Is Canon 15 Optional or Mandatory?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOoNmkCUwok

QUESTION. Read the Canon carefully and you will see that it imposes no obligation, but merely grants a right. Nowhere does it say that clergy are obliged to separate themselves from such a bishop before he is condemned, nor does it speak of any punishment or even a simple reprimand for those who do not separate themselves. And this despite the fact that, in the sacred Canons, it is customary to use the phrase “let him be deposed” when speaking of clergy who do not fulfill their obligations in their entirety.

ANSWER. If, however, it is maintained that, because no penalty (epitimion) is included in the second part of the Canon, it is optional, then this means that there is no “defilement” (spiritual impurity arising from communion with heresy). This, however, contradicts the Tradition of the Church, which accepts that such defilement does exist.

Moreover, neither the 33rd Apostolic Canon, nor the 9th Canon of Timothy, nor the 5th Canon of Saint Basil the Great contains penalties concerning the same matter, namely communion with heretics who have not yet been definitively condemned, and yet they are mandatory. Likewise, in Saint Athanasius the Great’s Epistle To the Monks, no penalty is prescribed, yet separation is regarded as mandatory (“you must flee”), a phrase expressing the common position of the Fathers of the Church.

At the same time, penalties do exist for Orthodox Christians who commune with heretics who have not yet been condemned, as laid down by the canonical principle, “He who communes with one who is outside communion shall himself be placed outside communion,” as well as by the declarations of Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem: “He who prays together with a heretic in church or at home shall himself be placed outside communion.”

QUESTION. That this is true is also evident from the fact that, although countless bishops were deposed for heresy throughout the long history of the Church, no cleric was ever punished—or even simply reprimanded—for not hastening to separate himself immediately from a heretical Bishop, but instead waiting for his condemnation by a Synod. If the Canon were mandatory, it would have been interpreted as such in the practice of the Church, and we would have numerous examples of clergy being punished who, without adopting the views of their heretical bishop, continued to commemorate him until his synodal condemnation. No such example, however, exists.

ANSWER. Since spiritual defilement exists and penalties are prescribed, even if no one had ever been punished, this would be attributable to the loving-kindness and compassion of the Holy Fathers. After all, neither were those who came to Orthodoxy from Papism, from other heresies, or even from other religions punished, although defilement and penalties do exist.

Moreover, punishments were imposed:

• Laity and Clergy: According to the interpretation of the eminent canonist Matthew Blastares concerning the canon contained in the Epistle To Rufinianus, the laypeople who entered into communion with the Arians, whether through deception or compulsion—which means that they remained Orthodox in faith—were subjected to penalties when they returned in repentance to the Orthodox. The same applied to Orthodox Clergy who entered into communion with the Arians under compulsion or for a good purpose: they were canonically liable and penalties had to be imposed upon them.

• Monks: Saint Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, imposed a penalty upon monks who had prayed together with heretics who had not yet been condemned, even though they had ceased this sinful practice.

• Clergy: Saint Theodore the Studite likewise imposed penalties upon clergy for the same matter.

(And if even laypeople and monks were punished, how much more does this apply to clergy who continue to commemorate heretics?)

The fact that these penalties chronologically preceded the enactment of the 15th Holy Canon does not diminish their significance, for although this Canon was formulated in the ninth century, it expresses the perennial experience of the Church. Moreover, as early as the seventh century, Saint Sophronius had already articulated the substance of Canons 13, 14, and 15, thereby expressing Holy Tradition.

QUESTION. “But if some separate themselves from a [bishop], not on the pretext of some personal transgression of his, but because of a heresy condemned by a Synod or by Holy Fathers, they are worthy of honor and acceptance, as Orthodox.” Indeed, here the Saint—Sophronius, in his Declarations—permits the cessation of commemoration/separation (walling off) from a heretical bishop only on the condition that the heresy has already been condemned by a Synod or by Holy Fathers. By this phrase, the Saint does not exclude the necessity of a synodal condemnation of the heretical bishop by name; had he meant otherwise, he would have said so explicitly.

The manner in which this statement of the Saint is formulated helps us to understand more clearly the optional character of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council. The Saint says: “But if some separate themselves...,” that is, if some cease communion, they are “worthy of honor and acceptance.” The Saint does not say, “All are obliged to separate themselves.” Had his statement been mandatory in character, he would not have used the formulation “If some...”

ANSWER. That “all are obliged to separate themselves, to cease communion (to wall themselves off)” is stated by Saint Sophronius in the passage quoted above, when he writes: “You must flee, because the place (that is, the Church) has been defiled by them.” This leaves no room for an optional interpretation. And the reason is as follows: “He who prays together with a heretic in church or at home shall himself be placed outside communion.”

The synodal condemnation of the heretic takes place when the Synod convenes to judge him. The priest, however, becomes spiritually defiled (“a defiled/impure priest”) even before he loses his priesthood through deposition, and for this reason communion with him must be avoided.

Concerning Schisms and the 15th Canon

What, then, are these schisms, and why does [the Canon] use the plural? These schisms concern false bishops and false teachers. They disrupt the unity of the Church through the heresies they have accepted and introduce into her. As many as the false bishops are, so many are the schisms.

See how Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite interprets it:

“But if the aforementioned ecclesiastical leaders are heretics and publicly preach their heresy, and for this reason those subject to them separate themselves from them—even before a synodal decision has been rendered concerning that heresy—those who separate themselves are not only not condemned for their separation, but are also worthy of the honor due to them as Orthodox. For by this separation, they did not cause a schism in the Church, but, on the contrary, delivered her from the schism and heresy of those false bishops.”

This schism belongs to and concerns the false bishop; Saint Nicodemus connects it directly with him. He is the one who disrupts the unity of the Church, and it is precisely from this schism that those who cease communion with him before the synodal decision deliver the Church.

QUESTION. “The haste to cease commemoration (wall oneself off) today is based on the mistaken notion that the Canon is mandatory in character. If the God-bearing Fathers who composed the Canon had wished to make it mandatory, they would have begun with the word ‘must,’ ‘are obliged,’ or ‘it is necessary,’ and would have prescribed penalties of excommunication or anathema in the event that someone failed to observe it.

Much has been said concerning this issue. I shall add the following: This Canon, in the section that concerns us, is in many places drawn from Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem’s work On Declarations. In this work, Saint Sophronius, for didactic/pedagogical reasons, pronounces curses upon those who transgress the divine commandments. Yet when he comes to this particular passage, he prescribes no penalty (epitimion). He simply judges—just as does the 15th Canon—that whoever ceases communion with his heretical ecclesiastical superior is worthy to receive honor and acceptance” (I. Fotopoulos, Lack of Communion and Walling Off According to the Teaching and Life of the Holy Fathers, p. 7).

ANSWER. Saint Sophronius’ treatise On Declarations constitutes a unified text. In order to draw correct conclusions, everything contained in it must be taken into account, in accordance with the hermeneutical principle that the part is examined in light of the whole, and not the whole in light of the part.

The excommunication, therefore, is found in the following passage: “He who prays together with a heretic in church or at home shall himself be placed outside communion.”

That this refers even to an uncondemned (“not yet condemned”) heretic is demonstrated by another passage from the Saint himself: “For this reason, you must flee, because the place has been defiled....” Here the word pheukteon is used, meaning “one must avoid/one must flee,” which expresses precisely the “must,” “are obliged,” or “it is necessary” demanded by the opposing side (the objection).

Therefore, both the excommunication and the “must” are present. Consequently, the passage from the Declarations—from which the 15th Holy Canon is drawn—is mandatory in character, according to the teaching of Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem taken as a whole. By extension, the corresponding part of the 15th Canon is likewise mandatory, in order that spiritual defilement may be avoided.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/07/15.html