"Correction precedes communion, not communion before correction"!

Today's proponents of endless protest, possibilism, and false "economy" have "forgotten" Joseph Bryennios.

Adamantios Tsakiroglou, historian

 

It is now clearer than the sun that the proponents of endless protest through publications, of possibilism [i.e., the denial of the necessity of walling-off], and of poorly applied and misunderstood "economy" do nothing more than absorb the reactions of the flock and allow the acknowledged pan-heresy of Ecumenism to become entrenched. The futility of all their denunciations without consequence, the ineffectiveness of their superficial protests without practical consistency, and the maintenance of an illusory confession without martyrdom consolidate not only the pan-heresy but also the passivity of the faithful, who, seeing the lack of consistency between deeds and words, give up.

One proof of the above is the fact that these proponents now "forget" to mention in their argumentation against heresy those ecclesiastical writers whom, at the beginning of their decades-old surreal and illusory anti-heretical rhetoric, they praised enthusiastically. By turning ecclesiastical literature into ecclesiastical spoils, they forget to mention those who, if they lived today, would have condemned them. One of them is Joseph Bryennios.

This renowned ecclesiastical man, the "teacher of teachers" according to Eugenios Voulgaris, waged great battles against the Latins and the unionist efforts of his contemporary Orthodox. Most of all, however, he opposed through his words the anti-patristic practice of compromise with heresy and the superficial Orthodox way of life. For Bryennios, the faith is always in danger when its defenders are not sincere in their Orthodoxy, and for this reason, they are to be condemned: "he who denies God even with a mere nod is subject to perdition" (A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, "Joseph Bryennios Proceedings," pp. 50–51).

For Bryennios, “every ‘addition’ or ‘subtraction’ or ‘modification’ or ‘corruption’ of a dogma brings about an alteration of the entire faith and the life of the Church, and those who cause it fall away from the Church, without, however, the Church losing its fullness, its catholicity, or its holiness” (Archimandrite Nikolaos Ioannidis, Theology and Literature from the 9th Century Onward, p. 224).

Bryennios — in contrast to today’s “peacemakers” — never hesitated, whether in Constantinople, Crete, or Cyprus, to speak the love-filled language of Truth, however harsh it may be, because the opposite would mean both personal and collective perdition: “The fall from the truth is blindness of the mind and darkness” (J. Bryennios, Collected Works, vol. II, p. 11). No one in the Church — whether Patriarch, Bishop, Abbot, eminent professor of Theology, or otherwise — has the right to act and speak falsely, arbitrarily, and according to his own whim. On the contrary, he must: “receive the Divine Scriptures as the God-bearing Fathers received them, and not invent anything from himself, which would be superfluous for those wishing to interpret such things” (Second Discourse on the Holy Spirit, Collected Works, vol. I, p. 138).

For Bryennios, the only way to combat heresy and its dominance is the path of confession and martyrdom. As a monk and ecclesiastical guide of the flock, being fully aware of his responsibility—and in contrast to the current glaring irresponsibility of today’s leaders and “guides”—he remained in constant spiritual vigilance, and his concern was the defense of the Church of Christ, not of the Bishops. For this reason, Bryennios was unequivocal also on the issue of communion with heretics or with those who are in communion with them. For Bryennios, as long as heresy exists and delusion remains, communion cannot exist, because that would mean alteration and subjugation of the Orthodox flock: “No one is Orthodox who chooses into his communion one who does not choose to depart from delusion” (Study on the Union of the Cypriots, Collected Works, vol. II, p. 5). For Bryennios, it was unthinkable for someone to be Orthodox and at the same time question, misinterpret, or nullify the teaching of Christ and His Saints, or to have ecclesiastical communion with those who do so. Consistent in his words — and without changing his opinion every year like today’s “teachers” — he, for example, rejected in his proposal to the Patriarchate the restoration of ecclesiastical communion with the Church of Cyprus, because they commemorated or were in communion with Latin-minded individuals or even with Latins themselves. Let us imagine if today’s proponents of “Economy” were in his place — what would they have done!

The words of Bryennios serve as both a foundation and a warning for the generations that followed, but especially for us, the modern-day reinventors of the wheel:

“If any of us should choose to renounce honor, he will separate himself from the wholeness of the Orthodox, whereas they [i.e., the Orthodox] will hold fast to our faith until the coming of Christ” (Collected Works, vol. I, p. 453), because “he who communes with those cut off is himself cut off; and if anyone even prays together in a house with one who is cut off, let him also be excommunicated” (ibid.).

As for the matter of economy, faithful to the patristic tradition, the ecclesiastical man to whom the Church entrusted so many difficult cases in the trying times of Latin rule and Latin-mindedness teaches us: “Correction precedes communion, not communion [before] correction” (Study on the Union of the Cypriots, Collected Works, vol. II, p. 23).

This is the reason why today’s proponents of economy “forget” as if by magic Joseph Bryennios, whom they so often cited in the past. Their stance—this decades-long failure to correct the heretics, their persistent denunciation of heresy while at the same time maintaining communion with it—no longer constitutes a reference point for the anti-heretical struggle, but has degenerated into a seminar of anti-post-patristic teaching, a narcotic theology in which the distortion of ecclesiastical doctrine has prevailed. Bryennios no longer suits them; he disrupts their self-conceited wisdom. He exposes the tragic nature of their arguments and their excessive skill in somersaulting.

“He who communes with those cut off is himself cut off” — Joseph Bryennios; the opposite, the “traditionalist” proponents of economy.

“Correction precedes communion, not communion [before] correction” — Joseph Bryennios; the opposite, the “traditionalist” proponents of economy.

“If any of us should choose to renounce honor, he separates himself from the wholeness of the Orthodox” — Joseph Bryennios; the opposite, the “traditionalist” proponents of economy.

“No one is Orthodox who chooses into his communion one who does not choose to depart from delusion” — Joseph Bryennios; the opposite, the “traditionalist” proponents of economy.

Let their mouthpieces speak, then, of “half-brothers” or “false brothers.” Let them speak of a supposed “unity” allegedly disturbed by “extremists.” Let them offer an analysis of the acrobatic notion of somersaulting. Let them threaten that they will deal with them (naturally with a “spiritual” whip).

Those who struggle for their faith do not forget Joseph Bryennios — nor any of the Fathers — nor do they dismiss him; they are not permitted to forget him, not because they are better, but because they are worse, and they follow the Saints who point out the true path and manner of salvation. Their word does and will continue to rebuke us all.

 

Greek source: https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2025/07/blog-post_57.html