Excerpt from an online discussion about the Mysteries of heretics “not condemned by a Synod.”

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | May 7, 2023

 

I am publishing an excerpt from an online discussion I had with a brother in Christ on the topic of the Mysteries of heretics “not condemned” by a Synod.

For the convenience of the readers, I will refer in the text of the brother as Correspondent and the response as P.D.A.

 

P. D.A: Dear brother in Christ… You expressed the following opinion on the matter:

“The commemoration of a heretical bishop and the insertion of a portion for him into the Chalice is an element that renders impossible the consecration of the wine and the bread.”

You therefore set forth two causes for the invalidity of the Mystery:

A. The commemoration of the heretical bishop

B. The insertion of the bishop’s portion into the Holy Chalice (this takes place during the conjoining of the Holy Gifts and after the consecration).

Since the consecration is performed by the Holy Spirit (and not by the bishop), for it is Him we invoke at that moment, allow me to express the following opinion.

The commemoration of the heretical bishop creates a spiritual defilement of faith for those who commemorate him.

The insertion of the bishop’s portion creates a spiritual defilement in the contents of the Holy Chalice.

Thus, the Mystery, for both of the above reasons, loses its salvific dimension and significance and becomes judgment or condemnation.

The invalidity of the Mystery that you mention is a rather risky opinion because then the Priesthood is abolished. Only a Synod of Orthodox bishops can make a decision regarding the invalidity of Mysteries and the invalidity of the priesthood.

 

Correspondent: The reasoning of your commentary leads to the conclusion that: “The invalidity of the Mystery is a rather risky opinion because then the Priesthood is abolished. Only a Synod of Orthodox bishops can make a decision regarding the invalidity of Mysteries.”

The root of the difference in our positions lies in the fact that you are able (someone indignant would say, you dare) to define the true Church within the realm of heresy!

That is, you consider it possible that the Holy Spirit, Christ, the Apostles, and the Holy Confessors coexist, bless, and sanctify a “church” that has heretical heads (i.e., bishops and clergy), anti-Gospel preaching, and a heretical flock.

In other words, you accept the position that “Christ has communion and cooperation with Belial”!

Put differently, the Holy Altar can be used jointly by God and the devil on the basis of specific terms and conditions, through a heretical or heresy-compromising priest—a priest whom Christ Himself and the Apostles call a wolf that kills the sheep.

As a consequence, your positions necessarily lead to considering the wallings-off of the Saints throughout the ages as a demonic Schism and not as a God-pleasing and salvific act. These positions are not addressed merely to me or to anyone who shares my views, but they cause an earthquake in the entirety of Orthodoxy, from its very foundations—that is, the Holy Scripture and the whole assembly of the holy Apostles, Fathers, and Confessors.

Saint Theodore the Studite, in his 33rd letter to the Pope of Rome, writes concerning the Church of Constantinople that it “fell into the depths of heresy,” even though there was no synodal recognition or condemnation of the heresy. Origen was considered heretical by St. Basil the Great and other Fathers, while he was synodally condemned two hundred years later. The remaining of someone within this “church,” that is, the continuation of their incorporation in it, does not exempt them from condemnation, even if they abstain from its “mysteries”…

…Many times, certain incidents are presented in which the Church exercised “economy” toward heresies, through decisions of Patriarchs or Synods, aiming at the return in repentance and the protection of the flock under the salvific shelter of Orthodoxy. In the case, however, of the Ecumenists, the exercise of “economy” and the reflections associated with it aim at the acceptance of heresy and the acceptance of coexistence (now) or integration (later) of the Orthodox with heresy, through the recognition of delusion not as heresy outside the Church, but as another “Tradition” within the Church.

Thus, the acceptance has already proceeded both theoretically and practically that there are no heresies and that all faiths are paths of salvation and manifestations of the Holy Spirit, as has been officially stated by Primates and consenting Bishops and Synods. Within this framework, they concelebrate and walk together with Papists, Monophysites, etc., considering them to be members of the entire Church of Christ, “branches” of the same tree, as the Patriarchal Encyclical wrote. The same applies to the clergy and the flocks.

At the same time, the necessary “theology” has been developed to support this new interpretation of what the Church is. According to this “theology,” the criterion for entry into the Church is not the Orthodox faith but the decisions of Primates or Synods, the decisions of which will constitute the Rule.

Thus, the bloodless sacrifice on the altar by the heretic is holy because it is in accordance with the delusions of the Primates, while the offering of the heretical priest, according to the Holy Scripture and the holy Fathers, is “the offering of a dead dog.”

The issue of the consecration of the Holy Gifts is not merely a chronological sequence of prayers but primarily a communion with the true Faith, which was taught by Christ and the Apostles, and as a consequence of this communion with the true Faith, the consecration takes place. Without this common faith, as St. Basil the Great notes, whatever takes place at the altar is a “deception,” for God is not mocked!

There are, of course, heresies which, due to the subtlety of their concepts, need to be analyzed and “recognized” by Synods and Fathers. But there are also heresies whose doctrines are clearly opposed to Holy Scripture. These are already “condemned” by Holy Scripture itself, and no Synod is needed to recognize them as heresies. When Christ says, “I am the way and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Me,” and the ecumenists say that “all religions lead to God,” their position is clearly heresy. Whoever, then, considers the ecumenist clergyman an instrument of the Grace of God who saves through his Mysteries people who do not even know what they believe in... that is his right.

 

P. D.A: I will attempt briefly to comment on the above views…

A. I have never accepted the statement concerning the demarcation of the Church within the realm of heresy. I simply said that it is a risky matter to consider Mysteries invalid without a condemnation of the Ecumenists by a Synod of Orthodox Bishops.

B. But we know from the teaching of our Church that only those heretics who have been condemned, and those who follow them after their condemnation, are the ones who do not have Mysteries. That is why our Church has wisely established the cessation of commemoration and the walling off from the above-mentioned contemporary heresy-promoting Bishops (and all heretics), so that they may be isolated and not defile us.

C. The Holy Fathers (among other things) enlighten us regarding the time of the loss of the grace of priesthood by heretics. Let us take Dioscorus as an example. He was under accusation at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, but until his deposition he possessed the priestly office. For if he did not possess it, it could not have been removed from him, since that which “does not exist” cannot be taken away. In the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, it is written that the heretic Dioscorus, who was also President of the Robber Council of 449 (corresponding to Bartholomew of the Cretan Council of Kolymbari and those who follow him), is initially included in the list of Bishops, and indeed after Anatolius of Constantinople and before the names of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem.

The Council accepted him as a Bishop and judged him indeed, but as a Bishop with valid Mysteries, as he is addressed “most reverent and most pious bishop.” In the continuation of the proceedings, after his delusions and his disobedience—contempt—toward the Council were demonstrated, he was subjected to the penalty of deposition. And deposition for matters of faith—heresy means removal of the Priesthood. It must, of course, be repeated that the fact he had not yet been deposed did not mean that he was not a heretic, or that he did not defile the faithful with his teaching. He was indeed a heretic, and he transmitted the defilement of heresy “like the plague” (according to St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite), and for this reason the faithful were obligated to withdraw from heretics “as from a serpent,” just as they are obligated today to withdraw from contemporary heretics, for whether the heretic is condemned or not, the harm he causes to the faithful and to the body of the Church in general is great. Also noteworthy is the historical fact of the ordination by Dioscorus of Saint Anatolius, who “was ordained by the impious Dioscorus in the presence also of Eutyches,” the heresiarch (Seventh Ecumenical Council, PG 12, 1042). “Anatolius was ordained by Dioscorus, when he had not yet been deposed, that is, after the Robber Council in Ephesus and before the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which deposed both Dioscorus and Eutyches” (Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 642). “And at that time there was opposition in Constantinople to this ordination” (ibid. and PG 6, 44). “Nevertheless, the Fourth Ecumenical Council accepted Anatolius as its exarch” (Fourth Ecumenical Council, PG 6, 565). “And the Orthodox Church honors him also as a Saint on the 3rd of July.”

D. We see this to be the case also in the stance of the Fathers in other Councils; for example, in the case of the three bishops who supported Arius; in the case of the faithful of Constantinople who are praised by Saint Cyril for their separation from Nestorius (the Saint nowhere in his letters to the walling-off faithful speaks of invalid Mysteries, but only of separation from heresy). Here too the Saint considers Nestorius as possessing the grace of priesthood, which the Council, by deposing him, removed from him. The same applies in the case of Kalekas during the time of Saint Gregory Palamas, and others.

Another representative example is the case of Origen and his disciples, e.g., Heraclas, bishop of Alexandria, who ordained 20 bishops and transmitted the teaching of Origen. The Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned the teaching of Origen and anathematized him, but this took place… centuries after the death of Origen!!! The Fifth Ecumenical Council, however, did not deal with the Mysteries of the followers of Origen, neither to invalidate them nor to validate them, even though his followers celebrated liturgies and performed Mysteries for 300 years after his death. So, were the thousands of Mysteries that were performed in regions where Origenists existed for 300 years invalid?

Another contemporary example for these reflections is the figure of the ethnomartyr Chrysostomos of Smyrna, who has been proven—today the evidence is scientifically verified and indisputable—to have been not only a Freemason but also a forerunner of Ecumenism, and an Ecumenist. Among those who have dealt with the matter, no one has questioned the validity of the Mysteries and ordinations that he performed as a bishop. But even for the also Freemason and Ecumenist Patriarch of Constantinople Meletios Metaxakis, his ordinations have not been questioned; not even the G.O.C. dared to do so.

E. You write the following:

The issue of the consecration of the Holy Gifts is not merely a chronological sequence of prayers but primarily communion with the true Faith, which was taught by Christ and the Apostles, and as a consequence of this communion with the true Faith, the consecration takes place. Without this common faith, as St. Basil the Great notes, whatever takes place at the altar is “a deception,” for God is not mocked!

Comments:

The issue of the consecration of the Holy Gifts is one thing, and the issue of our participation in the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist is another. Consecration requires the existence of a special Canonical Priesthood and is performed by the Holy Spirit.

The supplicatory prayer of consecration is clear.

Again, we offer unto Thee this rational and bloodless worship, and we pray Thee and beseech Thee and implore Thee: send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here set forth. And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ. Amen; and that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ. Amen; changing them by Thy Holy Spirit. Amen, amen, amen.

Then the celebrant prays:

So that they may be for those who partake unto the soberness of soul, unto the remission of sins, unto the communion of Thy Holy Spirit, unto the fullness of the kingdom of heaven, unto boldness toward Thee, not unto judgment or unto condemnation. Again, we offer unto Thee this rational worship for those who have reposed in the faith: forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and every righteous spirit made perfect in faith.

The participation in the Mystery on the part of the faithful is of course related to faith, so that it may not become judgment and condemnation. The believer approaches knowingly, consciously, that he is receiving communion from a heretic; from someone who distorts and fights against the Faith; from someone who is an enemy of Christ. How then will he say: “Thou knowest the multitude of my evils, Thou knowest also my wounds; and Thou seest my bruises, but Thou also knowest my faith,” since he is in communion with a heretic who commits an affront—a distortion—of the Faith?

The heretical faith of the bishop and of the one participating in the Mystery in communion with the faith of the bishop defiles the Mystery with all that this entails.

What you are asserting in your response presupposes the nonexistence of a specific canonical priesthood and the automatic loss of grace. That is, we who have walled ourselves off from the State Church (after 2016) do not have Priesthood because some were ordained before 2016 by bishops who accepted the Kolymbari Council?

The problem lies with the one who is in communion with the heretic; the heretic is already a false bishop and deprived of Divine Grace on a personal level (and if he does not repent, he will be condemned with the removal of the right to celebrate). Thus, we should not wait for a synod to convene in order to tell us that he is teaching something anti-Gospel (this is evident to the conscious Christian, unless the heresy is so subtle and not yet condemned). It is not absolutely necessary for a synod to convene in order to tell us that he is a heretic (false bishop, when the heresy is evident), but it is necessary for a Synod to condemn this heresy-promoting false bishop and to remove from him the authority to perform Mysteries (this is not the work of every believer, but only of the Synod), precisely because he is a false bishop and appears to the people as an Orthodox one; while he teaches “another Gospel,” even though he still belongs to the Church as a rotten member (he himself, of course, may claim to be a member and to belong to the Church, and even believe that he is Orthodox, that he is not in error; or he may deliberately remain in it, while being a false bishop).

Every heretic who distorts the defined dogmas of the Church is condemned, in the sense that he condemns himself, he has lost Divine Grace for himself, but not the authority to perform Mysteries on behalf of the people, until this authority is taken from him by the Synod, which granted it to him through the hands of the Bishops who ordained him.

The ever-memorable Fr. Athanasios Mitilinaios wrote:

"Persons often do not correspond to the office they hold, as they are unworthy as individuals. However, this does not mean that the offices themselves should be rejected. The person falls, but not the office, not the position. Thus, we would say: the priest is one thing, and the priesthood another. These are two distinct things. We cannot suspect the validity of the Mysteries of the Church because the priest is unworthy, as long as the priest has canonical priesthood. Let us not forget that even Judas as an Apostle, although he was an unworthy person, nevertheless, my beloved, because he was called to the apostolic office, even through the hands of Judas miracles were performed. Which means: even from an unworthy priest you can receive communion. The Mystery is valid. Now, what this man will answer to God for his actions against Him is another matter. We must understand: an unworthy priest is one thing, and the Mysteries another. The Mysteries are valid, provided of course that this priest has canonical and unobstructed, unhindered—even if only outwardly—priesthood; that is, the Church has not removed from him the right to celebrate."

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2023/05/blog-post_7.html