Is obedience to the Hierarchy unconditional?

Nikolaos Mannis | September 19, 2020

 

 

A few days ago, His Eminence Metropolitan Jeremiah of Gortyna [+2021] published an article entitled “We Lack the Ecclesiological Mindset.” [1] In it, unfortunately, the following positions are formulated, which are not only paradoxical, but also completely anti-patristic, and which stand far removed from the Orthodox and genuine ecclesiological mindset.

Let us examine them in order:

a) “We will do whatever the Hierarchy of our Church tells us. If the Church tells us to wear a mask in the church for our protection from the coronavirus, we will wear it. If it tells us not to wear it, we will not wear it!”

Here, on the one hand, an arbitrary identification is made between two concepts: “Hierarchy” and “Church.” According to Orthodox teaching, however, “there is a clear distinction between the Church, in itself—as the theanthropic sacramental Body of Christ—and the Administration of the Church, that is, the Hierarchy, which indeed expresses the Church, but only under specific and clear presuppositions.” [2]

On the other hand, the even more arbitrary view is implied that absolute and undiscerning obedience is owed for “whatever the Church says” — and by this he means the Hierarchy.

But if the present-day Hierarchy says that we should not venerate the Icons, so that we do not become infected with coronavirus, what will we do? Will we obey it, or will we obey the Church, “whose person is represented by the Ecumenical Council,” [3] which says, “If anyone does not venerate our Lord Jesus Christ, depicted in icons according to His humanity, let him be anathema”? [4]

If the present-day Hierarchy says that we should not receive Communion, so that we do not become infected with coronavirus, what will we do? Will we obey it, or will we obey the Head of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves”? [5]

b) “I will dare to say, brethren, the following as well: even if the Church makes a mistake, we should follow the mistake and not what, in our opinion, is exactness. And what I am telling you is not my own word, but that of Saint John Chrysostom (see in Complete Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. 4, 615).”

Here, His Eminence Mr. Jeremiah unfortunately proceeds, as we shall see, to a distortion of the teaching of St. John Chrysostom. Behold what the Saint says exactly in the passage to which His Eminence refers: “Suppose the Church were to be tripped up and fall. The accurate computation of dates would not succeed in making her slip as much as this division and schism would deserve the blame.” To whom is the Saint addressing himself? And of what mistake of the Church is he speaking? And who expresses the Church in this particular case?

The above excerpt is from the discourse of the holy Chrysostom entitled “To Those Who Fast for the First Pascha,” which is addressed to the so-called Protopaschites, who, even after the First Ecumenical Council, persisted in celebrating Pascha not as the Council had decreed that it should be celebrated in agreement by all, but celebrated “the ‘first Paschas,’ that is, the ancient ones determined according to the erroneous ancient calculations, without taking into account the vernal equinox.” [6] In this important discourse, the Saint says that the crime of the Protopaschites is not simply that they celebrate Pascha before the vernal equinox — which, after all, had occurred in some Local Churches before the First Ecumenical Council determined the date of Pascha — but that they stubbornly resist and reject the decision of the whole Church on this matter. The Protopaschites used as an argument that the First Ecumenical Council had erred astronomically regarding the time for determining Pascha. The sacred Father answers them that even if — that is, hypothetically, because there was no error of the Church in the decision in question — the Church had erred on this matter, the accomplishment resulting from exact observance of the times would not be so great as the crime resulting from the division and schism which the Protopaschites were causing. For this reason he also writes that we “preferred concord to the observance of the times,” [7] and with holy indignation he reproves the Protopaschites, saying: “But you do not prefer the concord of the Church to the time; rather, so that you may seem to observe days, you insult the common Mother of us all and cut asunder the holy council.” [8]

The Saint’s position is absolutely clear, and he is speaking specifically. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the interpretation implied by His Eminence: that the Saint supposedly teaches that, even if some Hierarchy makes a mistake, the faithful are obliged to obey it. To which Church, then, are we all obliged to submit, even if, seemingly, it errs? Naturally, to the Church assembled in Ecumenical Council.

For this reason, Saint Nektarios also emphasizes that, while Local Councils, that is, the decisions of the Hierarchies of the Local Churches, “have partial authority,” Ecumenical Councils, that is, the decisions of the whole Hierarchy of all the individual Churches, “have universal ecclesiastical authority.” [9]

And proof that the Hierarchy of a Local Church, and sometimes even of many Local Churches, can not only err but fail miserably, is found in their hundreds of deluded and rejectable decisions throughout the centuries, such as, for example, the false deposition of St. John Chrysostom by the Hierarchy assembled at the Synod of the Oak (403), the heretical doctrines defended by the Hierarchy of the robber pseudo-ecumenical council at Ephesus (448), the iconoclastic decisions of the pseudo-ecumenical council of Hieria (with 348 Hierarchs, mind you!) in 754, the false-unionist nonsense of the pro-papal Hierarchs at Lyons (1274) and at Ferrara/Florence (1439), and others.

And those deluded Hierarchs were also demanding “obedience to the Church,” that is, to themselves, except that, naturally, they in no way expressed or represented the Church of Christ.

c) “I will mention one example to you: Canonically, I think, the Calendar should not have been changed. The issue of the Calendar, however, is not a dogmatic matter. Therefore, since the Church said that it should be changed, we followed the change. But now look at the wretched state of the Old Calendarists, who wanted to oppose the Church, supposedly following exactness and not the decision of the Church. Their wretched state is that they found themselves outside the Church!”

Now notice how one error brings another. We saw previously in the text of the holy Chrysostom that the Church, through the First Ecumenical Council, decided the time for the celebration of Pascha, so that concord and unity of the whole Church might be achieved.

In 1924, by what Ecumenical Council did the “Church” decide to change the calendar, and for what purpose? By none, my beloved! No Ecumenical Council was held, and there was no ecclesiastical purpose. Unfortunately, it was a hasty, arbitrary, and unilateral decision of the Hierarchy of three Local Churches, initially, which brought about very serious reactions and led to division. This decision did not bring about concord and unity, as the decision of the Church at the First Ecumenical Council did, but rather strife and schisms. And the very fact alone that there are still Local Churches, such as those of Jerusalem, Russia, Mount Athos, and others, which have not accepted this decision for calendar reform, and which insist on celebrating the fixed Feasts according to the old calendar, triumphantly refutes the argument that supposedly “the Church changed the calendar.” The Church, to the shame of the reformers, is divided today on this issue; and when some celebrate Christmas, the others celebrate Saint John the Baptist, and when the former are fasting, the latter are not fasting, and so on.

The Church, through the First Ecumenical Council in 325, decided that Pascha, as the center of all the Feasts and the feast of feasts, should be celebrated on the same day by all, so that there might be concord and unity in this area as well. But the Protopaschites considered this decision to be mistaken from the standpoint of chronological exactness in the celebration of Pascha, and they did not obey. The Latins did the same in 1582 with the adoption of the so-called Gregorian calendar and the resulting alteration of the Paschalion as well, precisely because they considered the decision of the First Ecumenical Council concerning the celebration of Pascha to be mistaken from the standpoint of chronological exactness. Behold what St. Nikodemos answers them: “For let them know that both the Ecumenical Councils which took place after the First, and the rest of the Fathers, also saw, being wise as they were, that the equinox had fallen back greatly. Nevertheless, they did not wish to transfer it from March 21, where the First Council found it, preferring rather the concord and unity of the Church to the exactness of the equinox, which does not cause any confusion in the finding of our Pascha, nor any harm to piety. Indeed, this exactness causes the Latins two great absurdities: namely, that they celebrate Pascha either with the Jews, which is contrary to the present Apostolic Canon, or before the Jews. And that God is more pleased with the order of our Paschalion, and, simply speaking, of our calendar, than with the exactness of the Paschalion and calendar of the Latins, is evident from the miracles which He has shown and continues to show until now.” [10]

The Hierarchies of the Local Churches in 1924, considering that the calendar was mistaken from the standpoint of chronological exactness, what else did they do but clearly adopt the chronolatrous reasoning of the Protopaschites and the Latins? And so they changed it arbitrarily and without the agreement of the other Local Churches, disrupting the unity and concord of the Church in this area, and in essence insulting the unifying work of the First Ecumenical Council.

The Old Calendarists, on the contrary, remained faithful to the decisions and the spirit of the First Ecumenical Council, which decided that the concord and unity of the Church—authentically expressed through the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, and not through the unilateral orders of the Hierarchs of certain Local Churches—is above chronological exactness.

Of course, however, to tell the truth, in the course of time certain extreme Old Calendarists, evidently dazed by the murders, beatings, exiles, shavings and defrockings of their priests, the sealing and demolitions of their churches, the imprisonments, and the other examples of love which they received from the Hierarchs of the official Church, the “disciples of the meek Jesus,” [11] adopted extreme views and unfortunately renounced the whole Church. [12]

It is therefore in the hands of His Eminence Mr. Jeremiah and his colleagues to correct the errors of their predecessors, by restoring honor and respect for the decision of the First Ecumenical Council and for its unifying spirit. Otherwise, they have the right to address the phrase “we lack the ecclesiological mindset” only to themselves, and to no one else. This is the bitter truth.

 

NOTES

[1] https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/39334-gortunos-ieremias-mas-leipei-to-ekklisiologiko-fronima

[2] Demetrios Tselengidis, Professor of the University, Synodality as a Holy-Spiritual Manner of Delimiting the Faith and Life of the Church, and Its Theological Presuppositions (http://www.impantokratoros.gr/B621D61D.el.aspx).

[3] Saint Nikodemos, The Rudder, 2nd ed., Athens, 1841, pp. 66–67.

[4] The Synodikon of Orthodoxy.

[5] John 6:53.

[6] Aristoteles Delimbasis, The Pascha of the Lord, Athens, 1985, p. 539.

[7] P.G. 48, 864.

[8] P.G. 48, 869.

[9] Saint Nektarios, The Ecumenical Councils, Vasilios Rigopoulos Publications, Thessaloniki, 1972, p. 66.

[10] Saint Nikodemos, The Rudder, op. cit., p. 5.

[11] A very small taste of “love” here: https://www.hsir.org/pdfs/2016/04/09/20160409eDiogmoi.pdf

[12] “In the person of the Metropolitan of Florina you have renounced the whole Church,” the new Saint Ephraim of Katounakia heard as a voice from God, when he renounced the prudent leader of the moderate Old Calendarists, the former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos Kavouridis, and for a short time followed the schism of the extreme Old Calendarists, the Matthewites. See Elder Ephraim of Katounakia, published by the Holy Hesychasterion of Saint Ephraim, Katounakia, Mount Athos.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2020/09/blog-post_19.html