Uncontrolled Zeal of the Studites Extinguished by Canon 15 of the First-Second

Hieromonk Lavrentie (Carp) | September 16, 2019

[Note: The Romanian author is an advocate of the ecclesiological understanding of Archimandrite Theodoros Zisis.]

 

 

Moderates and extremists have always been among the faithful. Even the Pharisees were fanatics and could not accept the teaching of Christ. However, an emblematic conflict between these categories is the one marked by the regulations of Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople (861) and the stance of the Studite monks of the 8th-9th centuries. Although this aspect is little known, the former was formulated to temper and condemn the rigorism of the latter after a series of dissensions that afflicted the ecclesiastical life of that period.

A unique situation is that the majority of those who do not commemorate today, after the Council of Crete, declaratively follow both the line of Canon 15 and that of St. Theodore the Studite without seeing a conflict in this. The difference is not visible, it is true, but it nevertheless exists. Even if we were to consider that the Studites often interrupted communion for moral or administrative reasons, whereas Canons 13-15 of the First-Second condemn this, the correctness of their vision should still be questioned. In the book Guardians of Orthodoxy, this aspect is mentioned—that the monks of Studion [Monastery] had inherited certain rigorist errors, reproved by several Saints, among whom was St. Ioannikios the Great.

But there is another important aspect, namely the interruption of communion due to heresy. The Studites also faced situations where matters of dogma were at stake, not just those of morality. Because the deviations concerning the sanctioning through the interruption of communion for disciplinary offenses were more striking, Canon 15 primarily addresses this aspect, yet it does not overlook the issue of sanctioning a bishop who openly preaches a heresy.

The attitude of the Studites was troubling because it often flared up and had become a trend characterized as the "madness of the schismatics" in the text of Canon 13 of the First-Second. Although this Monastery distinguished itself through a confessional stance during the Acacian Schism (484-519), from the 8th century onward, it took an unfortunate turn. Historical testimonies regarding the inappropriate reactions of the Studites can be found in the book The Photian Schism by F. Dvornik. Although the author is [Roman] Catholic and presents his own interpretations of the events—most of them correct—his documentation is valid, based on many primary sources.

Thus, the radical Studites first manifested themselves during the Seventh Ecumenical Council, where they insistently demanded the condemnation of all former Iconoclast bishops, even though they had renounced their error. Patriarch [St.] Tarasios was later confronted by St. Theodore the Studite on the grounds that he had been lenient with some simoniac bishops. A strong conflict, known as the moechian schism, erupted after the Patriarch refused, invoking reasons of economy, to defrock a priest named Joseph who had performed an uncanonical marriage for the emperor. This rupture occurred again during the time of the next Patriarch, [St.] Nicephorus [the Confessor], for the same reasons. Because the decision to rehabilitate that priest was also taken in a Synod to give it greater authority, the Studites interrupted communion with all the bishops who had signed it and with those in liturgical communion with them.

A resurgence of Iconoclasm followed, which was halted only after about three decades, in 843, when the icons were once again venerated by synodal decision. After the death of the last Iconoclast emperor, Theophilos, another Patriarch, [St.] Methodios, was elected. He upheld an Orthodox but moderate line. For this reason, none of the Studite monks were promoted to hierarchical positions to avoid inflaming tempers. This was because the resurgence of the Iconoclast heresy was attributed to the rigorism of the zealots, who provoked their opponents through their attitude. The Patriarch wished for the course of the Church to remain Orthodox but in peace, without arousing unwanted and harmful hostilities. The Studite monks reacted harshly against Patriarch Methodios as well, for which he condemned some of them and the line set by St. Theodore, which they adhered to. [1]

After the death of St. Methodios, St. Ignatios succeeded him on the throne; he was a supporter of the Studites, though not an openly declared one. However, after his controversial deposition and the enthronement of St. Photios, the Studites once again opposed him in the same manner, for which they were subsequently condemned by the canons issued by the Council of 861, which addressed the validity of his election to the throne. For a better understanding of these latter events, I will particularly focus on them.

Byzantine society was marked by conflicts between moderates and radicals, though it almost always sided with the former. For this reason, a Patriarch from the first category was chosen to restore the veneration of icons. Then, to somewhat satisfy the pressures of the Studites, a neutral Patriarch with zealot tendencies followed—St. Ignatios, as was later proven. He came into conflict with the imperial leadership, even displaying excessive zeal in ecclesiastical and political matters, leading to his largely deserved deposition. He rebuked the regent Bardas for allegedly having an incestuous relationship with his stepdaughter without conclusive evidence, then took sides or was even involved in certain conspiracies—acts that could not be tolerated. He was deposed, and in his place, a neutral figure was chosen, but this time inclined toward the moderates—St. Photios. This provoked the revolt of the Studites, who contested his election. It appears that Abbot Nicholas was removed and confined to a monastery for his opposition. [2] After an unsuccessful initial session, the Synod convened by the Patriarch to determine the validity of his ordination reached a decision on this matter in 861. At that time, a series of canons were issued on pressing issues, including the schismatic phenomenon. Thus, the interruption of the commemoration of a bishop for "any kind of faults" was forbidden, except in the case of proven heretical preaching.

In spite of the fact that Apostolic Canon 31 permits the breaking of communion even for a "fault of justice," the Synod of 861 limits this attitude solely to heresy. Here, it must be noted that the text of Canon 15, as well as those preceding it, 13-14, is inspired by a writing of St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (†639), titled On the Confession of Sins. He wrote:

"If any presbyter or deacon withdraws from communion with his own bishop and does not commemorate his name, supposedly sanctioning him for some offense, let him be defrocked! And if a bishop dares to do the same against his own metropolitan, let him be deposed! Likewise, if a bishop or metropolitan dares to do this against the patriarch, let them be removed from the high priesthood! But if some separate themselves from someone not under the pretext of guilt, but because of a heresy condemned by a Synod or by the Holy Fathers, they are worthy of honor and acceptance as Orthodox." (PG 87, 3369-3372).

The similarity with Canon 15 is evident, which has the following content (revised according to the original Greek):

"The decisions concerning presbyters, bishops, and metropolitans apply even more to patriarchs. Therefore, if any presbyter, bishop, or metropolitan dares to withdraw from communion with his own patriarch and does not commemorate his name, as is established and prescribed in the divine sacred service, but before a synodal examination and his definitive condemnation, creates a schism, the Holy Synod has decreed that such a one be entirely alienated from the whole priesthood, if he is merely accused of committing this lawlessness. And these things have been decreed and sealed for those who, under the pretext of certain accusations, withdraw from their first hierarchs, create schisms, and break the unity of the Church. Those who separate themselves from communion with their first hierarch for some heresy condemned by the Holy Synods or the Fathers—namely, one who publicly preaches heresy and teaches it openly in the Church—such persons not only are not subject to canonical penalties if they wall themselves off from communion with the said bishop before a synodal examination, but they shall also be deemed worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox. For they have not condemned bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they have not broken the unity of the Church with a schism but have sought to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions."

Thus, while the Synod harshly condemns the schismatic movement of that time, it considers the interruption of communion and the commemoration of a bishop guilty of heretical teaching, even before a synodal investigation, to be a praiseworthy act. Here, it must be emphasized that our bishops today avoid acknowledging the legitimacy of such an action concerning the Council of Crete.

The authentic ecclesiastical spirit is that this attitude is only permitted, not canonically imposed [sic]. Confession of faith cannot be forced, though it is praiseworthy. Only communion with a bishop who has been deposed is condemnable, not with one who has not yet been defrocked.*

The guiding principle that must be followed is to uphold the Orthodox dogma strictly, without deviation, yet with great economy, love for people, and tolerance for their weaknesses. Iconoclast hierarchs who renounced the heresy were received in their rank, even though they had been fervent supporters of the delusion. The rigorism of the Studites was not accepted, as it does not honor the Gospel of Christ. Akriveia is a dead letter without spirit; rather, even the letter itself is not properly upheld, as deviations from ecclesiastical norms arise through distortions and incorrect interpretations.

The absence of rigorism and spiritual balance are evident in the attitude of St. Basil the Great toward the Pneumatomachian heretics. He did not demand a strict confession regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit but only that it not be denied, believing that such individuals would later learn more accurately the details of the true faith if they were received into communion. On the other hand, he was less strict to avoid a harmful isolation, which would have swelled the ranks of the heretics and weakened the Church (see Epistle 113). This was despite the fact that he himself was severe when it came to the betrayal of the faith, interrupting communion with his bishop when the latter signed a text with heretical overtones (cf. Epistle 51).

A compelling example of the attitude toward heresies is given by St. Silouan the Athonite, as described by Archimandrite Sophrony:

I am aware of a conversation the Elder (Silouan) had with an Archimandrite engaged in missionary work among the non-Orthodox. This Archimandrite held the Elder in great esteem and, whenever he was on Mount Athos, would often come to speak with him. The Elder asked him how he preached. The Archimandrite, still young and inexperienced, gesticulating with his hands and moving his entire body, responded agitatedly:

"I tell them: Your faith is erroneous; everything in it is distorted, nothing is right, and you will not find salvation unless you repent."

The Elder listened and asked:

"But tell me, Father Archimandrite, do they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is the true God?"

"Yes, they do."

"Do they honor the Mother of God?"

"They do honor her, but their teaching about her is incorrect."

"And do they venerate the Saints?"

"Yes, they venerate them, but since they separated from the Church, what Saints can they still have?"

"Do they perform divine services in churches? Do they read the word of God?"

"Yes, they have churches and services, but if you saw how their services compare to ours—what coldness and lack of spirit!"

"So then, Father Archimandrite, their soul knows that they do well in believing in Jesus Christ, in honoring the Mother of God and the Saints, in calling upon them in prayer—so when you tell them that their faith is erroneous, they will not listen to you... But see, if you tell them that they do well in believing in God, that they do well in honoring the Mother of God and the Saints, that they do well in attending church, in participating in the services, in praying at home, in reading the word of God, and the rest—but that they are mistaken in this or that, and that this mistake must be corrected—then everything will be well, and the Lord will rejoice over them; and thus, through God's mercy, we will all be saved... God is love, and thus preaching must always come from love; then both the preacher and the listener will benefit. But if you are always reproaching them, their soul will not listen to you, and no good will come of it." [3]

In conclusion, "it is possible that even true faith cannot grow without the contrition of the heart. Faith in Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, the evangelical commandments, and everything that the Church teaches in general." These words apply not only to modernism in the Church but also to rigorism, which can no longer see even the letter because of the "letter." Therefore, it is best to avoid both deviation from the true faith and excessive zeal.

 

[1] Archim. V. Papadakis, Guardians of Orthodoxy, p. 530.

[2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14316c.htm.

[3] Archim. Sophrony, Elder Silouan the Athonite, trans. Hieromonk Rafail Noica, Accent Print Publishing, Suceava, 2013, pp. 69-70.

* The author appears to be invoking the principle contained in Canon 1 of Antioch: “Those who dare violate the decree of the great and holy council assembled at Nicaea… the holy council judges them to be separated [i.e., out of communion] from the Church, for he not only sins himself, but becomes for many the cause of disorder and perdition. Such clerics will be stripped of their office, them and those who remain in communion with them after the deposition.” – Trans. note.

 

Romanian source: https://theodosie.ro/2019/09/16/duhul-schismatic-studit-si-canonul-15-i-ii/