Refutation of Matthewite Delusions

Monk Damianos Agiovasiliatis

 

Of the eighty-five Canons of the Holy Apostles, approximately seventy have an imperative character. The penances which they prescribe for all the foreseen canonical violations are stated in the future tense. That is, these very Apostles, through the canons, command that the penances be exacted by the bishops then living, those alive at the time when these very canonical offenses are committed by the responsible perpetrators. Or, in the case where the synod of living bishops cannot be convened during the period in which the canons are being violated, for various reasons, then the penances are to be exacted by a future synod, whenever it may be convened.

Saint Nikodemos, referring generally to all the canons whose penances have an imperative character—specifically the expressions let him be deposed, let him be anathema, let him be excommunicated, we command that he be deposed, etc.—interprets these with great simplicity and clarity. He leaves no room for the notion that these canons, by their own force and authority alone, judge the violators thereof and especially in a final and conclusive manner. Besides, it is so absurd even to think such a thing. As for how the imperative penances are to be enforced, he himself interprets the Holy Apostles with the following: “We command that he be deposed, that is, to be brought to judgment, and if it is proven that he has indeed done this, then let him be stripped of the priesthood by your decision—this is what we command.” [1]

Some distinguish violations into personal faults of conduct and into crimes against the entirety of the Christians which scandalize the consciences of the faithful. In this case, those referred to as causing scandal are the Hierarchs of the ecumenist Church of the New Calendarists. They say that these imperative penances refer only to personal faults and they draw our attention to the statement that “here the saint (Nikodemos) speaks only about canons and canonical violations, not about heretics and violations of the Faith.” (sic) [2] However, more than ten apostolic canons containing imperatives (let him be deposed, etc.) refer to actions of clergy which scandalize the consciences of the faithful—such as joint prayers with heretics, indiscriminate acceptance of baptism performed by heretics, entry of a clergyman or layman “into a synagogue of Jews or heretics.” When Canon 45 says, “A Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon who prays with heretics, let him only be excommunicated; but if he permits them to act as clergy, let him be deposed,” is it speaking of a personal fault only, or is it also a matter of faith? Then why are the ecumenists denounced for praying with heretics? Likewise, Canon 46 says, “We command that a Bishop or Presbyter who accepts the baptism or sacrifice of heretics be deposed—for what concord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?”—to what does this refer, if not to matters of faith?

If the “most exact and meticulous” Saint Nikodemos held the view that matters concerning canons and canonical violations refer only to personal faults of conduct and “not to heretics and to the betrayal of the Faith,” he would not have distinguished those ten “contradictory” canons from the others, interpreting them appropriately in order to bring them, in any case, into some agreement—according to his usual practice—with what is stated in the second footnote to the third apostolic canon. However, such an interpretation would have reversed the harmony of the holy Fathers into complete confusion and discord, something which the wise saint could not possibly adopt.

But it is evident that the saint refers generally to all the canons which contain these penances, which, he says, “according to grammatical art, are in the third person imperative of the non-present. For such a command to be transmitted, it necessarily requires a second person to be present.” [3] This applies both “to those who violate the canons through personal faults” and “to those who commit crimes against the entirety of the Christians and scandalize the consciences of the faithful…” [4] And continuing, the saint refers to the consequence brought about by the non-execution of the command of the canons, saying that “if the synod does not effectively carry out the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication or anathematization of the laity, those priests and those laymen are neither deposed in actuality, nor excommunicated or anathematized.” [5]

More elucidating is the learned monk Neophytos Kavsokalyvites, who shares the same opinion as Saint Nikodemos, with the following (our translation): “When the imperatives express a command concerning a third person who is not present, it is necessarily required that a second person be involved to transmit the command; however, if the second person is not involved, the command regarding the third person will be baseless. According to this, then, for the holy canons, as the first person are received those who established these sacred canons; as the second, those to whom the instruction is addressed... namely, the hierarchs who will judge according to the laws; and as the third, the responsible persons concerning whom the laws give the command. Therefore, the sacred ordinances retain their authority unaltered, yet certainly do not act on their own automatically. Rather, since the command is directed toward third persons, it is necessary for the second person to receive it, transmit it, and then indeed to carry out the command of the first upon the third persons. Until the second person acts upon the third in accordance with the command of the first, the third is not actually culpable by virtue of the first person's command—that is, the declaration of the penalty. Similarly, those clergy appointed by means of money (simoniacs), [6] until they are judged according to the canons by the judging hierarchs and deposed, do not cease to be priests solely on account of the legal penalty, even if they have not until then been freed from their guilt; let alone that the imperatives have their meaning in the future tense and not the present.”

And the invincible Holy Chrysostom declares that “laws, when not enforced, become ineffective.” But how are the laws enforced? Neophytos says: “The imperative form in the Canonical Ordinances possesses primarily and decisively, from the first person, the character of an exhortation—that is, the act of judgment is entrusted to the second person to whom the command is addressed.” And again, in the phrase “let him be to you as the heathen and the publican,” the second person is understood to be the instrument of the Church to whom the divine word is directed (for it says, “and if he refuses to hear the Church”) in order to proclaim and apply what is commanded. For not simply, but necessarily, the ecclesiastical condemnation must precede—according to their view, this is to be carried out by those in the Church responsible for judging ecclesiastical matters (i.e., the synod of living bishops)—and only then may the one who disobeys this synod be for us “as the heathen and the publican.”… Thus, the deposing voice of the holy canons, without a co-actor, in any case cannot depose the accused by itself, solely by virtue of its potential power to depose.

It is therefore evident that “the expressions let him be deposed, let him be excommunicated, let him be anathema, etc., are imperatives directed toward the lawbreakers as third persons, and are addressed to the living bishops, the competent enforcers of ecclesiastical matters (through a local or greater synod, depending on the extent of the disturbance caused to the body of the Church), as second persons. If these bishops do not act according to the authority given to them and the act of deposition or excommunication is neglected, the penances remain ineffective. For it says, ‘whatever you bind shall be bound.’ But how can the penances concerning the accused be ‘bound’ if there is no one to bind (to impose) them?” [7]

However, the author, objecting and insisting, says that “concerning such persons [i.e., the innovative Hierarchs], the Holy Synod of Antioch has rendered a judgment, saying: ‘This man the Holy Synod has from this point already judged to be a stranger to the Church.’” (sic) [8]

Such a theory is clearly understood to overturn the function of the synodal system of the Church, if not the synodal system itself. It disregards the organ of the Church which has the mission to triumph over falsehood with the truth, to anathematize it, and with authority to cast out the persistently heretical from the Orthodox Church.

There are two flaws in the reasoning of the proponent of this theory. We hope and pray they were made out of haste. First, that he truncated the canon, presenting only the parts which emphatically serve his purpose. Second, that in passing over all the holy canons, he left aside the overwhelming majority of them, which, being of the same spirit and bearing a clearly imperative character, do not support his aim, and “having found a single phrase” in the First Council of Antioch, he clung to it in order to salvage his position. But how is it possible for the holy canons to contradict one another, since all were composed by the holy conciliar fathers, illumined by one and the same Spirit? This method of argumentation, however, with truncated excerpts, may indeed serve one’s own purpose, yet it harms the harmonious spirit of the holy canons—and even more, the one who uses them in such a way—because the canons never fall into error.

The case to which the First Council of Antioch refers concerns the violation of the Paschal rule of the First Ecumenical Council, which had convened only sixteen years prior, where those who did not accept the decree of the great council were justly and emphatically censured by the local council of Antioch: “If he persists,” it says, “contentiously opposing what has been rightly decreed.” But this emphatic expression is nothing other than a deterrent, and it can never be understood to mean that the cleric who violates the Paschal rule automatically departs from the Church—that is, without a procedural decision by his ecclesiastical superior, as though the First Canon of this local council were itself the second person, or as if it were the synod of living bishops who judges the one transgressing the decree.

A direct consequence, therefore, of the imperative character of the canons is that the prescribed related penances for canonical violations presuppose the existence of a competent judicial organ of the Church. This organ is called to carry out the command of the canons—that is, of the councils or fathers who composed them—through the imposition of the prescribed penalty for each punishable act upon the violators of these very holy canons.

[End of Part 1]

Concerning the terms “potentially” (δυνάμει) and “actually” (ἐνεργείᾳ)

In examining numerous references by ecclesiastical figures regarding the terms “potentially” and “actually,” we observed in many cases a confusion arising from the way these terms are understood, as follows:

a. That the terms have no application in matters pertaining to the divine.

b. That a “potential” heretic is one who holds heresy only in his mind, while he is called “actual” when he preaches it and does so publicly.

In the first case, the statement holds true when one attempts to interpret the Trinitarian or Christological dogma, which is by nature impossible and certainly not without danger.

In the second case, it is true as an individual conviction of the heretical position held by the deluded person himself, in relation to his activity in spreading it to other faithful.

These cases are of no concern to us, since what is at issue in our matter is the consideration of the one inclined toward heresy (whether cleric or layman) in relation to Canon Law, which requires the establishment of a competent procedural body in order to examine whether it is true or not, and to impose upon him the penance prescribed by the Canons for such violations. However, this competent judicial body may indeed exist, but may not apply the command—either for reasons of economia, or due to incapacity (e.g., because of political or ecclesiastical disorder). It is also possible that such a body may be formed, but due to being itself under accusation of heresy, the very body of bishops may not rightly divide the word of truth—something that Church history has shown us on multiple occasions.

The cleric who violates a certain canon—each canon always prescribing a specific penalty when it is transgressed (e.g., deposition)—until the command of the canon is applied to him by the competent authoritative body, is considered as being under accusation before this very judicial body, that is, the synod of the living bishops. The scholarly [9] expression of this state of accusation is that the offending cleric is considered potentially deposed [ἐν δυνάμει καθηρημένος].

If the violation concerns a dogmatic matter, that is, if we have heresy, then he is considered potentially heretical (as not yet deposed by the synod). For a remediable ecclesiastical matter, he is considered potentially schismatic.

Correspondingly, when the cleric is deposed by the synod, he is considered actually deposed, actually heretical, or actually schismatic.

If the other interpretation is accepted (see case b), that indiscriminately judged heretics or schismatics are not potentially but actually so, its consequences come into direct conflict with the practice of the Church and with the exhortative character of the holy canons, which command the subsequent synod of the living bishops to judge the accused. “The canons command the synod of the living bishops to depose the priests, or to excommunicate or anathematize the laypeople who transgress the Canons,” says Saint Nikodemos clearly. The institution of the synodal system of the Church is also abolished or disregarded as the competent judicial body of the Church, and in its place is “legislated” the entirely baseless and reckless notion of self-acting (!) penal enforcement by the holy canons.

If the potential deposition of the pseudo-cleric does not exist, then there can be no talk of being under accusation so as to hasten his deposition. Rather, he will not be deposed at all (since he will not be considered under accusation), and thus he remains free on his throne and undisturbed.

If, likewise, the hierarchy of a local Church that deviates into heresy is not considered potentially heretical, [10] then those bishops are not even regarded as being under accusation before a future greater synod. Therefore, they are not judged, and thus continue freely and undisturbed to ravage the flock of the Church.

These are the absurd consequences of disputing these terms. And yet, these objectors persist even today, failing to realize that their unsound theory is irreconcilable with the practice of the holy synods. When, finally, will they understand that these weaknesses are the "Achilles' heel" of the objecting Old Calendarists, and that the opposing New Calendarists and commemorating Athonites have exploited—and continue to exploit [11]—these extensively to throw dust in the eyes of well-intentioned New Calendarists?

A simple reading of the unacceptable book by Fr. Epiphanius Theodoropoulos The Two Extremes is enough to convince anyone of the truth of what is being said. There, he rightly states concerning Ecumenism that it is the one extreme, but his position regarding the objectors in general as the other extreme is ecclesiologically inaccurate and to be rejected. However, he had in view the unsound theory of automatism [a.k.a., poena latae sententiae in papal canon law]. But what escaped Fr. Epiphanius is that the potentiality which he himself supported, and automatism, constitute the two interpretive extremes of the 15th canon of the First-Second Council. Two theories diametrically opposed to one another. By accepting the first, we remain complacent even in the face of the most blatant betrayals of the Orthodox faith by those presiding bishops and presbyters of the Church. By accepting the second, we anathematize and condemn to spiritual death—not only the responsible clergy and those who knowingly commune with them before their synodal condemnation—but also many irresponsible ones who follow them in good faith, without knowing or understanding their condemnable course. And of course, we are deprived of the right to invoke the 15th canon as objectors, because the acceptance of the theory of automatism is in contradiction with the term objectors. Moreover, we usurp competencies that belong solely to a greater synod of the Church, which is “the final judge of all ecclesiastical matters, and to which every appeal is referred.” [12]

What is most absurd is that the competent ecclesiastical judicial body—namely, the synod of the living bishops—which is commanded by the canons being violated to judge the transgressors, loses its judicial authority and there is no longer any reason for it to be convened. However, being unable to bypass the convocation of so many synods of the Church, both local and ecumenical, they interpreted it by saying the following unreal and outrageous things: “That the synod will come only to name the heresy,” and that “the decision of the synod of the Church is merely the confirmation that the one against whom the decision is issued is already outside the Church.” (sic) [13]

We therefore ask them directly: So then, if by God’s good pleasure a Pan-Orthodox synod is convened to judge contemporary Ecumenism, will it be convened merely to name it? And what do the ecumenists have to fear from such a synod? Who will depose them from their thrones and expel them from the Orthodox Church? And if their deposition or excommunication is carried out by the synod, will it be merely a “confirmation that they are already outside the Church”? Then from where will they be deposed or excommunicated?

“No heretic is endangered by the recorded and Pedalion-included holy Canons, if there does not exist a living Synod of bishops which will apply them.” [14] They are to be applied to members of the Church who have gone astray, not to merely confirm that they are “already outside the Church.” All local and Ecumenical Councils first identified the heresies or schisms, then condemned them, and finally deposed or expelled the heretics or schismatics from the Church; they did not simply name them in such a vague and deficient manner.

What sensible person would expect, for example, that the murderer of his son be judged—or rather imprisoned—by the law alone, without the mediation of the prosecutor, the judges, and the other competent organs of public order? And Holy Scripture, through the mouth of Nicodemus, warns: “Does our law judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing?” (John 7:51).

Let each one consider how great is the responsibility of those ecclesiastical figures who advocate this delusion and act accordingly—even for a single soul “for whom Christ died.” A soul which indeed believes it is right to separate from the ecumenist New Calendar Church, yet struggles to join any faction of the Old Calendarists, simply upon hearing that he will be re-baptized or re-anointed. We leave aside how the other mysteries are handled by economia. The consistency of their words requires at the very least the repetition of those as well. And so many other absurdities follow as consequences of their theory.

Concerning the First Canon of the Third Ecumenical Council

“...If any Metropolitan of a province, having revolted from the Holy and Ecumenical Synod, has joined the assembly of the revolt or should later join it, or has held or shall hold the opinions of Celestius, such a one is in no way able to act against the Bishops of the Province, being henceforth already cast out by the Synod from all ecclesiastical communion and rendered ineffective. But also, he shall be subject to the Bishops of the Province and the surrounding Metropolitans... to be entirely expelled even from the rank of the Episcopacy.”

Concerning the same matter, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th canons of the same Council also make provisions.

We are unable to overlook the interpretive distortion of this canon by the well-known author of the (Dis)Agreement, because, being misinterpreted, it was regarded as the spearhead of the theory concerning the loss of grace in the mysteries of those heretics who have not yet been judged.

After the Third Ecumenical Council deposed and anathematized the impious Nestorius, “three days later came John of Antioch himself, along with Theodoret, Ibas, and thirty bishops, who, either grieved that the Council did not wait for their arrival (or perhaps because they were friends of Nestorius), denounced the deposition of Nestorius as unjustified.” [15] The rupture between them reached such an extent that, through synodal decisions, “those with Cyril deposed those with John,” and “those with John deposed those with the holy Cyril.” [15]

This is precisely the case to which the canon refers, and specifically it names the unlawful synod of John of Antioch together with the bishops around him as a “council of rebellion.” The canon clearly addresses the Orthodox bishops of the province—those who were not present at the Third Ecumenical Council. It declares to them: “Any Metropolitan of the province who aligned himself or in the future shall align himself with those whom the Ecumenical Council condemned”—that is, with the bishops around John of the rebellious council—“such a one has no authority to act harmfully against the bishops (of his province), or even against the laity, namely the Orthodox, because he has been cast out by this Synod from all ecclesiastical communion and priestly function, and is to be entirely expelled henceforth from the rank of the Episcopacy, even by those very Orthodox bishops and the neighboring Metropolitans.” [16]

That is to say, the Third Ecumenical Council informs the then-absent Orthodox bishops that they are to distance themselves from any Metropolitan who aligned himself or would in the future align himself with the unlawful synod of John of Antioch, because that Metropolitan, by decision of the Council, has been deprived of the right of ecclesiastical communion and sacred function, placing him under suspension. And it does not refer, as the author erroneously claims, to a definitive and completed expulsion from the Church “without the need for a decision by another Synod.” [17] The entire phrase is “the emphasized fine point of the holy canon without which it is impossible to give a correct interpretation,” [17] and not the isolated phrase “henceforth already,” as the author maintains, ultimately interpreting the canon with excessive opportunistic intent.

The necessity of deposition by “a decision of another Synod” is clearly emphasized in the continuation of the canon: “But also, he shall be subject to the bishops of the province and the surrounding metropolitans who hold to Orthodoxy, to be entirely expelled from the rank of the episcopacy.” The action of the future-tense verb “shall be subject” [ὑποκείσεται] is impossible and baseless if we interpret the phrase “henceforth already” [ἐντεῦθεν ἢδη] as the author does. Nor can it be identified with it, as it essentially belongs to the past, if we consider that the canon in question was issued once and for all by the Third Council. Therefore, the action of “shall be subject” refers to the one indicated by the canon as “having already been cast out from all ecclesiastical communion and rendered ineffective,” as one under accusation (a third person), after the issuance of the specific canon, to be definitively and conclusively deposed from “the rank of the episcopacy” by “the bishops of the province and the surrounding metropolitans.”

Likewise, the phrase “εἰς τό πάντῃ” refers to “ὑποκείσεται” and is properly interpreted as referring to manner [18]—that is, “he shall be subject” in every way, in all possible manners—and under no circumstances does St. Nikodemos agree with the author. For the “accomplished fact” [19] of the author is the expulsion “without the need for a decision of another Synod,” as he himself says, meaning in accordance with his mindset the automatic deposition of the rebellious cleric by the canon itself. But since he could not bypass the deposition by the ‘bishops of the province’, that is, by a living synod, and being constrained by the precision of the canon, he necessarily had to find some way out. And behold! He says: “They will convene in order to confirm the completed and final removal of the Metropolitan from his throne...” [20] That is, he means they are to confirm the deposition—which, in order for his readers to bypass “without getting their feet wet,” since the deposition as an act is still incomplete [21]—he renamed it “completed and final removal.”

Indeed, then, this interpretation is completely misguided. It ends in contradiction to the spirit of the sacred canon, which grants time to the one inclined toward heresy or communing with such a person to repent of his fall, before being definitively and irrevocably expelled “from the rank of the episcopacy”—as we have already said, not by the power of the canon itself, which merely prescribes the penalty, but by the synod of the living bishops.

The same spirit of compassion is evident in all the holy canons that possess an imperative character and prescribe specific penalties for those who violate them. In contrast, this misguided interpretation drives away the compassionate spirit of the canons—or rather of the holy Fathers who composed them—abolishes their imperative quality addressed to the synod of the living bishops, without which, as Holy Chrysostom says, “the laws are inactive if not enforced,” and those responsible remain indefinitely unpunished.

NOTES

1. Pedalion, footnote 2 to the 3rd apostolic canon, p. 5.

2. The Agreement of the Holy Fathers on the Manner of Receiving Heretics, by Metropolitan Makarios, 2004, p. 54.

3. Pedalion, Prolegomena, Tenth Axiom.

4. The Agreement of the Holy Fathers..., p. 57.

5. Pedalion, p. 5 (Papadimitriou edition).

6. Here Neophytos refers to the Canonical Epistle of the holy Patriarch of Constantinople Gennadios (5th century), at the point: “Let him therefore be—and he is—cast out, and a stranger to every priestly dignity and function, and subject to the curse of anathema, he who thinks to obtain it [i.e., ordination] with money, and he who promises to grant it, whether he be a clergyman or a layman, whether he be exposed or not for doing this.” And the admirable Saint Nikodemos comments on this, silencing the modern interpreters: “Some slanderers of the clergy who say that now there is no Priesthood, because most are ordained with money, base themselves on these words of the Saint, and say that not only does the Saint and the Synod around him say that such a one should be rejected by the Synod—speaking, that is, with an imperative verb which, without the mediation of a second person, is grammatically invalid—but they add also the phrase ‘he is rejected,’ and this without being deposed by others. But let them hear that the phrase let him be (ἔστω) means that such a one is to be actually and effectively cast out by the Synod that enforces the divine Canons, while the phrase he is (ἔστιν) means that he is cast out potentially and in terms of guilt; because, if both were synonymous, what need would there be for both let him be and he is? Or, if he is, then what need for let him be? The one is future, the other present, and therefore they are opposed to one another. Nevertheless, in saying these things, we do not pass over in silence the fact that it is truly dreadful for those who ordain and are ordained for money—what the Saint here declares affirmatively and definitively, that such persons are immediately cast out from the Priesthood.” And: “See how the Saint, having great zeal to utterly uproot the evil, said, whether it be exposed or not. For the second of the fourth (canon), which he cited above, says: ‘He who attempts this (i.e., simony) and is exposed, let him be in danger concerning his proper rank.’” (Pedalion, p. 696)

7. The text of Neophytos the Kausokalyvite from which the excerpt was rendered is On the Potential and Actual Force of the Holy Canons. (Epitome of Holy Canons. Anthology. Publ. ASTIR, p. 167. Edited by Hieromonk Theodoretos.)

8. The Agreement..., p. 57.

9. The designation of the terms as scientific was used by the former Metropolitan of Florina [Chrysostomos Kavouridis]. By definition alone, this designation clearly expresses the infallibility and immutability of the matter to which they refer.

“Science is the faultless and unchanging knowledge of universals. For it knows infallibly the things known, due to their unchanging and immutable nature.” (Nicephoros Blemmydes, P.G. 712, Ch. III, θ)

“Science is to know something well.” (Lexicon of I. Stamatakos)

10. Wherever we refer to a local Church as being potentially (in dynamis) schismatic or heretical, or simply inclined toward heresy or ecumenism, we always mean that it is its priesthood that has fallen and those who commune with it. In the matter at hand, it is the hierarchy that is responsible and under indictment, and this local Church is not characterized as a heretical pseudo-church, as many ecclesiastical critics today indiscriminately boast and blaspheme.

11. “For since they do not have strength in their own doctrines, they seek to capture it from our weaknesses; and for this reason, just as flies attack wounds, so too do they pounce upon our misfortunes—or rather, our sins.” (St. Gregory the Theologian, Theological Oration I to the Eunomians – Prologue)

12. Pedalion, footnote 2 of Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council – p. 161.

13. K.G.O. – p. 449.

14. The Calendar Schism: Potential or Actual? (Theodoretos, Hieromonk of the Holy Mountain, 1973, p. 6).

15. Pedalion, footnote 2 of Canon 1.

16. Pedalion, interpretation by St. Nikodemos.

17. The Agreement of the Holy Fathers... by Metropolitan Makarios, pp. 62–63.

18. Lexicon by I. Stamatakos.

19. The Agreement... ibid.

20. The Agreement... ibid.

21. It is clear that the author’s “accomplished fact” and the canon’s “shall be subject to” are chronologically incompatible.

 

Greek source (part 1): https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/09/blog-post_10.html

Greek source (part 2): http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/09/blog-post_30.html

Footnote numbering combined.