The Root of the Division of Those in Resistance

Monk Damianos Agiovasileiatis

 

 

We promised that we would return to examine more thoroughly the great issue that did not allow the resisters of 1924 to produce the expected ecclesiological fruits they had promised. The issue is the invalidation of the Holy Mysteries of the prevailing New Calendar Church.

To be clearer, since many readers are unfamiliar with the Canon Law of the Orthodox Eastern Church, it is well first to analyze, within a general framework (as far as space here permits), the two principal ecclesiological deviations usually found among the fullness of the Church and, not surprisingly, chiefly among the highest clergy of the Orthodox Church.

A. The lapse of Orthodox Christians into heresy.

B. Communion of Orthodox Christians with heresy.

Thus, we shall have the opportunity to examine in what way the members of the Church exist within her from an ecclesiological, soteriological, and consequently ontological point of view, when they walk “in piety and righteousness,” and also in what way they exist within her when they deviate into canonical-dogmatic transgressions.

A. We note that the analysis concerns those baptized members of the Church who fall into some heresy, whether one condemned in the past by the Church or a newly arisen one. The lapse of these members renders them accountable before the Canon Law of the Church and liable before its competent synodal body. Consequently, until they are tried, they are regarded as unjudged heretics. And naturally, being unjudged, they too are considered members of the Church. Let us see more closely, however, how this is so.

Some say that the lapse of a believer into a heresy previously condemned by the Church completely alienates him from the Church, and they ask: what purpose is served by the condemnation of an already condemned heresy? By means of this heresy, the Orthodox person who falls away is not unjudged but is considered a judged heretic, and for this reason he goes out voluntarily and automatically (!) from the Church.

To begin with, we answer that indeed an already judged heresy, as a heretical confession (for example, Monophysitism), does not need to be tried again, nor is there any reason for this. Likewise, if a member breaks communion with the Orthodox Church and joins the Monophysite confession, he departs from it of his own accord, and truly any possible deposition or excommunication (according to his rank) by the Church has no meaning and no effect for him, except only a “declaratory character.” (Ecclesiastical Law, A. Christofilopoulou, p. 274.)

But when the judged heresy as a teaching is publicly preached to the fullness of the Church by some member who belongs to the Orthodox Church, then, according to Canon Law (and logic), it is necessary to reaffirm the anathema of the heresy and for the fallen cleric to be deposed, or, if he is a layman, to be excommunicated. The reaffirmed anathematization of the heretical teaching and the deposition or excommunication are carried out by the local Church to which the member belongs. In the case, however, where the entire hierarchy of a local Church falls away, then the heresy and the fallen hierarchy are judged by a greater synod.

That a new condemnation is required is evident from a simple reading of the Acts of the councils of the Church. But Canon 15 of the First-Second Council also points this out: “...for those who, on account of some heresy condemned by the holy Councils or Fathers, separate themselves from communion with their president, that is, when he is publicly preaching the heresy... such men, walling themselves off before synodal adjudication... shall be deemed worthy of the fitting honor.” Clearly the canon speaks of synodal adjudication when the heresy is already judged (condemned); of course, synodal adjudication is required all the more when it has not been judged. Besides, the reason why the Orthodox faithful wall themselves off is the practical denunciation of the heresy and of the heretic by name, so that the convocation of this new synod of bishops may be achieved more quickly, and it is self-evident that the president accused “on account of heresy,” if he remains unrepentant, is deposed by it.

Therefore, even though the accused bishop has fallen into an already judged heresy, so long as he remains under trial before the new synod, he cannot be regarded as a judged heretic but as an unjudged one. And being unjudged, he is considered by the synod as a member of the Church.

But those who “search the Scriptures” solely in order to find support for their erroneous theory (and of course, according to the letter, they find whatever they want) say that, according to the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, “heresy separates every man from the Church.” (Acts of the Councils, S. Milias, vol. 3, p. 733.) Truly, at this point there is a glaring antinomy, though only an apparent one, which we shall immediately clarify. That is, let us see in what sense the unjudged heretic subsists as a member of the Church in relation to the Orthodox believer.

The presence of a member in the Church has a twofold standing. It is first and foremost a spiritual relationship with the invisible Head of the Church. Through this relationship the sanctification of the believer comes about by participation in the holy Mysteries, since the Lord Himself blesses, performs, sanctifies, offers, and is offered, especially in the pre-eminent mystery of the Divine Eucharist. A natural and immediate consequence of this spiritual relationship, therefore, is the possibility of that member’s salvation. Secondly, it is an “ecclesiastical” relationship, [1] which consists in his entry through baptism as a member of the Church. Although it precedes the spiritual relationship and is an indispensable prerequisite for attaining it, we mention it as secondary because, surely, without the spiritual relationship, the “ecclesiastical” one by itself provides no soteriological benefit to the member, except only when the baptized member dies in infancy or suffers from mental illness. Therefore, it is possible for the “ecclesiastical” relationship to exist while the spiritual one has been severed. Cases in which this may occur are: when a member falls into heresy, whether judged or not judged; when a member communes with a heretic while knowing his heresy; and when a member falls into a mortal sin and does not repent.

From the above twofold relationship, it follows that:

– The members who exist spiritually and “ecclesiastically” within the Church constitute the healthy part of her body, that is, the Church as the Body of Christ.

– Members can sever their spiritual relationship with the Church voluntarily, and only voluntarily. In that case they are considered spiritually dead [2] members, and of course they exist only “ecclesiastically” within the Church.

– The “ecclesiastical” relationship of spiritually dead members is severed by the anathema of complete excommunication by a synod of the Church, or voluntarily by their joining heretical confessions, for example Roman Catholicism, or another religion.

In conclusion, then, up to this point one thing is certain: that the president accused “on account of heresy,” through his false doctrine, has lost the grace of the All-Holy Spirit and consequently has fallen from the highest state of being, if indeed he possessed it to begin with. Whether, however, he thereby departs entirely from the Orthodox Catholic Church or does not depart, this does not depend directly on the fact that he himself personally, by his anti-Orthodox confession, has lost the grace of God. Likewise, in the case of the faithful who are unrepentant sinners, it does not depend on a non-Christian mode of life. Many take this as the cause of the now definitive departure of this heretical president from the Church, even grounding their opinion, so as to have some sort of “canonical” support, on the supposedly self-acting (!) penal force of the sacred canons. In essence they return again to the position we mentioned earlier concerning one who has fallen into an already judged heresy, regarding which there already exists a condemning Oros or Canon, and for this reason, they say, he is considered judged. For this reason, they ask whether it is ever possible in the Orthodox Church for heretics, especially clerics, to coexist together with the Orthodox faithful. Although the reference to the twofold relationship of the members is sufficient to dissolve this present “contradictory” coexistence, we shall nevertheless proceed, in answering the question, to a further clarification of the matter.

The question is, at the very least, naive, if it does not express a settled conviction, for the reason that it prejudges the unjudged heretics. We answer that, unless they make the distinction between unjudged and judged heretics, the “veil will never be taken away from their heart” so that they may understand the truth of the matter. By maintaining this error, we “abolish” the judicial authority of the Church’s Synodality. [3] This judicial authority consists in the authentic and definitive determination of a false teaching as heretical, in its anathematization, and in the personal and nominal condemnation of the bearers and leaders of the heretical teaching. But when someone looks only to the results of principles (causes), without paying attention to the causes of those results, or worse, obstinately denies them — that is, the reasons why the results differ — it naturally follows that he falls into an inability to understand the matter, a matter so serious from the standpoint of ecclesiological concern and responsibility, and thus is needlessly thrown into confusion.

The truth is that unjudged and judged heretics do indeed share the common name derived from whatever heresy they may hold, but in essence they differ with respect to the act of judgment. Yet by considering them only under the appellation of “heretic,” without this distinction, they turn homonyms into synonyms, [4] and thus, by identifying things that are not identical, they fall into absurdities, are led astray into unsound ecclesiology, and do not escape even blasphemy. This blasphemy, as we shall see in another section, lies in the fact that unjudged heretics, insofar as they are clerics, are “active” members of the Church and perform valid mysteries through which the Holy Spirit works the salvation of many faithful who repent but are ignorant of the heretical teachings of those clerics.

This distinction between unjudged and judged heretics is illustrated by the wise Saint Nicodemus with a very simple example. Referring to priests under accusation (unjudged) and subject to the penalty of deposition by a synod, he says: “if the synod does not actually carry out the deposition of the priests... these priests are not in act deposed. They are, however, liable — here to deposition... and there to divine judgment. Just as when a king orders his servant to beat another man who had offended him, if the servant who was commanded does not carry out the king’s order, the one who offended the king remains unbeaten, yet is still liable to the beating.” (Pedalion, footnote 2 on Apostolic Canon 3.)

So it is clear that “heresy separates every man from the Church” primarily with respect to man’s spiritual relationship to the invisible Head of the Church. This spiritual relationship certainly constitutes the very quintessence of the presence of the members within the Church. And when it is severed, whether they are unjudged or judged heretics, they become identified [5] in that they are indeed considered outside the saving mission of the Church. From this point of view, the “ecclesiastical” relationship of a member to the Church is utterly secondary and brings him no benefit toward salvation, except only that he is given the possibility of participating in the institutional, liturgical, and administrative framework of the Church. In a second sense, however, “heresy separates from the Church” the accused (unjudged) heretic with respect to his “ecclesiastical” relationship to the Church through baptism, not automatically, but at a later time through synodal condemnation.

In the same way, we may say, for example, that such-and-such a canon deposes such-and-such a cleric, meaning of course not the self-acting deposition of the cleric by the canon itself (that is absurd), but the application by a synod of the canon’s command to depose him. Or, in another and clearer way, we may say that the law of the state imprisons the thief or the murderer, again meaning not the automatic imprisonment of the lawbreaker by the law itself, but the application of the law by the appointed public organs of the state to the thief or the murderer. And again, the exceedingly ingenious Saint Nicodemus, in order to show the necessity of a synodal decision for the deposition of a fallen cleric, leaving no room for any other interpretation, also specifies the time for the convocation of the new synod, saying: “The Canons command the synod of the living Bishops to depose priests, or to excommunicate, or to anathematize laymen who transgress the canons.” (Footnote 2 on Apostolic Canon 3.)

Certainly, the Church as the Body of Christ and a spiritual kingdom is the place where those “who worship God in spirit and in truth” are the ones who constitute the healthy part of the Church. We cannot, however, deny the reality that within the Church there are also members who are spiritually diseased or dead. All Orthodox Christians are called to attain holiness. “Be ye perfect,” says Scripture, “even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Yet this obligation, by reason of that specific command, certainly does not place outside the Church those members who have not yet attained perfection. The Church has never legislated any such thing. If what we have said up to this point applies to spiritually dead members, it applies all the more to those who are diseased.

In the final analysis, there are spiritually dead members, but also diseased members, who are deprived either of the high state of being, or of the right faith, or of both; even those whose activity is judged dangerous to the other members of the Church, until they are expelled from the Church by its competent synodal body, remain, by leniency, even if abusively, as members of the Church. The word abusively refers rather to the negligence in convening the new synod of the living Orthodox bishops, whose specific and imperative judicial authority, when it is not undertaken, burdens them with very grave responsibilities.

There are, however, also other reasons that hinder the formation of the synod; therefore, those members who are accountable and for various reasons evade trial by a synod in the present life are unavoidably referred to the divine judgment, just as are those from among the multitude of the faithful who remain in communion with heretics while knowing their heresy.

 

Notes

1. The term “ecclesiastical” relationship, although it does not appear in patristic literature, at least in connection with our subject matter, is a self-evident and indisputable reality. In contemporary ecclesiastical literature it is also expressed as an institutional relationship.

2. Perhaps in these cases the spiritual severance may not be complete and absolute, insofar as this also depends on the degree of the members’ lapse, on the disposition and inclination of their soul toward the knowledge of the truth, on the loving-kindness of God working secretly in their hearts, and on other such things which take place invisibly. Concerning this, Saint Theodore the Studite agrees admirably, saying: “for one must not make a definitive pronouncement; because one differs from another both in person and in knowledge, and in zeal, and in age.” For this reason, for an easier understanding of the matter, we assume that these members transgress some Oros or dogmatic canon with full conviction.

3. By the term “Synodality” we always mean the convocation of bishops in an ecumenical (pan-Orthodox) or local synod, chiefly for the condemnation of some heretical teaching and of the heretics.

4. The use of the logical terms of dialectic in the polemical writings of the great Fathers of the Church against heretics was customary and necessary. Saint Gregory Palamas used this particular method against Barlaam.

“Synonyms are those whose name is common and whose definition of essence according to the name is the same... Homonyms are those whose name alone is common, but whose definition of essence according to the name is different.” (Epitome of Logic, Nikephoros Blemmydes, P.G. vol. 165, pp. 737, 740.)

5. Here, the identification refers to the soteriological context. However, the non-identification remains with regard to the synodal judgment.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/06/blog-post_27.html