In Defense of Metropolitan Cyprian (+2013): Historical Documents (Part 3)

Our Third Memorandum to the Holy Synod

 

 

Prot. No. 65a
Phyle, May 31, 1983

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Third Memorandum of Bishop Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle, the least among hierarchs, to the Holy Synod of the G.O.C. of Greece, under the presidency of His Eminence Metropolitan Kallistos of Corinth.

“Everyone who is able to speak the truth
and does not speak it shall be condemned by God.”
—Saint Basil the Great

Your Eminence, Most Reverend President,
Holy Brethren,

Invoking Divine Grace to aid my humility, through the intercessions of all the Saints—and especially of our Most Blessed Lady Theotokos—I should like to set forth before you my views concerning the issue that has recently arisen from two widely circulated texts by our Most Reverend President.

Before proceeding to the substance of my Memorandum, however, I should like to express what I regard as a justified grievance: my two Memoranda of a year ago (April and May 1982), addressed to the Holy Synod on serious matters, received no consideration whatsoever and were never discussed. At that time, I wrote, among other things: “We are obliged to proclaim publicly, unequivocally, and before the Church what our ‘Creed’ is and what the foundations of our sacred struggle are, so that we may safeguard our unity in Christ, and so that those who look to us with hope, or who are under our jurisdiction, may clearly know our mind and our ecclesiology. In this way, future divisions and defections will be avoided” (p. 7).

Strangely, as I have said, the Holy Synod took no interest in my proposal, and thus today we suddenly find ourselves confronted with a situation unfortunately created by our Most Reverend President. Setting aside the synodal system, and without the knowledge of any of the Most Reverend Brethren, he circulated a booklet and a letter entitled Apologia (Athens, 1983, 31 pp.) and Letter of Confession (Athikia, Corinthia, May 23, 1983).

Through these texts, it is maintained that all the Orthodox Churches which adopted the festal-calendar innovation of 1924, as well as the Local Churches in communion with them, have lost Divine Grace, being schismatic in actuality. The manner in which the issue is posed and examined, however, is at variance with the Holy Fathers, since a position concerning the Faith is being proclaimed that is unsupported by testimony, unproven, and assuredly contrary to Tradition. Even the Holy Ecumenical Councils first investigated matters under divine inspiration and demonstrated the truth in accordance with Tradition; only then did they render judgment. Here, however, we observe with sorrow that precisely the opposite is occurring.

In view of the foregoing, I feel obliged humbly to express my views on the question of whether Divine Grace exists among those who adopted the festal-calendar innovation of 1924. I shall gladly accept any observation, suggestion, or correction, provided that it is substantiated from Tradition, for to err is human. If, after this, the entire issue should be disregarded and no solution pleasing to God should be given, then, as I also wrote in my aforementioned Memorandum: “With sorrow, but also in all sincerity, I assure you that circumstances will compel me to dissociate myself and disclaim responsibility, obeying God rather than men. I can no longer silence my protesting conscience, which tells me that the most admirable movement of the Old Calendarists—possessing theological breadth and unshakable foundations in Tradition—has already been diverted from its course by its leaders, has degenerated into a narrow ‘family affair,’ and no longer represents the broad anti-Ecumenist front toward which well-intentioned, pious Orthodox Christians have looked, and continue to look, with good hopes” (p. 7).

Moreover, in his Letter of Confession now under examination, our Most Reverend President declares unequivocally: “I shall not concelebrate with any hierarch, whoever he may be, who regards the State, schismatic, and innovating Church of the pan-heresy as a repository of Grace.” As will be demonstrated below, however, we are not of the same mind. Consequently, we cannot concelebrate. But does this not thereby nullify the very purpose of a Synod’s existence? We therefore strive in vain to contribute jointly to the rightly understood welfare of Orthodoxy.

1. Walling-Off from Innovators and Heretics

It is well known that our sacred struggle is provided for by Orthodox Tradition. As expressed in Canon 15 of the First-Second Council, this Tradition praises as worthy of honor those who wall themselves off—that is, separate themselves from their bishop “prior to a synodal judgment”—when he preaches “publicly,” “with uncovered head,” and “in church” a heresy “condemned by the Holy Councils or Fathers,” that is, a heresy already condemned.

Those in resistance to the festal-calendar innovation of 1924 and, more generally, to the heresy of Ecumenism walled themselves off from the innovators and those teaching heresy, and began a sacred struggle against heresy. By enlightening those in ignorance and preparing the ground, they looked toward a Pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical Council and toward a synodal examination, judgment, and decision concerning what had been audaciously undertaken.

It is noteworthy what the history of our Church bears witness to in this regard: namely, that such a Council was always preceded by an interval of time—the pre-conciliar period—during which turmoil and division prevailed among Christians because of the heresy being proclaimed. Certainly, during that period there was no question of whether the Mysteries were valid or invalid. Rather, the issue was one of walling-off from those teaching heresy, denouncing the error, enlightening the faithful, and struggling for the convocation of a competent Council. Until the convocation of a Council—the only body competent to decide concerning the heresy and the heretics—Divine Grace, in its love for mankind, continued to work for the salvation of the ignorant or persecuted People of God, though assuredly unto the condemnation of the heretics and those who consciously shared their views, as is demonstrated below.

2. The Mysteries of Heretics Prior to a Synodal Judgment

The truth of the foregoing is clearly demonstrated by the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council, when its President, Saint Tarasios, said: “We receive those ordained by heretics”—that is, until their heresy has been judged by a Council. “But if a synodal pronouncement [decision] is issued and concord among the Churches is achieved in Orthodoxy and against the heresy,” then “he who dares to be ordained by profane heretics shall incur deposition.” The Holy Council said: “This is a just judgment” (Mansi 12, 1042).

3. The Manner of Receiving Those Ordained by Heretics

The manner in which those ordained by heretics were received strengthens the position maintained above. Thus Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople and President of the Holy Fourth Ecumenical Council, “had been ordained by the impious Dioscorus in the presence of” the heresiarch “Eutyches” (Mansi 12, 1042). Likewise, “most of the bishops who took part in the Holy Sixth Council had been ordained by Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter,” the leaders of the heresy of Monothelitism (Mansi 12, 1047).

4. The Case of Nestorius

The foregoing is further confirmed by the following: Prior to his synodal condemnation, the Holy Third Ecumenical Council called the heresiarch Nestorius “most devout” and “lord” (Mansi 4, 1180–1181). In its sentence of condemnation, however, it characterized him as “most impious” (Mansi 4, 1212). What is noteworthy is that the Council raised no question concerning the invalidity of the Mysteries celebrated by him prior to his final condemnation. For this reason, as Saint Photios the Great says, “When Nestorius was deposed, none of those ordained by him was deposed” (PG 104, 1224).

5. The Example of Saint Theodore the Studite

The zealous Abbot of the Stoudios Monastery, Saint Theodore, twice broke communion with two Patriarchs of Constantinople because of the Moechian Heresy, which, according to him, was “the overthrow of everything, even unto Antichrist” (PG 99, 1025). And yet he raised no question concerning the invalidity of the Mysteries. When he resumed communion, he was in communion with the Patriarchs “with warmer friendship” and “with spiritual gladness” (PG 99, 165, 257).

6. A Preexisting Condemnation

Some naïvely maintain that there is no need for a synodal determination, since the Church has already condemned in the past the innovation or heresy now being proclaimed. In the specific case of Saint Theodore, however, we see the opposite. He raised no question concerning the invalidity of the Mysteries, even though the Moechian Heresy, as a violation of the Evangelical and Canonical Law, had previously been condemned by the Church both generally and specifically. It was condemned generally, for example, through Canon 1 of the Holy Second Ecumenical Council, by which Christians are commanded to anathematize “every heresy.” This canon-defying heresy was also condemned specifically, as, for example, through Canon II of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council, which decrees: “If anyone be found [caught] innovating with regard to any canon or attempting to overturn it, he shall be liable according to that canon.” That is, as Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite interprets it: “Let him receive the penalty prescribed by that canon.”

7. The Competent Ecclesiastical Body

Why, however, did the confessor Saint Theodore maintain the aforementioned position, even though the false teaching had already been condemned by the Church? Because, according to Orthodox Tradition, the penalties of the Sacred Canons are imposed by a third party—namely, the competent ecclesiastical body, such as the appropriate Council in each case. The first party is understood to be the Ecumenical Council that issued the canon; the second, the transgressor of that canon; and the third, the judge.

“If the Council,” writes Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, “does not put into actual effect the deposition of the priests or the excommunication or anathematization of the laity, these priests and laypeople are neither actually deposed nor excommunicated or anathematized.” They are, however, “liable here [in the present life] to deposition and excommunication or anathematization, and there [in the life to come] to divine judgment.” The same zealous Saint, supplementing this in footnote 2 of his interpretation of Canon 3 of the Holy Apostles, says characteristically: “These same divine Apostles clearly explain themselves in their Canon 46, for they do not say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts the baptism of heretics is already immediately and actually deposed; rather, they command that he be deposed—that is, that he be brought to judgment, and, if it is proven that he did this, then let him be stripped of the priesthood by your sentence. This is what they command.” This also accords with Canon 15 of the First-Second Council, which praises walling-off “prior to a synodal judgment” from a bishop who preaches heresy. It says “prior to a synodal judgment” because such a determination is, of course, presupposed even in the case of one who has preached heresy.

8. Condemned and Uncondemned Heresy

For this reason, Saint Theodore the Studite wrote that communion with the heresy of Iconoclasm, which had already been condemned in his day, is “alienation from Christ” (PG 99, 1276). The so-called Divine Communion of the condemned Iconoclasts is not merely “ordinary bread, but a poison that blackens and darkens the soul” (PG 99, 1189). Concerning the Moechians, who had not yet been judged at that time, he said: “We receive Communion from every priest who is free from accusation. For this reason, we do not receive Communion from [the priest] Joseph, since he has been publicly accused. And those who concelebrate with him would certainly also be under accusation” (PG 99, 1065–1068).

9. The Case of the Armenians

Isaac of Armenia writes that the Armenian Christians “deviated” from “the traditions of Saint Gregory [of Armenia] and the other Fathers.” Among other things, they also transferred feast days. And yet, because “they had no doubt concerning the Faith, the Council of Chalcedon, or the two natures in Christ our God for 103 years after the Council of Chalcedon,” they remained in communion with the Church. During this period, the Orthodox Church did not regard their Mysteries as invalid, until they “apostatized from the communion” of Orthodoxy by rejecting the Holy Fourth Ecumenical Council (PG 132, 1256–1257).

10. Departure from the Patristic “Boundaries”

After the foregoing brief exposition, we humbly believe that it is wrong to raise the question of the validity of the Mysteries. We must therefore walk the “royal road” and not depart from the “eternal boundaries” “which our Fathers have set” (Proverbs 22:28). This “royal road” is the good, necessary resistance handed down by the Fathers through walling-off from the innovators and heretics. It also entails the gathering together of the non-innovating pleroma. Our God-pleasing pastoral care of this pleroma, by Divine Grace and in love and humility, will provide the best witness to the Faith, so that the turmoil among the Orthodox may cease through a return to the age-old festal-calendar order handed down by the Fathers. In this way there will be averted divisions and schisms; innovations committed in the name of the struggle against innovation; falling on the right; departure from the truth, love, and grace of Christ our Savior; continual fragmentation into factions warring against one another; and, consequently, the scandal and loss of souls.

Moreover, the Russian Church Abroad under Metropolitan Philaret had always followed this “royal road.” Prior to 1965—the lifting of the anathemas—it was in communion with the New Calendarists. In September 1974, it declared as follows: “Regarding the question of the presence or absence of grace among the New Calendarists, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia does not consider itself or any other Local Church to have the authority to make a final decision, since a categorical assessment of this matter can only be made by a duly convened, competent Ecumenical Council, with the obligatory participation of the free Church of Russia.”

10.a. And What If a Council of the Orthodox Does Not Convene?”

This question is usually advanced as a supposedly powerful argument by those who support the untenable teaching concerning the loss of Grace.

In the first place, we must ask ourselves to what extent we have contributed toward the convocation of the desired Council. In the second place, any answer to the question posed above asserting that anyone may proclaim the innovators fallen from Divine Grace prior to a synodal determination is contrary to Tradition.

We humbly believe that such an action is improper and anti-ecclesiastical for a number of reasons, especially the following. To pass judgment and render a decision against someone requires the constitution of a tribunal composed of persons competent to judge, with those under judgment also present. Are we—the few bishops of today—the competent judges? Are we able to summon those who are to be judged? Do we have the agreement of all the Orthodox Christians throughout the world who are presently fighting the good fight of the Faith? Do we know what lies unseen and hidden within those whom we so readily condemn wholesale, but who, at a given moment, will join the camp of the Orthodox who rightly resist?

For a fuller understanding, I offer the following example. Juvenal of Jerusalem, who had supported the heresiarch Eutyches at the Robber Council of Ephesus, was received at the Holy Fourth Ecumenical Council simply by crossing over to the Orthodox side: “The most devout Bishop Juvenal arose and passed over to the other side; and the Easterners, together with the most devout bishops, cried aloud: ‘God has brought you aright, O Orthodox one; welcome!’” (Mansi 12, 1034). How many “Juvenals” might there be whom we perhaps condemn in advance—and indeed without the authority to do so—but who might hear the words “Welcome!” at the proper time and with God’s blessing?

Our Orthodoxy has given an answer to the question in dispute. When the synodal judgment of innovators and those teaching heresy is delayed or proves impossible under the circumstances, the Orthodox are preserved in the Place of God, taking refuge in Him through canonical walling-off and the struggle against heresy.

10.b. The Orthodox View of Father [St.] Justin Popović

Moreover, our haste and impatience concerning the convocation of a Council and the rendering of a judgment are not fully justified. All things are directed by Divine Providence, especially if we consider that today the greater part of the Church of Christ is neither free nor at peace. A terrible persecution of every form and kind has arisen against the right Faith. For many years, our Holy Church has been upon the Cross of martyrdom. For this reason, the view of our ever-memorable contemporary confessor, Father Justin Popović, is of great importance. Among other things, he wrote in his renowned Memorandum to the Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church: “Perhaps today we should recall and understand, among other things, the following fact: during the period of the Church’s persecutions, no Ecumenical Councils were held. This certainly does not mean that the Church of God was not functioning at that time or was not breathing synodally. On the contrary, that period of Her life and activity was the most fruitful and dynamic. “When another period followed and the First Ecumenical Council was convened, the martyr-bishops were then able to come and be present at it, bearing the still-fresh wounds, marks, and bruises of persecutions and imprisonment, having been tried in the fire of martyrdom. There, before the Council of their brethren and fellow celebrants and before the entire world, they were able freely to bear their witness concerning Christ, confessing Him as God and Lord and Savior of the world and of mankind” (Memorandum…, p. 19, Athens, 1977).

What is needed today, therefore, is canonical walling-off, a God-pleasing struggle against heresy, and fervent prayer that, in His loving-kindness, God may be pleased to bring about what is most beneficial for His Holy Church.

All this does not mean that those who follow the festal-calendar innovation are thereby absolved. By persisting in it, they are certainly answerable before God and the Church.

10.c. The Holy Russian New Martyr Cyril of Kazan

Before concluding our Memorandum, we consider it necessary to cite the highly important views of the Holy Russian New Martyr Cyril, Metropolitan of Kazan († 1936 or 1937). He was compelled to break communion with Metropolitan Sergius and those of like mind with him when the latter entered into an ungodly alliance with Russia’s communist regime and acted and made proclamations contrary to the Gospel.

In his defense, Saint Cyril wrote:

“I do not separate myself from anything sacred, from anything belonging to the Church. I fear only becoming attached to something that proceeds from sin. For this reason, I am not in communion with Metropolitan Sergius and those of like mind with him, since I have no other means of denouncing my sinning brother… I recognize that it is my episcopal duty to avoid communion with Metropolitan Sergius. By this action, I do not in the least maintain that Grace is absent from the Mysteries of the Sergianists—may God preserve us from such a thought!—but I emphasize that I do not wish to partake of the sins of others…”

Addressing Sergius, who had grievously strayed, he wrote:

“…You are astonished that I do not concelebrate with you; yet I consider neither you nor myself to be outside the Church… I do not concelebrate with you, not because the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ would not be accomplished in our concelebration, but because communion in the Chalice of the Lord would be unto condemnation for both of us, since our inward state would deprive us of the ability peacefully to offer ‘a mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise’…”

Shortly before his martyrdom, he also wrote:

“…It seems to me that you do not distinguish properly between those acts of Metropolitan Sergius and his followers which are performed canonically through the God-given Grace of the Mystery of the Priesthood, and those acts which are performed by exceeding the bounds of sacramental authority and through human wickedness, such as the various depositions and so forth. The latter are sacramental acts only in appearance, whereas in essence they constitute a usurpation of sacramental power and are therefore blasphemous and without Grace. The Mysteries of the Sergianists who have been canonically ordained, however, are unquestionably salvific Mysteries for those who receive them with simplicity and faith, without doubting their validity and without suspecting that something is amiss with the Sergianist regime within the Church. At the same time, however, these Mysteries are unto the condemnation of those who celebrate them and of those who approach them with full awareness of the falsehood of Sergianism, and who, by failing to resist, display a criminal indifference toward the mockery being inflicted upon the Church. This is why it is necessary for an Orthodox hierarch or priest to avoid common prayer with the Sergianists. The same applies to laypeople who possess a conscious knowledge of the details of ecclesiastical life.”

* * *

Your Eminence, Most Reverend President,
Holy Brethren,

I ask forgiveness for having spoken at such length, though the seriousness of the subject required it. I humbly believe that all the foregoing demonstrates how dangerous and futile it is to define precisely the point at which the innovators abandoned—or will abandon—the Church without hope of return. Such a judgment is not ours to make. What is required of us is to wall ourselves off from those participating in the apostasy against the Truth and to unite with those of like mind. We must not create still greater estrangement or obstacles to a God-pleasing understanding and cooperation with those who cherish the voices of the Fathers but have unwittingly followed the innovators and need assistance, understanding, and love in order to withdraw completely from error and falsehood.

In view of all the foregoing, Holy Brethren, do you not believe that my further cooperation with the Holy Synod would become impossible if it were to accept what I regard as the untenable teaching concerning the loss of Divine Grace? Otherwise, I would knowingly be participating in the scandalizing of souls and in hindering “those appointed to eternal life” (Acts 13:48), who long for the Orthodox Truth but cannot find it because of our beliefs and actions contrary to Tradition.

Hoping and praying that I may receive full understanding, I remain before the Lord in anguish, awaiting overshadowing and guidance from on high concerning what lies ahead.

The least among hierarchs,
† Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle

(To be continued.)