The Condemnable Nature of Communion with Heretics

Fr. Theodoretos (Mavros) the Athonite (+2007)

What do God and His Church require Orthodox Christians (clergy and laity) to do when their bishop does not preach heresy himself but communes with those who preach some heretical doctrine in word and deed, even if these (the preachers) have not yet been judged by a Council?

The answer to the above serious question cannot, of course, be brief and simple. Summarily, we could structure it as follows.

A) If heresy is preached for a short time (a few months), the faithful wait and anxiously observe how their bishop, his fellow bishops, or the bishops of other Orthodox Churches will react. (For as the Church of Christ is one, despite its administrative distinctions into patriarchates and archbishoprics, so also the same responsibility falls upon all, clergy and laity alike, regarding the heresy being preached, varying only according to each one's knowledge and rank). And if their bishop reacts in a patristic manner, then they are obliged to support him with all their strength, awaiting the outcome.

B) However, if, contrary to hope, their bishop does not react, but his fellow bishops or even a single Orthodox bishop does, then they are obliged to support him, thus indirectly, at first, reproving the silence of their shepherd, yet without severing communion with him.

However, if the reactions of the bishop who is struggling against heresy escalate and, at the proper time, lead to the cessation of communion with the one who holds heretical views (since he remains obstinate in his heretical beliefs), then the faithful are obligated to commune only with the aforementioned struggling bishop, distancing themselves from the assemblies of their own bishop, who, through his silence or lukewarm reaction, does not cease to commune with the heretic, thus cooperating with him and strengthening the heresy. The patristic word on this matter is absolutely clear: 

“Some have suffered complete shipwreck concerning the faith; others, though not entirely submerged even in their thoughts, nevertheless perish through communion with heresy.” [1]

"All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils, all the divine Scriptures exhort to flee from those of different mind and to withdraw from their communion." [2]

And the great Theodore the Studite adds: "For Chrysostom declared with a great and mighty voice that not only heretics, but also those who commune with such are enemies of God." [3]

The above reactions of the rightly struggling bishop must not cease until the synodical condemnation of the heretic. Otherwise, his struggle must continue unto death, imprisonment, and confinement, in the event that the one holding heretical views possesses political or ecclesiastical power in his favor, as has often occurred in the history of the Church.

It is understood that the position of the Orthodox-reacting bishop may be assumed by a clergyman or a monk, provided that no bishop has reacted in a timely or effective manner. The examples are many. [4]

A fundamental and primary role in all the above will always be played by the factors of time and knowledge, that is, how long the heresy has been preached and to what extent it has become known to the fullness of the Church.

However, it should be noted that the factor of knowledge in our days has been nullified due to the existing means of broadcasting speeches and events, whereas the factor of time, although greatly shortened compared to the past, nevertheless continues and will continue to play a fundamental role due to the necessary strategizing of the response until the Synodical condemnation. A classic case in this regard, to which all good shepherds may look, is the condemnation of the heretic Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, by the Third Ecumenical Council, with the protagonists of his deposition being not some of his fellow bishops, but the patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome, who were at a great distance from him! [5]

Before the "Synodal Judgment"

However, the following question arises: Well and good for those who thus reacted and deposed the heretic; honor and praise belong to them according to the words of the holy Canons.

But what of the others, those who did not sever communion with the heretic and continued to commune with him until his synodical condemnation? How should they be regarded, since the relevant holy Canons make no mention of them?

If the holy Canons [6] do not speak of the fate of those who continued communion with the heresiarch until his synodical condemnation, this does not mean that the nature of the aforementioned canons is permissive and, consequently, that communion with the heretic is blameless or indifferent; quite the contrary!

Proof of this is found in the Acts of the holy Councils, that is, in the Sacred Tradition of Orthodoxy, from which it is emphatically confirmed that the conduct of such bishops and clergy is condemnable, culpable, and punishable. Precisely the opposite was dared to be asserted by Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, who showed complete indifference to the blatant distortion of the truth. He writes: "But the cessation of commemoration 'before synodical judgment' and condemnation does not have the meaning of avoiding defilement from the heresy being preached! No, my brother! If it had this meaning, then the Canons would not merely grant the right to cease commemoration for heresy 'before synodical judgment,' but they would establish a clear and explicit obligation, under the threat of severe penalties in the contrary case… Therefore, there is no danger of… being defiled, neither by commemorating the Patriarch (so long as he has not yet been condemned) nor, much less, by communing with those who commemorate him."

"The canon is permissive and not obligatory"…

"That this is true," the Very Reverend continues, "is also proven by the fact that countless bishops in times of heresy were never punished, nor was any cleric ever even reprimanded for not hastening to separate immediately from the heretical bishop but instead waited for his condemnation by a Council…." "Statements to the contrary are foolish zealotry." [7]

Why, then, in such a case, did the most holy Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril, contrary to Fr. Epiphanios, exhort the faithful of Constantinople, both clergy and laity, to refrain from communion with Nestorius, who was preaching heresy, even though a Council had not yet convened to condemn him [8]? It should also be noted that when the divine Cyril wrote the above, most of the faithful and clergy of Constantinople had already severed communion with their heretical shepherd, except for a few of the more frivolous and those who flattered him [9].

Why did Saint Hypatius, as soon as he was informed of Nestorius’ heresy, cease his commemoration, even before the Council had convened to condemn the heretic [10]?

Why did Saint Maximus the Confessor sever all ecclesiastical communion before "synodal judgment" with almost all the thrones of both East and West due to the heresy of Monothelitism, to the extent that his opponents considered him to be "outside the Church" [11]?

Why did the iconophile confessors who struggled before the Seventh Ecumenical Council, both clergy and laity, remain out of communion with the iconoclasts for entire decades, dwelling in prisons, mountains, and caves for the sake of the good confession [12]?

Was Theodore the Studite, the leading figure among the iconophiles, also a “foolish zealot” when he wrote: “Communion brings defilement merely from mentioning his (i.e., the iconoclast bishop’s) name, even if the one mentioning it is Orthodox” [13]? Or when, concerning an issue far less grave than iconoclasm—namely, the unlawful marriage of the emperor—he proclaimed with unparalleled boldness: “Everything is bearable for us, even unto death, rather than to partake of his [the priest Joseph’s] communion and of those who concelebrate with him”? (P.G. 99, 972).

However, the falsehood, lack of logic and seriousness, and, above all, the un-Orthodox spirit present in the words of the aforementioned Archimandrite will be demonstrated in greater detail below.

First of all, it is impossible for there to be a canon that punishes a priest or a bishop for not severing communion with a heretic before synodal judgment. Why? Because, in such a case, what role would the Synod play, since it would always be arriving to give its ruling… after the fact? And how could it be a true Synod, one that claims to uphold the Evangelical truth, if it does not protect the clergy and laity under its pastoral care, but rather needs to be protected by them? For, in the final analysis, this is what an obligatory reaction of all others upon the appearance of heresy—except for the Synod, which would always come last—would mean!

Such a canon, if it existed, would resemble a civil law that ordered all soldiers and officers to fight relentlessly as soon as the enemy appeared—except for the generals and chief commanders, who would convene for a meeting last, only to announce that the enemy had indeed attacked unlawfully and that the army and officers had done very well to have reacted in a timely manner!…

Unfortunately, such canons is what Fr. Epiphanios seeks in the Pedalion, and since he does not find them… he labels the existing ones as permissive, brutally misinterpreting their meaning!

But even the contemporary synodal fathers do not seem to differ from the psychology of their self-appointed advocate. For whole decades now, while witnessing the heresy of Ecumenism growing and provocatively overturning the boundaries of the Fathers—which the Most Reverend hierarchs are supposed to guard as the apple of their eye—instead of condemning the heresy when they convene, they persecute the few faithful who dared to resist the heresy, upholding the voice of the holy Canons! Indeed, a precise repetition of the un-Orthodox past of the Church.

But something else as well. By what logic would this supposed canon require the Synod to depose the clergy who had not reacted before its judgment, when those very Synodal members carrying out the deposition would themselves be equally guilty as those they were deposing?!

Such a canon would have a place only when the bishops of the "synodal judgment" had reacted in a timely and patristic manner against the heresy but were unable to convene in synod to condemn the heretic due to state intervention and the protection of the heretic, as often happened, especially during the Iconoclast period. In such a case, when these bishops finally do convene, they certainly have every right to condemn the clergy who did not follow their example, as happened at the Third Ecumenical Council. In that case, of course, the consciences of the remaining clergy are not left untried, nor do they have the opportunity to be tested regarding the stance they ought to take against the heresy, and so forth.

Let the Very Reverend, then, not labor in vain, attempting to pacify his conscience, as well as the consciences of all those who, knowingly and before synodical judgment, commune with the heresy being preached, for on all sides the path is narrow for him and for those he seeks to protect… [14].

The Practice of the Church

But did not the Church of Christ, even before the establishment of the relevant holy Canons, successfully confront the heresies that arose, based on the teaching of Holy Scripture [15] and the holy children of the Church [16], as Saint Theodore clearly testifies? "For we have a command from the Apostle himself: if anyone teaches doctrine or commands us to do something contrary to what we have received, contrary to what the Canons of the various Councils, both Ecumenical and local, have defined, we must regard him as unacceptable and not even consider him among the lot of the saints." (P.G. 99, 988A).

This is precisely what the holy Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council applied during the trial and condemnation of the iconoclasts, despite what Fr. Epiphanios has written to the contrary—namely, that "never was any cleric punished or even reprimanded for not hastening to separate immediately from the heretical bishop…" We immediately present representative texts from the sessions of the Council.

A) Tarasios, the Most Holy Patriarch, said to the Bishop of Neocaesarea: "Did the truth pass by you until now as something unknown, or did you despise it despite knowing it? And if it passed by you as something unknown, do you not feel shame in learning the right doctrine, just as you were not ashamed to embrace the distorted one?"

Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, said: "Believe me, Master, that I was unaware; therefore, I ask to learn, as my master and the holy Synod command."

Tarasios: "Say, what do you wish to learn?"

Gregory said: "When this entire assembly speaks and believes as one, I have learned and been assured that this is the truth, which is now being sought and proclaimed. Therefore, I also ask for forgiveness for my past errors, and I desire, together with all, to be enlightened and instructed. My transgressions and sins are immeasurable, and as God moves the holy Synod and the most holy master to compassion…"

Tarasios: "You ought from times past to have opened your ears and listened to the divine Apostle Paul, who says: 'Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you have received, whether by word or by our epistle.' And again, writing to Timothy and Titus: 'Avoid profane and vain babblings.' What could be more profane or more vain than saying that Christians have become idolaters?"

Gregory: "It was evil, and we confess it; it was evil, but thus it was done, and thus we acted. Therefore, we ask for forgiveness for our transgressions. I confess, Master, before your most honorable holiness and all the brethren of the holy Synod, that we have sinned and acted lawlessly, and we have done wrongly, and we ask for forgiveness for this…"

B) Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, said: "Therefore, I also, as the Bishop of the city of Ancyra, desiring to be united with the Catholic Church… make and present to you this written confession of mine, to you who have received authority from apostolic authority. At the same time, I also ask forgiveness from your God-gathered blessedness for my tardiness in this matter. For it was fitting that I should not have delayed in confessing Orthodoxy, but this is due to my utter ignorance, sluggishness, and a mind that has been negligent.

C) To the holy and ecumenical Synod, Theodosios (Bishop of Amorion), the least of Christians, I confess, agree, accept, and embrace… Therefore, I beseech you, holy ones of God, and I cry out: I have sinned against heaven and before you. Receive me as God received the prodigal, the harlot, and the thief. Seek me as Christ sought the lost sheep, which He took upon His shoulders…

Sabbas, the most devout abbot of the Monastery of Stoudios, said: "According to the apostolic decrees and the ecumenical councils, he is worthy of acceptance…"

Tarasios, the Most Holy Patriarch, said: "Those who were once accusers of Orthodoxy have now become defenders of the truth…"

D) The monks, having spoken, said: "But the father (Saint Athanasius) receives those who have been led astray and have suffered coercion. Let them declare, then, whether they were misled or endured violence, that they have fallen away from the truth."

Hypatios and the bishops with him said: "We neither endured coercion nor were we misled, but we were born, raised, and brought up in this heresy…" And again, Thalassios, Eusebios, and Eustathios, the most devout bishops, said: "We have all sinned, we all seek forgiveness…" [17].

Who could desire a better interpretation of the holy Canons in practice? Who does not discern in the aforementioned synodal texts the Apostolic and Patristic practice, as it was lived up to the time of those present at the Council? These synodal fathers, in absolute agreement with both the letter and spirit of Scripture, the Canons, and the universal Tradition, affirm that continuing in communion with someone who preaches a heretical doctrine makes one a part of the faction of the heretic—as even those being judged at the Synod themselves confessed. The leader of this faction is none other than the one who initiated the heresy, the “false bishop” of the Canon. Conversely, those who did not commune with the heretic form the healthy reaction of the Church. In other words, they constitute its sound part, which, when able, will judge all who have joined the faction of the heretic—just as was done by the Seventh Ecumenical Council mentioned above. This is what the history of our Church teaches. This is what we have received to believe from our Fathers. Before such a school of instruction, Fr. Epiphanios ought to have humbled himself, rather than sophisticating excessively and unjustly, thereby harming both himself and those who, in good faith, trust in his words.

Consequently, today, when heresy has been preached for decades, when the heretical actions and errors of the Ecumenical Patriarchate become immediately known to the fullness of the Church, when all perceive and understand the terrible deviation of the bishops of Phanar and their fellow travelers, when all these things are carried out repeatedly and with premeditation, how is it possible for Orthodox bishops throughout the world, as well as the clergy and laity under them, to be justified for their condemnable silence and communion with the aforementioned fallen ones?

And to answer the question posed at the beginning, we write: God and His Church desire nothing else from the Orthodox in times when heresy is being preached, as it is today, other than their separation from the heretics and their confession of the truth unto death, until the time when Orthodoxy shines forth again.

[1] P.G. 99, 1164A.

[2] P.G. 160, 105C.

[3] P.G. 99, 1049A.

[4] See also, in relation to this, the Lives of Saint Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, and Theodore the Studite, MANSI 4, 1096, 1256, as well as the beautiful saying of Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite: "In our hierarchy, when a priest or bishop acts disorderly and thinks wrongly, a deacon or monk, acting orderly and thinking rightly, can admonish and correct them, as there are countless examples of this." (Synaxarion, November 8, note).

[5] Spyridon Melias, Most Comprehensive Collection of the Holy Canons…, Venice 1761, vol. I, p. 448.

[6] 31st Apostolic Canon and 15th Canon of the First-Second Council.

[7] Archim. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, Articles - Studies - Letters, I, Athens 1981, pp. 215, 234.

[8] MANSI 4, 1096; Spyridon Melias, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 449–450.

[9] "There was in Constantinople a bishop named Dorotheos, who shared the same views as him (Nestorius), a man servile and reckless in speech, as it is written. While the most devout Nestorius was seated on the throne of the Church of Constantinople during an assembly, Dorotheos stood up and, with a loud voice, dared to say: ‘If anyone calls Mary Theotokos, let him be anathema.’ And there arose a great outcry from all the people, and they rushed out, for they no longer wished to commune with those who held such views, so that even now the people of Constantinople remain separated from their assemblies, except for a few of the more frivolous and those who flattered him. Nearly all the monasteries and their archimandrites, as well as many from the Senate, no longer gather with them, fearing that they might suffer wrong in their faith at the hands of Nestorius and those with him, whom he had brought up from Antioch, all of whom spoke perverse things." (Letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Celestine, Bishop of Rome, Acts, vol. I, p. 443. Cf. ibid. pp. 451, 455).

[10] ACTA SANCTORUM, NOV B, p. 267.

[11] "Yesterday… the patriarch said to me: ‘Which Church do you belong to? That of Byzantium? Rome? Antioch? Alexandria? Jerusalem? Behold, all of them, along with the provinces under them, have united. If, therefore, you belong to the Catholic Church, unite yourself with them, lest by innovating a foreign path in life, you suffer what you do not expect.’ To which I replied: 'The Catholic Church is the one whose right and saving confession of faith was blessed by Peter, when he rightly confessed Him, whom God has declared to be the Lord of all.' Then they said to me: ‘Listen, it has seemed good to the master and the patriarch, through the decree of the pope of Rome, to anathematize you if you do not obey, and to carry out the death sentence determined by them.’ And the saint replied: 'May what was ordained for me by God before all ages come to its end, bringing Him glory, as was known before all ages…'" (P.G. 99, 132AC).

[12] P.G. 99, 1177D, 1205B, 1365AB, 1636–1637.

[13] Ibid., 1669A.

[14] Regarding the interpretation of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, see also the study of the Athonite Fathers, "Distancing and Division," Athens 1981, pp. 34–38.

[15] A) "A heretical man, after a first and second admonition, reject, knowing that such a one is perverted and sins, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:10).

B) "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Galatians 1:8).

C) "Hold fast to the traditions as you were taught, whether by word or by the epistle of the Apostles, and remain in what you have learned and been assured of. Do not be deceived or shaken by those who oppose, but be watchful, stand firm in the faith, become steadfast and immovable." (1 Thess. 5, 2 Thess. 2, 1 Cor. 15, 16, 2 Cor. 13, 2 Tim. 3).

[16] "Flee from heresies, for they are inventions of the devil." (St. Ignatius).

"Turn away from all heresies, as from beasts with deadly venom, concerning which I have also delivered written instructions to you…" (St. Epiphanius).

[17] Spyridon Melias, Most Comprehensive…, vol. II, pp. 729–742.

Greek source: Ἁγιορείτης, December 1981.