So that Shepherds and laity who commune with the heretical Ecumenists may learn the Tradition of the Church

Panagiotis Simatis | October 10, 2018

 

Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos (13th-14th c.) distinguished himself as a historian, interpreter of the Scriptures, poet of ecclesiastical hymns, etc.

From his "Ecclesiastical History" we receive valuable information — among other things — also about the stance of the faithful towards heresies. We have previously presented some texts on this subject. Today we present the stance of the faithful of Samosata, in the interval between the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, when, through the interventions of heretical emperors or the Arian-minded bishops favored by them, Orthodox bishops were being persecuted and in their place Arian-minded ones were being installed, who had not been condemned by a Council. In this case, the faithful applied the patristic stance of Cessation of Communion or Walling Off, long before this was secured by the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Council.

Thus, as (Nikephoros Kallistos narrates to us) the band of the heresy of Arius had expelled the Orthodox Shepherds from the Churches, the same thing happened also in Samosata; they expelled the Orthodox Bishop Eustathios and in his place installed Eunomios. And then all the Orthodox, from the least to the greatest, ceased to attend church! And the Bishop remained alone in the Episcopal residence, and no one visited him, nor spoke to him!

"For as the band of Arius, having stripped all the churches of their shepherds, in Samosata likewise introduced another in place of Eustathios, by the name of Eunomios; not one of all the people, neither poor nor rich, neither young nor old, simply no one at all would enter the church, as was the custom; but he alone remained in the episcopal residence, with no one seeing him, nor at all exchanging a word with him. And yet, they say that he was otherwise mild and moderate; and this is acknowledged."

And when he went to a public bath and the attendants closed the doors, he learned that outside there was a multitude of people, and he ordered the attendants to open the doors, so that whoever wished might use the bath. And when some entered, he urged them also to enter the baths. But since those who had entered remained in silence without entering the baths, he considered this stance as one of respect toward his person, and he quickly departed from the bath.

"For when he went to a public bath, and the attendants had closed the doors, having learned that a multitude was standing before the doors, he ordered the attendants to open again the doors of the bathhouse, and without restriction allowed whoever wished to make use of the bath. He did the same also within the halls. And when some entered and stood around, he urged them to partake of the warm waters. But when they stood and still maintained silence, considering their stance as an honor toward him, he quickly left the bath and departed."

They, however (when he departed), because they considered that if they used the same water for their bath, it would be as if they participated in the defilement of heresy, poured the water into the sewers and took their bath after filling the baths with other water!

"But they, considering it a defilement of heresy to partake of that water, poured it out into the sewers; and having drawn other water, they bathed."

When Eunomios learned this, he immediately left the city and returned "home!" For he considered it pointless and foolish to remain in a city where everyone was against him!

"Eunomios, having learned this, immediately left the city and went home; for he considered it very foolish to choose to remain in a city that was entirely opposed to him. And thus he willingly departed from Samosata." (Nikephoros Kallistos, P.G. 146, 633BD)

When Eunomius departed from Samosata, the Arians appointed another Bishop, "by the name of Lucius, truly a wolf and not a shepherd. Yet the sheep, although not having a shepherd, nevertheless performed the deeds of shepherds, preserving inviolate the doctrine of the faith." (op. cit., P.G. 146, 633D-636AB)

We see here that the faithful, realizing that the shepherd appointed to them was a false shepherd, a wolf instead of a shepherd, did not wait for the decision of some Council, but themselves did what the shepherd ought to have done; and thus, by not communing with the false shepherd, the Arian-minded bishop Lucius, they preserved intact the doctrine of the Faith, as we shall see.

And towards him — the faithful of Samosata — behaved in a similar manner as towards Eunomius, as was shown by an incident.

One day, that is, while the children were playing, throwing a ball from one to another, Bishop Lucius was passing by. And it happened that the ball slipped from the hands of one child and passed under the feet of the mule on which Bishop Lucius was seated. And the children "cried out aloud," shouted in terror, because, as the ball passed under the animal of the heretic, they believed it had been defiled! (And how would they play afterwards.)

He, not understanding the behavior of the children, told one of his attendants to remain in the place and find out why the children had acted in such a manner. And (the attendant saw) that the children lit a fire and threw the ball upon it, wishing to disinfect—"cleanse"—it from the defilement (which it had acquired by passing under the mule of the heretical Bishop).

And Theodoret (from whom Nicephorus borrowed the incident) concludes: It is, of course, a childish reaction, but it shows how great was the aversion the inhabitants of Samosata had towards the Arian-minded, who were corrupting the Doctrine of the Faith:

"And this may perhaps be childish; yet it is sufficient to show how deeply this city had nourished hatred towards those who had chosen to falsify the doctrine of the faith." (op. cit., P.G. 146, 636AB)

 

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2018/10/blog-post_37.html