal acts of Kalekas were
annulled, and Saint Gregory was acquitted.
The positions of
the hieromonk Joseph Kalothetos are presented first, who, through many
writings, supported his teacher Saint Gregory, because these help us better
understand the events.
First Discourse of Joseph Kalothetos against Akindynos
(1342)
At the beginning of
this discourse, Hieromonk Joseph expresses his sorrow because he is compelled
to attack his former friend Akindynos, using the verb “I am torn apart over the
separation from my brother.” At the same time, however, he also states the cause
of this separation, which is none other—he says—than the slander and the war
that Akindynos began against us and against the Saints through his writings
(Tsamis D., The Writings of Joseph
Kalothetos, p. 45).
We remind that
already the Athonites and St. Gregory have declared that they will have no
communion with the Barlaamites in the “Hagioritic Tome”:
“The humble bishop
of Ierissos and of the Holy Mountain, Iakovos, …testifying that through the
theologians who signed here, the whole of the Holy Mountain, being in
agreement, signed …that we shall not accept into communion the one who does not
agree with the Saints just as we and our fathers shortly before us [agreed],”
(that is), “we shall not accept into communion the one who does not agree with
the Saints” (ibid., pp. 510–515).
(https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2020/05/blog-post_382.html)
Hieromonk Joseph
says that “Akindynos is the successor and imitator of Barlaam” (ibid., p. 43).
Despite the fact, then, that Akindynos is openly heretical, Kalothetos, in this
Discourse, clarifies that “his aim is not so much the theological annihilation
of Akindynos, as his possible conversion from delusion… In order to achieve
this, Hieromonk Joseph spares neither effort nor patience” (ibid., p. 42). “Be
with us – he writes – …before you become food and prey for the devil. For we
desire to regain our brother… Nor are we eager to orphan our own member from
the rest of the body of the Church, lest we suffer this” (ibid., p. 96). That
is, we are not quick to cut off from the rest of the body of the Church our own
member (even if he follows the heretical positions of Barlaam that were
condemned a year prior); may we never suffer such a thing. Akindynos, then, who
opposed the Tome of 1341—namely, the decision of the Synod—and followed the
condemned Barlaam, is still considered a member of the Church, who is in danger
of being devoured by the devil. Whereas, as we shall see, in the third
Discourse of Hieromonk Joseph, since in the meantime Akindynos had been
condemned by a Synod, he is no longer considered a member of the Church.
Akindynos – writes
Joseph – continues with “malice and insolence” the war against the Holy Spirit
and expresses the wish “that Akindynos may repent, so that he may not undergo
the punishment that awaits heretics” (ibid., p. 44).
Second Discourse of Kalothetos (1342, after
spring–autumn)
Speaking in his
Second Discourse about Akindynos, Joseph Kalothetos writes:
“What is he intending and what is he striving after, if not to frighten us
through this and persuade us to choose silence, and thereby, in the great
desolation caused by the absence of opposition, to sow his own tares—the sower
of tares?” (ibid., p. 127).
Here, Akindynos is
“no longer regarded as the deluded friend…, but is characterized as the
successor of Barlaam… They [Akindynos’ group] go around Constantinople and the
monasteries, spreading their heretical teachings and leading astray not only
the simple and ignorant, but also the prudent through their devices” (ibid., p.
45).
And at this point,
Kalothetos speaks about the patristic manner of struggling against heresies
(that is, against the tares sown by the father of lies, the devil—the tares
which exist within the Church without causing Her to lose Her undefiled
character). This is a discourse that falls like a thunderbolt upon the ears of
contemporary shepherds—and why not also of the lay faithful—namely, of those
who have compromised with the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.
“In the struggles
for the truth,” Kalothetos emphasizes in the prologue, “unwillingness is
inexcusable, especially when false doctrine is unimpededly poisoning the souls
of men” (ibid., p. 47).
There is no place
for love-talk and excuses toward those inclining to heresy; indifference is
inexcusable, as long as they persist stubbornly in heresy. The path of the
Saints, which Hieromonk Kalothetos expresses, is separation from them, walling
off. “How then could anyone have communion with him who stands as an enemy to
God?” For, he says, how is it possible for someone to have communion or peace
with him [meaning the not yet condemned heretic Akindynos], to make terms with
him, when he, through his heretical teachings and actions, is at enmity with
God? One cannot have communion or friendship with the enemies of the King: “to
be reconciled with the enemies of the King.” The Holy Gospel instructs us to
forgive those who have sinned, but only after they repent. But the one who
forgives the heretical man and has communion with him while he has not
renounced his heresies, makes himself unworthy of forgiveness and sins doubly:
both because he forgives someone who has not returned to the right faith in repentance,
as God commands, and because through this act he sets himself up as more
merciful than God! “Akindynos, being ‘unrepentant,’ cannot possibly obtain
forgiveness, for ‘he who grants forgiveness to the unrepentant casts himself
out of forgiveness.’ Therefore,” Joseph emphasizes, “any relationship with the
enemies of the truth is forbidden, and an unceasing war against them is
imposed”—which is nothing other than breaking communion (ibid., p. 45).
The text of
Hieromonk Joseph Kalothetos:
“How then could
anyone have communion with him who is at enmity with God? And how would one not
sin unforgivably by granting forgiveness to the unrepentant? Indeed, the Holy
Gospel advises that sins are to be forgiven to those who have sinned, but only
when they repent of what they have done wrongly; to those who do not repent, we
are not obliged to do this. For the one who grants forgiveness to the
unrepentant ends up casting himself out of forgiveness. Moreover, the one who
readily grants it to such a person, without his return and conversion and
before he has refrained from his offense against the divine [i.e., blasphemy],
sins doubly: both by forgiving one who does not forgive his own blasphemy and
transgression against God and still remains unrepentant, and by making himself
appear more merciful than the divine.
“And indeed, we are
commanded to pardon those who ask for pardon—and least of all those who do not
ask for it. Thus, even this one, if he were to return to himself, be mindful of
repentance, and request pardon, would easily obtain it. But one who is in such
a diseased and grievous state would not be deemed worthy of forgiveness. But
the one who does not break fellowship with him, or rather, the one who does not
always stand apart from him and does not continually engage in the battle
against him until he remains in such enmity toward God…, I do not know how his
portion would not be “with the hypocrites” and unbelievers. For even the holy
Scriptures forbid reconciliation with the enemies of the King. For whoever he
may be, such a person gives grounds for accusation against himself, is judged
uncertain with regard to piety, and becomes suspect to all. And indeed, if
enemies were invading our homeland, and we saw someone not bravely confronting
them and not urging others of the experienced warriors to resist, we would
perhaps accuse him of treason; how much negligence and faintheartedness does it
seem to tolerate the blaspheming of God and to reap the name of long-suffering
from it?” (ibid., pp. 138–139).
Third Discourse (Against Akindynos), Autumn 1342
When Kalothetos
writes his Third Discourse, “it appears that Akindynos has increased his
influence and that through the patriarch [Kalekas] he controls the situation…
he also seeks the annulment of the synodal Tome of 1341, which condemned
Barlaam and, indirectly, himself, Akindynos” (ibid., p. 49). The Saint reminds
that the Tome of 1341 remains in force, along with the related ecclesiastical
censures. “The patriarch, as is known, permitted Akindynos to write against
Palamas,” and “the extremely hostile stance against Palamas is especially
evident from the end of May 1342…, when they convened a synod in order to
condemn him.” Beginning this Discourse, Joseph declares that he wished to
remain silent, but he will not be silent, at the moment when Akindynos continues
to attack the truth of the Faith, and “having become persuaded by an evil
demon, he is, alas, in danger of having made his own soul an offering to the
devil.” Therefore, he continues, “for who, hearing God being blasphemed, would
not choose rather to die utterly and suffer the worst things…?” No, it is not
possible for us “to be silent and to betray God by the word of silence” (ibid.,
p. 50). This is what the true Christians did and do, while the false Christians
and false shepherds remain silent, refusing to sacrifice their “career” and to
suffer anything for Christ.
Joseph thus writes
that Akindynos claims that all—monks, laypeople, bishops, and state
officials—have accepted his heretical doctrines. But Joseph does not accept
this as true, for if it were the case, it would mean that—in that situation—all
would be under the censure of the 1341 Synod, just as Akindynos and his
“father” Barlaam are under censure, as having accepted heretical doctrines. And
he does not accept it because—he says—he knows well that just as it is the
habit of Akindynos’ heretical forebears to distort the faith, in the same way
it is also their habit to lie: “…as though all monks and laypeople, the mixed
and the ordained, and those in high office have been caught in your snares, and
those occupying episcopal thrones agree and consent to your words—which I pray
not to be the case. For then the whole earth would be filled with heresy, and
all would be deprived of the light of truth and have fallen under your censure,
into which you yourself and your father from Calabria have fallen in writing,
unless you should come to repentance concerning your mindset. But just as it is
your custom and the way of your forefathers—Arians, Eunomians, Aetians—to do
evil, so also it is your custom to lie” (ibid., p. 143).
Here we see:
a) That not all, as
Akindynos falsely and misleadingly claimed, but a considerable number of
bishops, monks, officials, and laypeople had joined Barlaam’s delusion. But
those, Joseph says, who were in communion with them were likewise out of
communion and subject to the same ecclesiastical censure to which Akindynos was
subject!
b) Nevertheless,
there were bishops who supported Akindynos, and yet we do not see them being
regarded as lacking valid Mysteries (Kalothetos neither mentions nor implies
this anywhere), since we know that they were convening synods together with
Kalekas.
He concludes his
Discourse as follows: “May it also be granted to you to return to yourself, and
to know yourself, and to become once again a member of the Church and of the
faithful, from whom you have been deprived. For, in the state in which you now
are, you have no portion with such as these. For what communion is there
between an Orthodox and one who is not such? ‘And what concord has Christ with
Belial?’” (ibid., p. 157). That is to say: I also pray for you (Akindynos) to
return to yourself and to come to know yourself, and to become once more a
member of the Church and of the faithful, from whom you have been separated.
For if you continue in your present state, you will have no communion with
them. For what spiritual communion can there be between an Orthodox and a
heretic? “And what concord has Christ with Belial?”
Sixth Discourse of Joseph Kalothetos against Akindynos
(1342–1343)
According to
theology professor D. Tsamis, up until approximately March of 1342, “it appears
that relations between the Hesychasts and the Patriarch (Kalekas) had not been
definitively severed or irreparably damaged; for this reason, Joseph Kalothetos
still hopes that he might be able to persuade the Patriarch to remove
Akindynos… This fluid situation begins to become clearer especially after the
arrival of the representatives of the Holy Mountain in March of 1342, and
becomes settled in the winter of 1242–1343…”
Patriarch Kalekas
had already shown his disposition, since, although the Tome of the Synod of
June 1341 condemned Barlaam and those in agreement with him and vindicated
Palamas, Kalekas “permitted Akindynos to censure Palamas through oral teaching
in the winter of 1341–1342,” and “in the autumn of 1342, permission was also
given by the patriarch to Akindynos to write works combating Gregory Palamas.”
Therefore, the Sixth Discourse of Kalothetos “appears to have been written
between the autumn of 1342 and the winter of 1342–1343” (ibid., p. 57).
In this discourse,
it is exceedingly clear that Joseph Kalothetos addresses Kalekas as the
canonical patriarch, calling him “most holy” and “most divine,” and he tries to
persuade him to remove Akindynos. There is no hint or indication that Hieromonk
Joseph considers the Patriarch to be deprived of episcopal grace or to have
invalid Mysteries, even though he is in communion with and facilitates
Akindynos in attacking his teacher, Saint Gregory Palamas—a deed that is
contrary to the Tome of the previous Synod. “You,” he says to him, “are taking
care that the ship of the Church does not suffer shipwreck and reaches the
harbor safely, ‘O leader of all’” (ibid., p. 235). He even proceeds to praise
him for his stance during the condemnation of Barlaam.
He reminds
Patriarch Kalekas that at that time “we entreated your divinity” to convene a
Synod. And a Synod was indeed convened (June 10, 1341), and we were present, as
was Barlaam, and “your holiness commanded someone among those then present to
read aloud in the hearing of all the discourse he had composed against the
divine light” (ibid., p. 239). The titles “divinity” and “holiness” clearly
demonstrate that Kalothetos still regards Kalekas as a member of the Church.
This courageous defender of the Faith could not have addressed in such terms
one who was outside the Church. Nor would he have entreated someone outside the
Church and without Mysteries to convene a Synod.
He then recounts
how Akindynos began to diverge, teaching the doctrines of Barlaam; how there
was a meeting between the Athonites and Akindynos; how, after marathon
discussions, discourses, disputes, “contentions, perplexities, resolutions,
objections…, in the end, being persuaded, he [Akindynos] became of one mind
with us and with what had been done by us.” We rejoiced—he says—exceedingly
over this development, but we were mistaken, since Akindynos withdrew. “So then
his intentions and the deviation from his previously established mindset
escaped our notice!” Thus he declared that he was returning to the same
heresies: “What was confirmed in writing by me yesterday I now regard as
invalid and alien to my own thinking and opinion” (ibid., p. 241).
We were
disheartened. “Having lost all hope, therefore, in those whom the divine word
sets forth as guides, at last we turned our gaze to the Church; and if he
henceforth should not listen even to Her, not a single word shall we have for
him, but he shall be reckoned in the lot of the heathens and publicans—and this
is indeed what he has suffered at our hands, having disobeyed the Church. For
if we have received such a commandment concerning ordinary faults of the
brethren, how much more in matters of piety? We approached your divinity and
those in authority” (ibid., p. 242).
He then says that
they requested a Synod to be held, and their request was granted.
“We requested that
a Synod be held concerning the things said by him.” The Synod took place, and
Akindynos was “defeated by it and put to shame. From then on, he was dismissed
and disregarded by us, as some animal left to graze and henceforth useless to its
master… And at that point, a Synodal Tome was issued, confirming soundly the
things that had taken place and had been spoken at it, rejecting what was
otherwise, and subjecting to curses and anathemas both Barlaam—if he did not
come to repentance regarding his mindset—and anyone who shared his opinions”
(ibid., p. 242).
The Synod took
place, and the heresies of Barlaam were condemned, and Akindynos himself was
repudiated—unless he repented.
First Letter of Kalothetos to Monk Sabbas (late 1344 –
early 1345)
In this letter,
among other things, Hieromonk Joseph writes: “If those men [i.e., Arius,
Nestorius] were rightly cast out, being numbered among the evil faction, how
then is it not the same with this one [Kalekas], who has become a prize for the
heretics, wholly siding with and championing them in every way? And if those
must be cut off from the communion of the pious, why not also this one, who
stands in alignment with them? And if he rules as a tyrant and with threats,
then we ourselves must be cut off from communion with him. And if someone
proposes that this should not be done ‘before synodal judgment,’ let him also
hear the saying, ‘he who communes with one who is out of communion,’ and that
the one who was synodically and in writing rejected from the Church as a
heretic, if someone brings him back into the Church while he remains in a bad
and impious state, doing all things in agreement with him, then he makes
himself like-minded with him. And those things which the one recently cast out
approves, these also does his champion—the one steering, or rather shattering,
the great vessel of the Church, insofar as it is in his power. And what that
deluded one rejects and casts away, these also does this one” (ibid., pp.
374–375).
And if that is what
happened then (he notes), and those who belonged to the “evil faction” of the
heretics were “cast out” of the Church, should not the same be done today, and
the heretic Kalekas, who aligned himself with the Barlaamites, be removed from
the Church? Since he employs tyranny and threats, let us cut him off from our
communion. And if someone objects (continues the holy Joseph) and reminds us
that no, we must not wall ourselves off before this is decided by a Synod
(“before synodal judgment”), then let him hear what the Canon of the Church
says, namely that “he who communes with one who is out of communion, is himself
to be out of communion,” and that Akindynos, who by Synodal decision was
formally cut off from the Church as heretical, was restored to the Church by
Kalekas at a time when Akindynos remained heretical and impious, and of one
mind with the heretic. And those same heretical doctrines accepted by the one
recently deposed are also accepted by his protector Kalekas, the one steering the
great vessel of the Church—or rather, the one who has sunk it, insofar as it
depended on him.” (Here we should also record what Demetrios Tsamis
notes—ibid., p. 374—that the Canon containing the phrase “he who communes with
one who is out of communion” is the 2nd Canon of the Council of Antioch, which
also says the following: “It is not permitted to commune with those who are out
of communion… and he who communes with the excommunicated is himself to be out
of communion.”) [1]
In the same work,
Demetrios Tsamis also cites the 33rd Canon of the Council of Laodicea: “That
one must not pray together with heretics or schismatics,” as well as the
Apostolic Canons 45 and 46, [2] which apply not only to schismatics but also to
heretics. He also reminds us of the relevant canons of the Third Ecumenical
Council, [3] (ibid., p. 375), in which it is decreed and declared that not only
the one who has already joined the faction of the heretics, but also the one
who in the future will join that faction by sharing the same mindset (“has
thought or shall think”), that is, who will accept the heresies condemned by
the Council, is from now already determined—without the need to convene another
Council—to be cast out of the Church! (“from this point forward, already cast
out of all ecclesiastical communion by the Council, and rendered without
effect”).
And toward the end
of the Letter, Joseph Kalothetos writes:
“With things being
thus, what person possessing reason and sobriety would not ask for fountains of
tears, that he might weep day and night over the shattering of the Church? For
now, it is not the slaughter of bodies, but of souls themselves—not only because
of the neglect of the commandments and the members rising up against one
another, but also because of the innovation of the faith, which the senseless
one, long in labor, has now—seizing upon the opportune time—brought forth, not
one or two or three heresies, but a multitude, which he himself indeed
conceived, but the one entrusted with the helm of the Church has revived and
brought to light!” (ibid., p. 375).
Since, then, things
stand as they do—he writes—we must ask God to grant us fountains of tears so
that we may weep over the “shattering of the Church,” because even the Church,
humanly speaking, is shattered when it becomes secularized and when heretical tares
enter into her, until they are cut off. Not only do her members oppose one
another, but there is also an innovation of the Faith—not merely one or two
heresies, but many. And those chiefly responsible for this shattering are the
bishops—such as here Kalekas—who, having in his hands the helm of the Church as
the canonical Patriarch, failed in his duty; and today, it is Bartholomew and
all those like him.
Discourse 8 of Joseph Kalothetos against Akindynos
(Autumn 1346 – Winter 1347)
If we take into
account that the 8th Discourse of Joseph Kalothetos was most likely written in
the autumn of 1346, this means that at that time Kalekas had clearly revealed
his heretical positions and had helped in their dissemination synodally.
Nevertheless, Kalothetos (just as Saint Gregory Palamas also does not) nowhere
states that Kalekas does not have Mysteries. They accept him as a legitimate
Patriarch—that is, as one having apostolic succession—but as a false bishop and
as one heretical, since he has made shipwreck concerning the faith. This is
precisely why they denounce his teaching as heretical; it does not align with
that of the One, Holy, Apostolic Church. And yet, Kalekas, “the leader of the
Church, classifies those around Palamas with the heretics and utterly deprives
them of the Church” (ibid., p. 287).
Therefore, it is
not possible for someone who does not follow the Orthodox faith of the Church
and has created his own faith (thus a new church), to cast us out of the
Church—us who follow that traditional faith of the Church handed down by the
Fathers. He who follows Christ and the Saints, he belongs to the Church, and
not the one who acts impiously and scorns Christ and the Saints. That person
has created a new Church with new dogmas.
"Head of the
Church is our Lord, and the members and parts of such a Church are the system
and body of the pious, who accordingly possess purification in relation to
their Head—not such a one as that person who is in such a condition of
confusion and defilement," on account of heresy (op. cit., p. 96). Therefore, Kalekas is a rotten member, a weed, a
branch that did not remain in the vine, and for that reason his end will be to
be cast out and burned: "he is cast out as a branch and withered, and they
gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." This means
he is to be cut off/deposed by a Synod.
Saint Cyril,
commenting on the vine, writes: Those who remain united with the vine (Christ)
“will be in a good condition and suitably disposed for the bearing of virtue
and spiritual fruit... but for those who are severed, as it were, or cut off
from the relationship with Him, having turned... toward what they ought not and
toward a way of life that is a song of departure from God, no power of aptitude
for virtue will appear to them…” “‘If you abide in Me and My words abide in
you, you shall ask what you will, and it shall be done unto you.’ He says that
root of favor from on high shall be for them the attachment to Him with love
inseparably, and the guarding in mind, as a certain divine and spiritual
deposit, of the most unadulterated of the evangelical teachings, and the truly
authentic instruction in the doctrines of faith, secured by sincere
understandings.” (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary
on John: Volume 2, page 560, line 4, and Volume 2, page 562, line 6).
And Celestine of
Rome (among the many who inform us that the heretic is cut off by a Synod)
writes: “Paul of Samosata once stirred up a sacrilegious dispute, because he
presided over the holy Church of Antioch. But a decision unitedly reached by
the catholic priests removed him from the throne on which he impiously sat. For
such men must always be cut off, those who, disturbing the soul of the
Christian people and twisting the Gospels according to their own opinion, are
unable to bear fruit for God.” (Celestine, Bishop, to the presbyters… in
Constantinople…, Fourth Ecumenical Council, T.L.G., Concilium universale Ephesenum anno 431: Tome vol. part 1,1,1, page
85, line 20).
This position
constitutes the consensus of the Fathers, and we also see it in the cases of
other pseudo-bishop patriarchs. It is necessary to mention some examples from
Church History, which clearly prove that heretics who have not been condemned
by a Synod are considered to hold the office of priesthood and to have valid
Mysteries. For this reason, the Synod that examines them receives them as
bishops in active office, judges them, and either forgives some of them if they
renounce the heresy, or removes from others the office of the episcopacy, if
they persist in their erroneous teaching—at which point they no longer possess
valid priesthood. In order not to break the continuity, however, we present
these examples at the beginning of the footnotes (*).
Let us return to
the 8th Discourse of St. Joseph:
You are, says
Kalothetos to Akindynos, exactly what Nestorius and Macedonius were: “for they
too held the same throne as he.” On paper and in form they were Shepherds, but
in truth false shepherds. So are you: you still retain (as not yet deposed)
apostolic succession, but not the apostolic faith. However, he does not
consider him to have invalid Mysteries, just as the Patriarchs Nestorius,
Macedonius, Dioscorus, Anthimus, and others did not have invalid Mysteries but
retained the rank of Priesthood before being deposed by a Synod—just as today
does Bartholomew, who is of the same mindset.
And St. Joseph
asks: “Does not Glaukophanes [= Akindynos] and the moderation of the patriarch
hold entirely the same opinions as that one? Do not they also accuse us of
ditheism and of the ‘lesser and greater’? Certainly. Therefore, there is war
against them too at every hour, and it is implacable. Are those ones
excommunicated? Of necessity, so also is the moderation of the patriarch”
(i.e., Kalekas). And further down: “He [Kalekas] has made us rejected and cast
out of the Church, just as formerly the council of Annas and Caiaphas did to
the holy Apostles” (op. cit., p.
297).
And in this
Discourse, St. Joseph says that Kalekas “was not ashamed [before Emperor
Andronikos and those around St. Gregory Palamas], but aligned himself with
those cut off from the Church, preferring the heterodox [Barlaam and Akindynos]
over the Orthodox… The teaching of Palamas was vindicated synodically…
Therefore, the patriarch did not cut off those around Palamas from the Church
of the Apostles, but from his own church, where bribery prevails, where there
is no distinction between the profane and the holy, where there is a murderous
disposition, simony, heresy, etc. Moreover, the patriarch is liable to penance
and excommunication because, contrary to the explicit teaching of the Tome of
1341, he received into communion even unrepentant Barlaamites such as
Akindynos. Therefore, the patriarch is excommunicated and numbered with Simon
and the traitor Judas” (op. cit., p.
73).
He does not
consider Kalekas as one who lacks Mysteries, as we have seen; indeed, in the
early years, he even had the hope that he might persuade him to change.
Further on in the
same Discourse, St. Joseph writes about Kalekas: “This good shepherd, indeed,
says that the Church has cast us out as rejected, because we were unwilling to
give a written confession. But which Church does he claim has made us outcasts?
The Church of the Apostles?…” (op. cit.,
p. 294).
Let us now come to
St. Gregory Palamas.
There are, of
course (besides what we have presented at
https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2020/05/blog-post_646.html
and
https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2020/05/blog-post_382.html),
other works of St.
Gregory. One titled “That Barlaam and
Akindynos are the ones who wrongfully and impiously divide the One into two
unequal divinities” was written in 1342. And here we see similar
positions—such as that those who remain in the Truth belong to the Church,
those who break communion with heretical-minded shepherds and with those who
commune with the heretical-minded; that the heretic, if he does not repent, is
handed over to the anathema, etc.
St. Gregory Palamas
writes:
"Following the
Spirit-guided decisions of the holy fathers and the synodal decisions of our
own time, we reject and subject to anathema—just as previously and likewise
now, if they do not repent—those who, according to the opinion of Barlaam and
Akindynos, accept two divinities in God, one created and one uncreated"
(Christou P., Gregory Palamas, Works
3, Patristic Publications “Gregory Palamas”, p. 451). When does he subject the
uncondemned heretic to anathema? If he does not repent. And why does he subject
him to anathema? Because the Saint follows "the Fathers and the
contemporary synodal decisions," which Akindynos does not follow, showing
impiety toward them. It becomes clear here that a new Council is needed to
condemn heretics not yet judged and to deprive them of the ability to perform
Mysteries. Every new heresy requires a new council, which—if based on the
consensus of the Holy Fathers—is rightly accepted as valid by the pleroma of
the Church.
Let us note here
the similarity—which has been pointed out elsewhere—between the
heresy-inclining Patriarch of Constantinople Kalekas and his faction, and the
heresy-inclining Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew and his faction.
Neither of them had been condemned at the time when a) in that period, the
Athonites, with Palamas at their head, were fighting against Kalekas’ heresies
and had walled themselves off from him, and b) today, those Orthodox who fight
against Bartholomew’s heresies and have walled themselves off from him.
A little further
down, the Saint asks: “Which is the Church that did not then receive the one
reproving us, and to which also belongs this one who is so sympathetic?
Certainly, it is other than the one gathered together with that most blessed
emperor—not only other, but also completely contrary, both in mind and in
judgments. This, then, is clearly the Church of Akindynos, of which alone the
writer of these things is now patriarch…” (op.
cit., p. 665).
Here a parallel
example is constituted by the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449 and that of
Hieria in 741. The content of their faith did not agree with the Faith of the
Orthodox Church (since it dogmatized contrary to the Orthodox Faith), but with
the faith of another Church—that of Dioscorus and Constantine Copronymus. And
those heretical decisions, which were sown as tares in the field of the Church
and sought to absorb the One Church, were condemned by the Fourth and Seventh
Ecumenical Councils.
But also Fr.
Euthymios Trikaminas, who has especially dealt with this topic, has presented
various positions, such as the following:
"Let it be
noted that for us today, the iconoclast bishops are undoubtedly heretics,
because we know of their definitive condemnation after the triumph of
Orthodoxy. For the Christians of that time, however, they were the canonical
and legitimate bishops! Their teaching, in fact, had been ratified by a council
of bishops of ecumenical scope—the Council of Hieria. The iconoclast bishops
themselves (and those who followed them) could thus have a clear conscience,
with the justification that they were following the decision of the Council of
Hieria, which naturally outweighed any other local council that might have
taken place in another part of the empire. On the contrary, the Orthodox (and
among them Saint Stephen) did not take into account or consider the decision of
the Council of Hieria, simply because the decision of the Council did not agree
(as we said) with Holy Scripture and the teaching of the preceding Saints"
(https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2013/03/blog-post_8426.html)
The Saint
continues: “And the Church, which now has as its president this man who
shamelessly slanders the Tome and writes these counter-tomes…, brings to
completion even more shamelessly those lengthy slanders against the Tome”—he
means the Orthodox Church (op. cit.,
p. 665). Certainly, the Saint here is not claiming that the Church of
Constantinople, headed by Kalekas—that is, all the Orthodox laity, priests, and
bishops, who indeed shortly afterward deposed him—were... outside the Church!
He is simply noting the heretical weeds of Kalekas. He nevertheless recognizes
him as president, because he had not yet been condemned.
“Since he says that
we came then as condemned and accused before the entire synod, and that we
received from the Church—according to his words—foreknowledge, does he perhaps
also show thereby that the Church under him is different from that entire
synod? And if it is different, let him say how we were condemned and accused
before the entire synod prior to our appearance. Surely it is because Barlaam
had accused us.
Therefore, Barlaam
was deemed by him to be so acceptable as an accuser, that he approved what was
said against us by him—as he now testifies against himself; for he forgot here
the holy canons, which he claims to observe so carefully, that he is ever-ready
and most capable to misuse and abuse them in every matter. He forgot, then, the
laws and divine canons which command that ‘no one at all should be deemed
guilty merely on the basis of an accusation, whether the offense be small,
great, or the greatest.’” (op. cit.,
p. 667).
It is therefore
clear why Saint Gregory considers Kalekas a false bishop from whom the pious
must necessarily withdraw: because he opposes the Orthodox synodal decisions
and because he has transgressed the holy Canons. And naturally, if he did not
regard him as a Patriarch, he would say not that he acts contrary to what the
holy Canons prescribe, but that he has no right, as a layman, to preside over
the Synod and to issue Synodal decisions. However, he does not speak of the
invalidity of his Mysteries, of the authority to bind and loose which he had
from God, until he is examined and condemned by a Synod, until the Synod
removes the authority that was given to him.
Here lies the
misunderstanding made by those who claim that heretics not yet condemned do not
have valid Mysteries. These individuals, indeed, have lost the Orthodox faith
and divine grace, and they are potentially outside the Church if they do not
repent (as the Saint told us earlier); however, until the moment when the
Church — which gave them ordination — removes it from them, they can perform
valid Mysteries for the millions of people who have not understood their
delusion, or are in confusion, or hesitate to oppose clergy, having been
taught/habituated to obey them. Those who are aware, however, and especially
those who expose their errors and refute them, are inexcusable if they commune
with them.
Further below, the
Saint addresses Kalekas and asks him: “But do you not realize, man, that by
saying these things you are cutting yourself off and that sacred assembly from
the portion of the pious, as far as it depends on you, I mean?” (op. cit., p. 673). Here too, it is
implied that his severance from the Church occurs potentially by reason of his
heretical belief, whereas the final severance from the Church takes place with
the removal of the priesthood by the competent Synod for this purpose.
But Kalekas —
continues the Saint — with all that he does, “attempts to bring about some
remedy, but instead draws down even more upon his own head those dreadful
curses, and openly cuts himself off from the Church of Christ, providing even
more prominent ground, insofar as it depends on him, for Akindynos and her own
(i.e., the Church’s) adversaries against her” (op. cit., p. 677).
It is evident,
therefore, that the phrase “someone sets himself outside the Church,” in the
language of the Fathers, does not mean that he automatically no longer has
Mysteries (here Kalekas, we know, was deposed after some years), but rather
that he is transferred into the realm of heretics and atheists, personally
loses Divine Grace; he is set outside the Church when, after the Church
confirms and examines his heresies, it cuts him off.
From this, one can
conclude the great soteriological dimension and significance of
non-communion—that is, the cessation of commemoration of the heretics (and of
walling off)—since those who have broken communion with the heretic, as Saint
Gregory Palamas and the Athonites have done here, preserve the truth of the
Faith.
Continuing, Saint
Gregory says that Kalekas corrupts and misinterprets the Tome/teaching of the
Orthodox Synod (which was composed against Barlaam) and maintains that “Barlaam
is not in all things blasphemous; indeed, he clearly states that there are some
things which that man [Barlaam] said and promoted against the Church of Christ,
which he did not say impiously and blasphemously,” as if, according to him, the
Church of Christ were, alas, blameworthy for piety and provided cause both to
that man then, and to those, and to himself, and to all now to leap into it
fearlessly. And by this, he involuntarily testifies and proves that truly we
and those of one mind with us are the Church of Christ, from which he has now
defected along with Akindynos and against which he has offered ground and
assistance to the Barlaamites, as you see. (op.
cit., p. 681).
Saint Gregory
indeed labors to show the flock, which followed Kalekas as the lawful and
canonical Patriarch, that he does not possess the truth and that what he
teaches is unsound, even if he is a canonical Patriarch. Therefore, is it not
unreasonable for those who teach about invalid Mysteries to claim that all
those who are troubled and in confusion are placed outside the Church and do
not receive the Mysteries by having followed Kalekas (and Bartholomew) for some
period? Likewise, are not those also unreasonable who today accuse those
struggling to reveal to the indifferent flock the corruption of the faith by
the pan-heresy?
And now Kalekas
attempts — writes Saint Gregory Palamas — to deceive the queen. She, however,
perceives “that he is an enemy of the truth according to the faith (and) gives
the appropriate exhortations, entreats him [editor’s note: as the lawful
Patriarch] to return, attempts to persuade him… He grows even more insolent and
increases his rage against the truth,” just as happens with all heretics and,
certainly, with the Ecumenists (op. cit.,
p. 673).
Kalekas — concludes
the refutation Saint Gregory — falsifies, distorts, overturns, misinterprets
the Tome of the Church… “Therefore, he is many times and in many ways liable to
the justly imposed excommunications and anathemas against him, and to those dreadful
renunciations… Since, then, he is thus and so many times cut off from the
entire body of the Orthodox, it is impossible for anyone who is not separated
from him to be found among the pious, whereas whoever, for these reasons, is
separated from him truly belongs to the register of Christians and is united
with God according to the pious faith” (op.
cit., p. 693).
Here too it is
evident that the Saint considers Kalekas to be potentially outside the Church due to his heretical teaching, but
as not yet deposed and still possessing apostolic succession, he teaches the
same as the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council: separation from him, the
breaking of communion. And indeed, he states that ONLY the one who separates
from him belongs to the Church and is united with God. For today's seemingly
pious or those who do not understand true piety, the Saint's word must again be
emphasized: it is impossible for anyone who is not separated from him to be
found among the pious.
We now move on to
another work by Saint Gregory Palamas, the Refutation
of the Letter of Kalekas, written at the end of 1344, a period during which
Kalekas had aligned himself with the heretic Akindynos and, more broadly, with
the condemned heresy of Barlaam. Panagiotis Chrestou writes: “The first tome
[of Kalekas] is an encyclical letter by which the patriarch denounces and cuts
off Palamas and his like-minded followers, according to the decision of the
‘Church.’ Arsenios of Tyre confirms that this word is a product of a synod: ‘So
then, the patriarch having convened the divine and holy synod under him,
triumphs over the ravings of the latter (=Palamas) and with a complete
excommunication hands him over to anathema, together with all his like-minded
ones’” (Chrestou P., Gregory Palamas,
Works 3, “Refutation of the Letter of Kalekas,” Patristic Publications
“Gregory Palamas,” p. 487). “Palamas [indeed] emphasizes that Kalekas, by
saying that the ‘Church’ enacted the condemnation, means only himself” (ibid.,
p. 488). Be that as it may, Kalekas is the lawful Patriarch, who convenes
synods with the other bishops, most of whom were thoroughly Orthodox, since
they are the very ones who ultimately vindicated Saint Gregory Palamas and
condemned Kalekas!
In the Refutation of the Letter of Kalekas,
Saint Gregory writes that in the prologue of his work, Patriarch Kalekas “says
that ‘he seeks to inscribe letters to them [his subjects], as one who has
undertaken the care of souls and is obliged to attend to their salvation.’”
This (however, continues the Saint) “is a lie that is twofold and mingled with
deceit… That these letters were composed for the purpose of preparing for
salvation is a lie, as will be shown immediately; but that he has undertaken
this care and attention is certainly true” (op.
cit., p. 533).
Here we see, then,
the Saint exposing the gross lies and false teaching of Kalekas, yet not
disputing his priestly office, which of course remains valid until his
condemnation by a synod, which the Saint persistently called for.
A little further
down, he also acknowledges and calls Kalekas Patriarch, who, however, acts as a false bishop and heretic
sympathizer, since he allied himself with the Barlaamites and Akindynos against
Palamas: “Who then are those for whom now the Patriarch ‘takes care that they
not be gathered together by those of like mind with Palamas’” (op. cit., p. 538). And: “The ascetics
from Thessaloniki ‘gave notice also to this Patriarch’” (op. cit., p. 538). And further: “Those deceived by fraud and
suddenly gathered by deceitful messages to the Patriarch know with what shame
they returned home from the royal court” (op.
cit., p. 542).
“When he [Kalekas]
forcibly brought into the sanctuary of the Church Akindynos, who was outside of
piety, and contrary to every canon included the profane one among the holy
deacons, there immediately arose an uproar from all the pious” (op. cit., p. 541).
Here too we see
that the Saint does not accuse Kalekas of having performed an allegedly invalid
ordination (as if he supposedly did not have valid Mysteries, as those who
claim the Mysteries of non-condemned heretics are invalid maintain), but that
the Patriarch disregarded the holy Canons which forbid the ordination of a
heretic, such as Akindynos was, and introduced into the Church, alongside the
Orthodox deacons, a heretic. There is no mention whatsoever that Kalekas lacked
the capacity to ordain—that is, that he had invalid Mysteries!
"Since an
investigation and a decision took place—and indeed before such a synod [he
means the synod against Barlaam]—since synodal documents were issued and those
condemned were subjected in writing to excommunication and anathema, then
someone comes along who makes the condemned ones his communicants and
concelebrants, and condemns and rejects those who were vindicated there—then is
this person not clearly an heir of those condemned in that trial and truly
fallen away and alien to the Church?" (op.
cit., p. 547).
In this paragraph,
he shows us with what the heretics—whom Kalekas made his communicants and
concelebrants—were burdened. And yet, there is no mention whatsoever that he
has invalid Mysteries; he is only received as a false bishop, who through his
actions becomes “fallen and alien to the Church,” and naturally, he will not be
able to perform valid Mysteries—but only once he has been condemned by a Synod.
"The prologue
of the tome, therefore, was clearly annulled by a contrary prologue by the
patriarch, now favoring the Barlaamites" (op. cit., p. 565). "However, Barlaam was condemned, having
been proven before it [the Synod] to be heretical, and first Barlaam in that
Synod, and second Akindynos in the second Synod, were condemned as teaching
heretically" (op. cit., p. 567).
Kalekas, "who
therefore says that Palamas was not proven innocent by that Synod and that the
accusation made by Barlaam was not examined, is clearly himself doubtful
concerning the Faith, beyond the fact that he is a great liar and a manifest
slanderer" (op. cit., p. 571).
Saint Gregory
repeats that the Synod which condemned Barlaam decided: “Whoever else is found
again accusing the monks with something from the things spoken or written by
him blasphemously and heretically against the monks, or rather against the
Church herself, or generally attacks them on such matters, shall be
anathematized and cut off from the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” (op. cit., p. 575).
And further below:
The decision of the Synod “contains denunciations by the Church for these
things, and excommunication from the Christian body both for those who have
made such accusations, if they do not repent, and for those who are going to
accuse Palamas and the monks with him” (op.
cit., p. 575).
“…He who so
shamelessly writes and indiscriminately spreads so many lies to everyone, would
easily also say this—that he alone was the Synod—since he often says as well
that he alone is the Church, and that whatever he considers right and says, he
claims the entire Church considers right and pronounces likewise…
Thus he also
insists on calling us insubordinate and alien to the Church, as those who
refuse to venerate as he demands, and he misinterprets the Tome, which was
issued on our behalf and composed for our vindication… Such a man, then, how
would he not easily say that he alone was that great Synod, so that he may be
beyond reproach in whatever he may fabricate and compose against us, as though
it were from that [Synod]? But at least those who convened and were present
will not forgive—indeed, they do not forgive—but show both in deed and in word
their opposition to him." (op. cit.,
p. 591) And here it is important to emphasize certain expressions of the Saint:
the Saint says, “but at least those who convened and were present will not
forgive, nor do they forgive.” That is, he means the members of the synod and
not some individual. Moreover, he writes in both the future and the present
tense—“will not forgive, nor do they forgive”—thus indicating the necessity of
convening a synod for the condemnation of Kalekas and those like him. And this
also signifies that Kalekas was accepted by the other Orthodox synodal members
as a bishop with valid Mysteries and as president of the Synod. But do not
these things recall a certain contemporary Kalekas by the name of Bartholomew,
who governs the Church as the “first” and to whom (and to those he serves) all
obey, and he imposes his heretical doctrines?
"That this man
too now, the patriarch [Kalekas], presents Akindynos, having deviated from what
was synodally recognized and ratified by law, is clear evidence that he is once
again attacking us together with Akindynos" (op. cit., p. 593).
"What
shameless and blatant lying! [of Kalekas]. It is truly a 'synod of those who
annul' according to Jeremiah, and 'they will not speak the truth,' adding
'deceit upon deceit.' 'For their tongue has learned to speak falsehood'" (op. cit., p. 597).
And further below
he asks: “And who, or rather who are the great instigators of turmoil and
divisions in the Church, and therefore cast out of the Church of God, even if
they call themselves the Church?” (op.
cit., p. 599). [ἀπόβλητος = worthy of expulsion].
Language was once
not only a means of communication, but the principal expression of truth. Saint
Gregory therefore says “ἀπόβλητος” [one worthy of expulsion] for Kalekas, and
not “ἀποβληθείς” [one already expelled], thus indicating the necessity of convening
a synod for the expulsion of Kalekas from the Church, if he does not repent.
Until then, he remains in Her as a rotten member, a false shepherd who does not
express Her truth, and from whom true believers must distance themselves.
“But the slanderer
[Kalekas] tells us that this is an addition and calls a defense a teaching, and
attacks us in another way as supposedly attacking episcopal work, not knowing,
it seems, not even what episcopal work is, but thinking that it is the exclusive
right of bishops to offer words of truth and to speak anywhere for the
edification of the soul.” (op. cit.,
p. 601).
The words of the
Saint are absolutely clear: Kalekas is a hierarch who thinks he is performing
Orthodox episcopal work and that he expresses the truth—something which is not
the case, because instead of expressing it, he distorts it. His episcopacy,
however, remains in effect until a synodal decision. Incidentally, the Saint’s
expression, “thinking that it is the exclusive right of bishops to offer words
of truth and to speak anywhere for the edification of the soul,” is a blow to
today’s Ecumenists and those deceived by them who think that expressing the
truth is the exclusive prerogative of the bishops. There is no episcopocentrism
in the Church. The Church is Christ-centered.
With all that
Kalekas did, “he received punishment as innate… especially on account of the
perilous recent ordination of Akindynos, which the hierarchs who are
unwaveringly devoted to the sacred canons invalidated as unlawful”! (op. cit., p. 603). “The hierarchs who
are unwaveringly devoted to the sacred canons invalidated [it] as unlawful”!
Not a single priest on his own, not a group of laymen, but the Synod annulled
it—and, we add, continues to annul every pseudo-teaching and pseudo-ordination
as unlawful (cf. Ukraine). The faithful until then do not commune with the
pseudo-teachers and pseudo-ordained, nor with those who are in communion with
them, thus preserving the truth in the Church unadulterated. Therefore, the
Church is not defiled or polluted every time a heretic appears, because the
Church is found in those who express and unwaveringly follow the truth—those
who, by keeping the Commandments, are united with the Truth and the undefiled
Head of the Church, Jesus Christ; the others are decayed members to be cut off!
Let us, however,
observe the phrase: “the hierarchs unwaveringly devoted to the sacred canons
invalidated [it].” Here is meant the annulment of Kalekas’ act by the
intervention of the state and through hierarchs (who were not aligned with
Akindynos and Kalekas). So once again we see that the bishops who were in
communion with Kalekas were Orthodox, and, within the framework of the
difficulties in deposing him—or even of temporary economy, perhaps in hopes of
helping him to amend—they tolerated him, even though he was heretical. And here
again it is evident that Kalekas does not defile the Holy Church with his
heresy, since there are those who believe in an Orthodox manner and combat his
false doctrines—first among them St. Gregory and his disciples, such as the
holy Joseph Kalothetos—who strive to cleanse the Church from the tares of
heresy.
But there is also
another text by Saint Gregory Palamas, the Refutation
of the Letter of Ignatius of Antioch, in which the Saint refers to
Patriarch Ignatius but also to Kalekas. It was written in 1344. Ignatius
“approved all the actions of Patriarch John Kalekas against Palamas and the
Hesychasts.” Saint Gregory declares that Ignatius’ letter “is an outright falsehood
and entirely opposed both to the conciliar and to the Athonite Tome, and
therefore against all the pious”—that is, Patriarch Ignatius also follows the
heresy of Barlaam, since he opposes the Saint and the Athonite Tome (Chrestou
P., Gregory Palamas, Works vol. 3, Refutation of the Letter of Ignatius of
Antioch, pp. 490–491, “Gregory Palamas” Patristic Editions). In this
treatise, the Saint also writes the following:
At the beginning,
referring to Kalekas, he informs that those whom the Synod “subjected to
written excommunication and the most dreadful anathema,” these persons “someone
[Kalekas] accepts as communicants—those who underwent such things there by
judgment—he deems them worthy of ordination and appoints them as heads of
Churches,” whereas “those who were publicly vindicated and praised as defenders
of piety he condemns and expels.” It is evident that “he is not merely
accountable, but a manifest inheritor of the condemnation of those who were
condemned then, and if they are impious, he also is not pious.
“Having done
this—or rather suffered this—those who boast of being archpastors of the holy
Church, do they not offer to their followers a drink more destructive than any
poison?… What share, what portion, what genuineness toward the Church of Christ
exists for the advocate of falsehood, with respect to the Church which ‘is the
pillar and ground of the truth,’ according to Paul, which, by the grace of
Christ, remains continually secure and unshaken, firmly established upon that
on which the truth is established? And those who are not of the truth are not
of the Church of Christ either—so much the more when they lie against
themselves, calling themselves and one another shepherds and sacred
archpastors. Indeed, we were not taught that Christianity is defined by
persons, but by the truth and the exactness of the faith.” (op. cit., pp. 607–609)
Here the Saint, in
this characteristic text, tells us that the advocate of falsehood, the one who
poisons the faithful, cannot belong to the Church, because he is neither the
possessor nor the bearer of the truth. And the Church is founded upon the Truth.
But because he has apostolic succession, and performs valid Mysteries, and
presides over the Synod, and judges, and defrocks (making use of the priestly
authority which he received through ordination, "to bind and to
loose"), he thinks that he is a Shepherd—but he is not; on the contrary,
he is a false shepherd. He is indeed "President" of the Synod
(according to the Fifteenth Canon), yet it is precisely because he is not of
the truth that the faithful who are united to him through the Mysteries must
distance themselves from him—for they too are not of the truth, since
"what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?"
Someone might ask:
do the Saints of the Church speak in contradictions? At one moment Kalekas does
not belong to the Church, and at another he is the president of the Church? The
answer is: no, they do not contradict themselves. The Saint emphasizes that the
Patriarch who does not express the truth of the Church is not truly a member of
Her. He is a decayed, diseased member whom the Church tolerates for a time, as
the Saints tell us, in case he might repent (after all, several Saints were
formerly inclined toward heresy or were heretics who repented), but afterward
he is cut off. He emphasizes the role of the Patriarch as president of the
Church in order to lead him to repentance, but also to show what he ought to do
and does not do, as well as what stance the flock ought to take.
"But he says
that he departs with God, he who before setting out lent his hand to the
ungodly and in this way enrolled himself in the list of the like-minded, having
offered this above all to the one who accepted the ungodly and polytheistic
company of the Barlaamites as communicants and concelebrants" (op. cit., p. 609). And here it is
evident that through his heretical actions he has by himself enrolled himself
in the list of his like-minded, and for this reason the Church must duly cut
him off as a false shepherd.
"…Palamas was
condemned to confinement because he did not wish to agree with the wickedness
of the patriarch who had persuaded him to write such things, having been
slandered by him to the rulers" (op.
cit., p. 613).
"Because from
where does that patriarch derive the right to compose tomes concerning dogmas,
and especially in Constantinople? This is entirely unlawful without a
synod." We see here that the Saint does not accuse the Patriarch of
invalid Mysteries and acts, nor does he question his episcopal dignity (he
calls him Patriarch), but he denounces his illegality as a Patriarch in acting
on something without it being approved by a Synod. "If he had been present
at a synod jointly convened, he would not have omitted to say this himself;
moreover, then this tome would have belonged jointly to these two patriarchs.
…both patriarchs are protagonists of falsehood" (op. cit., p. 625).
When the Patriarch
requested from Palamas that he appear in order to examine his writings (with
the intention to condemn him), Palamas did not refuse to appear before the
Synod presided over by Patriarch Kalekas; he did not reply to him, “I do not
recognize you,” but defended himself before him as to a Patriarch, saying:
“From our dogmas, which you came to know by reading our writings, in the
presence of many… we neither subtract nor add, but we also submit to anathema
anyone who adds or subtracts” (op. cit.,
p. 629).
In November of
1344, the Patriarch of Constantinople Kalekas, with the participation of the
Patriarchs of Antioch, Ignatios, and of Jerusalem, Gerasimos, who “took part in
the synod… excommunicated Palamas, and both Patriarchs co-signed the synodal
decisions” (Tsamis D., op. cit., p.
71).
The question is
addressed to those who accept invalid Mysteries: Were those three Patriarchs
without Mysteries and outside the Church, since they rejected the Synodal Tome
of 1341 and deposed Saint Gregory Palamas—meaning that they followed the
Barlaamite heresy? And was the Church, having within her—indeed in her
leadership—three (3) Patriarchs advocating heresy, thereby defiled and unclean?
The Church does not
adopt the position of “invalid Mysteries” for those who have not been deposed.
For this reason, also due to political circumstances, it tolerated the
heresy-leaning Patriarch Kalekas for years, without being defiled thereby, as
the advocates of invalid Mysteries claim; Orthodox bishops communed with him,
convened synods, and when the proper conditions arose, in 1347, his
concelebrants proceeded with the deposition of Kalekas. From the moment of his
deposition onward, he was outside the Church and without Mysteries. The
Patriarch of Antioch, moreover, Ignatios, “eventually changed his stance toward
Palamas and recognized the Tome of 1351” (Tsamis D., op. cit., p. 71).
And here is a
question: how is this fact justified by today’s fighters against the Mysteries?
That with repentance the Mysteries returned, became valid again? When was such
a teaching ever taught in the Church?
Brethren, let us
attend. Let us not follow unquestioningly whatever eager advocates serve us.
For the Saints, by their words and deeds, teach us the stance we must follow.
If we do not do so, we will have to
give an account to the Lord, and not those who advise us to the contrary. They
too will give an account, but for themselves.
* a) Saint Nikodemos, referring to the phrase of St.
John Chrysostom "God does not ordain all, but He works through all,"
writes:
"And if someone should say that according to the
divine Chrysostom (Homily 2 on 2 Timothy, and 11 on 1 Thessalonians, and 8 on 1
Corinthians) grace, though not ordaining all, nevertheless operates through
all—even through the unworthy: we respond that it operates through all who have
not been deposed, but not through those who have been deposed or
unordained" (Pedalion, p. 28,
footnote 2).
Continuing, the Saint makes an important observation:
“For he who has been justly deposed, both inwardly on account of his
unworthiness, and outwardly by the Synod, has lost the operation of the
priesthood” (op. cit., p. 29). And
elsewhere: “All those who have been ordained contrary to the Canons and
unworthily, before being deposed by a Synod, are truly priests. For, as the
divine Chrysostom says: ‘God does not ordain all, but He works through all,
even if they are unworthy, for the salvation of the people’… And again: ‘It is
the grace of God which operates even through the unworthy, not for our sake,
but for your sake.’ And again: ‘You are not scorning me, but the priesthood. If
you see it stripped of this, then scorn… But as long as we sit upon this throne,
as long as we hold this presidency, we possess the dignity and the power, even
if we are unworthy.’” (Pedalion, p.
136).
b) The Patriarch of Alexandria Alexander, after the
deposition of Arius, was sending letters and urging the other Bishops “not to
receive into communion” those who followed Arius (P.G. 146, 37B). The Bishops,
however, although they were informed about the condemnation of Arius by a
Synod, were communing with the pro-Arians.
In his Encyclical Letter to all the Bishops
everywhere, indeed very early on, he also points out the chief supporter of
Arius – Eusebius of Caesarea – and denounces his impiety. Eusebius – he writes
– thinks he can direct the affairs of the Church, leads the apostates, and
draws the ignorant into heresy: “Since Eusebius, who is now in Nicomedia,
thinking that the affairs of the Church rest upon him, and because having left
Berytus and cast his eye upon the church of the Nicomedians he has not been
deposed, he stands at the head of these apostates and has attempted to write
everywhere recommending them, in order to draw some of the ignorant into the
most shameful and Christ-fighting heresy, I found it necessary, knowing what is
written in the Law, no longer to remain silent, but to inform all of you, so
that you may know both those who have become apostates and the wretched words
of their heresy, and if Eusebius writes, do not pay attention” (P.G. 146,
37D–40A).
It is therefore evident that Eusebius and those around
him supported a deposed heretic, had identified themselves with him, and yet no
one speaks of the invalidity of their Mysteries; for this reason, they also
participated in Synods of the Orthodox as Orthodox, even though in their
mindset they were heretical, not yet condemned! They were, that is, false
bishops, like those to whom the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council refers.
And Alexandria’s Alexander did not accept the
canonical validity of the priestly acts of Arius and his collaborators (and
this was natural, since his Synod had deposed them), whereas many others
doubted the invalidity of his acts and were in communion with Arius,
attributing canonical validity to his priestly acts: These sought to be
received into ecclesiastical communion (Arius and his followers) as canonical
clergy, so that Alexander would not dispute the canonicity of their priestly
acts(!) after their deposition and synodal anathema. “...Arius is recommended
to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, and to Eusebius Pamphilus and Patrophilus of
Scythopolis, and together with those around him petitions that their people be
permitted to attend church as formerly, holding the rank of presbyters”
(Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, I, 15 – in Feidas, op. cit., p. 405).
c) The Third Ecumenical Council dealt with the heresy
of Nestorius. In it, the Fathers decided on the deposition of Nestorius. The
Fathers did not regard him as lacking priesthood, but received him as a bishop
who was indeed heretical—that is, as a false bishop—and precisely for that
reason the Orthodox had ceased commemorating him, without anywhere mentioning
that Nestorius did not have valid Mysteries. And they decided, as Nikephoros
Kallistos hands down to us:
“The Lord Jesus Christ, who was blasphemed by him, has
decreed through this present holy council that Nestorius is to be alienated
from both the episcopal rank and every priestly assembly” (P.G. 146, 1172D).
The Council therefore removes the
priestly rank from Nestorius—it is not something he loses on his own—because he
clearly remained unrepentantly heretical.
d) We observe in the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical
Council that the heretic Dioscorus, who was the president of the Robber Council
of 449 (a counterpart to Bartholomew of the Council of Kolymbari in Crete), is
initially included in the list of bishops, and indeed his name is proclaimed
after Anatolius of Constantinople and before the names of the Patriarchs of
Antioch and Jerusalem, and he is summoned to give an account and be judged:
"Beginning of the Council of Chalcedon
In the consulate of our lord Marcian…, and Anatolius,
the most pious archbishop of the renowned city of Constantinople, New Rome, and
Dioscorus, the most God-beloved archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and
the rest…"
"The most glorious rulers and most illustrious
senators said: For what specific charge is brought against Dioscorus, the most
devout bishop? And they present the accusations against the bishop Dioscorus
who is still in office: …the worthy Dioscorus… being of one mind and opinion
with Eutyches, the vain-minded and heretical… the heretical doctrine of
Eutyches… we beseech and implore Your Majesty to order the most devout bishop
Dioscorus to give an account concerning the accusations brought against him by
us…, through which we are able to demonstrate that he is alien to the Orthodox
faith and has confirmed a heresy of impiety and has unjustly deposed us."
(T.LG., Concilia Oecumenica (ACO): Concilium universale Chalcedonense anno 451:
Tomëvolumëpart 2,1,1, page 66, line 20).
And after the examination/trial takes place, then his
deposition and the removal of the episcopal office is decided:
“Anatolios the bishop said …I also cast my vote for
the deposition of Dioscoros, who had become bishop of the great city of the
Alexandrians, as having shown himself to be alien to all priestly function.”
(T.L.G., op. cit., page 29, line 21).
But an attempt is made for the restoration of
Dioscorus. And the Council makes clear that before the Council he possessed
priesthood, which he did not use for Christ’s sake; for this reason the Council
removed it from him: “He came to the holy and great council after the removal
of his priesthood according to the divine canons; Dioscorus, who had become
bishop of the great city of Alexandria, attempting again with noise to regain
the priesthood, which formerly having, he did not use for the service of Christ
who granted it, but for injustice and violation of the divine canons and
ecclesiastical order. Therefore, so that all nourished by the pious faith may
have no doubt about the just vote of deposition pronounced upon him by the holy
and ecumenical council, we have confirmed this document to be publicly set
forth, showing that he who has been deprived of the grace of priesthood by the
Lord God and by such a great multitude of bishops—on account of the inexcusable
deeds he committed—has altogether no hope of restoration, since with his
removal the scandals have also ceased. The second act of the holy and blessed
Fathers gathered in Chalcedon is completed.” (T.L.G., op. cit., page 42, line 20, p. 230).
e) We also have the case of the Monophysite Patriarch
Anthimus (also Bishop of Trebizond). In his case, the monks denounced him. He
is summoned by the Synod to be judged, but he does not appear. The Synodal
Fathers judge him in absentia. After first examining in synod, they write, “the
audacities committed by him… we also justly subjected him to eternal anathema,
depriving him of all possession, name, worthiness, operation befitting a
Christian or able to befit a cleric, and rendering him bare of divine communion
according to the ecclesiastical canons, because he attempted to blaspheme and
slander the holy Council in Chalcedon.” This same “aforementioned Severus we
rendered deprived of all honor and subjected him to anathema.” (T.L.G., Concilia Oecumenica (ACO): Synodus
Constantinopolitana et Hierosolymitana anno 536: Tome 3, page 64, line 8).
In a libellus, the monks thank the Patriarch because
he proceeded with the examination of the case of the heretical Patriarch
Anthimus, and since he "obeyed," the Synod condemned him. They also
thank God, they write, because through the Synod He was pleased “to cleanse His
Church and present it to Himself, as always, glorious, not having spot or
wrinkle or any such thing of heretical tares” (T.L.G., Concilia Oecumenica (ACO): Synodus Constantinopolitana et
Hierosolymitana anno 536: Tome 3, page 38, line 31). Therefore, it is the
Synod that purifies the Church from the rotten members, the heretics.
Thus the Synod ultimately condemned him: “We also
rightly subjected him to eternal anathema, removing from him every matter,
name, dignity, and operation befitting or able to befit a Christian or a
cleric, and, in accordance with the ecclesiastical canons, rendered him
stripped of divine communion.” And henceforth, Anthimus—mentioned here—has
fallen not only from the episcopate of the Trapezuntines but also, having been
separated from all priestly dignity and activity, from the body of the Most
Holy Church, since he has also been deprived of the title of Catholic. And to
his incorrigible error, the prophecy of Hosea applies: “Since you have rejected
knowledge, I also will reject you from the priesthood.” And in this case too,
it is evident that the Synod, before condemning Anthimus, considers him a
bishop, and the council members address him as befits a bishop still in office,
with valid Mysteries.
The action of the Church is therefore clear. And let
no one say that all these Ecumenical Councils were mistaken, that they did not
follow the Gospel! Rather, it is those who advocate for the invalidity of the
Mysteries who somehow misunderstand the Gospel, or rely on isolated phrases of
a particular Saint—whom they either misinterpret, or, insofar as he does not
agree with our patristic Tradition, his opinion cannot prevail over that
Tradition.
NOTES:
[1] The 2nd Canon of the Council of Antioch, which
reads as follows: “All who enter the church and listen to the Holy Scriptures
but do not participate in the prayer together with the people, or turn away
from the holy Communion of the Eucharist out of some disorder, these are to be
cast out of the Church, until, having confessed and shown fruits of repentance
and having begged, they may be granted forgiveness; and it is not permitted to
commune with the excommunicated, nor to pray together in houses with those who
do not pray together with the Church, nor to receive in another church those
who do not assemble in their own church. And if any bishop or presbyter or
deacon, or anyone of the clergy, is found to be communing with the
excommunicated, let him also be excommunicated, as one who confuses the rule of
the Church.” In the same work, Dēm. Tsamēs also cites the 33rd Canon of the
Council of Laodicea: “That one must not pray together with heretics or
schismatics.” Also, the 45th and 46th Canons of the Holy Apostles: Canon 45:
“If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon prays only with heretics, let him be
excommunicated; and if he allows them to perform anything as clergy, let him be
deposed.” Canon 46: “We command that a bishop or presbyter who accepts the baptism
or sacrifice of heretics be deposed. For what agreement is there between Christ
and Belial? Or what portion has a believer with an unbeliever?”
[2] Canon 65: “A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who
prays even with heretics, let him be excommunicated; and if he permitted them,
as if they were clergy, to perform anything, let him be deposed.” Canon 66: “We
command that a bishop or presbyter who accepts the baptism or sacrifice of
heretics be deposed. For what agreement is there between Christ and Belial? Or
what portion does a believer have with an unbeliever?”
[3] Canon I and IV of the Third Ecumenical Council -
Canon I: “Since it was necessary that those who were absent from the holy
council and who remained in their region or city for some reason—whether
ecclesiastical or bodily—not be ignorant of the decisions made therein, we make
known to your holiness and love that if any metropolitan of a province, having
defected from the holy and ecumenical council, joined the assembly of the
apostasy, or afterwards joins it, or has embraced or will embrace the doctrines
of Celestius, he shall by no means be permitted to do anything against the
bishops of the province, being henceforth already expelled by the synod from
all ecclesiastical communion and rendered ineffective. But also the bishops of
the province and the neighboring metropolitans who uphold orthodoxy shall have
authority to depose him entirely from the rank of bishop.” Canon IV: “If any of
the clergy should defect and dare, either privately or publicly, to uphold the
teachings of Nestorius or of Celestius, the holy council has declared that
these are to be deposed.”
Greek source: https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2022/03/blog-post_65.html
