On the Issue of Automatic Canonical Penalties and the Loss of Grace

In the history of the synodical-hierarchical tradition of the Orthodox Church, this position is unheard of—that a Hierarch, or any other person, is self-deposed without a synodical decision and automatically falls from divine Grace. This view of "automatic loss of Grace" is papal; it does not belong to the Orthodox canonical tradition. It is already recorded in papal ecclesiology from the 13th century and is based on the Frankish conception of papal primacy. The view in question (in Latin latae sententiae) remains in the new revised code of papal canons of 1983 and is developed in canons 1321–1330. That is, an episcopal synod is not needed for a certain category of sins, among which heresy is included, but Grace is removed automatically, and in the case of a clergyman, this means his automatic deposition. Saint Nikodemos, opposing such a view, commented that only an episcopal synod can depose, since the Canons do not operate by themselves (Pedalion, cited place, pp. 4–5, footnote on the Third Apostolic Canon).

Historically, we may suppose that the representatives of the emperor, who signed the union at Lyon, heard there this view of papal ecclesiology and transferred it to the East as a most useful weapon against any hierarch who resisted.

Source: ᾿Απολογία πρὸς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα Μιχαὴλ Η’ τὸν Παλαιολόγο περὶ τῶν ἀξιώσεων τοῦ Πάπα τῆς Ρώμης Ἰούνιος 1273 ["Apology to Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos concerning the claims of the Pope of Rome June 1273"], by St. Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, editing and commentary by Monk Paisios of Karyes, published by the Holy Cell of the Holy Archangels, Karyes, Mount Athos, 2018, pp. 35-36, footnote 52.

***

As for the Byzantine Church, there is no indication that it ever recognized automatically imposed penalties. The great canonists of the Middle Ages—Aristinos, Zonaras, and Balsamon—speak, for example, in their interpretation of canon 1 of Antioch only of poenae ferendae sententiae. Notably, [St. Nikodim] Milaš, in his commentary on the canons, distinguishes between the two classes of penalties and assigns them Greek names. However, in his Ecclesiastical Law of the Eastern Church, his principal work, there is no trace of this distinction, as far as I can see, nor in the works of other Eastern canonists.

Source: "Hat die byzantinische Kirche von selbst eintretende Strafen (poenae latae sententiae) gekannt?" [Did the Byzantine Church recognize automatically imposed penalties (poenae latae sententiae)?], by E. Herman, published in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Band 44 Heft 1-2, p. 264.