Excerpt: "Does Cessation of Commemoration Constitute Schism?"

Excerpted and translated from the academic presentation: 

Does the cessation of commemoration by clergy and the severing of communion by monks or laity, in the case of a public proclamation of heresy by a bishop, primate, or synod of bishops, constitute the ecclesiastical criminal offense of schism?

By Kyriakos Kyriazopoulos

Assistant Professor (ret.) of Ecclesiastical Law at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki School of Law, Supreme Court attorney, Theologian

October 13, 2016

 

A negative answer to the above question, for the following reasons:

Part 1: Interpretation of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod

1. The cessation of commemoration by clergy or the severing of communion by monks or laity, because of a formal accusation of ecclesiastical criminal offenses, except that of heresy, by the ecclesiastical subordinate against the ecclesiastical superior, before the irrevocable synodal conviction of the latter, constitutes the ecclesiastical criminal offense of schism, by virtue of the 13th, 14th and 15th, paragraphs 1-3, Canons of the First-Second Synod. On the contrary, the same cessation because of a public and open proclamation of heresy in the church, condemned by Holy Scripture, the Holy Synods or the Holy Fathers, and before the synodal conviction of the ecclesiastical superior, does not constitute the said offense of schism, by virtue of Canon 15, paragraph 3 of the First-Second Synod.

1.A. - Obligation to maintain ecclesiastical communion by the clergy with the bearer of the relative ecclesiastical authority, except in the case of a public and open declaration of heresy in the church by the latter

The clergy (bishops, presbyters and deacons), when they officiate in accordance with the liturgical books, have the obligation to state the name of the superior of the relative authority (presbyters and deacons of their bishop, bishops of their metropolitan, if the metropolitan system of administration is in operation, and metropolitans or bishops of their primate or first, patriarch or archbishop), under the following conditions: as long as the superior of the relative authority 1) is not impious (i.e., is rightly teaching the Word of Truth) [31st Apostolic Canon and 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod], or 2) is not unjust (i.e., does not violate the canonical order of the Church) [31st Apostolic Canon]. The commemoration of the superior of the relative authority expresses the hierarchical unity of the Church, which is defined in the 9th article of the Creed (“in One... and Apostolic Church”). The commemoration, because it takes place during divine services, is the most significant expression of the ecclesiastical communion by the clergy with the superior of the relevant authority. Other expressions of their said ecclesiastical communion are indicative a) their obedience in the Lord to that authority if it rightly teaches the Word of Truth, and b) their concelebrations and joint prayers with the bearer of the same authority.

Presbyters and deacons commemorate the relative provincial bishop, independent of the administrative title he holds (bishop, metropolitan, archbishop, patriarch). Bishops commemorate their metropolitan, if the metropolitan system is in force in an ecclesiastical district. Metropolitans and bishops commemorate their primate or first, archbishop or patriarch. Through their primate or first, the bishops, i.e., the superiors of the local catholic churches (i.e., the dioceses), commune with the primates and bishops and by extension with the remaining clergy of the other autocephalous churches. Because the primate commemorates, on the one hand, “all Orthodox bishops who rightly teach the Word of Your Truth,” on the other hand, the names of the primates of the other autocephalous churches, in accordance with the liturgical books.

The monks or laity, attending church in the places of worship in which the clergy officiate, are obliged to commune with these clergy and through them with their superior authority, within the framework of the above-mentioned hierarchical unity of the Church.

The obligation of clergy to maintain communion with the bearer of the relative ecclesiastical authority is prescribed by the 31st Apostolic Canon and by the 13th, 14th and 15th, paragraphs 1-3, Canons of the First-Second Synod (A.D. 861), which stipulates the following:

Canon 13 of the First-Second Synod states: “Having sowed the seeds of heretical tares in the Church of Christ and seeing them cut down to the roots by the sword of the Spirit, the very cunning one employed another method, trying to divide the Body of Christ with the fury of the schismatics. The Holy Synod, however, completely checking even this plot of his, has decreed that from now on, if any presbyter or deacon dares to, because perhaps he has accused his bishop of certain crimes, remove himself from his communion, before a synodal decision and investigation and his irrevocable conviction, and does not mention his name in the sacred prayers of the liturgical services in accordance with the tradition of the Church, he shall be subject to deposition and deprived of all priestly honor. For he who is established in the order of presbyter, and who seizes the judgment of the metropolitans, and who condemns, as much as it depends on him, before the judgment of his father and bishop, he himself is neither worthy of the honor nor of the name of presbyter. And those who follow him, if any of them are ordained, let them also lose their own honor, and if they are monks or laymen, let them be completely excommunicated from the Church, until they reject their connection with the schismatics and return to their bishop.”

Interpretation of Zonaras: “In various ways, the canon says, the evil one plots against the church of Christ. For when he saw the tares of heresy cut down by the sword of the Spirit, he devised another method to divide the body of the church, and to break the union. This is the fury of the schismatics, who are restrained by the declarations of the Synod, which decree that no presbyter, or deacon that dares to renounce the bishop, whom they are under, and to not commune with him, not even to mention his name, according to custom, as to perhaps condemn this bishop, before a synodal investigation, or before the cause against the bishop be  considered, and a final vote performed to reprove him, the doer thereof shall be deposed. For he who has the merit of a presbyter, and seizes the judgment of the metropolitans, (for the bishops are judged by the metropolitans), and renounces the respective bishop, who is his spiritual father, before he is judged, is not worthy of the honor or name of presbyter. And they who follow the schismatics, they too are dividers, and if indeed being ordained, shall be deposed, and they who are laymen, or monks, are to be completely excommunicated from the church, rather than being cast out, so that they cannot enter the church. For there is excommunication, and they are shut out merely from partaking of the divine Mysteries. And there is also being out of the church, called a complete excommunication, as the most severe, and totally separating the faithful from those excommunicated. And in time this excommunication determines their return. For they are, they say, set apart, until they come to their respective bishop, hating the company of the schismatics.” 

Interpretation of Balsamon: “Having been dismissed from heretical dissensions by the grace of God, the Fathers have seen some of the priests, being devious by their satanic methods, in a schismatic fury, as departing from communion with their bishops, not being impious or unjust, according to the 31st Apostolic Canon, but only so that perhaps something criminal may be said against them. Thus, as they divide the body of Christ, that is, the church, they are corrected, designating deposition of the daring priests, or deacons, who in this disrespectful manner distance themselves from communion with their bishop, before a complete synodal condemnation of him, and do not mention his name in the divine services, in accordance with ecclesiastical tradition. It is said that he is not worthy of the name or has the honor of presbyter, who has shamelessly seized the judgment of the metropolitan, which was meant to be brought fairly against the bishop, and condemns according to his personal conscience, his personal father, the bishop, by not communing with him, truly condemned, as it were, in appearance only. And not only these, but also their followers, on the one hand being priests, are appointed to be deposed, and on the other hand being laity to be excommunicated, and are rebuked, until they may become knowledgeable of the wrong, and approach the appropriate bishop. Read again the first chapter of the twelfth title of the present constitution, and the first canon of St. Basil. And ask something, if the canon punishes only the schismatic presbyter and deacon, if another clergyman alongside him abstains from communion with this bishop, will he be punished or not?  Solution. The canon henceforth expels not only the instigating priest, but also those that follow him, necessarily all the clergymen who instigated the schism, such as they might be, shall be persecuted in their respective ranks. And it is right for the presbyters and deacons uniquely to be mindful of the canon, since the schism takes place chiefly from them, as they carry out the actions at the holy altar, and are able to mention, or not mention, the name of the bishop. And do not say to me, and how, under the canon, can only a presbyter be reprimanded and not also a deacon?  For you hear, that to the priests belong, further more than to the deacons, the things regarding the mention of bishops, and wherefore provides more reason concerning this.”

Interpretation of Aristenos: “If a presbyter, or deacon, as on the basis of an alleged crime of his personal bishop, before a synodal decision, knowingly rejects communion with him, and does not mention his name, is deposed, and is deprived of all priestly honor. And those who agree, on the one hand being priests, lose their personal honor, on the other hand, monks, or laymen are excommunicated, until they come back.” 

Interpretation of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite: “As with the heretics, as with the schismatics, the devil attempts to divide the Body of Christ, that is, His Church. For this reason, the present Canon appoints, that any Presbyter, or Deacon who separates from the communion of his Bishop, and whose name is not commemorated as is customary, before the Synod examines his crimes, and sentences him. Indeed, they should be deposed, since they are not worthy to have the rank and name of Presbyter and Deacon, those who censure the Bishop, their spiritual father, and who snatch the Metropolitans’ judgment before them. For the Metropolitans and not the Clergy judge the Bishops. And those who follow such apostates, Presbyters and Deacons, if on the one hand they are ordained, may they be deposed, if on the other hand they are Monks and laymen, may they be excommunicated, not only from the Divine Mysteries, but also from the Church, until they hate them, and are united with their own Bishop. See also the 31st Apostolic Canon.”

The 14th Canon of the First-Second Synod provides: “If a bishop, using a pretext against his metropolitan, before synodal judgment, departs from communion with him and does not mention his name, according to custom, in the divine ceremony, the Holy Synod has ordered that he should be deposed, if, by merely departing from his own metropolitan, he will create a schism. For everyone must know his own limits, and neither the presbyter should scorn his own bishop, nor the bishop his own metropolitan.”

Interpretation of Zonaras: “These shall be appointed by the above canon and this canon, about bishops separating themselves from their own metropolitans, and not communing with them, not even mentioning them.”

Interpretation of Balsamon: “And the present canon is similar to the one before in all respects, even if there is reconciliation concerning the persons.” 

Interpretation of Aristenos: “And whichever bishop dares to do this against his own metropolitan, depose him. For it is necessary for each one to recognize the relevant measures.”

Interpretation of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite: “Similarly to the above Canon, the present Canon also deposes those Bishops who separate themselves from the communion of their Metropolitan, and who do not commemorate his name as it is customary. Because neither should the Presbyter scorn his Bishop, nor the Bishop his Metropolitan. See also the 31st Apostolic Canon.”

Canon 15, paragraphs 1-3, of the First-Second Synod contains: “Whatever was defined for presbyters and bishops and metropolitans, is even much more suitable for patriarchs. Therefore, if any presbyter or bishop or metropolitan dares to separate himself from communion with his own patriarch, and not mention, as has been defined and determined, his name in the sacred ceremony, but creates a schism before the synodal judgment and his irrevocable conviction, the Holy Synod has determined that any priestly ministry be completely taken away from him, as long as it is proven that he has committed this violation. And yes indeed, these things have been defined and ratified for any who secede from their own leaders under the pretext of certain accusations, and cause schism and sever the unity of the Church (...)” 

Interpretation of Zonaras: “That which the Fathers of the synod defined about metropolitans and bishops, they say these things are even more befitting patriarchs. For if a metropolitan, or a bishop, or an elder, they say, dare to abolish communion with his patriarch, and to mention his name, before the development of a Synod regarding the patriarch, and before these things are examined, and perhaps he is convicted, such a person having created a schism will be completely alien to every priestly function. And it has been said, correspondingly, on the one hand bishops to every episcopal function, on the other hand, priests to every priestly function. And absolutely, at no time will they come to officiate, then once again restored to the familiar honor, but their merit is completely deducted, and not even having the honor belonging to bishops and priests alone. Therefore they bring about, indeed it has been defined and it has been sealed, that is, it is surely stamped, (for the stamp is a confirmation of the sealed and the imprisoned, that also those deserving of prison are sealed so that they are not plotted against) that these are regarding a pretense of any crimes of the relative renounced presidents, and the breaking of the unity of the church, that may be attributed to the accused, namely prostitution, or sacrilege, or ordination for money, or other such things…”

Interpretation of Balsamon: “And moreover the rule of the items of the 13th and 14th Canons is prescribed to him. For it is declared that the things which have been defined are even more befitting to a patriarch, when one boldly separates himself from his communion. And while having said this, if for a fair reason, perhaps a pretext of heresy, he distances himself from the communion of the bishop, for what shall he be punished?  The Fathers bring forth, as these things are always done, when on the pretense of some criminal case, per se, of a personal shepherd, he is condemned, and therefore separates himself, and in this way breaks the union of the church. For he shall not separate himself for criminal reasons, but for heresy... And it is stated by this Canon, that the schismatic is completely alien to the entire priesthood, for it tells such a one that he is obliged to immediately stop himself from the priesthood, and not be deposed. And the criminal accusations are prostitution, sacrilege, and violations of the canons... And the 31st Apostolic Canon, maintains both the condemners of the respective bishops, as obvious wrongdoers, and those splitting from them are irresponsible.”

Interpretation of Aristenos: “And likewise, if a certain bishop, or metropolitan dares to do such things against the patriarch, I will become alienated from the entire priesthood...” 

Interpretation of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite: “Wherein those things which the above Canons defined about Bishops and Metropolitans, the present Canon defines them, and much more, about Patriarchs, saying: that, whichever Presbyter, or Bishop, or Metropolitan wanted to be separated from the communion with his Patriarch, and does not commemorate his name according to custom (that is, the Metropolitan only, for the Presbyter commemorates the name of his Bishop, and the Bishop of his Metropolitan), before the matters against the Patriarch are disclosed to the Counc, and he is censured by the Synod. These, I say, let them all be completely deposed, on the one hand, the Bishops and Metropolitans from all Episcopal operations, on the other hand, the Presbyters from all Priestly operations. But indeed these things shall take place, if it is established that for such crimes, prostitution, sacrilege and others, the Presbyters separate from their Bishops, the Bishops from their Metropolitans, and the Metropolitans from their Patriarchs…”

1.B. - Establishment of the ecclesiastical criminal offense of schism due to the formulation of a charge by an ecclesiastical subordinate for ecclesiastical criminal offenses of the ecclesiastical superior, before the irrevocable synodal conviction of the latter, except in the case of heresy, according to the aforementioned

The provisions of the aforementioned Canons punish, for cause of schism, clergy who, with the pretext on behalf of their formulation of a charge of crimes against the bearer of their superior authority, 1) remove themselves from his communion, before the synodal judgment and his irrevocable conviction for these things, and 2) do not commemorate him in their divine services, as is provided by ecclesiastical tradition and the above sacred canons. For these clergymen usurp the irrevocable synodal judgment with regard to the bearer of their superior authority, censuring and disdaining him.

The penalties which are provided by the above Canons are the following:  a) for the clergy, perpetrators or participants, deposition, and b) for participating monks or laity, the major excommunication, which is necessarily lifted, by grace, only in the case in which these participating monks or laity disapprove of their connection with the schismatics and return to communion with the bishop concerned.

The prohibition of schism and the punishment of those responsible for its creation aim to avert the creation of schism, that is, the dividing of the Church as the Body of Christ. It is made clear that one of Satan’s methods is the heretical tares which he spreads to disturb the peace and unity of the Church with the intention to frustrate the salvation of the faithful. If these tares are cut off by the sword of the Spirit, then Satan resorts to his other method, that is, schisms.

1.C. - Ecclesiastical communion of monks or laity and its suspension

The cessation of commemoration, as the most important form of suspending ecclesiastical communion, does not relate to monks or laity, but only to clergy. Because the latter are those who are competent to mention the name of the bearer of the relative ecclesiastical authority in the divine services which they celebrate according to the liturgical books.

Monks or laity participate in communion with the officiating clergy. The communion of monks or laity with the officiating clergy and, therefore, with their superior authority, and like the cessation of this communion, is based on the 10th Apostolic Canon and the 2nd Canon of Antioch (A.D. 341), which contain the following:

The 10th Apostolic Canon defines: “If anyone shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated person, let him be excommunicated.”

 

The 2nd Canon of Antioch, par. 2, provides: “... And if it is proved that a certain one of the bishops or presbyters or deacons, or a certain one of the lower clergy, communes with excommunicated persons, then he too is to be an excommunicated person, because he violates the ecclesiastical canon.”

1.D. - Severing of ecclesiastical communion by clergy

The severing of ecclesiastical communion (walling off) by clergy with their superior authority is expressed chiefly by ceasing the commemoration of the bearer of that authority. Of course, the aforementioned severing of ecclesiastical communion also includes other expressions of its suspension, such as their obedience to the Lord in this authority, since the bearer of it has ceased to rightly teach the Word of Truth, or to comply with the canonical order of the Church. The severing of ecclesiastical communion is imposed necessarily on clergy, only in cases of public and open preaching of heresy in the Church by a bishop or primate or synod, in accordance with the 15th Canon, par. 4, of the First-Second Synod, and likewise in agreement with that according to Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, a model of the application of these Canons by the Holy Confessors of the Church. It must be noted that blessed Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, in his book, The Two Extremes, erroneously and mistakenly maintains that the 15th Canon, par. 4, of the First-Second Synod is of potential application, besides the other reasons mentioned in this study, and for the reason that the sacred canons are the laws of the Church and the laws in general, either of the State or of the Church are never of potential application, given that in this way they are self-abrogating. On the contrary, the aforementioned severing of communion is prohibited in any other case, according to the 13th, 14th and 15th, paragraphs 1-2, of the First-Second Synod, except in the case of an obvious violation of the canonical order, in accordance with the 31st Apostolic Canon.

The fourth paragraph of 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod defines: “For those removing themselves from communion with their president, because of some heresy, which has been condemned by the Holy Synods or the Fathers, namely since their president publicly proclaims and openly teaches the heresy in the church, not only should they not be expected to be submitted to punishment from the canons, because they are walled off from communion with the one called bishop before his synodal judgment, but they should also be considered worthy of the honor befitting the Orthodox. For they did not condemn bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they did not shred the union of the Church by schism, but took care that the Church should avoid schisms and divisions.”

Interpretation of Zonaras: “And if by chance the patriarch, or the metropolitan, or the bishop, happens to be a heretic, and such a one, as he publicly preaches heresy bareheaded, and unconcealed and with boldness, teaches heretical doctrines, against him, the ones who secede from him, whoever they may be, not only are not deserving of punishment for it, but are also deserving of the honor, as Orthodox, by separating themselves from communion with heretics. For this is clear, they are walling off (for the wall is a separation of those within it toward those outside of it). For they have not withdrawn from a bishop, but from a pseudo-bishop. They have not even created a schism against the church, but rather they have freed the church from schisms, essentially by themselves.”

Interpretation of Balsamon: “... And while having said something, if for a fair reason, happening under the pretense of heresy, he should distance himself from communion with the bishop, for what shall he be punished?  ... For if he shall separate himself from his bishop, or his metropolitan, or his patriarch, not for a criminal reason, but for heresy, as he was shamelessly teaching in the church certain subjects alienated from right doctrine, and if such a one, before complete discernment, and even much more after discernment, if he walls himself off, that is separates from the communion with his primate, not only shall he not be punished, but he shall also be honored, as Orthodox. For he has not separated from a bishop, but from a pseudo-bishop and a pseudo-teacher. And by this fact he is worthy of praise, because he does not divide the church, but rather unites it, and frees it from division... And the canon stated correctly that they are praiseworthy who separate themselves, and before conviction, from those that teach heretical subjects, and indeed are obvious heretics. For if the matters of heresy are whispered secretly and with submission by the primate, as doubting, he is not obligated to separate from him before conviction. For it is the proper thing to reform him toward Orthodoxy, toward complete judgment, and to depart from heresy. Note these things, they may be of use against those who say, it is not right to separate ourselves from the throne of ancient Rome, before he is to condemn them as malicious about this. And indeed, the present canon does not punish them for separating for a doctrinal reason. And the 31st Apostolic Canon maintains both the condemners of the relevant bishops, as obvious wrongdoers, and those separating from them, are irresponsible.”

Interpretation of Aristenos: “... And if certain ones have split from them, not with a criminal pretext, but for heresy condemned by the synods or the holy Fathers, they are worthy of honor and acceptance as Orthodox.” 

Interpretation of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite: “... If the said presidents are heretics, and their heresy is boldly preached, and for this reason their subjects separate from them, and still before a synodal judgment is brought forth concerning this heresy, these separators, not only are not condemned for the separation, but are even worthy of proper honor, as Orthodox, because, they have not produced schism in the Church by this separation, but rather they have freed the Church from the schism and heresy of these pseudo-bishops. See also the 31st Apostolic Canon.” 

Interpretation of the Canonist Serbian Bishop Nikodim Milas (19th century): “This canon is a supplement to the 13th and 14th Canons of the present Synod. And it orders that there must exist that relation on the one hand of the presbyter to the bishop, and on the other hand of the bishop to the metropolitan. Much more so must this relation exist to the patriarch, to whom all owe canonical obedience: the bishops, presbyters and the rest of the clergy of his patriarchate. 

“Defining these things about obedience to the patriarch, the canon makes a general observation about all three (13th-15th) Canons, with which it says that the intended orders are valid only in the case upon which schisms are introduced because of some unproved transgressions of the patriarch, the metropolitan and the bishop.

“But if a certain bishop or metropolitan or patriarch begins to publicly proclaim in the church some heretical teaching, which is contrary to Orthodoxy, then the aforementioned have the right and at the same time also the obligation to immediately be walled off from that bishop, metropolitan, and patriarch. For this, not only are they not subject to canonical punishment, but they must even be commended. Because by this walling off they have not criticized and they have not rebelled against the legitimate bishops, but against the pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers. And neither did they thus create a schism in the Church, but on the contrary, they freed the Church, as long as they could, from schism and division.” (The Canons of the Orthodox Church with Interpretation, Vol. II, Novi Sad, 1896, pp. 290-291)

In total contrast to the text of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod, the valid Byzantine and modern interpreters, but also the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers and the deeds of the Holy Confessors of the Church, Professors Spiros Troianos, Haralambos Papastathis and Karagiannakidis, in their common opinion (of August 2002), support the following obviously and completely erroneous position: “Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod does not introduce rebellion into the bosom of the Church, and neither can the faithful - individually or collectively - substitute the Holy Synod, by usurping competences and authorities that belong to it alone (see the interpretation of the above canons of Nikodim Milas... p. 48).”

1.E. - Rendering the proper honor to Orthodox

1. because the Orthodox faithful severing communion did not condemn bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, called such even before their synodal judgment, and

2. they did not break the union of the Church by schism, but took care so that the Church may avoid schisms:

This subject is directly connected to the matter of the concept of the Church according to the Holy Fathers, that is, with the matter of whether the Church is Christ-centered (or God-Man-centered) or Episcopal-centered (or anthropocentric).

The concept of the Church according to the Holy Fathers, which St. Gregory Palamas summarizes, along with his disciple, the monk Joseph Kalothetos:

 

a) In the Refutation of the explanation volume of Kalekas, St. Gregory Palamas states: “Therefore since he (Kalekas) is in this way and so many times cut off from the entire fullness  of the Orthodox (because of the anathematizing of the Barlaamites by the Orthodox Synod of 1341), it is impossible to be among the pious if one is not separated from him, while whoever is separated from him for these reasons, in fact belongs on the list of Christians and is united with God through pious faith” (EPE, 3, 692). Besides the breaking of communion with Kalekas because of his heresy, the present excerpt also becomes a reason for the union of the discontinuers of communion with God via pious faith, that is, someone is in the Church, only when one has the pious (Orthodox) faith, and not when one maintains communion with the current ruling bishop, even if he is a heretic.

 

b) In the Refutation of the letter of Ignatius of Antioch, St. Gregory Palamas explains the criteria of inclusion and exclusion of someone from the Church, as follows: “What clergy, what portion, what genuineness to the Church of Christ exists for the advocate of falsehood, toward the Church ‘which is the pillar and support of the truth’ according to Paul, which by the grace of Christ remains continually secure and steadfast, solidly based on all the truth is based on?  Because those of Christ’s Church are of the truth. And those not of the truth are neither of the Church of Christ, so much more so if they tell lies amongst themselves, calling themselves and amongst themselves holy shepherds and chief shepherds. In fact, we were not taught that Christianity is characterized by persons (meaning: bishops) but by the truth and accuracy of the faith” (EPE 3, p. 606). That is, when someone has the truth and accuracy of the faith, one belongs to the Church, while when he loses it, then he exits the Church. And the entrance or the exit of the Church has no relation to the bishops, who do not rightly teach the Word of Truth.

 

c) In the Refutation of the letter of Kalekas, St. Gregory Palamas refutes the heretical position “wherever a bishop (independent of his heresy), there the Church is,” against the Orthodox position “wherever Christ the Truth, represented by a bishop rightly teaching the Word of Truth (if there is one), there the Church is,” as follows: “But I believe that the one so shamelessly writing and unhesitatingly spreading so many lies to all, would easily say this also, that he alone was the synod, because many times he also says that he alone is the church, and that whatever he considers right and says, he says the entire Church considers and declares it correct. And if someone does not immediately agree to whatever, even something very unprofitable to himself and improbable, he is the one completely insubordinate and disobedient to the entire Church. So after all he insists on calling us also disobedient and alien to the Church, because we refuse to be impious as he demands... This one, then, how will he not easily say that he alone was that greatest synod, so as to be uncontrolled, and whatever he may create and write against us is ostensibly from it?” (EPE, 3, 590).

The disciple of St. Gregory Palamas, the monk Joseph Kalothetos, following the ecclesiological teaching of St. Gregory Palamas and of the previous Holy Fathers:

a) Distinguishes the Church of Christ, the Apostles and the Martyrs from the new so-called Church, which is founded, because of their rebellion, by the bishops who espouse heresy, who erroneously view that the Church is theirs. This new so-called church of heresy is deluded and cuts off its participants from God. That is, when the institutional church (or autocephalous church) is controlled by heretical bishops, it becomes heretically separated from the Church of Christ, the Apostles and the Martyrs.

 

b) Notes that the characteristic features of the Church are a) the non-existence of whatever heretical teaching and b) the purity of the doctrines of the God-bearing Saints.

 

c) Elucidates that the severing of communion with the heretical bishops (or pseudo-bishops) aims for a) the prevention of communion with the new so-called Church which is founded, because of their rebellion, by them, and b) the remaining of the faithful in the Church of Christ, the Apostles and the Martyrs.

 

d) Emphasizes that the obligation in the Lord of obedience of the Orthodox faithful to bishops who have adopted heresy, and to clergy who commune with them, is lifted.

 

e) States that any Orthodox who forgives a heretic before he repents and returns from heresy to the right faith, is not forgiven by God and sins twofold. First, because he forgives him before he repents and returns to God. And second, because he presents himself to be more benevolent than God.

The above ecclesiological positions are based on the following writings of the monk Joseph Kalothetos:

 

A. 8th Speech “Against John Kaleka” (D. Tsames, Joseph Kalothetos Writings, vol. 1, pp. 294-296),

 

B. “Letter to Mount Athos, to the so-called Gregory of Strabe Langada [Crooked Ravine?]  in Lavra” (D. Tsames, op. cit., Letter 2, ch. 7, p. 373),

 

C. 2nd Speech “Against Akindynos and Barlaam the unorthodox” (D. Tsames, op. cit., Speech 2, p. 138).

Anonymously translated.