The Errors of the Saints

The foolish accuser [Nun Magdalene, writing blasphemously of St. Nektarios], unfortunately, was not able to understand that a saint does not mean sinless, because only One is such—the God—but it is the course of a soul constantly repenting and striving for the better, according to Saint Isaac, even if small or somehow great falls are marked along this course, as we see this most clearly in the lives of the saints of our Church.

The Church condemns the writings of holy men—or even the men themselves—only when they do not conform to her instructions to correct what may be amiss in them; otherwise, she rejects their erroneous opinion, without, however, stripping them of the title of sainthood, seeing with wisdom that they did not write or say something unorthodox out of a disposition of heterodoxy, but were led astray as mortal men in their judgments, or, as our great father Barsanuphios most beautifully says, because they did not pray beforehand that God might inform them whether what they had received from the teachers before them was true. Commenting on the above, Saint Nikodemos writes: “Such a thing seems to have happened also in the case of the aforementioned divine Gregory of Nyssa; for having received the opinion concerning the apocatástasis, from the teachers before him without scrutiny, he did not beseech God to reveal to him whether it was true. Hence it is found scattered throughout his writings, especially in those called Macrineia. And that this opinion was truly his is agreed upon with this divine Barsanuphios also by the great Maximus, who interprets the words of Nyssa toward the correct meaning; and Gennadios Scholarios, even the unadulterated word of Germanos of Constantinople, assert that this was an addition of the heretics. Let it also be noted, however, that the saint does not assert this with insistence, nor through a synodical definition on this matter; for later the Sixth Ecumenical Council rejected this opinion as blasphemous.” (Response 64 from the Book of Barsanuphios, p. 287).

Compare now and marvel, my beloved Akakios. An entire Ecumenical Council with its approximately 250 holy fathers examining the works of Saint Gregory and rejecting whatever in them is unsound, yet continuing to honor the holy father himself—as does the whole Church—as a “father of fathers,” even though he fell into a great dogmatic error.

Must we then consider Saint Mark of Ephesus also a traitor to the faith, who, approximately 400 years after the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, accepts that the returning Papists to Orthodoxy are sufficiently received merely by chrismation, mentioning nothing concerning their rebaptism, as ought to have been the case?

But why do I mention only Saint Mark? In like manner, one must also erase from the diptychs of the saints Saint Arsakios, successor of Saint Chrysostom to the throne of Constantinople, since none—or rather, all the bishop friends of the golden-mouthed one—desired not even to have ecclesiastical communion with him. Thereafter, we must also erase from the Pedalion the Canons of Theophilos of Alexandria, who, as is known, was the principal cause of the exile of Saint Chrysostom, having convened that unlawful synod—later called “robber”—at the Oak, which condemned the great Father. But do we encounter only the above impossible and shadowy elements in the lives of the saints? I shall enumerate for you still more shortcomings of great men of our Church:

Saint Epiphanios of Cyprus, for instance, clashed with Holy Chrysostom in Constantinople, and they parted from one another without being reconciled. Saint Cyril of Alexandria considered the great John Chrysostom to have been justly exiled, and for many years his name was not included in the diptychs for commemoration. Saint Germanos of Constantinople, as well as Saint Andrew of Crete, signed—even if unwittingly, according to some—a royal decree against the decisions of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Patriarchs Photios and Ignatios remained out of communion and mutually anathematized for years, being reconciled only one year before the repose of Saint Ignatios. And all this, because—as a pious contemporary scholar aptly writes—“even the saints are subject to the conditions of human nature and can commit errors as they strive, ‘with God cooperating,’ to transcend the boundaries between heaven and earth.”

Finally, she must cease continually exalting and calling Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem “thrice-wise” and “saint” and “Trinitarian theologian,” constantly referring us to his works, since—listen, brother, and be horrified—in his Orthodox Confession, article 15, he ACCEPTS AS VALID THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS! [1]

As for the canonization of the saint [i.e., St. Nektarios] by the heretic Athenagoras, this in no way diminishes the worth and holiness of the father, since the proclamation of someone as a saint by the Patriarchate does not mean that the Patriarchate makes him a saint, but rather that it comes to seal and officially proclaim before the Church the conviction and belief of the faithful people concerning the holiness of such-and-such a person. For this reason, after all, the foolish accuser also honors and venerates in a special way Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, although he too was proclaimed a saint by that same heretic Athenagoras!…

 

[1] I. Karmiris, Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments, vol. II, p. 757 [838]

 

Source: Hieromonk Theodoretos (Mavros), Response to the One Afflicted with the Disease of Fighting Against Saints, Nun Magdalene

Online: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2025/04/blog-post_23.html