Conciliatory attitude toward heretics on the part of Saint Cyril of Alexandria

Panagiotis Simatis, theologian

 

It is now an undeniable fact that the pan-heresy of Ecumenism has greatly distorted consciences (I observe this and it concerns me as well), so that even faithful strugglers are unable to recognize the pure Orthodox Faith and practice; and what is tragic is that this is also observed among the responsible Shepherds, who thus chart a new, anti-traditional path of confronting heresy, intensifying the already existing confusion.

For this reason, effort must be made, setting aside various distortions, to discover exactly what the Saints teach on the various matters (dogmatic, ecclesiological, pastoral, etc.) and to point out the Patristic line, to insist on “Akriveia” [strictness], but also to take into account—as we live in an eschatological age of confusion—the possible mitigating factors of our well-intentioned brethren; to remember not only “Akriveia,” but also leniency and the “Economy” which the Holy Fathers applied.

This sense led me to seek in ecclesiastical history some examples of leniency and economy on the part of the Holy Fathers, because I believe that strict treatment and absolutism—especially where there is good intent—create greater problems. I present an example, which does not correspond exactly to the case at hand (for there, it concerns the treatment of a heretic), yet it shows that the Fathers (although they had a clear and firm position on the severance of communion with heretics) applied condescension and Economy in matters of communication with heretics, for a short period of time and for specific reasons.

+++

It is well known that the Fifth Ecumenical Council convened in 553 A.D. to deal with three clergymen: Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia, Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Metropolitan Ibas of Edessa, who had clear opposition to the Third Ecumenical Council (the issue of the Three Chapters). The evidence I present is from the study of the former Metropolitan of Nikopolis (The Fifth Ecumenical Council), and it shows that the Holy Fathers demonstrated leniency, without at the same time compromising on matters of the Faith.

Theodore of Mopsuestia is considered the “father” of Nestorianism. “The teaching of Theodore was an innovation [= novelty], foreign to the tradition of the Church. The Antiochenes, when they first heard his ideas, literally ‘threw stones at him’ and expressed their complete opposition to him” (Meletios Kalamaras, Metropolitan of Nikopolis, The Fifth Ecumenical Council, Athens 1985, p. 45).

Concern had already been expressed as early as 394 A.D. by “Saints Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa” (op. cit., p. 45). A little later (in 404 A.D.), Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria (who was also concerned) in a letter to Patriarch Porphyrius of Antioch urged him to address the issue that had arisen due to the heretical teachings of Theodore.

But this “limited in scope dispute suddenly turned into a general and universal one, when a disciple of Theodore, Nestorius, was chosen” as Patriarch of Constantinople (p. 45).

“First to rise up against Nestorius” was a layman, the later “Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum.” Subsequently, Saint Cyril opposed him, and finally Pope Celestine, who through letters gave Nestorius a deadline of 10 days to renounce his heretical positions and to repent. At the same time, they praised the clergy and the people of Constantinople who had walled themselves off from Nestorius and called on them to maintain a “firm resistance against Nestorius” before Nestorius was condemned (pp. 46–47).

Nestorius succeeded in having an Ecumenical Council convened and attempted to win over Patriarch John of Antioch. “However, John did not accept the role for which Nestorius had destined him” and conveyed his conviction to Saint Cyril “that the teaching of Nestorius is ‘a word not to be tolerated’; and he entreated him to act with prudence and compassion, using his authority ‘for edification and not for destruction’” (p. 48).

Nestorius was ultimately deposed by the Third Ecumenical Council. But “during the two-year period 431–433 A.D., due to the... schism, great disorder prevailed. ‘The Eastern Synod [of bishops] remained out of communion with the bishops who were in communion with Cyril. And because of this, there was much sorrow among them [the Easterners]; and in strife, bishops opposed bishops and peoples opposed peoples’” (p. 52).

In the meantime, the “situation into which the Patriarchate of Antioch had fallen was grievous... Therefore, humbled, they sought communion with Saint Cyril under certain conditions... Saint Cyril, in his reply, refused to accept the Easterners into communion before: a) they accepted the deposition of Nestorius..., b) they anathematized Nestorius and his teachings...” (p. 52).

Patriarch John, in his letter, “declared that he accepted the Council of Ephesus... as equal in authority to that of Nicaea..., that he accepted the deposition of Nestorius... Following this, Saint Cyril expressed in his letter to the Eastern bishops his complete satisfaction with the Orthodox confession of John. Thus came about the ‘ecumenical peace’ or ‘reconciliation’” (p. 53).

“But the compromises grieved the supporters of the extremes,” and Patriarch John of Antioch faced great difficulties in his region, since bishops of “Second Cilicia” convened a Council and excommunicated Saint Cyril. “John, having been informed of these things, addressed to them a letter of admonition,” which had no effect. “In response, John... having forgiven the moderates, deposed the hardliners..., because they had not anathematized Nestorius and persisted in the doctrines of Theodore. For Theodoret, he applied economy, that is, he was satisfied that the latter accepted the reconciliation [that is, he accepted the Third Ecumenical Council as holy] and did not insist that he anathematize Nestorius, to whom he had sworn by letter that he would never anathematize him. This economy of John, as a peaceful and forgiving man, was also accepted by Saint Cyril” (pp. 53–55).

“After the reconciliations, the followers of Nestorius..., seeing that they could no longer present to the public the blasphemous books of Nestorius,” hypocritically pretended “that they accepted the Third Ecumenical Council and the deposition of Nestorius,” but turned toward the works of Theodore, interpreting the Third Ecumenical Council through “the sophistical distinctions of Theodore” and spreading “the books of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, though they held the same ideas, had not been personally condemned” (p. 56).

The spread in this manner of heretical ideas created a great problem. Bishops of the Armenians sent letters to Saint Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in which they requested from Saint Proclus “the condemnation of the heretical chapters of Theodore that were submitted along with the letters.” “Responding to the letters–appeals of the Armenians, Saint Proclus composed and sent the renowned Tome to the Armenians.” In it, “he condemned the heretical teachings without making mention of persons, so as not to exacerbate the divisions... However, the matter was not resolved... Thereafter, in 437, Proclus sent his Tome to John of Antioch with the instruction to anathematize Theodore and his teachings without delay” (p. 58).

John, however, did not respond. “Evidently, John had been dragged along by those inclined toward Nestorianism. This led Saint Cyril to set aside economy and to react.”

A Council was subsequently convened (438 A.D.). At it, the Easterners accepted and signed the Tome of Saint Proclus, but refused to anathematize Theodore, not because he was no longer considered heretical, but because, as they claimed, he had reposed in communion with the Churches, and any anathematization of him would imply the possibility of condemning even (Saints) Basil, Gregory, and Athanasius. Proclus, however, remained unyielding and uncompromising. The emperor accepted John’s position. Then John turned to Saint Cyril, entreating him to intervene with Saint Proclus and to try to persuade him that any personal condemnation of Theodore would bring great suffering to the Patriarchate of Antioch, where Theodore still had many admirers.

"And indeed: the all-wise teacher of perfect ecclesiastical mindedness, the most moderate and peace-loving Saint Cyril, although he had recently demonstrated with clarity the extent of Theodore’s impiety, for the sake of the peace of the Church and so that the development of a new Monophysite heresy—appearing under the guise of the struggle against Theodore—might not be encouraged, sent a letter to Saint Proclus, earnestly entreating him with the full weight of his sacred personality to respect the request of John and to adopt his own practical approach of economy and condescension for the sake of peace.

"And Proclus yielded. He did not insist that Theodore be anathematized. But neither did he permit those inclined toward Nestorianism to propagate his ideas" (p. 59).

 

Greek source: https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post_729.html