Heresy and Commemoration

What is the proper stance of the Orthodox Christian toward the Hierarch who has fallen into a crime or heresy?

Ioannis N. Paparrigas | February 13, 2010

 

The cessation of the commemoration of the local Hierarch constitutes a sin. This applies even in the case of a crime. Then, the cessation of the Hierarch’s commemoration, “prior to synodal determination” (14th Canon of the First-Second Council) “and his complete condemnation” (15th Canon of the First-Second Council), is punished by the total exclusion of the cleric from every priestly function (ibid.).

On the contrary, when the Hierarch publicly “and with uncovered head in the Church” proclaims, teaching “some heresy condemned by the Fathers,” the cessation of communion with him prior to synodal judgment is an Orthodox act (ibid.). Those who act in this way “not only are not subject to canonical penalty for separating themselves from communion with the so-called Bishop prior to synodal determination, but shall also be deemed worthy of the appropriate honor among the Orthodox” (ibid.). “If some,” writes Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem, “separate themselves from someone not under the pretext of a crime, but because of heresy condemned by a Synod or the holy Fathers, they are worthy of honor and acceptance, as are the Orthodox” (PG 87, 3369–3372). Likewise, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, writing to those in Constantinople concerning Nestorius, emphasizes: “As for the clergy, that is, either those who have separated from him because of right belief, or those deposed by him, we are in communion with them” (Mansi 4, 1096). And the 31st Apostolic Canon provides for separation from a Bishop in the case of his condemnation “in piety and righteousness.” Here, “in righteousness” clearly refers either to a heretical denial of the divine law — which is heresy — or even to a simple transgression of it, in which case the provisions of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council apply.

Those who, as stated above, separate themselves from a Hierarch who is preaching heresy cannot be accused of showing contempt for a Bishop or of causing schism. On the contrary, they are to be praised, for they distinguish the false bishops from the true, and through their stance they endeavor to save the Church from “schisms and divisions.” “For they did not condemn bishops, but false bishops and false teachers, and they did not sever the unity of the Church through schism, but strove to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions,” proclaims the First-Second Council (15th Canon).

Is the Canon optional or obligatory?

Those of contrary opinion write that the Canon is optional — that is, if you cease commemorating, you do well; if not, you do not sin. However, since the Canon praises and deems worthy of honor those who cease commemoration prior to synodal judgment, it is evident that it reproves and condemns those who do not cease but await the synodal judgment, for in every matter the opposite is evident.

Because if those who cut themselves off strive to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions (as the Canon states), it is evident that those who do not cut themselves off are causing divisions and schisms. And if the former separate themselves from a wolf and a false bishop, the latter align themselves with the wolf and the false bishop.

And if someone should wonder why the Canon does not determine the fate of those who await the Synodal judgment, this is easily understood when the meaning of the Canon is interpreted correctly and not erroneously. For in this case, the Canon speaks ONLY about those who cut themselves off, and not about those who do not.

Thus, for example, we hear the most infallible mouth of our Lord Christ proclaiming, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Here, the troublemakers are passed over in silence, but no one in sound mind would ever reach such confusion as to suppose that if the troublemakers are not blessed, they are nevertheless not wretched — for one who offers such an interpretation is irrational, either from a distorted mind or from bad intent.

The divine and sacred Canons not only absolve those (who cease commemoration) from all suspicion of schism, but declare such persons to be defenders of the unity of the Church... “and they did not sever the unity of the Church by schism, but strove to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.” For whom does the Canon say these things? For those who separate their responsibility? Or for those who commune with heretics so that schism might not occur? Where have you found it written to quibble that the Canon is optional and not obligatory? What does “optional” mean? Does the Canon perhaps say anywhere that if a bishop falls into heresy, those who wish may commemorate him and those who wish may separate from communion with him?

The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council is not optional, but entirely and absolutely obligatory. Separation from heretics is never an optional act... The Canon simply makes a distinction between the two cases of separation from communion with the president (bishop), and says that if we separate from him on account of a personal sin prior to synodal judgment, we are schismatics (“we cause schism”); whereas, if we separate on account of a case of known heresy, we are not schismatics (“we did not sever the unity of the Church by schism”). The Canon VERY CLEARLY teaches when separation constitutes schism and when it does not. When we may, and when we may not. But when we may, it does not mean that we are somehow not obliged to do so; on the contrary, the possibility gives rise to a moral obligation.

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post_13.html