On the Necessity of Conciliar Judgment

In the Sacred Canons of the Ecumenical Councils, we encounter various synonymous terminologies which essentially constitute the disciplinary instruction proposed by the Fathers of the Councils for issues that arise. We cite those which we distinguished, with reference to the respective Sacred Canon: [106]

“Let him be subject to a canonical penance” in Chalcedon 14.
“Let him be subject to ecclesiastical penances” in Chalcedon 25.
“Cast out from all ecclesiastical communion and inactive” in Ephesus 1.
“Let him be thrust out as a stranger and let him fall away” in Quinisext 1.
“Unacceptable” in Apostolic Canon 12.
“Excluded from communion” in Apostolic Canons 10, Nicaea 5, Nicaea 16, Constantinople 6, Ephesus 6, Chalcedon 4, Chalcedon 8, Chalcedon 16, Chalcedon 20, Chalcedon 23.
“Let him be anathema” in Quinisext 1 and Nicaea II 1.
“Let him be removed from communion” in Quinisext 80.
“Excluded from the synagogue” in Nicaea 5.
“Penance” in Apostolic Canon 74, Chalcedon 3, Chalcedon 8, Chalcedon 9, Chalcedon 14, Chalcedon 24, Chalcedon 25, Quinisext 44, Quinisext 46, Quinisext 49, Quinisext 53, Quinisext 61, Quinisext 87, Quinisext 91, Quinisext 94, Quinisext 96, Nicaea II 1, Nicaea II 5, Nicaea II 6, Nicaea II 16.
“Let him be punished with excommunication” in Apostolic Canons 73 and 76.
“Let him be excommunicated” in Apostolic Canons 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 36, 43, 45, 48, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 84, Quinisext 4, Quinisext 5, Quinisext 11, Quinisext 13, Quinisext 18, Quinisext 27, Quinisext 33, Quinisext 47, Quinisext 50, Quinisext 51, Quinisext 55, Quinisext 56, Quinisext 58, Quinisext 59, Quinisext 62, Quinisext 64, Quinisext 65, Quinisext 67, Quinisext 68, Quinisext 71, Quinisext 72, Quinisext 73, Quinisext 73, Quinisext 74, Quinisext 76, Quinisext 77, Quinisext 79, Quinisext 81, Quinisext 86, Quinisext 88, Quinisext 94, Quinisext 96, Quinisext 97, Quinisext 99, Quinisext 100, Quinisext 101, Nicaea II 1, Nicaea II 3, Nicaea II 5, Nicaea II 9, Nicaea II 13.
“It is necessary that he be excommunicated” in Apostolic Canon 9.
“Let him come under excommunication” in Apostolic Canon 32.
“To be found excommunicated” in Apostolic Canon 36.
“We prescribe excommunication” in Quinisext 94.

We are then called to discern what the competent body is which exercises and has the jurisdiction to carry out the respective disciplinary instruction and ecclesiastical penalty. Therefore, with reference to a footnote of the interpreters of The Rudder on Apostolic Canon 3, we can better understand the concept of jurisdiction and of the competent body for the imposition of an ecclesiastical penalty. The footnote states:

“We must know that the penalties which the Canons prescribe, that is, let him be deposed, and let him be excommunicated, and let him be anathema, these, according to the art of grammar, are in the third person imperative, the person not being present. In order for this command to be transmitted, it is of necessity required that there be a second person present. I explain it better. The canons command the synod of living bishops to depose priests, or to excommunicate, or to anathematize laymen, who transgress the canons. However, if the synod does not practically carry out the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or anathematization of the laymen, these priests and laymen are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized. They are, however, liable to judgment: here, to deposition and excommunication or anathematization, and there, to divine judgment… Therefore, those foolish people greatly err who say that in the present times all the clergy ordained contrary to the canons are actually deposed... the command of the Canons, without the practical action of the second person, that is, of the Synod, is incomplete, not operating by itself immediately and before judgment.” [107]

It follows that anyone who falls into an error for which some punishment is imposed, the competent body to impose this punishment upon him is the synod “of living bishops”; it has the right to depose, excommunicate, and anathematize its members. As the interpreters inform us in their commentary, there exists neither automatic deposition, nor automatic excommunication, nor automatic anathemas. The terms “let him be deposed” and “let him be excommunicated,” which the Sacred Canons mention, apply to all other matters except matters of faith. And there, naturally, the second person is also needed, that is, the Synod in the present case, which will impose upon the particular person the penances prescribed by the Sacred Canons. But in the case of those who preach any heresy, there is not the “let him be deposed” and “let him be excommunicated,” but “let him be anathema.”

Dositheos of Jerusalem also defines it excellently: “A heresy which arises, if it spreads, is judged and condemned by the Ecumenical Council,” which is “superior to Local Councils” and “the final tribunal of the Catholic Church.” [108]

 

NOTES

106. For the discovery of the relevant passages, combined use was made of Amilkas Alivizatos, Sacred Canons, ed. Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens 1997, and Pavlos Menevisoglou, Metropolitan of Sweden, Lexicon of the Sacred Canons, ed. Epektasi, Katerini 2013. The recording of the passages was made from Rallis-Potlis, vol. 2, and Joannou P. P., vol. 1.1.

107. The Rudder, footnote 2, pp. 4–5.

108. Dositheos of Jerusalem, Dodecabiblos, Rigopoulos ed., Thessaloniki 1982, Book 3, Chapter 15, §19, p. 171, and Book 4, Chapter 10, §3, pp. 456–457.

 

Source: Η Ποινή του Αφορισμού κατά τους Ιερούς Κανόνες & τις Αποφάσεις των Οικουμενικών Συνόδων [The Penalty of Excommunication According to the Sacred Canons and the Decisions of the Ecumenical Councils], Fr. George Avramidis. Postgraduate diploma thesis, Theological School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2023-2024, pp. 39-41.