Archimandrite Spyridon Bilalis (+1974) on the Lifting of the Anathemas

Excerpt from the book Orthodoxy and Papism

From an Orthodox theological standpoint, the Patriarch’s initiative to lift the anathema is considered an unacceptable audacity and a contradiction to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, even though it was presented as a triumph of love by theologians who lacked full theological formation and by non-theological circles. Based on the tradition of the God-bearing Fathers, we believe that the kind of love which forgives delusion and undermines the Orthodox faith has nothing to do with the true commandment of love proclaimed by the Lord, who said that He is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

With the lifting of the anathema against Rome, it was implicitly suggested that the anathema issued by [Ecumenical Patriarch] Michael Cerularius against the deluded Papists was unjust.

The patriarchal explanation regarding the meaning of the lifting of the Anathemas of 1054 adds that this event “was also an act of realization of the injustice that had been done nine centuries earlier to the detriment of the unity of the Church.”

If Rome had understood the crime of the papal envoys in 1054 against the unity of the Church, it should long ago have renounced the anathema against the Orthodox Church. But what wrongdoing was the Orthodox Eastern Church supposed to recognize through the lifting of the anathema against the Papal Church—something Patriarch Athenagoras proceeded to do with such ease and haste?

The Latin anathema against the Orthodox Church, judged by its substance, never weighed upon the Orthodox conscience, since Michael Cerularius, against whom the anathema was primarily hurled, was a wholly Orthodox Patriarch. Orthodoxy, preserving intact the faith in Christ, was never harmed by the papal anathema. The “sword” of the Roman anathema proved powerless to wound the Orthodox Church of Christ, which always sets forth “the breastplate of faith” (1 Thess. 5:8).

Patriarch Germanus II of Constantinople (1222–1240) rightly observes in his address to Pope Gregory IX:

“We Greeks are unstruck and untouched by the sword of the anathema; whereas the Italians and Latins are severely afflicted…”

P. Trembelas, characterizing the Latin anathema of 1054 as worthy of contempt, asks:

“What would it mean, then, for our Church if that ridiculous, powerless, and baseless anathema—which was arbitrarily issued by some cardinal—had not been completely lifted?”

On the contrary, what benefit would Rome derive from the lifting of the anathema against the Latin Church? Would Rome come to its senses, or would it become more entrenched in the conviction that it possesses the whole truth and lose the hope of returning to the right faith, from which it had fundamentally strayed?

P. Trembelas observes in this regard:

“For whose benefit does this lifting truly—or rather fancifully—create advantages? For the Roman Catholic Church?… The lifting of the anathema, at a time when the Western Church stubbornly persists in its delusions, constitutes an indirect acknowledgment on our part that these delusions are not worthy of severe condemnation. Have we not gone too far in displays of supposed love toward the Western Church? And is it not now time to stop, awaiting from its side an equal manifestation of love?”

Patriarch Athenagoras proceeded with the lifting of the excommunication of 1054 on his own initiative, limiting himself merely to the intention of the lifting (December 6, 1965), and announced his decision to the individual Orthodox Churches by means of a telegraphic encyclical, which concluded: “This act of the lifting of the excommunications will take place both here and in Rome…”

The Patriarch did not await, as he was obliged to, the consent of the other autocephalous Churches, but instead announced the decision of the lifting, which had already been formally scheduled jointly between Constantinople and Rome. Athenagoras based his bold initiative on the decision of the Third Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes, which stated: “Each of the local Orthodox Churches is free to continue, on its own and not in the name of the whole of Orthodoxy, to cultivate friendly relations with the Roman Catholic Church.”

Judging the decision of Rhodes, the late Archbishop Chrysostomos II [Hatzistavrou] of Athens writes:

“We know of no provision in the Holy Canons that permits an Autocephalous Orthodox Church to have communion on its own and not in the name of the whole of Orthodoxy with any heterodox Church… This institution is, in terms of the canons, unknown, and not even the Church of Constantinople—which by custom holds a primacy of honor—has the right to act in the name of the whole of Orthodoxy. It is canonically forbidden for any Autocephalous Orthodox Church to act alone and to maintain relations with the heterodox. We greatly fear that this decision of the Third Pan-Orthodox Conference may lead to the creation of a schism within the Orthodox Church of Christ, because it separates Orthodoxy as a whole from each local Church. There is one Orthodox Christian Faith and one Church that performs its worship—the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ.”

Woe unto us if the spirit of the decision of a Pan-Orthodox Council favors the undertaking of uncanonical initiatives by any Orthodox Church, which may come into conflict with the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, as happened with the Patriarch’s decision to lift the excommunications of 1054!

Moreover, the decision of Rhodes was taken hastily, without broad discussion, even though serious reservations had been expressed. Professor Ioannis Karmiris, who was present at the Council, writes:

“We had reservations and wished for clarifications to be made regarding the entire wording of the text, but it was no longer possible to initiate a general discussion due to the lateness of the hour and the prevailing tension. Serious decisions should not be taken hastily and in the manner in which this one was taken—without extended free discussion by all the delegates and without the texts having been distributed in due time for study and correction.”

Metropolitan Philaret, president of the Hierarchical Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, points out the danger of a rupture in the unity of the Orthodox Churches caused by the lifting of the excommunications of 1054, in a letter to Patriarch Athenagoras:

“If the schism with Rome began primarily in Constantinople, it was afterward accepted by the entire Orthodox Church and became an issue for the whole Orthodox world. No Local Church—even the Church of Constantinople, honored by all, from which the Russian Church received the treasure of Orthodoxy—can decide on its own without the consent of all. Much more so, we, the currently governing bishops, cannot make decisions contrary to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, especially when the matter concerns the West, such as Saints Photius of Constantinople and Mark of Ephesus.

Based on these principles, we consider it our duty to protest decisively against the act of Your Holiness regarding the joint declaration with the Pope of Rome for the lifting of the excommunication. This act does not agree with the position of our entire Church toward Roman Catholicism. This is not a matter of personal differences with the Pope or Cardinal Humbert. The issue concerns the deviations from Orthodoxy that took root in the Roman Church over the centuries. Your joint declaration with the Pope correctly acknowledges that ‘mutual forgiveness’ is not sufficient for resolving the old and recent disagreements. But even this is not enough: this act equates falsehood with truth.

Throughout the course of the centuries, the Orthodox Church has rightly believed that it did not deviate from the teaching of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, whereas the Roman Church introduced innovations contrary to Orthodoxy. And the more innovations it introduced, the greater became the schism between East and West.”

And Metropolitan Philaret concludes:

“We earnestly entreat Your Holiness to put an end to the scandal, for the path you have chosen—even if it were to lead to reconciliation with the Roman Catholics—will cause the division of the Orthodox world, since many of your spiritual children will choose either the faith of Orthodoxy or the ecumenical idea of a compromise union with the heterodox without full agreement in the truth.”

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_83.html