Refutation of False Teachings about the Mysteries and Grace

September 21, 2018

[A Romanian Neo-Zealot text]

 

In the Letter of the Athonite Fathers to Emperor Michael Palaiologos, against the Union of Lyon (1272–74), if we pay close attention to the words, we observe that the Holy Mysteries are performed among uncondemned heretics, but the heresy preached openly by the uncovered head through the commemoration of the name of the heresiarch deprives the faithful of the grace that flows from these Mysteries, because they are no longer worthy of them.

The goal of the Christian life is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, and the grace of the Holy Spirit cannot be acquired by those who commune unworthily, being in agreement with the heretical faith of the bishop commemorated, becoming one with him and with his faith! Let us try to distinguish between the Holy Mysteries and the grace received as a result of worthy communion: these are two different things. The Mysteries are sanctified, by the economy of God, because the Synod has not yet enacted the condemnation of the heretics. Otherwise, it would mean creating schism and declaring all Mysteries performed by those who have fallen into heresy through the commemoration of the heretical bishop as invalid—that is, there would be chaos in the Church. We would not know who has valid Mysteries and who does not, who is baptized and who is not. For heresy has long been preached openly in the Church, not only since the moment of Crete 2016. That is why the Holy Canons, and in particular Canon 15, speak of walling off from heresy—that is, of breaking communion with heretics, walling off from heretics before their synodal condemnation.

I have made the necessary emphases in the text:

[…] But what is in common between communion and the commemoration of the name? Very much, as we shall show […]

Holy master, listen to the testimony of the words of the All-Holy Spirit, from which not one horn of a letter can fall (Luke 16:17). The great apostle of the Lord and evangelist John the Theologian says: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds (2 John 10–11). But if we are forbidden even to greet him on the way, if we are forbidden to bring him into an ordinary house, then how are we to receive him not into a house, but into the Church of God itself, into the very altar, at the mystical and fearful supper of the Son of God, who is offered as a bloodless sacrifice? [See that the Mysteries are present, the bloodless sacrifice takes place at the mystical and fearful supper; what is lacking is only the grace that the faithful cannot receive because of their heretical faith – ed. note.] First as God, then as the spotless Lamb, to reconcile us with the Father and with Himself and to cleanse our sins with His blood, as one who is without sin.

What darkened man will cry out for the commemoration of him whom the Holy Spirit has rightly cast out, as one who has risen up against God and the saints—and by doing so, that man makes himself an enemy of God? For if even the mere word “Welcome!” makes you a partaker in his evil deeds, how much more so does his loud commemoration mean, when the dreadful divine Mysteries are being set forth [once again, the commemoration of the name takes place when the dreadful Mysteries are present—thus, the Mysteries are being performed – ed. note]. And if the One who stands before us is Truth Himself, then how can you accept as truth this great lie—to consider him an Orthodox patriarch? [1] Performing the dreadful Mysteries, will you jest as if on a stage? How can the Orthodox soul endure this, how can it not immediately separate from those who commemorate him, how can it not regard them as traitors of holy things? For from the beginning, the Orthodox Church of God has regarded the commemoration of the hierarch’s name during the holy services as perfect communion. For it is written in the Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy (of St. Germanos): “He who serves the holy things pronounces the name of the hierarch, showing both his submission to the one above, and his communion with him, and the succession of his faith and of the holy things.” And our great father and confessor Theodore the Studite likewise says in a precious letter of his: “You told me you were afraid to rebuke your presbyter not to commemorate the name of the heresiarch, and I can say nothing else to you now about this except that communion through the mere commemoration of him defiles, even if the one commemorating were Orthodox.” So says this father. But even before him, God Himself indicated this, saying: His priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things. How? They have not distinguished between the holy and the profane (Ezek. 22:26), but all things were for them without distinction. What is clearer and more true than this?

But should we permit this as a measured economy? How can one permit an economy that profanes the holy service, as has been said, and drives away the Holy Spirit from there, and therefore causes the faithful to be deprived of the forgiveness of sins and of adoption? [The holy service, that is, the holy mystery is performed, but through the profanation of the gift of priesthood which belongs to the Church and not to the priest, through this commemoration of the heretic, all become one with the heresy and are deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit, who is driven away from those who commune or are present—both priest and faithful – ed. note.] And what could be more harmful than such an economy? That communion, even in a single point, is a manifest loss and a corruption of all righteousness. For he who receives the heretic submits himself to the same condemnation as that one; and let him who enters into communion with the excommunicated be excommunicated, as one who transgresses the ecclesiastical canon.

And so, since these well-known ones, disregarding the ecclesiastical ordinances, enter into communion with the Jews, and with the Armenians, and with the Jacobites, and with the Nestorians, and with the Monothelites, and, in short, with all heretics, then at least for this reason, if not for anything else, they undoubtedly do not deserve forgiveness and communion, but are made guilty of all the God-opposing heresies of those groups. And it seems that because of this—that is, from not distinguishing the heretics according to the order of the Church and according to the higher law of God—they have begun to be filled with all kinds of heresies—not for any other reason.

But is it right to grant primacy over the entire Orthodox Church of Christ to a heretical man? This is a complete betrayal, not an economy. He is now not even worthy of the last place. For our great father, Gregory the Theologian, speaking about those who repent, says in his holy discourse: “If Novatian would not receive those who repent, neither do I receive those who are either unyielding or not sufficiently softened and do not repay evil with correction. And if I do receive them, I will assign them a place accordingly.” Where is the correction in him and in those with him? Where is the reparation for the evil deed? Surely, they are not even worthy of the last place—so how could they have primacy? And if they have authority over one of the divine churches—woe! Will not those guided by blind leaders fall into the snares of hell, as the unfailing mouth warns us (Luke 6:39)? And if the light is darkness, then it is clear what follows (Matthew 6:23; Luke 11:34–36). And again, according to the great Theologian Gregory, every subject becomes like the one who rules over him.

And according to which ecclesiastical ordinances will he himself and his superiors judge? Having completely rejected the divine canons of the holy councils, having neither trace nor mention of spiritual life, but being heretics in many things, they will truly fill the Church with disturbance and scandals. For things that cannot be united cannot be joined together, nor can things that are not to be bound have any bond. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what communion has light with darkness, according to the divine word (2 Corinthians 6:14)? Or the Orthodox with the heretics, from whom, on the contrary, we have been commanded to separate ourselves entirely.

And above all, God has commanded us, saying: “Put away the evil one from among you” (Deut. 13:5, 1 Cor. 5:13). And in many other places, such as this in the New Testament: “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out” (Mark 9:47), and others about the members that cause scandal—whom do they refer to, if not to these? And the great Paul, through the very Lord who spoke in him (2 Cor. 13:3), clearly says such things: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that such a one is perverted and sins, being self-condemned” (Titus 3:10–11). And again, he urges us to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). And elsewhere he commands us not even to eat with such persons (1 Cor. 5:11, 2 Thess. 3:14). Likewise, our great God-bearing father Ignatius, warning us against the beasts in the form of men—heretics—commands us not only not to receive them, but, as far as possible, not even to encounter them. And those with whom it is not permitted to sit at table, nor to greet, are forbidden to us because of total non-communion—and whom we must, as far as possible, even avoid meeting—how are we to acknowledge such men as leaders and judges of the Orthodox churches, and how are we to pronounce their names in commemoration as Orthodox in church and at the very Mystical Supper? [Once again, we see that the commemoration takes place at the Mystical Supper—the mystery is performed, but the commemoration of the heretic no longer allows the faithful to be sanctified, just as the same happens to those who inwardly assent to heresies and to unbaptized pagans who come deceitfully into the church and commune without discerning the divine things – ed. note.] So then, how can we let it (the Liturgy) sanctify us blamelessly?

– Fragment from the Epistle of the Athonite Fathers to Emperor Michael Palaiologos with the confession of faith against the Union of Lyon (1272–74)

[1] This refers to the uniate patriarch John XI Bekkos (1275–1282)

The Holy Fathers knew the Holy Canons very well; they were not amateurs like many in our days, who voice their opinions without having a thorough knowledge and correct understanding of the Holy Canons. For the Holy Fathers, it was something natural that any heresy which begins to be preached openly by those baptized and ordained in the Orthodox Church must be definitively removed through synodal judgment and the condemnation of all heretics and their supporters.

In plain terms, from Elder Savvas Lavriotis:

Given that among the non-commemorating priests there are controversies regarding the presence or absence of grace in the R.O.C. [Romanian Orthodox Church], please explain what is the correct way to proceed in the following situations:

We are a group of non-commemorating priests who do not take a stance on the presence or absence of grace in the R.O.C., and a non-commemorating priest comes to us, but who wrongly and theologically asserts that grace is totally absent from the R.O.C. In that case, do we still concelebrate with this priest?

Elder Savvas: This divergence that exists should be resolved. It should not divide us. We ought to sit down at the table and let that priest explain why he believes that grace no longer exists in the R.O.C. Unfortunately, the problem is not with those who say that grace exists, but with those who say that it does not. They are the ones who do not want to commune with us. This should not divide us. The truth is one. We should sit at the table of discussion and resolve this issue. We already have a study prepared for publication in which we demonstrate this from the minutes of the Councils and from the Holy Fathers.

So, we demonstrate there that we do not cease commemoration because they have lost grace or the Mysteries, but because they preach heresy. There are two kinds of heretics, yet one group has already been condemned, and the other has not yet been judged. With the condemned heretics, who have also been deposed by the Church, we cannot have communion in any case—because they are already condemned. Canon 15 speaks about heretics who have not yet been judged. It says: before synodal judgment we break communion because they preach heresy. That is, before synodal condemnation means that a Synod must be convened to condemn them. Until then, we do not have communion with them. And this does not mean that they lose the Mysteries. The Mysteries do not concern us. We are not a Synod to determine who has Mysteries and who does not. Those who say that there are no Mysteries make themselves into a Synod, [they place themselves – ed. note] above the Synod. Because the Synod judges the heretic, meaning that it is fundamentally a tribunal (the Synod) that summons the heretic, the accused. You show him his heresy, and if he corrects himself, repents—very well. If he does not correct himself, then you depose him. If he were already deposed, how could you depose him again yourself? A heretic is not deposed automatically. What we do know is that with those who preach heresy, we have no communion because we become sick in the faith. That is the issue. And we know very well that those who go and commune—those who accept the Council of Crete—they commune unto their condemnation. It is not unto salvation for them, but unto perdition. We know that when we commune unworthily, we do not receive grace. Someone who communes and has not confessed, who has no repentance, who has no right faith—even though he communes with Christ, he will not receive grace. That is the issue, not whether the Mystery exists or not. That is determined by a Synod, not by us.

<...>

 

Romanian source:

https://ortodoxlogos.ro/2018/09/21/combaterea-invataturilor-gresite-despre-taine-si-har-sunt-doua-lucruri-diferite/