Final Conclusions: “The Concept of Defilement of the Orthodox from Ecclesiastical Communion with Uncondemned Heretics”

Chapter VII of Η έννοια του Μολυσμού των Ορθοδόξων εκ της εκκλησιαστικής κοινωνίας μη καταδικασθέντων αιρετικών, by Hieromonk Eugenios, Thessaloniki, 2023, pp. 697-722.

Concluding the study and examination of all these Chapters, we arrive at the following:

1. From Chapter A

It is concluded that:

There exists defilement from communion with uncondemned heretics among the Orthodox, as evidenced by the passage from the Prophet Ezekiel according to the interpretation of the Fathers, and by the testimonies of the Holy Apostles, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the Holy Fathers (this is also affirmed by St. Basil the Great; see pp. 557ff.).

2. From Chapter B

Just as the Third Ecumenical Council viewed Nestorius, the Fourth Ecumenical Council viewed Dioscorus, the Sixth Ecumenical Council viewed Macarios, the Seventh Ecumenical Council viewed the summoned Iconoclast bishops who came forward, and finally, the Ninth Ecumenical Council viewed John Kalekas (and Gregory Akindynos), it is evident from the irrefutable official documents and evidence of these Councils that: All of them possessed (valid) priesthood, literally [1102] and precisely, until their deposition, [1103] at which point they lost it. And all of them had priesthood while they persisted in unrepentance (which is why they were deposed) or before their repentance, in the case of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Although, as demonstrated in the relevant sections and groups, heretics existed and, in some cases, even officially adopted heresy at the level of local Churches [1104] (see pp. 85–86 and note 159), for many years (as with the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils), having prevailed over the Church, [1105] they espoused heresies that had been previously condemned. These heresies were synodically renewed and recognized within the Church, only to be condemned and anathematized anew by local Orthodox Councils. The Orthodox refrained from communion with them. Nevertheless, the validity of their priesthood remained intact (i.e., uninjured). (This is evident, at least, from the Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils; see note 1104). (For the meaning of anathema in these cases, see the relevant section in the "Appendices," pp. 444ff.).

Deposition, [1106] as explained infallibly by the Ecumenical Councils, is not merely the acknowledgment of priesthood already lost when heresy had been synodically recognized. Rather, it is the removal of it [1107]: "having been deprived of the grace of priesthood," as the Fourth Council states (and all the Councils affirm), which was carried out by the "Lord God and the assembly of bishops" through specific synodical acts of "decrees of deposition" [1108] and on particular dates (see the relevant section in the "Appendices" concerning the meaning of deposition).

Consequently, defilement understood as automatic deposition and invalid [1109] or nonexistent mysteries [1110] has already been demonstrated as unfounded in the proceedings of all the Ecumenical Councils — St. Basil the Great also agrees with this (see pp. 580ff.) — even after the synodical recognition of heresy, [1111] as we have in our time with the Council of Crete in 2016.

3. From Chapter C

It is concluded that:

1. The root and cause of defilement is heresy, which is sown by the devil himself in the heart of the believer. The formerly Orthodox individual now becomes a heretic because they accepted it. [1112]

2. It defiles the individual by separating them from God. [1113] This is the first consequence it brings, as documented in the synodical decree of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (see p. 445). The same is testified by Abba Agathon, who did not accept being called a heretic [1114] because heresy separates one from God (see pp. 448–449). Up to this point, defilement concerns the individual; the remaining effects concern the entirety of the Church.

3. It causes schism within the Church. We saw St. John of Damascus teach that we are united through the reception of the Most Holy Mysteries with the Lord and with one another. This unity is disrupted by the uncondemned heretic, [1115] as they have been separated from God. This is confirmed by the proceedings of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (the inclusion of Pope Vigilius’s name is directly related to the unity of the holy Churches) [1116] and by the 15th holy Canon of the First-Second Council, which addresses the schism caused by the heretic. The Church is freed from this schism by the one who ceases communion with the heretic prior to a synodical judgment (see the relevant section in the "Appendices," pp. 501ff.).

4. The mysteries of both the heretic and those knowingly communing with them are defiled. This is substantiated in the proceedings of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, where Pope Vigilius’s name was removed to prevent the mysteries of the Orthodox bishops of the Fifth Ecumenical Council who commemorated him from being defiled, as he had supported impiety. The same is also affirmed by the synodical decree of Peter of Jerusalem and the directive of Justinian, as well as other testimonies (see the relevant chapter).

It is not only because the priest has ceased to perform mysteries due to his deposition that we must refrain from him, but also because of his mindset. For it is from this that the defilement of his mysteries arises, and "those whose mindset we reject, it is fitting to avoid them in communion" (see the relevant section in the "Appendices," pp. 679ff.).

5. Defilement of mysteries means [1117]: judgment and condemnation, [1118] both for the priest and for those who knowingly commune with him. It is analogous to someone who has committed a mortal sin and, remaining unrepentant, approaches to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ but does so to their judgment and condemnation. This is substantiated in the proceedings of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: "For only then can one hope to receive forgiveness of sins, if they are deemed worthy to partake of the holy mysteries from priests who worship God in an Orthodox manner..." (see p. 177). The same is affirmed by St. Basil the Great, St. John of Damascus, and St. Meletios of Galesios (see p. 178).

6. Defilement and further clarifications: It means participating in impiety (heresy), condemnation (by God) of the uncondemned heretic (whether cleric or layperson), and ultimately, it separates us from the grace of God (see the relevant section in the "Appendices," pp. 501ff., 540ff.). This is substantiated in the proceedings of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: "...to partake in the impiety of Nestorius and Theodore..." (see p. 180), by St. Basil the Great (see pp. 586ff.), St. John of Damascus (see pp. 182ff.), the Athonite Fathers (see pp. 185ff.), St. Gregory Palamas (see p. 191), and generally in Chapter Γ’ of this book, which elaborates on this teaching (see note 850). [1119]

Communion with a heretic is understood by the Fathers as either commemorating them or concelebrating with them in the case of a cleric, and as receiving the Mysteries from them in the case of a layperson. Similarly, it includes joint prayer and even social interaction, such as dining together. [1120]

It must certainly be clarified that "knowingly" plays a decisive role in all these matters, regarding how consciously the first or second person communes with the heretic. The question of accountability rests with God's judgment, as He ultimately knows the degree of responsibility and defilement each person incurs through communion with heresy. [1121] "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?" (Romans 11:34) and "He who searches the minds and hearts" (Revelation 2:23). St. Theodore the Studite states: "For it is not possible to make a definitive judgment, because one differs from another in person, knowledge, zeal, and age." [1122]

We are obliged to replicate what the Fathers have handed down to us; numerous excerpts have been presented precisely to avoid error. In the Wisdom of Solomon, it says: "...and the mighty shall be mightily tested" (Wisdom of Solomon 6:6). And in the Gospel, the Lord says: "That servant who knew his master's will but did not prepare himself or do according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes; but he who did not know and committed things deserving of stripes shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more" (Luke 12:47-48). [1123]

From Chapter D

It is derived that:

The principle "let him who communicates with one who is excommunicated be excommunicated" from the 2nd holy Canon of the Council of Antioch, according to the teaching of the Holy Apostles, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the sacred Canons, and the Holy Fathers, the term "excommunicated" does not refer only to a condemned heretic but also to a heretic "excommunicated" without condemnation. The imposition of excommunication by the 2nd holy Canon, "let him be excommunicated," [1124] and by the 10th Apostolic Canon, "let him be cut off," upon one who communicates with an uncondemned "excommunicated" person, carries the sense of avoiding defilement. Just as the imposition of excommunication upon one who communicates with a condemned heretical "excommunicated" person carries the sense of avoiding the defilement that contaminates the one who communicates with him, and this defilement is transmitted to the one who communicates with the person who communicates with the condemned heretical "excommunicated" person, in the same way, the same happens with one who communicates with the person who communicates with an uncondemned heretical "excommunicated" person. For the Fathers, communion with a heretic, whether condemned or not, has the same consequences: separation from God for the Orthodox person who communicates with him (whether the one or the other).

On the other hand, just as excommunication is imposed on an uncondemned heretic to avoid defilement for the Orthodox, in the same way, excommunication is imposed on one who communicates with an uncondemned heretical "excommunicated" person. Excommunication of an uncondemned heretic, excommunication of an Orthodox person who communicates with him. Since the first occurs to avoid defilement, the second consequently has the same meaning: avoidance of defilement. The principle of interconnected vessels. Participation in the schism of the uncondemned heretic through direct or indirect communion with Orthodox individuals knowingly communicating with him.

And otherwise, since the defilement is transmitted from an uncondemned heretic to an Orthodox person who knowingly communicates with him, then this defilement is also transmitted to the third person who communicates with them (that is, this third person communicates directly with one who communicates with an uncondemned heretic and indirectly with the uncondemned heretic).

5. From Chapter E

It is derived that:

The application of oikonomia does not negate the above conclusions; on the contrary, it confirms them. Because defilement exists and because the relevant holy Canons command the removal from uncondemned heretics, oikonomia comes as an act by the Bishops and synodically—only because it is a very serious matter (see pp. 257–258, 290, 303, 405)—to temporarily permit what is strictly impermissible according to the holy Canons. This is done under the condition of an undeniable necessity for the salvation of souls and the acceptance of this oikonomia by the fullness of the Church

Oikonomia cannot annul the defilement that occurs in the heretic himself. Similarly, it does not diminish the defilement for those who commemorate him or otherwise communicate with him when heresy is openly taught in the Church. An exception is when there is a case of superior force (such as with the Franks, meaning the fear of slaughter of millions of faithful). Another exception is the weakness of the one who communicates with the heretic—communicating only in secondary matters (see the end of this paragraph)—as oikonomia seeks to gradually lead him to precision. In other words, oikonomia coexists with the defilement, with a continuous emphasis on precision prevailing through oikonomia over the defilement, and for this reason, it is temporary. It ceases entirely when the one under oikonomia reaches the complete observance of precision. This second oikonomia was practiced by Saint Theodore the Studite, as it is the only one permitted for priests and even for an individual bishop. This oikonomia can be applied when the following basic conditions are met:

Regarding Orthodox clergy (who would be recipients of oikonomia): they must not commemorate a heretical bishop, must not concelebrate with heretical clergy, and must not administer the Holy Mysteries to a heretic.

Regarding Orthodox laypersons: they must not partake of the chalice of the uncondemned heretic (see p. 373).

Thus, oikonomia, we reiterate, proves the existence of defilement because defilement exists and the relevant holy Canons are obligatory; for this reason, oikonomia is exercised (see pp. 257ff.). Therefore, oikonomia and the optionality of the holy Canons do not apply, because if the Canons were optional, there would be no need for the exercise of oikonomia, as in that case, the Canons themselves would grant the canonical possibility of communion with the heretic.

And now, let us be permitted to include a passage drawn from the introduction of the book “The Fifth Ecumenical Council” by Metropolitan Meletios:

"...This unity is disturbed only by heterodoxies. Whoever thinks otherwise than what he has received ceases to possess the unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit. For this reason, according to the Fifth Council (Act I, § 3,17), the supreme duty of the priests, the guardians of the Church, is the preservation and safeguarding of the unity of faith. The fall of priests from the unity of faith defiles the mysteries they perform and removes from them the gift of spiritual fatherhood. Instead of shepherds, they become wolves, devouring their flock (see Act VI, § 15,10 and Act I, § 3,14). For this reason, Justinian declares (and the Council confirms this "stance" [in Act VII, § 16,1-2]) that he would never tolerate receiving Holy Communion from priests suspected of heresy.

"And the Orthodox, throughout the entire duration of the Acacian schism, refused to partake of the immaculate mysteries from the hands of those simply suspected. 'Why do we remain excommunicated for so many (35) years? Why do we not commune?' (ACO 3, p. 72). Priests and fathers are only those who preserve the faith unadulterated (Act I, § 3,14)."

Every priest performs the immaculate mysteries worthily and for sanctification, only as long as he is united with the faith of the Church. To declare and safeguard this unity, the commemoration of the holy Diptychs is conducted. In the Diptychs of the living, the names of the "communing" Orthodox bishops and patriarchs are inscribed and pronounced. Therefore, our Council, to safeguard the purity of the holy mysteries, removed from the holy Diptychs the name of the then-reigning Pope Vigilius (see Act VII, § 16-17). In the Diptychs of the departed, only Orthodox fathers and teachers are commemorated. Thus, when it was confirmed that Theodore was preaching heterodox doctrines, his name was removed from the holy Diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia. "It is foreign to Christians to commemorate heretics in the holy Diptychs," our Council emphasizes (Act VII, § 16,3), because "it is foreign to Christians to accept impiety (=heresy) as equal to Orthodox faith" (Act I, § 3,13). All priests must have one and the same opinion (Act II, § 5,7); one mind; the Orthodox faith; the truth." [1125]

In other words: The priest who holds heterodox beliefs (not out of simplicity) loses the Grace of the Holy Spirit and, therefore, ceases to possess the unity of faith, causing a schism within the Church. A consequence directly intertwined with this is the defilement of the immaculate Mysteries—not as a loss of the essence of his priesthood or of those communing with him, but as condemnation and judgment upon himself and those who knowingly commune with him. Such a heterodox priest ceases to exist as a spiritual father and becomes a wolf who devours his flock through his teaching and his communion.

The application of these principles, as confirmed by the Council (as we have seen), is expressed in the stance of Justinian in the "Divine Typikon": "that he would never tolerate receiving Holy Communion from priests suspected of heresy." It is evident that this refers to priests prior to their condemnation by the competent ecclesiastical authority. The celebration of the Mysteries worthily and for sanctification is performed only by a priest united with the faith of the Church. It is understood that the one who is not united, the heretic, indeed performs Mysteries, but unworthily, and to the condemnation both of himself and of those who knowingly commune with him, as has already been stated. The holy Diptychs reveal and safeguard the unity of the Church. In them, we commemorate, whether living or departed, those who are in communion, the Orthodox, and we remove those who are not in communion, the heterodox. All this is to avoid the aforementioned, that is, we repeat: to not participate in the schism of the heretic, thereby losing the communion of the Holy Spirit, avoiding the defilement arising from heresy, so that we may perform the Immaculate Mysteries worthily and for sanctification. For this reason, even Justinian, as a layperson, avoided receiving Holy Communion from priests who were merely suspected. Therefore, these matters also concern the laity.

All priests must have one faith, the Orthodox faith, the Truth.

Amen. May it be so!

 

NOTES

1102. The fact that the Ecumenical Councils use the term "Bishop" literally has been proven through many examples; here, we only summarize:

1. The Third Ecumenical Council:

Saint Cyril writes that Nestorius performed the divine mysteries even after the proclamation of heresy. He refers to him as a concelebrant up until his third letter, and the members of the Council considered him in communion until the third synodical letter of the Church of Alexandria, which arrived in Constantinople on November 30, 430—just six months prior to the Third Ecumenical Council. This is further confirmed by the fact that the two individuals who upheld the heretical views, as the Council itself states—Nestorius and John of Antioch—were addressed as follows: after his deposition, Nestorius was simply called "Nestorius," while John, being uncondemned, was referred to as "the most God-beloved bishop John of Antioch," demonstrating that the Council uses its terms literally.

2. The Fourth Ecumenical Council:

Until shortly before his deposition, the Council referred to Dioscorus as a bishop; upon his deposition, he was referred to simply as Dioscorus. The five other exarchs of the Robber Council, because they repented and were not deposed, continued to be referred to as bishops. Monophysite archimandrites dared to call Dioscorus "archbishop" after his deposition, and the Council's reaction was significant. From all this, it is proven that the Council uses its terms literally.

3. The Fifth Ecumenical Council:

It commemorated Pope Vigilius until the very end, which means that the Council uses its terms literally.

4. The Sixth Ecumenical Council:

Before his deposition, the Council referred to Macarius as "Archbishop of Theopolis, Antioch"; upon his deposition, the title ceased to be used, which demonstrates that the Council uses its terms literally.

5. The Seventh Ecumenical Council:

In 786, Saint Tarasios threatened the Iconoclast bishops with deposition one year prior to their repentance, a threat that was reiterated within the Council itself, as it also represented the Council's position (see pp. 118ff.). Furthermore, the application of the Ninth Ecumenical Council’s decision by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which stipulated how clergy coming from heresies should be received into Orthodoxy, recognized them (the Ninth Council) as having, literally and precisely, priesthood, proving that the Seventh Ecumenical Council also uses its terminology literally regarding its own designations.

6. The Ninth Ecumenical Council:

The Council referred to Patriarch John Kalekas as Patriarch before the expression of his heretical views, as well as afterward, and even speaks of the ordination of Gregory Akindynos as a Deacon by him. If a bishop can ordain, does this not mean the term is used literally? Therefore, the Ninth Ecumenical Council also uses its terminology literally.

The depositions by the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh (as a possibility), and Ninth Ecumenical Councils prove that the term "Bishop" is used literally in the proceedings of all the Ecumenical Councils, because a cleric is deposed as one possessing priesthood. Deposition is the removal of priesthood, not merely a notification of its removal, as these same Councils teach (see also the relevant section of the "Appendices," pp. 440ff.).

It has been made clear that the titles "most reverend bishop" and similar expressions in the Ecumenical Councils are used literally, denoting bearers of priesthood.

1103. "In the history of the hierarchical-synodal tradition of the Orthodox Church, the notion that a bishop—or anyone else—can depose themselves without a synodal decision and automatically fall from divine Grace is unheard of. This concept of 'automatic loss of Grace' is papal and does not belong to the Orthodox canonical tradition. It is recorded in papal ecclesiology from the 13th century onward and is based on the Frankish perception of papal primacy. This notion (in Latin, Latae sententiae) remains in the new revised Code of Canon Law of 1983 and is articulated in canons 1321–1330. In this view, there is no need for an episcopal synod for a certain category of sins, which includes heresy; rather, Grace is automatically removed, and in the case of a clergyman, this means automatic deposition. Saint Nikodemos, opposing such a view, commented that only an episcopal synod can depose, as the "Canons do not act on their own (Pedalion, op. cit., pp. 4–5, footnote on the Third Apostolic Canon)."

Historically, we can assume that the representatives of the emperor who signed the union in Lyon heard this view of papal ecclesiology there and brought it to the East as a most useful weapon against any opposing hierarch," Paisios Kareotis, Apologia of Saint Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople..., pp. 35–36, note 52.

1104. During the Monothelite controversy, the four Patriarchates of the East officially and synodically accepted this heresy through many local synods. During the Iconoclast heresy, in both its first and second phases, the Church of Constantinople officially and synodically accepted the heresy, with all the bishops of Byzantium signing the decisions of the Synod of Hieria. Nevertheless, both Ecumenical Councils (the Sixth and Seventh) regarded their respective heretics as having, according to precision, priesthood. The same occurred with the heretics of the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils: they were regarded as having, according to precision, priesthood, even though their heresy was officially and synodically recognized. This includes the "Congress of Apostasy" during the Third Ecumenical Council and the Monophysites prior to the Fourth Ecumenical Council with the Robber Synod of Ephesus.

1105. Just as Nestorianism renewed the already condemned heresy of Arianism, nevertheless both the heresy and Nestorius were condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council.

Just as Monophysitism renewed the condemned heresies of Apollinaris and Valentinus, nevertheless both the heresy and Dioscorus were condemned by the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Just as Monoenergism and Monothelitism renewed the already condemned heresies of Apollinarianism and Monophysitism, nevertheless both the heresy and Macarius were condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Just as Iconoclasm renewed the already condemned heresies of Monophysitism and Nestorianism, nevertheless both the heresy and the Seventh Ecumenical Council condemned it, and it would have also condemned the summoned Iconoclast bishops who approached had they remained unrepentant.

And finally, just as Barlaamism renewed the already condemned heresies of Marcellus, Photinus, and Sophronius, nevertheless both the heresy and the contemporary heretics were condemned by the Ninth Ecumenical Council.

Thus, Ecumenism renews Papism, Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, and others—(idolatry, polytheism, etc., are also considered heresies by the Fathers; see Epiphanius, PG 41, 185ff., and John of Damascus, PG 94, 678ff.)—already condemned heresies. Nevertheless, an Ecumenical Council must be convened to condemn the pan-heresy and the heretics. This is what the infallible voices of all the Ecumenical Councils teach (see the relevant section of the "Appendices" regarding the meaning of deposition).

It must, however, be added that for the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, if a new heresy aligns in some way with an already condemned heresy, this means that the anathema pronounced against the earlier heresy also applies to its new version, even if it does not agree with the older heresy in every aspect (see, for example, the testimonies of Saint Maximus the Confessor, pp. 325–326; the citizens of Constantinople who broke ecclesiastical communion with Nestorius before the Third Ecumenical Council, pp. 488–489; the Hagioritic Tome during the time of Saint Gregory Palamas, pp. 499–500; and the relevant references from all the Ecumenical Councils). Consequently, the uncondemned Ecumenists cannot be considered in communion, even though they perform valid mysteries until their synodal deposition, for the above reason (for more on this, see pp. 501ff., 540ff.).

1106. "Terminology of deposition: This penalty is described by the terms deposition, lawful and canonical deposition, complete deposition, deposition and removal from all priestly (or episcopal) activity and rank, to be deposed, to be entirely deposed either from rank, from service, or from the clergy, to be subjected to complete and perpetual deposition, to become completely alien to the ecclesiastical rank and to the order of priests (or bishops), to be deposed and severed, or estranged, or cut off, or expelled, deposed and excluded from the clerical register, to be alien to the canon, to be removed from rank, to be stripped of all priesthood, to be transferred from service, to be set aside, to be in danger concerning one’s rank or priesthood, to be simply dismissed, or from the clergy, or from service, to be removed from the order, to lose the honor and dignity, to fall from the worth and glory of the priestly dignity, to become rejected and unworthy, to be renounced and become rejected, to be expelled from the episcopacy" (Rallis K., Penal Law..., p. 1ff.). Some, isolating the last phrase "to be expelled from the episcopacy," consider deposition merely as removal from episcopal office as a formal act of the councils, while claiming that priesthood is lost at the moment heresy is proclaimed by the heretical bishop. This view is unfounded, as has been demonstrated in this study. Deposition indeed involves removal from episcopal office, but this occurs through the removal of priesthood, which takes place at and by the act of deposition itself.

1107. The following question is posed:

The Holy Scripture teaches that the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Can, therefore, a heretical priest perform valid mysteries, since he has departed from the truth?

The Answer:

The valid interpretation of Holy Scripture is provided by the Holy Fathers, especially through their consensus. Therefore, all the Ecumenical Councils teach that a heretic loses the validity of their priesthood at the moment of their deposition, interpreting this Scripture passage in practice. There is no contradiction between Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Fathers (see footnote 1123).

Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes: "I said that the ultimate judge in the Church is not Holy Scripture, as the Lutherans and Calvinists claim, but the Ecumenical Council, because the divine Scripture, speaking unclearly in many places, and each heretic distorting the obscure meaning of the Scriptures toward their own heresy, necessarily requires interpretation to explain its true meaning, and none other than the Ecumenical Council is that interpreter," Pedalion 120.

1108. The following question is posed:

Does the term "let him be deposed" mentioned by Saint Nikodemos in the second footnote of the Third Apostolic Canon, which states that it must be executed by a third party, apply only to canonical matters and not to doctrinal issues? (See Pedalion, pp. 4–5).

The Answer:

Saint Nikodemos himself explains what he means. In the same footnote, regarding the interpretation of "let him be deposed," he refers to the Holy Apostles and their 46th holy Canon. This Canon decrees: "We order that a bishop or presbyter who has accepted the baptism or the sacrifice of heretics be deposed, for what agreement has Christ with Belial? Or what portion has a believer with an unbeliever?" (Pedalion, p. 51 / Rallis-Potlis, vol. 2, p. 61 / KIK, p. 38). Saint Nikodemos himself interprets it as follows: "Whoever bishop or presbyter accepts as correct and true the baptism of heretics or the sacrifice offered by them, such a person, we command, must be deposed. For what agreement does Christ have with the devil? Or what portion does a believer have with an unbeliever? For those who accept what comes from heretics also share the same opinions as they do..." If, however, the bishop or presbyter who accepts the baptism or sacrifice of heretics shares their opinions, this means that he too is a heretic (see footnote 1114 for the definition of a heretic) and must be deposed. Therefore, for Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, "let him be deposed" applies to doctrinal matters as well as to all other issues.

Furthermore, the Ecumenical Councils interpret this "let him be deposed" as applying to doctrinal matters, since they deposed their respective heresiarchs for doctrinal issues and, at that time, removed their priesthood.

1109. The following question is posed:

Wouldn't it be preferable to say that the mysteries of the Ecumenists are invalid and non-existent, even if they are valid and existent, since the simple and other faithful cannot grasp the concept of defilement resulting from ecclesiastical communion with the Ecumenists, and thus continue to commune with them?

The Answer:

If this teaching is accepted, even condescendingly, it leads to the following absurdity. If the heretical, uncondemned Ecumenist bishops no longer perform valid mysteries, then they have ceased to function as bishops. But the Church cannot be conceived without bishops. Therefore, the walled-off faction would have to hasten to ordain bishops by any means and from wherever ordination can be obtained, and that immediately.

Moreover, the use of such demagogic and illicit methods to recruit or retain followers, wielding the fear of invalid mysteries, is fitting for the papal church, which holds as a moral principle the Jesuit maxim: "The end justifies the means." This is not fitting for the Orthodox Church, which must, always and everywhere, rightly divide the word of truth. "But let your word be 'Yes, yes,' 'No, no'; for whatever is more than these is from the evil one" (Matthew 5:37).

1110. The following question is posed:

If the mysteries of the Ecumenists are valid and existent in themselves, that is, according to akribeia and not by oikonomia, then are there not two Churches? And in that case, does the 15th holy Canon of the First-Second Council not become optional, and is it not preferable to remain in communion with the Ecumenists?

The Answer:

The question implies that the defilement of Orthodox Christians through ecclesiastical communion with uncondemned heretics is understood as an automatic deposition without the act of deposition. In other words, both the uncondemned heretic and the Orthodox who commune with him no longer perform mysteries. Consequently, if the mysteries of the Ecumenists are valid in themselves, then there is no defilement from communion with them for the Orthodox, and thus there would be two Churches. In such a case, the 15th Canon would become optional, and it would then be preferable to remain in communion with the Ecumenists.

The incorrect foundation leads to erroneous conclusions. No, there is defilement from communion with uncondemned heretics for the Orthodox, according to the Fathers. This defilement is understood as participation in their impiety, condemnation, and schism (see pp. 704ff.), even though the uncondemned heretics perform valid and existent mysteries.

The Third Ecumenical Council regarded Nestorius as a bishop possessing priesthood according to exactness (akribeia) until his deposition, performing valid mysteries. The Fourth Ecumenical Council did the same with Dioscorus, the Fifth with Vigilius, the Sixth with Macarius, the Seventh with the Iconoclast bishops who approached, and the Ninth with the bishops Joseph and Matthew. All these Councils did not consider that two Churches had come into existence but rather that two flocks had become non-communicant (see the respective sources, particularly pp. 129ff.) to avoid defilement from ecclesiastical communion with them and from their teaching being passed on to the simple and other faithful.

As can be understood, the 15th holy Canon, in its exception, when defilement exists, cannot be optional but is mandatory. Consequently, it is not preferable to remain in communion with the Ecumenists, but all communion with them must be severed.

Furthermore, the position that the mysteries of unrepentant Ecumenists are valid by oikonomia does not hold, as there is no historical ecclesiastical precedent to support such oikonomia. Never and nowhere were the mysteries of unrepentant heretics recognized as valid by oikonomia when, according to akribeia, they were invalid.

1111. The following question is posed:

After the synodal recognition of heresy, as we have in the Council of Crete in 2016, is priesthood not lost without deposition for those who signed the decisions of the council that ratified the heretical doctrines, and for those who commune with them?

The Answer:

We have synodal recognition of heresy from Nestorius before the Third Ecumenical Council (see p. 58). We have synodal recognition of heresy from Dioscorus through the Robber Council before the Fourth Ecumenical Council (see pp. 72, 83). We have synodal recognition of the heresy of Nestorianism in the West (Africa) before the Fifth Ecumenical Council (see p. 165). Synodal recognitions of heresy are evident among the Monoenergists and Monothelites before the Sixth Ecumenical Council (see p. 85 and footnote 135). We have synodal recognition of heresy by the Iconoclasts at the Council of Hieria before the Seventh Ecumenical Council (see p. 100). Finally, synodal recognitions of heresy are found among the Barlaamites and Akindynists before the Ninth Ecumenical Council (see p. 153).

Nevertheless, all these heretics, for the Ecumenical Councils, have valid priesthood until their deposition (even while they held pre-condemned heresies; see footnote 1105).

1112. "Do not be deceived, my brothers. Those who corrupt households shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If those who commit such acts in the flesh died, how much more so will someone who corrupts the faith of God with evil teaching, for which Jesus Christ was crucified? Such a person, having become defiled, will enter into the unquenchable fire, as will also the one who listens to him." – Ignatius the God-Bearer, PG 5, 657.

1113. "For the acceptance of false doctrine is the murder of the soul." – St. Basil the Great, PG 30, 525C.

1114. A heretic, while alive, is someone who holds heretical beliefs—not out of simplicity—firmly and unmovably within himself, as long as he remains unrepentant. According to St. Photius, such a person must have been admonished by the assembly of the Orthodox and remained unrepentant (see pp. 276ff.). The synod does not make someone a heretic but ascertains whether they remain unrepentant in their heretical mindset, judges them, and, after substantiating the contradiction of their heresy with patristic and synodal testimonies, imposes the appropriate penalty it deems suitable. The Third Ecumenical Council treated Nestorius as a heretic, the Fourth treated Dioscorus as a heretic, the Fifth treated Vigilius in the same manner, the Sixth treated Macarius likewise, the Seventh did the same with the Iconoclast bishops who approached, and finally, the Ninth Ecumenical Council treated the bishops of Ganos and Ephesus similarly.

A heretic, when deceased, is someone who remained unrepentant in their heretical mindset until their death, according to the Fifth Ecumenical Council (see footnote 365).

"However, the impious person does not receive the anathema through the words of another, but brings it upon himself through his own actions, since by his impiety he separates himself from true life," from the synodal decree of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (see pp. 445–446).

"What is a heretic?" From the 6th Canon of the Council of Constantinople:

Text: The first decree of the first title of the first book of the Code states that one who does not glorify the Holy Trinity in a single divinity of equal honor is not even called a Christian but is foolish, dishonorable, and a heretic, and is punished. The fifth title of the same book, second decree, states that a heretic is subject to the laws against heretics, even if he deviates slightly from the Orthodox faith. The twelfth decree of the same title states that a heretic is anyone who is not Orthodox. The first decree of the third title of the Novellae calls heretics those who are not in communion. (Rallis-Potlis, vol. 1, p. 261).

"For a heretic is one who firmly clings to his own false belief and knowingly speaks against the truth without any hope of correction." – Maximus the Greek, cited by G. Papamichael, Maximus the Greek..., p. 223.

It is commonly believed that the word hairetizōn refers to the uncondemned, while the word heretic refers to the condemned. However, from the above, it becomes evident that the two terms have no semantic difference (see also what is said on this matter by: St. Basil the Great, footnote 980; the 9th holy Canon of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria, footnote 439; St. Melania the Roman, footnote 421; Abba Agathon, pp. 448–449; St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, p. 216, and footnote 423; St. Stephen the New, footnote 756; St. Tarasios, Patriarch of Constantinople, footnote 201; St. Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, footnote 424; St. Theodore the Studite, footnotes 425, 546, 626).

"During the synodal discussion, at the point where the deceitful interventions and alterations of texts by the Iconoclasts were mentioned, Patriarch Tarasios stated, 'These were done by the so-called patriarchs Anastasios, Constantine, and Niketas, the heretics' (Act V, Lamberz 2, p. 578)."

All the above were Iconoclast successors of Patriarch Germanos on the patriarchal throne of Constantinople. Consequently, bishops are identified as heretics even before their synodal condemnation (Touloumtzis V., The Ecclesiological Framework and the Preconditions for Accepting Heretics..., pp. 242–243).

Furthermore, the Athonite Fathers during the time of Beccus, in their letter to Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, referred to the then Pope as hairetizōn:

"Is it proper to grant primacy to one who inclines toward heresy against the entire Orthodox Church of Christ? This is complete acceptance and not oikonomia," (Laurent V. and Darrouzès J., Dossier Grec de l’union de Lyon, p. 401).

"Who is a heretic?"

The Holy Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Photius, states that a heretic is someone who deviates from the Orthodox Christian faith, even in the smallest matter: "A heretic is... one who certainly deviates even slightly from the Orthodox faith" (S.I.K., vol. 1, p. 261). In other words, a heretic is anyone who does not accept all the doctrines—that is, the truths of the Christian faith—but deviates from them even minimally and rejects even one doctrine, no matter how small it may seem.

For, as St. Basil the Great says, even the smallest deviation is not insignificant: "Even what seems slight is not small" (St. Basil the Great, PG 31, 1525–1528). Moreover, God Himself explicitly stated: "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one dot shall pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18).

Therefore, whoever does not believe in and follow the doctrinal teaching and canonical order of Orthodoxy is a heretic. Whoever thinks and preaches the opposite of what the Holy Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church teach is a heretic and not a true Christian.

Those who "call heretics Christians are greatly and utterly mistaken," says St. Athanasius, "as they neither know the Scriptures nor understand Christianity and the faith within it" (St. Athanasius, BEPES, vol. 30, p. 123).

Thus, a heretic is also one who does not denounce a recognized heretic as such but instead considers him a Christian. As a result, he too is anathematized by Orthodoxy. Accordingly, the Seventh Holy Ecumenical Council, in the Holy Spirit, declares the following:

"If anyone defends (justifies and supports) a person who belongs to a heretical sect or has departed to heresy in his life, let him be anathema" (Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, session 13, p. 400). Source: "The Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew is Proven a Heretic," Athens, 1992, p. 3.

There is a related objection and its response.

The Objection:

"To compare the past with the present, I convey the words of His Grace Bishop Makarios of Christoupolis from his address at the 8th Theology Conference, which took place a few days ago, as we mentioned earlier, in Thessaloniki. His Grace states: '...Individuals, groups, clergy, monks, laity, organizations, and gatherings have neither the right nor the authority to judge what constitutes heresy and to determine who is a heretic...'" — Bezynia, F., "Is Holiness a Prerequisite for Walling Off?" Theology Today 2 (2018), pp. 239–240.

The Response:

On the contrary, bishops and synods have no right or authority to arbitrarily determine what constitutes heresy and who is a heretic. They have the obligation—and indeed swore during their ordination—to faithfully follow the Church in all that it has established and handed down through the centuries, adhering to the divine Fathers. Furthermore, bishops are not permitted to remain silent in the presence of heresy within the Church, as suggested by the objection, because, according to the Fathers, this silence is considered: consent, a third form of atheism, burying Christ in the tomb, and a diminishing of the salvation of those who remain silent, according to St. Maximus the Confessor (see p. 316). Additionally, these bishops must sever communion with uncondemned heretics if they themselves are Orthodox in faith, after allowing a brief period to admonish the heretics concerning their error (e.g., during the time of St. Cyril of Alexandria, using the means of that era, this period lasted only eighteen months). Otherwise, Orthodox bishops become complicit and non-communicant themselves (see the reasoning in Chapter IV, "He who communes with the non-communicant, let him be non-communicant," pp. 205ff.).

According to the canonical law of the Church, heresy is even the slightest deviation from the Orthodox Faith. St. Tarasios, in this regard, states in the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council: "For to err in matters of doctrine, whether small or great, is the same; in both cases, the law of God is violated" (see p. 502). A heretic is one who has accepted heretical beliefs, not out of simplicity and without hope of correction. "For a heretic is one who firmly clings to his own false belief and knowingly speaks against the truth without hope of correction," according to St. Maximus the Greek (see above). The Synod does not make someone a heretic; rather, it is their mindset, just as a court does not make someone a criminal, but it is their criminal act. The synodal tribunal simply determines where the heretic's heresy contradicts the teaching of the Church and whether they remain unrepentant.

If the contemporary bishops of each era do not judge according to these criteria, then they are judged by the ecclesiastical conscience—that is, by the clergy and the laity—who serve as the impartial judge within the Church, of both individuals and councils.

The Orthodox Patriarchs of 1848, in their encyclical letter, state: "Moreover, neither Patriarchs nor Councils have ever been able to introduce anything new among us, because the defender of the faith is the very body of the Church, that is, the people themselves, who desire their faith to remain eternally unchanged and identical to that of their Fathers..." (see p. 675).

Archbishop Ieronymos Kotsonis similarly remarks: "At this point, it could be added that the 'economy' actions, as well as all actions of the Patriarch and the Synod, according to the Orthodox understanding, are subject to the decision of the judgment of the conscience of the entire body of the Church. In this sense, one must understand the actions of St. Theodore the Studite and the monks around him, who judged and condemned acts of the Patriarchal Synod, even though, legally and canonically, they had no authority to do so. In other words, above the authority provided by the laws and the holy canons, there exists the moral authority of the entire fullness of the Church, which is impartial." (see p. 676).

(See also what Bishop Augustine Kantiotes, Protopresbyter George Florovsky, and university professors Panagiotis Trembelas, Konstantinos Mouratidis, and Ioannis Karmiris say, pp. 676ff.).

For example, the ecclesiastical conscience judged a synodal decision of the Church of Constantinople, resulting in the Synod submitting to the infallible judge—that is, the faithful Orthodox clergy and laity—and changing its decision (see pp. 262–263). As for the objection that the laity cannot determine what constitutes heresy or who is a heretic, it is evident that bishops cannot act arbitrarily. If the objection—and any other bishop or patriarch—does not agree with this, they are free to join the Papists or the Protestants, where they may say and do as they please.

1115. "In other words, according to John (Chrysostom), those who disregard and act contrary to the canonical order and tradition of our Church (the emphasis and underlining are from the original text) are in schism, even when they hold high positions in the hierarchy with the tolerance or support of the state authority and are recognized as ecclesiastical leaders. Conversely, those who obey, respect, honor, and struggle for the canonical order and tradition of our Church are not schismatics but canonical members of the Church, worthy of honor and respect, even if they are few in number or are at odds and do not have ecclesiastical communion with the throne-holding bishops, who are essentially 'pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers' (15th Canon of the First-Second Council)."

The successors of Chrysostom, Arsacius and Atticus, through their deliberate unlawfulness and disregard for ecclesiastical order, were the ones who led the Church into schism—a schism that the Johannites struggled to eliminate at great personal cost.

The position of the forty bishops who stood by Chrysostom is absolutely clear. With the agreement of John, they responded to the Synod of the Oak and specifically to Theophilus of Alexandria: "Do not destroy the affairs of the Church, and do not tear apart the Church, for which God descended into flesh" (Palladius, "Dialogue," PG 47, 28). In other words, one who acts unlawfully based on the holy Canons is committing the work of schism.

This is reiterated and clarified by St. John Chrysostom, who notes precisely: "For there are two separations from the ecclesiastical body: one, when we violate love; the other, when we dare unworthily to perform in that body. In both ways, we separate ourselves from the fullness" (Homily on Ephesians 4, EPE 20, 706). The holy Father explains that this is not a division of the Body but a "separation from the ecclesiastical body," which occurs in two ways: In the first case, we have schism when love has grown cold and we become divided. In the second case, schism is caused by those who dare to commit unlawful acts against the Body of Christ, the Church. In the second case, the one acting in this way separates himself from the Body: "we separate ourselves from the fullness." According to the holy Father, more precisely, this is not a tearing apart of the Church, because her unity remains unbroken, but rather a separation "from the ecclesiastical body" by those who dare to act impiously against the sacred Body of the Church.

In other words, unity with the Church cannot be unconditional. A fundamental prerequisite for establishing ecclesiastical unity on a solid foundation is truth, that is, fidelity to ecclesiastical tradition and order. Whoever disregards the truth is the one who "tears apart the Church" or, more precisely, separates himself from the Church. He is the one who creates the schism and is responsible for it (emphasis ours). — Gotsopoulos A., "St. John Chrysostom and the 'Schism' of the Johannites," pp. 15–16.

"According to St. Gregory of Nyssa, anyone who 'inclines toward heresy' (develops a heretical mindset) is cut off from the mystical head of the Church, Christ; unquestionably, the one who has been severed from the saving Faith is headless," just like Goliath, who with his own sword—sharpened against the truth—was separated from the true Head.

"For he who is separated from the Faith has been severed from the Head more than the foreigner. For since the Head of every man is Christ, as the Apostle says, and man is rightly called faithful, Christ is certainly not the Head of the faithless. Therefore, the one who has been severed from the saving Faith would surely be headless, like Goliath, by his own sword, which he sharpened against the truth, being divided from the true Head, which he did not sever from itself, but revealed as severed by his own action." — Gregory of Nyssa, "Second Homily Against Eunomius," PG45, 912 / EPE2, 326. — Kosmas Flamiatos9 (2011), p. 49.

1116. It must be emphasized that the unity of the Church and the defilement resulting from heresy and the heretic are directly interconnected. When this unity is broken, defilement automatically follows, which, in reality, is a removal from the sanctification provided by the Lord. Therefore, when unity with the Lord is broken, it is self-evident that sanctification is lost, and thus defilement ensues. Unity and defilement are inextricably linked and are directly related to heresy, the uncondemned heretic, and communion with him (see also note 1117).

1117. Strictly speaking, the sacraments themselves are not defiled; their substance remains intact, meaning they are truly performed (this is taught by the consensus Consiliorum). After all, it is the Holy Spirit itself that operates, and it is impossible for defilement to enter into this action of the Spirit’s completion of the sacraments. The defilement of the sacraments concerns their relationship with the members, the faithful, and the effect of sanctification. The sacraments either sanctify or they do not. Here, defilement is mentioned, which, according to the Fathers and Scripture, is always contrary to sanctification. It is its opposite. On one side is sanctification, and on the other is defilement—the absence of sanctification, condemnation.

"...and let the filthy remain filthy still... and let the holy remain holy still" (Rev. 22:11). Holy – filthy, let him be sanctified – let him remain defiled.

"They have not distinguished between the holy and the profane, nor between the unclean and the clean" (Ezek. 22:26). Holy – profane, clean – unclean.

"For just as holy priests sanctify, so do the defiled bring defilement" (cf. p. 38). Sanctify – defile, holy – defiled.

The opposition of defilement to sanctification, the profane to the holy, and the impure to the sacred is evident. Therefore, defilement pertains to the fact that sanctification no longer occurs, and not to the sacraments themselves, which are still truly performed.

1118. Moreover, Judas also partook of the Body and Blood of the Lord; yet, this harmed him. Here is how it is described in the Gospel: The Lord said to His disciples, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me." The Apostle John asks, "Lord, who is it?" Jesus responds, "It is he to whom I shall give the morsel when I have dipped it." And after dipping the morsel, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. (John 13:21-25).

The Apostle Paul says: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:28-29).

Saint Theodore the Studite, in his 220th letter to "the spatharia whose name is Machara," says:

"For what reason does your honor ask me to speak about Holy Communion, and why have you so rarely communed for so many years? Surely this must have some reason. For we should not commune either rarely or daily without reason but must partake with a pure conscience. 'For he who eats and drinks unworthily,' it says, 'eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.' If, therefore, you consider these matters in this way and, out of fear, await the proper time, you act rightly, whether you do so sooner or later. There is no other rule for this than that one should approach with as pure a heart as possible. However, if someone abstains because of a sin and has become excluded from Communion, it is clear that he shall partake when he fulfills the penance assigned. But if someone separates due to heresy, that is necessary, for communing from a heretical priest or one clearly reproachable in life alienates a person from God and associates him with the devil. Consider, therefore, blessed one, in which of the aforementioned cases your purpose lies and accordingly approach the Mysteries. It is well-known to all that the heresy now holding sway over our Church is that of the Moicheans. Have pity, then, on your precious soul along with those of your brothers and superiors. You told me that you are afraid to tell your priest not to commemorate the heresiarch. And I see nothing to say to you about this for now, except that communion is defiled merely by commemorating him, even if the one commemorating him is Orthodox."

The original text: "..., for what reason does your honor ask me to speak about Holy Communion, and why have you so rarely partaken for so many years? This must have some reason. For it is not about partaking rarely or daily without reason but rather partaking with a pure conscience. 'For he who eats and drinks unworthily,' it says, 'eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.' If, therefore, you consider these matters in this way and, out of reverence, await the proper time, it is good, whether sooner or later, and there is no other rule in this except approaching with as pure a heart as possible for a human being. But if someone abstains because of a sin and has become excluded from Communion, it is clear that he shall partake when the penance assigned to him has been fulfilled. However, if someone separates due to heresy, this is necessary. For communing from a heretic or one openly discredited in life alienates a person from God and associates him with the devil.

"Reflect, therefore, O blessed one, on which of the aforementioned ways your purpose lies and approach the Mysteries accordingly. It is known to all that now, in our Church, the prevailing heresy is that of the Moicheians. Have pity, then, on your precious soul along with your brethren and your head. You also told me that you are afraid to ask your priest not to commemorate the heresiarch. And what to tell you concerning this at present, I do not clearly see, except that communion has defilement merely from the act of commemorating, even if the one commemorating is Orthodox." (PG 99, 1668-1669 / F846, 16 / EPEF 18Γ, 512-514)

According to St. Theodore, three reasons prevent someone from approaching the Divine Mysteries. The first two concern the one approaching: an unclean conscience and some transgression for which the penance has not been fulfilled. The third concerns the priest, who must not be a heretic or openly disreputable in conduct, nor even commemorate a heretic, for this results in defilement. The reasoning is that communion from such a priest separates the Orthodox communicant from God and renders them aligned with the devil. This cannot be altered, even through economia, according to St. Theodore the Studite. (See p. 373).

The conclusion from all this is that not all priests' mysteries sanctify; there are conditions. There are numerous patristic testimonies that confirm this. Therefore, caution is required, otherwise, it leads to judgment and condemnation.

Following this note, we include the following relevant and important points:

"But the faithful can partake of the holy things only when they fulfill, as previously mentioned, certain conditions. Already the Apostle Paul commands the Corinthians to first examine themselves, and if they judge themselves worthy, then to partake, for whoever partakes unworthily 'eats and drinks judgment to themselves, not discerning the body' (1 Cor. 11:27-29)."

The question then arises: what are the conditions required for the faithful to partake of the "holy things" and for there to be Eucharistic communion and unity among them, as well as between the Churches?

The first condition is the awareness of the reason for which Eucharistic communion is necessary. This awareness refers to the acceptance of the reality of the incarnation and the sacrifice of Christ. By believing in this reality, and in the reality of the mystery, a person participates in the death and resurrection of Christ.

The second prerequisite is moral purity. The concept of moral purity is somewhat vague. However, the combination of the passages of Apostle Paul that St. Basil the Great uses in this context allows its content to be understood. Morally pure is the believer who strives to avoid a life of sin and to live according to the commands of the Gospel of love, to live the new life in Christ. Furthermore, in The Morals, St. Basil the Great sets forth a series of permitted and forbidden interactions, that is, permissible and forbidden ways of conduct, thus providing a general framework within which the believer may act. This approach is based on the theology of Apostle Paul. Through baptism, the old self was crucified, and the body of sin was abolished. Thus, a life of sin is not justified for the believer. At the same time, since Eucharistic communion is essentially communion with the undefiled body of Christ, communion with sinners is not justified. According to Apostle Paul, what should be examined more is a life that conforms to Christian truth, which demonstrates genuine acceptance of it, and not merely the theoretical acceptance of correct teaching. Doctrine and ethos are an interdependent whole that expresses the life of the believer.

The two prerequisites mentioned have a personal character and concern each believer individually. The third prerequisite is more communal and concerns the relationships among believers. Just as God loved humanity and sacrificed His Son for their salvation, so must humans behave toward one another with love. Especially before partaking of the "holy things," it is necessary to resolve any differences that may have arisen among them and be reconciled. Christ, speaking of those who offer gifts at the altar, emphasized that they must first be reconciled with their brother against whom they have something, and only then, having been purified, offer their gift. Similarly, Apostle Paul, speaking about unworthy participation in communal meals, considered it essential that no differences exist among the believers. To illustrate this prerequisite, St. Basil the Great cites as an exemplary figure Gregory the Wonderworker, who never approached the altar unless he had first reconciled with his brethren. The kiss of peace, which takes place in the Divine Liturgy before the holy anaphora, is a consequence of this necessity and serves as an exhortation for mutual reconciliation among believers. Likewise, the forgiveness of "debts" that believers ask of God the Father in the Lord’s Prayer, shortly before the communion of the "holy things," presupposes the forgiveness of their fellow debtors. This mutual forgiveness and reconciliation demonstrate that the believers are living out brotherly love and preparing themselves for union with the other participants in the body and blood of Christ.

The mutual reconciliation and love are not only referred to the relationships that believers have among themselves but also extend to the relationships between the local Churches. This is expressed through the love demonstrated among the bishops, as representatives of the local Churches.

The fourth prerequisite for the existence of Eucharistic communion is the common and correct faith. From the time of the Apostles, as previously mentioned, the Divine Eucharist was connected to the body of believers and was celebrated in their special gatherings. A necessary condition for participation in these special Eucharistic assemblies of the faithful was the acceptance of the common faith in Christ; thus, participation was forbidden to any unbeliever or catechumen. Justin Martyr observed in the second century A.D.: "This food is called by us Eucharist, of which no one else is permitted to partake except the one who believes that the teachings we impart are true, and who has been washed with the washing for forgiveness of sins and for regeneration, and who lives as Christ handed down." This ecclesiastical tradition is followed by St. Basil the Great, who is clear and unequivocal on this matter. Even if someone were to come down from heaven but does not adhere to the sound word of faith, he states that they cannot be accepted into the communion of the "holy things" (that is, the Divine Eucharist; see the relevant section of this book for more on this). Thus, the faithful and the local Churches maintain and live out Eucharistic communion and unity when they confess the one faith.

1119. There is the following objection:

Since there is holiness in our time within the framework of the existence of ecclesiastical communion with uncondemned heretics, consequently, there should not be any defilement in the right-believing person who communes with them.

The response:

This entire work, which is neither small in scope nor lacking in the invocation of numerous conciliar and patristic arguments that constitute the "consensus Patrum," teaches that this defilement does exist. And we know that the infallibility of the Church lies in this "consensus" and that the teaching of the Church is timeless. All the commandments of Christ and the Church are timeless and unchanging. These are established facts, and if we question them, the very meaning of the Church is lost, whose Head is Christ Himself, who, according to Apostle Paul, is "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8).

The reason why God allowed holiness in the previous century among right-believing individuals who communed with uncondemned Ecumenists lies within His own judgment and mercy. This does not annul the teaching concerning defilement arising precisely from their ecclesiastical communion. Moreover, infallibility is not preserved in the saints of a particular era, no matter how great they may have been (and this in no way diminishes our respect for them), but in the "consensus Patrum," as has already been stated.

If infallibility lies with the saints of the 20th century, then we must consider the mysteries of the Ecumenists as invalid, since a group of venerable Catacomb Christians in Russia at the beginning of the previous century (a stance that was later established in the majority of this martyric Church) held this teaching concerning the Sergianists.

If infallibility lies with the saints of the previous century, then we could have ecclesiastical communion both with the Church of the G.O.C. and with those who commune with the Ecumenists. This is because the venerable Myrtidiotissa (Sophia), a nun of Kleisoura, was both tonsured as a great-schema nun by a clergyman who had joined the Church of the G.O.C. and, at the same time, did not cease to commune with the Church where the Ecumenists were commemorated until her repose (she passed away in 1974).

If infallibility lies with the saints of the previous century, then it is permissible for monks and nuns to live together in the same monastic space, since St. Nektarios (whom we also venerate, love, and respect) acted in this manner.

We could mention other such cases, but we believe that a few examples suffice—"one knows the lion from its claw." In this instance, on the one hand, St. Basil the Great states that we must avoid imitating the error: "but we must not follow the imitation of the error" (1st Canon of St. Basil the Great, Pedalion 587 / RPS 4, 90 / KIK, 450). On the other hand, St. Photius the Great says that we must not diminish our respect and honor for these Saints, but that which they deviated from in the teaching of the Church, we must not follow (see p. 277 and note 1121).

1120. St. Theodore the Studite states: "That the greatest threats have been pronounced by the saints against those who condescend to it (the heresy, editor's note) even to the point of sharing a meal," PG 99, 1048 / F113, 54 / EPEF 18B, 198-200. Elsewhere: "Even if one were to offer all the riches of the world and were to commune with the heresy, he would not become a friend of God but an enemy. And what do I say of communion? Even if one partakes with the heretics in food, drink, and friendship, he is culpable. This is the decision of Chrysostom. And indeed, of every saint," (see p. 376).

There is a relevant objection and its response.

The objection:

"The type of recommended non-communion refers to: a. Simple interaction, b. At other times to a specific ecclesiastical act (usually joint prayer), c. At other times to full ecclesiastical and sacramental communion," Athonite Monk, Letter on the Cessation of Commemoration and Walling Off, p. 6.

The response:

The objection reaches these incorrect conclusions because the basis it has set is not correct. It is written in the objection:

"Great confusion and erroneous conclusions arise from the lack of distinction between the different categories denoted by the term 'heretic'... However, the Holy Canons and, more generally, the pastoral guidance of the Holy Fathers clearly distinguish. Specifically:

a. Most commonly, the reference is to the members of other "Churches." But even among them, heresiarchs and, more generally, the leaders and officials of the heretical branch are treated differently from the simple faithful, especially when the latter are possessed by a "good uneasiness" and an inclination toward Orthodoxy.

b. Another category consists of those members of the Church who have essentially severed themselves and joined a heretical "Church," either in practice through full ecclesiastical communion (and not merely through an occasional joint prayer, which, of course, is also culpable) or theoretically by signing a related unionist document. From such individuals—so long as they do not return through repentance—walling off and the cessation of communion are required, as they have assimilated with the first category," Athonite Monk, op. cit., p. 4.

It is considered by the objection, as we have seen elsewhere in this work, that full communion with heretics outside the Church implies the loss of priesthood for the clergy (for why this is not correct, see pp. 53ff.). The Fathers do not distinguish between heretics who have been condemned or not condemned, because the consequences of communion with them for the Orthodox are the same—condemnation by God. Moreover, the Holy Canons—such as the 10th Apostolic Canon, the 2nd of Antioch, the 9th of Timothy, and others—also refer to heretics who have not been condemned, according to the Holy Apostles and the "consensus of the Fathers" (see pp. 205ff.). Therefore, these Holy Canons expressly forbid, even under penalty, joint prayer with heretics who have not been condemned. St. Theodore the Studite invokes St. John Chrysostom, stating that even sharing a meal with them is not permitted. St. Theodore writes that Chrysostom’s ruling applies to heretics who have not been condemned (see above) and constitutes the "consensus of the Fathers": "This is the decision of Chrysostom. And indeed, of every saint." Consequently, it is not "sometimes yes, sometimes no," as the objection suggests, but rather that all three aspects mentioned in the objection must always be avoided concerning heretics who have not been condemned, as long as they remain unrepentant and steadfast in their heresy. Otherwise, the Orthodox becomes culpable: "Even if in food, drink, and friendship, one mingles with heretics, one is culpable."

1121. The following question is posed:

Do holiness and communion with a non-condemned heretic reconcile?

The Synodikon of Orthodoxy anathematizes those Orthodox who knowingly commune with the Iconoclasts (see p. 192). [And the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR) in 1983 anathematizes those who knowingly commune with heretics (see p. 468)]. From this, it follows that those who commune in ignorance are excluded. And if Orthodox who commune in ignorance are not anathematized, that is, they are not separated from God (see the interpretation of anathema by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, p. 445), then holiness and communion with a non-condemned heretic are reconcilable.

We must, however, repeat that all the Saints strictly and timelessly command the Orthodox not to commune with undiscerning heretics, as they too become anathematized—that is, separated from God (see also which Holy Canons command the cessation of ecclesiastical communion with non-condemned heretics, p. 258). This means that they can no longer attain holiness (see, for example, what St. John of Damascus, the concise theologian of our Church, commands and why he commands it, pp. 182ff.). For this reason, the Saints themselves avoided direct communion with undiscerning heretics. "The unwavering and strict positions of St. Maximus the Confessor and his companions toward heresy, which we read in the dialogues with their persecutors, are not the result of the awareness of their holiness. Quite the opposite is true. Their holiness is built upon these positions (that is, the cessation of ecclesiastical communion with undiscerning heretics, editor's note)," Bezinias F., "Is Holiness a Prerequisite for Walling Off?" ΘΔ² (2018), 238.

The conclusion, therefore, is simple: holiness and communion knowingly with a non-condemned heretic are not only irreconcilable but also constitute a cause for the loss of salvation for the Orthodox. Conversely, holiness and communion in ignorance are then reconcilable.

1122. Epistle 219 - Solutions to Various Questions, PG99, 1661 / F841, 22 / EPEF 18C, 504:

"Therefore, do all heretics proceed to perdition, or not?

"Answer: There is heresy and heresy, and there is judgment and judgment... Even within one heresy, there are many and diverse judgments. For the sin of the bishop who misleads the people is one thing, and the judgment of the cleric who is capable of learning the Orthodox faith is another. Again, it is different for one who is incapable, and different for one who anathematizes the truth and opposes us. And again, it is different for one who errs knowingly, and another for one who errs in ignorance... All these things are precisely known by the One who is to judge the world in righteousness." — St. Athanasius the Great, To Antiochus the Ruler, Concerning Many and Necessary Matters. See also: Gotzopoulos, A., Joint Prayer with Heretics, p. 22 / Simatis, P., The Patristic Stance in Dialogues..., p. 39.

1123. The apparent contradiction between the Lord’s words, “But the one who did not know,” and the phrase “knowingly” from the Seventh Ecumenical Council is resolved by the fact that the Church, in the Holy Spirit, is the competent authority to interpret Holy Scripture, and it declares infallibly, especially in Ecumenical Councils. Thus, the Seventh Ecumenical Council interpreted: “To those who commune knowingly… anathema.” Evidently, the Council excludes those who are in ignorance due to unavoidable necessity, as opposed to the Lord, who refers to those not in such circumstances, thereby harmonizing the linguistic difference between the two passages.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, in interpreting this passage, says:

“Although one might say, ‘How does the one who did not know bear responsibility?’ Because he did not wish to know, though it was possible for him to learn,” PG 72, 752.

Euthymius Zigabenus, on this subject, states:

“Yet he will not be punished as severely as the one who knew. For the latter despised [the truth], while the former was negligent. And negligence is less severe than contempt. He speaks of the believer who does not know the will of God due to ignorance…” — Trembelas, P., Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, pp. 395-396.

1124. In reality, the 2nd Holy Canon of the Synod of Antioch states: "and let this one be excommunicated..." (see p. 206).

1125. Kalamaras, M., op. cit., p. 105 ff.