Theories About Obedience in Matters of Faith

Is separation from heretics conditional upon obedience to an elder? What is the Orthodox teaching?

Hieromonk Euthymios Trikaminas | December 1, 2013

[An older but still relevant article.]

 

The period we are going through as a preparation for the great feast of Christmas includes, among other things, for us clergy, also more spiritual labor (I mean primarily confession and spiritual guidance, visiting the sick, etc.), so that there is no time left for being informed about and responding to various texts published on the internet and elsewhere.

However, since a copy of a text was sent to me, which sets as an indispensable condition for someone to wall himself off that he must have previously received the blessing of his elder and spiritual father, I deemed it necessary to write some thoughts for the sake of truth, so that every well-intentioned reader may understand the slippery and unpatristic nature of this theory, and that it constitutes a mere excuse in order not to act, in a time of heresy, according to what was established by Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers.

The text that was sent to me is from the blog “Katanyxis,” and it refers to the obedience shown by the abbot of the Holy Monastery of Konstamonitou, Fr. Agathon, to his elder, Fr. Ephraim of Arizona, even though, when he saw certain heretical acts of Patriarch Bartholomew in relation to the Pope, he himself wished as a result to immediately cease the commemoration of the heretical Patriarch. Then Fr. Ephraim restrained him and told him that the time for walling off had not yet come, and thus Fr. Agathon obeyed his elder. [It should be noted, Fr. Agathon did cease commemoration of the patriarch after the 2016 Pseudo-Council of Crete – trans. note]

The administrator of that blog, Fr. Nikolaos Manolis [who also walled-off after the 2016 Pseudo-Council of Crete – trans. note], justified this stance of Fr. Agathon, and moreover, an effort was made by both of them to establish it as an Orthodox line in a time of heresy—namely, that the blessing and consent of one’s elder is required in order for someone to wall himself off and to be ecclesiastically separated from heresy and its bearers.

First of all, I must mention that from the beginning of our monastic dedication, all the fathers of the Holy Mountain without exception (even elders such as Fr. Ephraim of Philotheou and Fr. Ephraim of Katounakia) taught us that there are two cases exempt from obedience: matters of faith and of morals. That is, if I am asked to obey in matters of faith or morals, I must not obey, insofar as such obedience would harm me in regard to the faith and morals. Now, unfortunately, with what Fr. Agathon and Fr. Nikolaos Manolis are writing and saying, they equate faith and lower it to the level of all other matters, for which indeed the blessing of one’s elder is needed, in order for the monk or layperson to be safeguarded and not to cultivate pride through self-will.

St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite conveys to us the teaching of St. Nikephoros the Confessor, who teaches that the first reason for which a monk may leave the monastery of his repentance is when the abbot is a heretic (Commentary on the 21st Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). From this patristic teaching, it is again concluded that when the matter concerns the faith, all else is set aside—even obedience. For a monk to leave the monastery, in other cases, is considered a most grievous sin that entails shunning and exclusion from communion for the monk, and deposition for those—bishops or abbots—who receive him.

But even if we consider the matter practically, it would be foolish and extremely dangerous for the blessing of the elder to be required in order for someone to distance himself from the wolf and the venomous serpent. For this is how the heretics are characterized and likened by all the Fathers without exception. This means that heretics are incomparably worse and more dangerous than the hirelings and strangers, about whom the Lord speaks and from whom He also teaches us to withdraw and to flee: “And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (John 10:5).

Here the Lord speaks of walling off from all the hirelings and strangers, who, according to His teaching, flee when they see the wolf coming and leave the sheep unprotected. Now, if this does not concern hireling and strange shepherds, but rather heretical shepherds, who are themselves wolves according to the unanimous teaching of the Saints, how much more should the rational sheep distance themselves (wall themselves off) ecclesiastically from them?

You, however, fathers, on the contrary, teach that in order for us to wall ourselves off from heretical shepherds, the blessing of the elder–spiritual father is absolutely necessary, and when this is not given, then we remain with the wolves “until the proper time,” as happened, according to his own confession, with Fr. Agathon. That is to say, the obedience which the Fathers instituted as slaying of the passions, you have turned into slaying of the soul.

What is most grievous is that you also attempt to present the Fathers as being in agreement with these newly-fashioned theories of yours. For this reason, you claim that the New Martyrs [of the Turkish Yoke], before being led to martyrdom, would receive the blessing and consent of their elder. You write specifically the following:

“Seeing the ascetical mindset of Elder Agathon, and the martyric mindset, and the confessional mindset, Elder Ephraim does what all the Holy elders did, who saw their children with a disposition to go and be martyred.

“If the beloved brother opens the Martyrologies, especially those of the New Martyrs, he will see that many New Martyrs decided to go and confess their Faith to the … Turks and to be martyred, but they always did this with a blessing. This is the Orthodox mindset. Was the elder who did not give his blessing (for them to be martyred) un-Orthodox? He simply saw that years needed to pass; he saw that perhaps a more organized resistance needed to take place.”

Here, first of all, you distort the purpose of walling off, for whereas the Fathers established it as self-protection in a time of heresy, you have taken it to mean an organized campaign against heretical shepherds in a time of heresy. This is evidently why you want many people to follow this path, and if such people do not exist, then you remain in the mouth of the wolf “until the proper time.” Here, besides everything else, one can also discern an obvious cowardice, for you undoubtedly rely on the multitude and not on the grace of God. And you want walling off to take place, as the saying goes, “without getting your feet wet,” and for this reason you regard it as martyrdom—whereas the Fathers considered martyrdom to be the sacrifice of their body, not the sacrifice of honors, which in essence are an obstacle to our salvation.

Ultimately, the example of the New Martyrs which you cite is entirely inappropriate and misleading, because the Fathers and elders would prevent some from martyrdom insofar as they discerned a weakness in their disposition and inclination to give everything for Christ—even their very life. However, they did not prevent them, nor was it ever necessary for them to seek their blessing, in order to return from the delusion of the unbelievers, to wall themselves off from them, and to return through repentance to the Church.

Your example would be fitting, fathers, if the New Martyrs had sought the blessing of their elders in order to separate themselves from the unbelievers. In our case, however, the heretical shepherds are far more deceitful and dangerous than the unbelievers, because they operate within the space of the Church—they are the wolves inside the sheepfold, the enemies within the walls, the fox inside the henhouse. And you teach that we should remain near them, even if only “until the proper time,” that we must have the blessing of our elders in order to wall ourselves off, and you further claim that the New Martyrs did the same.

One last thing I also wish to add. You state the following below:

“And let me tell you the following. I, too, as well as all of us who react against the Ecumenistic overtures of the Patriarch, are in danger. We are in danger at any moment. Our head is in the sack. Is that not a confession? Are the others, who have walled themselves off or chosen another path, in greater danger?

“We do it willingly, we do it voluntarily, we choose an anti-Ecumenist stance, but we also have elders. Our elders are enlightened by God. When Elder Ephraim from America, whose holiness we know, says that the time has not yet come, I do not dwell on that—I dwell on the obedience to the elder. And that is the Orthodox mindset.”

Here, for the sake of truth, we must point out that it is not you who are in danger, nor do you have your head in the sack, but it is your positions that are in danger, and those are what you have in the sack. But in fact, as it seems, not even those are truly in danger, because the Ecumenists tolerate your reaction up to this point—and I believe that you are unintentionally helping them, for they use you as a New Age-style model of controlled opposition, to defuse and mislead concerned Orthodox faithful. So we must reassure you that your positions are not in danger, for they would only be at risk if you were to act in accordance with what the Fathers established in times of heresy. And even then, that would not in the least be comparable to the martyrdom of the Saints, the New Martyrs, and the self-called martyrs.

Ultimately, I believe that in our time we have made everything difficult and martyric, because evidently our inclination has been reduced to the bare minimum—whereas, if it were present, it would not consider small things as difficult, but great things as easy.

In closing, I want to present to you the teaching of the Holy Apostles in a time of heresy, so that you may understand the personal responsibility that each one bears when he is ruled by heretical shepherds, and, of course, that no blessing is needed in order to separate from them, but only a good disposition and alignment with the teaching of the Saints:

“Listen, O bishops, and listen, O laypeople, as God says: ‘I will judge ram against ram and sheep against sheep,’ and to the shepherds He says: ‘You shall be judged on account of your ignorance and the corruption brought upon the sheep’—that is, I will judge bishop against bishop, and layman against layman, and ruler against ruler. For these rams and sheep are rational, not irrational, so that the layman may not say: ‘I am a sheep and not a shepherd.’ For just as a sheep that does not follow the good shepherd is exposed to destruction by wolves, so also the sheep that follows the evil shepherd is clearly destined for death, for it will be devoured. Therefore, one must flee from the corrupting shepherds.” (Apostolic Constitutions, II.19 – BEΠEΣ 2,25,20)

And a little further down, the Holy Apostles teach the following:

“For there are many who rejoice in evil, double-tongued, having a ‘threefold tongue,’ haters of the brethren, setting as their task the scattering of Christ’s sheep. If you wish to accept their words without discernment, you will scatter your own flock and deliver it over to wolves for devouring—that is, to demons and evil men, or rather not even to men, but to beasts in human form, to pagans, and Judaizers, and atheistic heretics.” (BEΠEΣ 2,27,27)

I believe, ultimately, that the abbots—by their stance—do nothing other than hand over to the heretics the flock that was entrusted to them. If, however, fathers, you find any teaching of Holy Scripture or of the Holy Fathers which teaches remaining under heretical shepherds or requiring the blessing of elders in order for someone to separate ecclesiastically from them, we ask you to show it to us, for up to now we have encountered in the Saints the exact opposite.

 

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2013/12/oi.html