On Communion with Unadjudicated Heretics: From the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council

Source: The Concept of Defilement of the Orthodox from Ecclesiastical Communion with Uncondemned Heretics, by Hieromonk Eugenios the Hagiorite, Thessaloniki, 2023. Text edited by Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou.

 

 

During its fifth session, the Council addressed the question of whether heretics are anathematized after their death and, after thorough investigation, ruled that this is an ecclesiastical tradition. From what was said and presented, it also emerged that Theodore of Mopsuestia had been cast out of the Catholic Church even after his death because of his impious writings. The verb “cast out” in this passage means that he was removed from the holy diptychs. Theodore of Mopsuestia died in 428 while in full communion with the Church of his city, and his name was included in the holy diptychs. At least eighty years later, it was removed from the holy diptychs, as is evident from the council that Justinian ordered to examine the matter in Mopsuestia in 550. The reason this occurred is explained by the Fifth Ecumenical Council itself. Theodore’s followers maintained that he should not be anathematized because he had died in communion with the Church, but the Council proved the contrary.

THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE

The Council cited three passages. The first is the Lord’s statement in the Gospel according to John that whoever believes in Him is not judged, while whoever does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the Only-Begotten Son of God. The second is the Apostle Paul’s statement to the Galatians that even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you another Gospel than that which we preached to you, let him be anathema. The Council interprets anathema as meaning separation from God. The third passage is from the Epistle to Titus: after a first and second admonition, avoid a heretical man, knowing that he has become perverted and sins, being self-condemned.

THE INTERPRETATION OF SAINT CYRIL

The Council continues by saying that they agree with what Saint Cyril wrote in his books against Theodore, where he says that those who are held by such grievous offenses must be avoided, whether they are alive or not, because we must always flee from that which causes harm and must not regard the person, but rather that which is pleasing to God. Thus, the Apostle’s words “avoid him” are interpreted by Saint Cyril as the necessity of fleeing from them because they cause harm. This harm comes either from living heretics or from heretics who have fallen asleep.

THE CASE OF THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Council declares that Theodore of Mopsuestia was condemned together with Nestorius, a fact also confirmed by the correspondence of Saint Cyril. Nevertheless, the Bishops of the East regarded Theodore as Orthodox; consequently, his immediate condemnation by name by the Third Ecumenical Council and the removal of his name from the Holy Diptychs would have led to a definitive rupture of ecclesiastical communion with them.

For this reason, the Council exercised ecclesiastical economy: it refrained from condemning him directly by name, in order to prevent the schism of those who placed their theological hopes in his person.

In this way, both Saint Cyril the Great and the Third Ecumenical Council were vindicated. When the Church of Mopsuestia later recognized his teaching as heretical, it finally removed him from the Holy Diptychs—confirming the ecclesiastical principle that we must distance ourselves from whatever harms the faith, whether it concerns the living or those who have fallen asleep.

THE EMPEROR’S TYPOS AND POPE VIGILIUS

Returning before the end of the seventh session, the quaestor (=a senior public official/dignitary) Constantine presented a document, a Typos of the emperor. Constantine said that the most pious Emperor had addressed to the Holy Council a Typos concerning the name of Vigilius, namely, that henceforth, because he had defended impiety, his name should not be entered in the Holy Diptychs of the Church, that he should not be commemorated by the Council, and that his name should be retained neither in the Church of the Imperial City nor in the other Churches entrusted to the Council and to the remaining bishops within the empire that God had given him. Constantine added that, after hearing the Typos, they would learn how great was the care of the most serene Emperor for the unity of the holy Churches and the purity of the Holy Mysteries.

UNITY AND THE PURITY OF THE HOLY MYSTERIES

The emperor’s Typos requests that, since Pope Vigilius defended the impiety of Nestorianism, his name should neither be entered in the Holy Diptychs of the Church nor commemorated in Constantinople or elsewhere. The removal of the Pope’s name from the Holy Diptychs is directly related to unity, because, if he is commemorated while defending heresy, he disrupts unity, even prior to a synodal condemnation. Metropolitan Meletios (Kalamaras), in the introduction to his book on the Fifth Ecumenical Council, says that, according to an indisputable Orthodox ecclesiastical principle, the unity of the Church is not administrative or institutional in form. The Church is one in the Spirit; she is united in the name of Christ. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all. This unity is disturbed only by heterodoxies. Whoever believes differently from what he has received ceases to possess the unity of the Faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Church is neither episcopocentric nor anthropocentric, but Christocentric. All of us within the Church constitute one body, and participation in the immaculate Mysteries of Christ unites us with Christ and with one another. The heretic, because of the impiety he has embraced, is separated from God and disrupts this unity. The Council itself says in its decree that the impious man brings the anathema upon himself by his own deeds, since through his impiety he separates himself from true life. That he creates schism is also confessed by the Fifteenth Holy Canon of the First-Second Council, which says that they condemned not bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and did not rend the unity of the Church by schism, but “endeavored to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions” (but struggled/zealously took care to save the Church from schisms and divisions).

The person who breaks communion with this heretic who has not yet been condemned frees the Church from the schism he causes. Metropolitan Meletios adds that the purity of the Holy Mysteries is lost when a heretical bishop is commemorated. The two matters—unity and purity—are mentioned together as being inseparably connected with heresy.

THE DIVINE TYPOS AND THE CONDITIONS FOR SALVATION

How does the Fifth Ecumenical Council interpret the loss of purity or, in other words, the defilement of the Mysteries? An examination of the Acts clarifies this matter. Justinian’s Divine Typos states that there is one salvation for Christians: to approach the communion of the Holy Mysteries with a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith, because only then does each person hope to receive remission of sins, provided that he is deemed worthy of communion in the Holy Mysteries by priests who worship God in an Orthodox manner. Regarding the salvation of Christians, the text establishes the following conditions concerning the person approaching: a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith. As regards the priest from whom the faithful person approaches to receive communion, he must worship God in an Orthodox manner. The phrase “only then does he hope” leaves no room for the option of receiving from a priest who does not worship in this manner. It is very important that we receive remission of sins only under the first alternative.

THE TESTIMONY OF SAINT BASIL THE GREAT AND SAINT MELETIOS

Saint Meletios of Galesion says the same, referring to Basil the Great. He says: “And the venerable Basil [says]: ‘Those whose teaching I do not accept and whose mind I utterly condemn, from them it is natural that I should also avoid communion (association).’ And after first setting forth these things, he immediately adds: ‘Otherwise, for the faithful man to be saved and to receive from God the remission of his sins, and to become an heir of the heavenly life and rest, unless he withdraws completely from those who do not hold the right faith, avoiding communion with heretics, is altogether unattainable and entirely impossible.’”

The great Hierarch says that we must also avoid communion with those whose mind we do not share, because otherwise the faithful person neither receives remission of offenses nor attains salvation unless he withdraws from those who do not hold the right faith. There is complete agreement with the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which state that only then does each person hope to receive remission of sins, if he is deemed worthy of communion in the Holy Mysteries from priests who worship God in an Orthodox manner. Therefore, in order to receive remission of sins, one must receive communion from a priest who possesses an Orthodox mind, according to Basil the Great, Saint Meletios of Galesion, and the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Here we clarify that Basil the Great and Saint Meletios refer not only to priests, but to communion with heretics more generally, whether clergy or laymen. Thus, the reason for withdrawing from a priest is not merely that he has ceased to celebrate the Mysteries—that is, that he has been deposed—but rather his mind. Many say: since the priest celebrates the Mysteries, why should we not approach to receive communion? We do not approach, the above divinely inspired texts reply, because we do not receive remission of sins and will not attain salvation.

THE PURITY OF THE HOLY MYSTERIES AND DEFILEMENT

Returning to the text of the quaestor Constantine, he adds, as a second matter, the purity of the Holy Mysteries. Thus, the purity of the Holy Mysteries is lost when a heretical bishop is commemorated. Without doubt, the two matters—unity and purity—are mentioned together because of their inseparable connection with heresy. But how does the Fifth Ecumenical Council interpret the loss of purity or, in other words, the defilement of the Mysteries? A close examination of the Acts of this Council clarifies the matter. The Divine Typos says that there is one salvation for Christians: to approach communion in the Holy Mysteries with a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith, because only then does each person hope that he will receive remission of sins, if he is deemed worthy of communion in the Holy Mysteries from priests who worship God in an Orthodox manner. For the salvation of Christians, the text establishes the following conditions concerning the person approaching: a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith. As regards the priest from whom the faithful person approaches to receive communion, he must worship God in an Orthodox manner. The phrase “only then does he hope” leaves no room for the option of receiving from a priest who does not worship in this manner. It is very important that we receive remission of sins only in the first case.

CONCLUSION

Justinian’s Divine Typos asks the Council, quite simply, that the mutual commemoration of Pope Vigilius be discontinued because he defended Nestorianism, so that those who commemorated him might not also participate in his heresy. And the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council accepted the Divine Typos.

The Principle of “Communicating Vessels” and Liturgical Defilement

On the basis of this patristic legacy, canonical practice and synodal tradition—as characteristically expressed at the Fifth Ecumenical Council—understand ecclesiastical communion according to the principle of “communicating vessels.”

•  No Automatic Loss of the Priesthood: Participation in heterodoxy or the commemoration of a heretical bishop does not automatically entail deposition or a fall from Grace. The priesthood is not lost mechanically, since the Church requires an institutional, synodal judgment for the imposition of depositions.

•  Participation in Impiety: Nevertheless, commemoration is not a merely formal or administrative reference, but an act of liturgical and dogmatic identification. The Orthodox Christian who commemorates a heretical bishop who has not yet been condemned becomes a participant and communicant in his impiety, undergoing a profound spiritual defilement in his conscience and confession, even if he himself individually retains an Orthodox mind.

From this ecclesiological reality there emerges a fundamental existential and theological question:

If the unrepentant heretic, or the heretic who has not yet been condemned, through his impiety becomes alienated and separates himself from the true Life, which is the Triune God, then the otherwise Orthodox Christian who commemorates him—thereby participating liturgically in that impiety—risks the same ontological severance.

Ecclesiastical communion with error is not harmless; it adulterates the confession of the Faith, which constitutes the necessary precondition for deification and man’s communion with God. Consequently, separation from those who do not rightly divide the word of truth does not constitute a rupture, but a therapeutic act of safeguarding salvation and preserving the unity of the Body of Christ in Truth.

Participation in the Immaculate Mysteries does not operate independently of the correctness of the Faith and the purity of conscience. As Saint John of Damascus states in the Sixth Prayer of Holy Communion, the Mysteries are sought “for purification and sanctification (...) and not unto condemnation, nor unto the increase of sins.”

 

Greek source online:

https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_25.html