The Mysteries of Heretics Before Synodal Judgment

George D. Dimakopoulos | August 23, 2018

 

Prologue

The greater part of the text that follows derives from the third memorandum of the ever-memorable Metropolitan of Oropos and Phyle, Kyprianos, to the blessed His Eminence [Metropolitan] Kallistos (Makris) [of Corinth], in the year 1983 [Protocol No. 65a, dated May 31], concerning the well-known disagreements between the two ecclesiastical men on the subject of the validity of the Mysteries in the innovating Church.

We have removed, on our own responsibility, certain personal references, so that the text we present—as a form of spiritual labor—may assist in the elaboration, understanding, apprehension, and assimilation of an issue which, in ecclesiastical history and amidst so many labyrinthine, demon-guided, and multifaceted heresies that have made their relevance abundantly evident, issues of priesthood and validity of Mysteries of as yet unjudged heretics were never raised by the walled-off Orthodox!

35 years today, after 1983—when the present letter was written—the issues raised in the following text still occupy, even today, faithful with opposing, contrary, and adverse ecclesiological positions.

What is sought, however, is not only the presentation of whatever opinions, but also the manner in which these are introduced for reflection and contemplation.

The lawless, unholy, and irreverent speculation, however, and the clumsy, syntactically-corrupt “distortion” promoted by conceited, high-minded, and megalomaniac “mud collectors,” who are governed by the diabolical rule of the proverbial “Matthewite arrogance,” do not characterize human beings—let alone those who call themselves “Orthodox.”

And as long as the God-given, noble, and neo-Kollyvades movement of the “Old Calendarists” remains a closed, sealed, and “family affair,” not opening itself to society and to the new challenges already present with clergy and laity, our newly-walled-off brethren, so much the more will “Matthewite Machiavellianism” sound out its mad, self-loving and egotistical slogan: “the more fanatical, the more faithful!”

In the rich patristic teaching, however—which bears no relation to the senseless “Matthewite hysteria”—the Fathers, beyond walling off and the continual, thorough, and diligent examination they undertook toward heretics who were still unjudged, did so with selfless, discerning, and God-pleasing love, and not with the vocabulary of the street, the mob, and the rabble, nor with filthy writings uttered by clanging cymbals, such as those promoted by the ideological autism of the heresiology of “Matthewitism”!

We have reached the impious, unholy, and profane point (many of us) of thinking that the more anti-New Calendar one is, the more Orthodox one is!…

And if someone—such as the author of the text below—writes with patristic precision that in the case of heretics who are still unjudged, the Mysteries remain, as an act of philanthropy toward the ignorant and unknowing part of their flock, yet at the same time are condemnable for the knowingly heretical and those who share their mindset, then such a one is considered… a philo- or crypto-ecumenist.

But these are not thoughts of God—they are spawnings of the devil...

G.D.

+++

 

<...> A. The walling off from the innovators and heretics

It is well known that our sacred struggle is foreseen by the Orthodox Tradition. Expressed through the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, it praises as worthy of honor those who wall themselves off—that is, who separate themselves from the Bishop “before a synodal decision,” when he proclaims “openly,” “with bared head,” and “in the Church” a heresy “condemned by the Holy Synods or Fathers,” that is, already condemned. Those who objected to the calendar innovation of 1924, and more generally to the heresy of Ecumenism, walled themselves off from the innovators and those inclined toward heresy and began a sacred anti-heretical struggle. Enlightening those in ignorance and preparing the ground, they looked toward a Pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical Council, and a synodal discernment, judgment, and decision regarding the undertaken innovation. What the history of our Church testifies in this matter is especially noteworthy. Namely, that such a Council was always preceded by an interval of time—that is, a pre-synodal period—during which there prevailed turmoil and division among the Christians due to the heresy being preached. Certainly, at that time, no question was raised about valid or invalid Mysteries, but rather about walling off from those inclined toward heresy, the denunciation of the delusion, enlightenment, and struggle toward the convocation of a competent Synod. Until the convocation of a Synod, the only body competent to decide regarding heresy and heretics, Divine Grace, acting in a philanthropic manner, operated for the salvation of the ignorant or persecuted People of God—but in any case, unto the condemnation of the heretics and of those who knowingly share their mindset, as is shown by what follows.

B. The Mysteries of Heretics Before Synodal Judgment

The truth of the aforementioned is confirmed by the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council, when its President, Saint Tarasios, said: “We accept those ordained by heretics” until a synodal judgment is rendered concerning their heresy. “But if a synodal pronouncement (decision) is made and there is agreement of the Churches in Orthodoxy” and against the heresy, then “he who dares to be ordained by profane heretics shall fall under deposition. The holy Synod said: this is a just judgment” (PG 12, 1042).

C. The Manner of Acceptance of Those Ordained by Heretics

The aforementioned position is strengthened by the manner of acceptance of those ordained by heretics. Thus, the Patriarch of Constantinople and President of the Holy Fourth Ecumenical Council, Anatolios, “had been ordained by the impious Dioscorus in the presence of Eutyches,” the founder of the heresy (PG 12, 1042). But “also the majority of the bishops who took part in the sessions of the Holy Sixth Council” had “been ordained by Sergios, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, the leaders of the heresy of Monothelitism” (PG 12, 1047).

D. The Case of Nestorius

The above is further confirmed by the following: The Holy Third Ecumenical Council, prior to the synodal condemnation of the heresiarch Nestorius, refers to him as “most devout” and “master” (PG 4, 1180, 1181). Yet through this condemnatory decision, it characterizes him as most impious (PG 4, 1212). What is noteworthy is that it does not raise the issue of invalidity of the Mysteries performed by him prior to his final condemnation. For this reason, as Saint Photius the Great says, “After the deposition of Nestorius, not one of those ordained by him was deposed” (PG 104, 1224).

E. The Example of Saint Theodore the Studite

The zealot Abbot of the Studion [Monastery], Saint Theodore, twice broke communion with two Patriarchs of Constantinople on account of the Moechian heresy, which, according to him, is “the overturning of everything up to the Antichrist” (PG 99, 1025). And yet, he did not raise the issue of invalidity of the Mysteries. When he resumed communion, he communicated with the Patriarchs “in a warmer friendship” with spiritual gladness (PG 99, 165, 257).

F. The Pre-existing Condemnation

Some maintain in simplicity that there is no need of a synodal discernment, since the Church in the past has condemned the innovation or heresy now being proclaimed. Yet in the specific case of the Venerable Theodore, we see the contrary. He did not raise the issue of invalidity of the Mysteries, although the Moechian heresy, as a violation of the Evangelical and Canonical Law, had previously been condemned by the Church both generally and specifically. Generally, for example, by the First Canon of the Holy Second Ecumenical Council.

Through this, we Christians are commanded to anathematize “every heresy.” And this anti-canonical heresy was specifically condemned, for example, by the Second Canon of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council. Through this it is defined: “If anyone be found (caught) innovating upon or attempting to overturn any Canon, he shall be subject to the penalty of that same Canon”—that is, as Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite interprets, “he is to receive the penalty which that Canon prescribes.”

G. The Competent Ecclesiastical Authority

Why, then, did the confessor Saint Theodore maintain the aforementioned stance, even though the heresy had already been condemned by the Church? Because, according to the Tradition of Orthodoxy, the penalties of the Holy Canons are imposed by a third party—that is, by the competent ecclesiastical authority, such as the Synod of the time. The first person is understood to be the Ecumenical Council that issued the Canon, the second is the one who transgresses it, and the third is the judge. “If the Synod,” writes Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, “does not actively carry out the deposition of priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of laypeople, then those priests and laypeople are neither in actuality deposed, nor excommunicated or anathematized.”

They are “under sentence, indeed—here (in the present life) to deposition and excommunication or anathematization, and there (in the life to come) to divine judgment.” And the same zealot Saint adds (in footnote 2 of his interpretation of the Third Canon of the Holy Apostles), saying characteristically: “These very divine Apostles clearly explain themselves by their 66th Canon, since they do not say that a bishop or presbyter who accepts the baptism of heretics is already immediately deposed in actuality, but rather: we command that he be deposed—that is, let him be brought to judgment, and if it be proven that he has done this, then let him be stripped, by your decision, of the priesthood; this we command.”

This is also in accordance with the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, which praises the walling off “before synodal judgment” from the bishop who is preaching heresy. It says “before synodal judgment” because such judgment is, of course, presupposed even for the one who has preached heresy.

H. Condemned and Uncondemned Heresy

For this reason, indeed, Saint Theodore the Studite wrote that communion with the already condemned heresy of Iconoclasm in his time is “a separation from Christ” (PG 99, 1276). And the so-called divine communion of the condemned Iconoclasts is not simply “common bread, but a drug (poison), blackening and darkening the soul” (PG 99, 1189). As for the Moechians, who had not yet been judged at that time, he said: “We receive Communion from every priest who is unaccused. Therefore, we do not receive from (the priest) Joseph, as he has been publicly accused. And certainly (indeed), those who concelebrate with him will also be considered accused” (PG 99, 1065–1068).

I. The case of the Armenians

Isaac the Armenian writes that the Armenian Christians “deviated” from “the traditions of Saint Gregory (of Armenia) and of the other Fathers.” Among other things, they also shifted feasts. And yet, because “concerning the faith and the Council held in Chalcedon and concerning the two natures in Christ our God they had no doubt, for 103 years after the Council in Chalcedon,” they remained in communion with the Church. The Orthodox Church, during that period, did not consider their Mysteries invalid, until they “departed from the communion” of Orthodoxy, having rejected the Holy Fourth Ecumenical Council (PG 132, 1256–1257).

J. Deviation from the Patristic “Boundaries”

After the brief presentation of the above, we humbly believe that it is erroneous to raise the issue of the validity of the Mysteries. It is therefore necessary for us to walk the “royal path” and not to deviate from the “ancient boundaries” which “the Fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28). And this “royal path” is the good, necessary, and time-honored protest through walling off from the innovators and heretics. Also, the formation of the uninnovated plenitude, whose God-pleasing shepherding by us, through Divine Grace, in love and humility, will give the best testimony of the Faith, so that the tumult among the Orthodox may cease by the return to the age-old, time-honored festal order. And thus, divisions and schisms and innovations in the name of the struggle against innovation will be averted, as well as the fall to the right, the estrangement from the truth, from love, and from the grace of our Savior Christ, the continual fragmentation into mutually warring factions, and, as a result, the scandal and loss of souls. Moreover, this “royal path” was always walked also by the Russian Church Abroad under Metropolitan [St.] Philaret, which, prior to 1965 (the lifting of the anathemas), remained in communion with the New Calendarists.

In September of 1974, it pronounced as follows: “Regarding the question of the presence or absence of grace among the New Calendarists, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia does not consider itself or any other Local Church to have the authority to make a final decision, since a categorical assessment of this matter can only be made by a duly convened, competent Ecumenical Council, with the obligatory participation of the free Church of Russia.”

K. “And if no Council of Orthodox is convened?”

This question is usually posed as a supposedly strong argument by the supporters of the unsound teaching of the loss of Grace. First of all, we must ask ourselves to what extent we have contributed to the convening of the desired Council. Secondly, any possible answer to the above question asserting that anyone may proclaim the innovators as having fallen from Divine Grace before synodal judgment is contrary to Tradition. We humbly believe that such an action is improper and anti-ecclesiastical, and for other reasons as well, but especially for the following: For judgment and decision against someone, the convening of a court composed of persons competent to judge is required, with the persons under judgment also present. Are we today—the few bishops—those who are competent? Can we summon those under judgment? Do we have the unanimous agreement of all the Orthodox Christians throughout the world who are currently fighting the good fight of the Faith? Do we know the hidden and secret things of those whom we so easily and generally condemn—those who, at a given moment, may join the camp of the rightly resisting Orthodox?

For fuller understanding, I bring the following example. The supporter of the heresiarch Eutyches at the Robber Council of Ephesus, Juvenal of Jerusalem, was received at the Holy Fourth Ecumenical Council through a simple transfer to the Orthodox. For “the most devout bishop Juvenal, having risen,” “passed over to the other side; and the Easterners and the most devout bishops with them cried out: God has brought you rightly, O Orthodox one, welcome” (PG 12, 1034). How many “Juvenals” might there be, whom we perhaps condemn beforehand—and moreover without authority—and who could, in due time and with God’s blessing, hear the words, “Welcome”?

Our Orthodoxy has given an answer to the said question. When the synodal judgment of innovators and those inclined toward heresy is delayed or is, by the nature of circumstances, foreseen to be impossible, the Orthodox are safeguarded in the Presence of God, taking refuge in Him through canonical walling off and the anti-heretical struggle.

L. The Orthodox Opinion of Fr. [St.] Justin Popović

Moreover, our haste and impatience regarding the convocation of a Council and the expression of a judgment is not entirely justified. All things are directed by Divine Providence—especially if one considers that today the Church of Christ, for the most part, is neither free nor at peace. A dreadful persecution of every form and nature has arisen against the true Faith. Our Holy Church has, for many years, been upon the Cross of martyrdom. For this reason, the opinion of our ever-memorable contemporary confessor, Fr. Justin Popović, is most serious, who wrote, among other things, in his renowned Memorandum to the Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church:

“Perhaps today we must also recall and understand, among other things, the following fact: during the time of the persecutions of the Church, no Ecumenical Councils were held—though this certainly does not mean that the Church of God was not then functioning or did not breathe synodally. On the contrary, that period of Her life and activity was the most fruitful and dynamic. And when, thereafter, another period followed and the First Ecumenical Council was convened, then the martyred bishops were able to come and be present at it, bearing still the fresh wounds, the marks, and bruises of the persecutions and imprisonments, having been proven in the fire of martyrdom—and there, before the Council of their brethren and concelebrants, and before the whole world, they were able to freely give their witness concerning Christ, confessing Him as God and Lord and Savior of the world and of mankind.” (Memorandum..., p. 19, Athens, 1977)

Canonical walling off, then, and a God-pleasing anti-heretical struggle are needed today, along with fervent prayer, that the philanthropy of God may grant what is most beneficial for His Holy Church. All these things do not mean that those who follow the calendar innovation are absolved. Persisting in it, they are certainly under indictment before God and the Church.

M. Saint Cyril of Kazan, the Russian New Martyr

Before concluding our Memorandum, we consider it necessary to mention the very important views of the Holy Russian New Martyr Cyril, Metropolitan of Kazan (+1936 or 1937). He was compelled to break communion with Metropolitan Sergius and his like-minded followers, when the latter allied himself unlawfully with the communist regime in Russia and acted and proclaimed contrary to the Gospel. In his defense, Saint Cyril wrote:

“I do not separate myself from anything holy, from anything that belongs to the Church. I only fear attaching myself to something that proceeds from sin. For this reason, I do not commune with Metropolitan Sergius and his like-minded followers, since I have no other means by which to denounce my sinning brother... I acknowledge that it is my archpastoral duty to avoid communion with Metropolitan Sergius. By this act, I by no means claim that Grace is absent from the Mysteries of the Sergianists (may God preserve us from such a thought!), but I emphasize that I do not wish to partake in the sins of others...”

And addressing the grievously deviated Sergius, he wrote: “...you are astonished that I do not concelebrate with you, yet I do not consider either you or myself to be outside the Church... I do not concelebrate, not because the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ would not be realized in our concelebration, but because communion in the Chalice of the Lord would be for both of us unto condemnation, since our inner condition would deprive us of the ability to offer in peace 'mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise...’”

Shortly before his martyrdom, he also wrote: “... It seems to me that you do not properly distinguish between the acts of Metropolitan Sergius and his followers, which are carried out canonically by the God-given grace of the Mystery of the Priesthood, and the acts that are performed in violation of sacramental rights and with human cunning, such as various depositions, etc.

“These are sacramental acts only in appearance, while in essence, they are a usurpation of sacramental authority and therefore blasphemous and devoid of Grace. However, the Mysteries of the Sergianists, who were canonically ordained, are undoubtedly salvific Mysteries for those who receive them with simplicity and faith, without doubts regarding their validity, unaware that something is wrong in the Sergianist Church order. Yet, at the same time, these Mysteries serve as condemnation for those who perform them and for those who knowingly partake in them with full awareness of the falsehood of Sergianism, since their lack of opposition demonstrates criminal indifference toward the mockery of the Church. This is why it is necessary for an Orthodox bishop or priest to avoid joint prayer with the Sergianists. The same applies to the laity who have a conscious understanding of the details of ecclesiastical life.”

<...>

The least among Bishops,

Kyprianos of Oropos and Phyle

 

Greek source: https://353agios.blogspot.com/2018/08/blog-post_22.html