Patristic interpretation and documentation of “potentially” and “in actuality”

Dimitris Chatzinikolaou, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Ioannina

 

Concerning “potentially” and “in actuality,” see the footnotes of the Sacred Pedalion, pages 5 and 696, as well as the book Epitome of the Sacred Canons by the Kollyvades monk Neophytos of Kafsokalyvia (18th century), edited by Hieromonk Theodoretos [Mavros], Astir Publications, 1999. In the following passages, by the “first person” is meant the Synod which has already condemned a particular innovation. By way of example, in the case of the New Calendar, the Synods of the 16th century which condemned the “new calendar.” By the “second person” is meant the Synod that must be convened in order to uphold the Sacred Canons, that is, to condemn the “third person,” namely the innovators. Let us see what the cited passages say verbatim.

1. In footnote 2 to the 3rd Apostolic Canon, Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes:

“We must know that the penances which the Canons designate—namely, let him be deposed, let him be excommunicated, and let him be anathema—these, according to grammatical art, are in the third person imperative, of one not present. In order for this command to be transmitted, it is necessarily required that a second person be present. I explain this more clearly: the Canons command the synod of living Bishops to depose the priests, or to excommunicate, or to anathematize the laypeople who transgress the Canons. However, if the Synod does not practically carry out the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of the laypeople, then these priests and laypeople are neither deposed actually, nor excommunicated or anathematized. They are, however, liable—here to deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, and there to divine judgment.” (Emphasis added.)

2. On page 696, Saint Nikodemos, interpreting Saint Gennadios against the Simoniacs, writes:

“Certain accusers of the clergy who say that there is no Priesthood now, since most are ordained with money, rely on these words of the Saint, and they claim that not only does the Saint himself and the Synod around him say, let such a one be rejected—that is, speaking in the imperative mood, which without the mediation of the second person is grammatically invalid—but they also add the phrase is rejected, and this without him having been deposed by others. But let them hear this: that the let him be (i.e., ‘ἔστω’) is understood to mean that such a one becomes actually and in penal reality rejected by the Synod that vindicates the divine Canons; whereas the is (i.e., ‘ἔστιν’) is understood to mean that he is rejected potentially and in terms of guilt. For if both were synonymous, then what need was there of both let him be and is? Or, if is, what need was there for let him be? One refers to the future, the other to the present, and thus they are in opposition to one another. Nonetheless, while saying these things, we also do not remain silent about the fact that it is truly a fearful thing for those who ordain and are ordained for money—that which the Saint here declares categorically and definitively: that such men are immediately rejected from the Priesthood.” (Emphasis added.)

3. In the book Epitome of the Sacred Canons, we read the following:

“It must be noted that the Seventh [Council], toward the end of the first session, states that the Sixth did not reject the ordination by the teachers of the Monothelite heresy, since the majority of those present [at the council] had been ordained by them. Therefore, one must consider how this can be reconciled with Apostolic Canon 68, which categorically rejects ordination by heretics, and with the epistle of St. Basil the Great to the Nicopolitans... For the presidents of the Fourth [Council], namely Anatolios of Constantinople and Maximos of Antioch, were ordained by Dioscoros of Alexandria, a Monophysite, who at the time had not yet been synodally condemned as a heretic. Likewise, those among the participants in the Sixth [Council] who had been ordained by the Monothelites—Sergios, Pyrrhos, Petros, and Paulos—having gathered after their ordination, denounced and anathematized them as heretics... Nevertheless, the Seventh [Council] accepted the ordination of heretics who had not yet been synodally examined... Nor was Meletios of Antioch, who presided at the Second [Council], ordained by any other than the Arians. For Meletios was not unordained.” (pp. 63–64, emphasis added.)

And further:

“Let no one among the accused be deposed before trial or in absentia without a threefold summons, but let him be called in writing or by two peers to make a defense regarding the charges brought against him, and be summoned to a hearing… For those [imperatives] expressed in the third person, signifying the command while the person is absent, necessarily require a second [person] to be received for the transmission of the command. And if a second is not received, the third-person imperative would be invalid… Thus, the sacred decrees, though they possess unassailable authority, do not do so of themselves and immediately, but because they are addressed to third parties; therefore, the reception by the second [person] is necessary so that it may transmit—or rather carry out upon the third—the command of the first. If the second does not act to enforce upon the third the command issued by the first, the third is not actually affected by the command of the first, whether in terms of effect or penalty… Imperatives referring to the future do not bear the sense of the present… Thus also, priests who are not canonically deposed—I say before trial—are, by the nature of the matter, undeposed for the time being… And how did the Quinisext Council (in its third canon) determine that even those whom the 17th and 18th Apostolic Canons declare immediately deposed—according to the delusion of the accusers of the clergy—are no less functioning than they were before? That laws lie dormant when not vindicated is also shown by the divine Chrysostom…” (Chapter 12, On the “Potentially” and “Actually” of the Sacred Canons, pp. 167–170, emphasis added.)

 

Greek source: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2021/08/blog-post_55.html