Examples of Common Prayer and Communion with the Heterodox Prior to 1920

Source: "Ακρίτοι Αιρετικοί και Εκκλησία" [Unjudged Heretics and the Church], by Panagiotis Makris

(...)

If, therefore, even consecrations performed by bishops who preached heretical doctrines—yet had not yet been synodally condemned and still remained within the Church—are not considered invalid, why should we consider the other Mysteries they performed as invalid?

Let us now refer to a few more cases from Church history:

The existence of instances of ecclesiastical communion between Orthodox and heterodox, which we will mention below, demonstrates that ecumenistic deviations—similar to those seen today—were also occurring a few decades before the schism of 1924. This does not mean that we approve of these actions, nor do we believe that the mistakes of the past should continue to be repeated. However, the purpose of using these examples is to illustrate how detached from reality is the belief held by some of our brethren that the terms potentially and in actuality apply only to canonical offenses of clergy and not to heresies and schisms.

a) In the early 19th century, "among many Orthodox clergy and laity, there prevailed great ignorance and confusion regarding the relationship between Orthodoxy and the heterodox..." One of the foreign missionaries, the Greek-speaking Artley, having established a school in Aegina, preached from the pulpit of the Orthodox church on the island, with among his listeners none other than the then-Bishop of Talantion, Neophytos Metaxas. This same bishop, later as Bishop of Attica, maintained close relations with foreign missionaries and was even present at Protestant funerals conducted in Orthodox churches.

b) During the reception of King Otto upon his first arrival in Athens, Neophytos, dressed in full hierarchical vestments, had Protestant pastors in his entourage! A Protestant retinue, an Orthodox hierarch, and a Papist king formed a composition reminiscent of an external ecumenistic unity! Ecumenistic notions were already deeply corroding the Church in Greece.

c) In 1837, Patriarch Gregory VI of Constantinople permitted the performance of blessings for the Armenians, while in 1874, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople allowed the distribution of the Great Blessing of Waters to these same heretics.

d) In 1879, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople also permitted, by economia, Orthodox priests “to baptize Armenian children, to administer the Mysteries to Armenians at the hour of death as Armenians, and to perform their weddings in cases where a priest was unavailable,” but only “in cases of urgent and unavoidable necessity.” In other words, "sacramental communion with the Armenians was introduced through the Holy Eucharist, Baptism, and Marriage." Until that time, the Orthodox clergy of the Ionian Islands "did not hesitate to baptize the children of the British" "when no Anglican priests were available," as well as to officiate weddings and burials for "Roman Catholics (Uniates) in Syria."

e) In the mid-19th century, both the Holy Synod of the Kingdom of Greece and the Church of Constantinople permitted the celebration of mixed marriages between Orthodox and heterodox through their respective decisions.

f) In 1869, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople further decided that, “in the absence of a heterodox priest, heterodox individuals may be buried by Orthodox priests according to a designated special rite, and they may also be interred in Orthodox cemeteries.”

g) In the year 1863, an Anglican clergyman was admitted to the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist in Serbia, with the approval of the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church.

Additional Examples from Church History: During the period of Turkish and Venetian rule, efforts toward union with the Latins were almost entirely eliminated. However, the difficult circumstances of that time, combined with intense Western propaganda, significantly weakened the resistance of the subjugated Orthodox clergy and laity, who lived in a state of extreme ignorance and darkness. The events of that era reveal the ignorance and confusion of certain Orthodox Christians regarding their relations with the heterodox, the distortion of their ecclesiastical mindset, and the loss of their Orthodox sensitivity.

The longstanding practice of Orthodox Christians receiving Holy Communion from the Latins and vice versa—particularly in the Aegean and Ionian islands—testifies to the fact that the awareness had been lost that the Holy Eucharist distinguishes Orthodoxy from heretical ecclesiastical bodies. A papal school also "educated" Athonite monks for seven years, while the Monastery of Saint Nicholas in Thera had Jesuits as confessors. Furthermore, the addresses of bishops and abbots to the pope exceeded the bounds of reason.

The ecclesiastical leaders were even more accommodating to Western imperialism. Orthodox bishops allowed Papists to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in Orthodox churches. In 1651, Joseph, Bishop of Paros and Naxos, urged the heretical Capuchins to hear confessions and teach the Orthodox people. [13] The Metropolitan of Smyrna "granted permission to Jesuits to confess the clergy of his diocese, and the clergy, in turn, installed the Jesuits within Orthodox churches to hear the confessions of the people." [14] Similarly, in 1680, Damaskinos, Bishop of Aegina, followed the same practice, while another metropolitan regularly went to confession to a French Capuchin.

The holy Makarios of Patmos lamented with sorrow: "So many local and ecumenical councils have excommunicated and anathematized the Latins, and yet you still doubt whether they are anathematized? Do you still not believe that they are heretics?… And how do you regard the Latins as Orthodox?… What sign have you seen from this 'Latin priest' that he is capable of performing a Mystery, and yet you run to him and confess?… At that very moment, you are separated from God the Most High, the Almighty." [15]

The venerable Athanasius of Paros, like Saint Nicodemus [16], resisted the Latin-minded of his time and taught: "Who, then, would claim that those who are entirely unbaptized (the Latins) should not be baptized when they come to the Catholic Church? Surely no one, unless he has lost all reason and understanding. Therefore, they are baptized everywhere, even if some, driven more by passion or ignorance, still wish to object, citing the so-called Canon that accepts those returning from the Latins through Chrismation." [17]

Numerous testimonies from the 16th and 17th centuries indicate that it was common practice for Orthodox to receive Communion from the Latins and vice versa. Additionally, we find: Commemoration and recognition of Latin bishops, occasional concelebrations, mixed Sacraments, administration of Mysteries to heretics, funeral services for heretics, studies in schools of the heterodox, and authorization for Papal Capuchins to hear confessions and teach

Even metropolitans and monks went to Latins for confession, due to the difficult circumstances in Turkish- and Latin-occupied regions, something vehemently condemned by Saint Makarios of Patmos. In the mid-17th century, Athonite monasteries repeatedly invited Jesuits to establish a school on Mount Athos for the spiritual education of the monks! Likewise, at the same time, in many places—Jerusalem, Alexandria, and elsewhere—Orthodox and Latins sang services in different parts of the same church! During this period, dialogues also took place with various branches of the Monophysites and Protestants, whom a strong faction sympathized with and defended. Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite condemned the "Latin-minded" of his time, or, as he called them, "unpaid defenders of the Latin pseudo-baptism." In 1755, the Eastern Patriarchs synodally decided that those coming from the Latins should be rebaptized when entering Orthodoxy, as until then, Latins had been received primarily by Chrismation. Despite this, the Latin-minded opposed this decision and continued to receive Latins baptized by papal sprinkling through Chrismation alone. Saint Nicodemus grieved over the great corruption, distortion, and misinterpretation of the holy canons that had occurred until then and over the "deadly and spiritually destructive fruit" that resulted from it. At the same time, he wisely rebuked the theologians of his era for their heretical and blasphemous beliefs.

From all the above, it follows that the second current, represented by Mr. Chrysostomos [Kavouridis], is justified in asserting that schismatics and heretics who have not been condemned have not lost Divine Grace from their Mysteries.

(...)

 

[13] Theodoretos, Monk, Eucharistic Participation on Mount Athos, 1972, pp. 36-37.

[14] Ch. Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West, Athens 1992, p. 97.

[15] Evangelical Trumpet, Sermon on the Feast of the Three Hierarchs, Athens 1867, pp. 326-327.

[16] Pedalion, Athens 1970, note on the 46th Apostolic Canon, p. 56.

[17] Epitome or Collection of the Divine Dogmas of the Faith, Leipzig 1709, pp. 350-352.