The Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), Dorotheos Voulismas, and Contemporary Theological Misinterpretations Concerning the Reception of Heretics

By Vasileios I. Touloumtsis

Postgraduate Diploma in Theology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens—Specialization in Dogmatics

 

 

The convocation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 at Nicaea in Bithynia constitutes an ecclesiastical event of paramount importance, by which the heresy of Iconoclasm was addressed synodally. In its acts, the entire ecclesiastical tradition preceding it is employed and summarized, since, through the contribution of the previous six Ecumenical Councils, the dogmatic teaching of the Church had been clearly formulated. Beyond the question of the theological substantiation of Orthodox iconology, the Council, during its first sessions, dealt with the question of the return of the repentant former Iconoclast bishops, which was examined on the basis of the whole patristic and synodal tradition. Those Iconoclast bishops who declared their repentance were restored to their episcopal thrones without reordination, after first reading a libellus in which they anathematized the heresy of Iconoclasm and confessed the faith and mind of the Catholic Church. It is clear that their non-reordination did not occur indiscriminately or unconditionally, but was based upon specific ecclesiological facts, which we shall set forth below. This made the Seventh Ecumenical Council a point of reference regarding the manner and conditions for the reception of returning heretics, something reflected in all subsequent theological treatises concerning this question.

In order to understand the framework of reception within which the Council of 787 proceeded and acted by economy, it is of pivotal importance first to understand the term “heretic” as used here in the texts of its acts. This term is not univocal, as it is in its modern usage (homonymy), whereby heterodox Christian communities that have been cut off from the united ecclesiastical body because of their entrenchment in particular dogmatic teachings are characterized generally as heretical. The term in question has a twofold meaning, arising from the distinction between heretics who have not been synodically condemned, on the one hand, and those who have been synodically judged or convicted, on the other. [1] Unless the differing meanings of this term before and after a synodal judgment—with their diametrically opposed ecclesiological realities—are clarified and interpreted, confusion and erroneous conclusions are inevitable. Only within this framework can an ecclesiastical synod be understood as a charismatic organ of the Church capable of terminating a charism when it discerns a divergence in teaching that opposes the very life of the Church. Prior to a synodal judgment, heretical bishops, even though they exist in the form of tares, remain by virtue of grace within the ecclesial body and perform valid and subsistent Mysteries, since they administer the ministry of the Church. The unrepentant stance of heretical bishops entails their synodal condemnation and deposition, which signifies the severance of apostolic succession and, by extension, the invalidity of the Mysteries performed by them.

At the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the question of examining the repentance of eleven former Iconoclast bishops and restoring them to the episcopal dignity concerned bishops who had all received their episcopacy from the Catholic Church. It is significant that the wording of the texts speaks not of the recognition of their priesthood, but of their restoration to the priesthood—that is, to the unity of institution and charism, which had been ruptured. Without exception, all the authoritative passages read aloud that defined the framework of reception adopted by this Council concerned bishops who had not been synodically condemned and in whom the charism of the episcopacy received from the Catholic Church remained unbroken. Had this characteristic been absent, restoration would not have been possible. This conclusion emerges naturally when one studies the acts of the Council in their entirety. It is worthwhile, however, to single out by way of illustration four points from the passages read aloud that jointly attest to this framework of reception. First, the question posed at the Council—“whether those returning from heresy are to be received into the priesthood” [2]—speaks of the return of heretics, not of their incorporation into or entrance into the Church. The other phrase, “the hierarchs became heresiarchs,” [3] certainly follows the same line: the reference is clearly to canonically ordained hierarchs who deviated from the rule of faith and became bearers of heterodox teachings. Second, there is the statement of the holy Patriarch Tarasios, who, in referring to the Iconoclast bishops, speaks with crystal clarity, revealing the canonical origin of their ordination: “Certain men arose who had a form of godliness, inasmuch as they had been clothed with the dignity of the priesthood, but denied the power thereof and brought upon themselves the reproach of the priests of Babylon—whom the prophetic word also holds up to shame, saying, ‘Iniquity came forth from the priests of Babylon’—or rather, having constituted an assembly like that of Caiaphas, they became the progenitors of impious teachings and, having a mouth full of cursing and bitterness, reckoned their power to do evil as glory.” [4] Third, there is the letter of St. Athanasius the Great to Rufinianus, in which the designation of persons as heretics prior to synodal condemnation concerns the cases of “those who had been swept along by necessity but had not been corrupted in false belief.” [5] This formulation encompasses the dogmatic deviation of canonical bishops—those “swept along”—from the reality and catholicity of the faith into false belief, from which they are now returning. The fourth and final point is the reference to the return of the prodigal son. Unless one notices a concealed detail in this reference, the resulting conclusion will be entirely contrary to the ecclesiological framework established and confirmed by the authoritative passages adduced. The acts state: “And the son who had lived in prodigality, when he repented, was received by the father; and, to speak comprehensively, wishing him to partake of the dignity of the priesthood, he gives him the seal in the ring and causes the robe to be placed upon him.” [6] This passage could even be interpreted as the father’s unconditional acceptance of the prodigal’s repentance and his immediate restoration to the priestly dignity. It must be emphasized, however, that the father does not unconditionally bestow the dignity of the priesthood for the first time upon an unknown man from outside the paternal house. The prodigal son, “when he came to himself” [7] and recognized the truth, [8] returns to the place from which he had departed; and the father does not give him a dignity that he had not possessed before his departure, but restores him to the position he held before his flight. This is of particular importance, since the Church cannot accept sacramental rites and a priesthood deriving from realms outside the paternal house.

On this basis, two statements by Professor Theodoros Giankou, Professor of Canon Law at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, concerning the reception of heretics are of interest, although they contradict one another. In an article containing a reference to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Professor Theodoros Giankou states the following: “Saint Nikodemos, a profound authority on the sources, maintained that heretical clergymen who come over to the Orthodox Church should not be reordained. His principal source was the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which state that Meletios of Antioch was ordained Bishop of Sebaste by Arians, Anatolios of Constantinople by Dioscoros, while many clergymen at the time of the Seventh Council and shortly before it were ordained either by Monothelites or by Iconoclasts. According to the Fathers of the Council, as well as Nikodemos, who follows them, when such persons come over to the Church, they should not be reordained. In the same acts, it was pointed out that the avoidance of reordination applies without distinction both to clergymen ordained by bishops who had formerly been Orthodox and to those ordained from the outset by heretics. […] This particular treatment of heretics is also recorded in the manuscript nomocanonical sources, as it is in the manuscript liturgical sources, especially the Euchologia, which consistently adopt the principle of Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canon 95 of the Quinisext Council. It is very important to understand that liturgical practice was in complete conformity with the prescriptions of the foregoing canons regarding the reception of those coming over to the Church from heresy.” [9]

According to the manner in which Theodoros Giankou appears to understand and interpret the texts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the general conclusion that emerges is that this Council establishes the unconditional reception and non-reordination of heretics who come over to the Church. Thus, in his statement, he refers not only to the return of bishops who had deviated from the rule of faith, but also to the reception of heretics as though they were believers who had never belonged to the body of the Church and were being grafted into it together with the recognition of their episcopal dignity—thereby recognizing, in their priestly status, the Mystery of Baptism as well. Indeed, in order to strengthen this position, he notes that the Council of Nicaea accepted ordinations deriving both from Iconoclasts and from Monothelites—that is, from an already recognized and condemned heresy. This position of the professor is not confirmed at any point by the texts of the acts. Indeed, we would note at the outset that the Seventh Ecumenical Council operates within a framework entirely contrary to that which he attempts to describe in his article. Strangely enough, he himself upholds precisely this contrary framework in another context, thereby falling into a logical contradiction and refuting his own position. In contrast to what Theodoros Giankou sets forth in this article stands an earlier study of his. [10] In that publication, he prints manuscripts containing the correspondence between Saint Nikodemos and Dorotheos Voulismas concerning matters relating to the publication of the Rudder. In this correspondence, Voulismas refers at numerous points to the manner and the ecclesiological conditions under which the Seventh Ecumenical Council received the returning former Iconoclast bishops—positions that Mr. Giankou there comments upon and judges to be correct.

Yet these positions of Voulismas, which are praised in the 2009 text, are precisely the opposite of those upheld by Theodoros Giankou in his 2017 article. Indeed, referring to Voulismas’s authority, he characteristically observes: “Voulismas was exceedingly well versed in canonical matters, not only because he himself, as we stated in Chapter One, undertook the task—although without bringing it to completion—of publishing collections of the sacred canons, but also because he studied the relevant canonical legislation systematically and in depth. His many years of engagement with canonical questions and canonical collections afforded him valuable experience, which was also recognized by Patriarch Neophytos VII. Moreover, as we have stated, the Patriarchal Synod appointed Voulismas ‘examiner’ of the canonical collections of the Athonites, because it regarded him as ‘an authority on the sacred canons.’” [11]

Below, we shall set forth the conflicting positions of the same professor as expressed in the two texts: the publication of 2009 and his article of 2017.

More specifically:

a) Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canon 95 of the Quinisext Council do not concern the return of bishops to the Church, since they apply exclusively to the Mystery of Baptism and not to that of the priesthood, with the restoration of which the Seventh Ecumenical Council dealt. This fact certainly does not imply any kind of hierarchy among the Mysteries, which in every instance are of equal rank. The exercise of economy rests upon a different basis with respect to the reception of the baptism of returning heretics and their restoration to the priesthood, because bishops are preeminently the teachers and guarantors of the faith. This reveals the gravity and responsibility of the episcopal dignity, which by its very nature cannot be exercised unconditionally or by just anyone, [12] much less by an uninitiated convert to the faith and life of the Church. For example, the Trinitarian faith and the Church’s form of Baptism were factors that enabled the Church to receive by economy the baptism of the Arians, who had been synodically condemned and were outside the Church. This, however, did not occur with respect to the Mystery of the Priesthood. In the Mystery of Baptism, when the Church judges that reception by economy is the only appropriate solution, she does not repeat the Baptism; rather, those outside the Church are incorporated into her through the reading of a libellus and their anointing with Holy Chrism. In the Mystery of the Priesthood, no corresponding economy can exist whereby someone simultaneously enters the Church and is appointed to a clerical rank without ordination. The economy that does exist in the Mystery of the Priesthood consists in receiving clerics who return in the rank that they held and which, in every instance, they had received within the bosom of the One Catholic Church. The repentance and reintegration of heretics into the life of the Church as laypeople is an act according to strictness, since the Church always accepts repentance. The return, however, of clerics—and especially bishops—who have deviated with respect to the faith does not constitute reception according to strictness, since it is not obligatory in every case. In every instance, their reception and restoration to the priesthood constitute an exercise of economy. It is no coincidence, moreover, that the acts of the Council contain no reference to either of these two canons, since they are unrelated to the question of restoration to the priesthood—that is, to the episcopacy. The article displays a marked tendency to force everything that canonically concerns the Mystery of Baptism into a single line of correlation, so as to include the Mystery of the Priesthood within the same framework of economy. Although this attempt at canonical identification appears in the article of 2017, in his 2009 book, when interpreting Voulismas’s commentary on a similar canon, Theodoros Giankou correctly points out this distinction: “2. Canon 61 of Carthage refers primarily to the baptism—and not the ordination—of the Donatists, whom Voulismas likewise regards as schismatics. As a condition for the reception of repentant Donatists, the Council of Carthage required that their baptism have been performed ‘according to the tradition of the Orthodox’ [see Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council]. Provided it had been performed in this manner, they were then ‘received by economy,’ becoming members of the Church ‘through the laying on of hands’ by the bishop or presbyter, in accordance with the ancient order. Once they had become members of the Church, the former Donatists could be ordained, provided they were worthy—that is, provided they were free from impediments and possessed the requisite qualifications. With regard to the Donatist priests who wished to return to the Church, the Council referred the matter to the judgment of Anastasios of Rome and Venerios of Milan, who, ‘having convened a synod in Italy, did not accept the ordinations of the Donatists.’” [13]

In our view, the position expressed in the article is permeated by an underlying spirit that, in the name of a form of social benevolence, attempts to eliminate the principle of strictness entirely, establishing as a general principle of the Church a kind of vague “economism”—something that can find no support in the texts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Even from this perspective, however, the canons in question do not refer exclusively to economy. If we examine them carefully, the foregoing canons refer not only to instances in which the baptism of heretics and schismatics is received by economy, but also to those cases in which particular heretical groups are required exclusively to be baptized anew from the beginning according to strictness, because the Church judged that not even the minimum dogmatic and ecclesiological conditions existed for economy to be exercised. Such groups include the Paulianists, Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites, and others. The content of these canons confirms the reality that the Church’s manner of acting and healing throughout the ages is conditional rather than vague or indiscriminate. Wherever economy cannot be exercised, strictness is prescribed and required. Furthermore, in Theodoros Giankou’s commentary cited above, it is noted that the priesthood of the Donatists was not accepted. This confirms that the exercise of economy in receiving their baptism—subject to the inviolable condition that it had been performed “according to the tradition of the Orthodox”—in no way entails the exercise of the same economy with respect to the Mystery of the Priesthood.

b) The claim made in the article that the Seventh Ecumenical Council accepted clerics who had previously been ordained by Monothelites is not supported by the sources. The Seventh Council accepted and restored to the episcopacy eleven specific bishops, all of whom, without exception, were former Iconoclasts; no reference whatsoever is made to the Monothelite heresy. These bishops are mentioned specifically and by name in the acts. It is also significant that Voulismas makes no mention of the acceptance of ordinations from Monothelites along the lines claimed by Theodoros Giankou. This makes clear the distinction between those ordained by Orthodox bishops and those ordained by bishops belonging to a formally recognized heresy.

c) The following statement in the article must likewise be regarded as lacking any basis in the text of the acts: “The avoidance of reordination applies without distinction both to clerics ordained by bishops who had formerly been Orthodox and to those ordained from the outset by heretics.”

The repentant return of the former Iconoclast bishops was accepted by the Council without exception and without reordination, since they had received their episcopacy within the bosom of the Catholic Church. Consequently, a hypothetical reordination would have meant the repetition of a valid Mystery, something forbidden both canonically and liturgically, since it is understood as a disparagement of the original Mystery. In the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, there is no such dichotomy as that posited by Professor Theodoros Giankou between formerly Orthodox bishops and bishops who were heretics from the outset. Those characterized as heretics are exclusively former Orthodox bishops who had not been synodically condemned. The repentant bishops are received as returning, while the unrepentant are cut off from the Body of the Church by being deposed from their episcopal dignity. For this distinction to have existed, another Ecumenical Council would necessarily have had to precede the Seventh Ecumenical Council, deposing and anathematizing the Iconoclasts, thereby reducing them to the status of laypeople and placing them outside the Church, while at the same time formally establishing Iconoclasm as a recognized ecclesiastical heresy. Historically, however, no such thing occurred. It was the Seventh Ecumenical Council itself that took up the matter ecclesiastically and synodally in order to confront the heresy of Iconoclasm. Consequently, whenever the Council uses the term “heretic,” it refers to dissenting bishops who had not been synodically condemned and who, in Theodoros Giankou’s terminology, were formerly Orthodox bishops. The distinction between someone regarded as a heretic before and after synodal condemnation is of decisive ecclesiological importance and denotes two entirely opposite conditions with respect to grace in relation to the Church. This distinction is suppressed and not even intimated in the article, with the result that the conclusion is drawn that, throughout the ages, the Church has unconditionally and without exception accepted all heretics without reordination. In the absence of the clarifying qualification that this practice concerns only uncondemned heretics, confusion inevitably follows, and the article is read through the lens of the modern meaning of the term “heretic,” with all that this entails for the canonical and charismatic boundaries of the Church. If these boundaries are not entirely erased, then, at best, they are expanded without clear definition.

 

This distinction, however, is found in Voulismas’s observations, which are accompanied by the approving commentary of Theodoros Giankou. Indeed, all of Voulismas’s statements confirm his characterization as an outstanding authority on the canonical and synodal tradition of the Church, which he approaches with scholarly rigor and consistency. The representative cases recorded in the acts of the Seventh Council in which ordinations performed by synodically uncondemned heretics were accepted are those of Meletios of Antioch and Anatolios of Constantinople. The 2017 article refers specifically and by name to these two cases, without, however, illuminating the historical and ecclesiological context of a valid ordination performed by a heretic, with the result that the reader is led to draw entirely erroneous conclusions. Concerning the case of Meletios of Sebaste, later of Antioch, the disputed wording of the text states: “Saint Meletios was ordained by the Arians, and he ascended the ambo and proclaimed consubstantiality, and his ordination was not rejected.” [14] The historical facts of the case, however, shed light upon the question and demonstrate that this was not an ordination performed by condemned Arians, as one might readily conclude, but an ordination of the Catholic Church. Indeed, according to Voulismas’s interpretation, the foregoing phrase does not refer to his ordination as Bishop of Sebaste, but to his later election as Bishop of Antioch. [15] In any event, it would not be academically sound to establish without further examination the view that Meletios received ordination from a community outside the Church, which was then accepted by the Catholic Church—and, moreover, with the support of Basil the Great—when Basil the Great’s stance toward heresies is historically beyond dispute. Meletios of Sebaste, [16] later of Antioch, was ordained bishop in 358 by the Homoean faction and replaced Eustathios, who had been deposed for Arian errors. This means that, in the first place, it is impossible for him to have been ordained by condemned Arians while simultaneously filling the vacant see of a predecessor deposed for Arian errors. A second indication supporting the ecclesiastical character of his ordination is the fact that the inhabitants of Sebaste did not accept him, since they remained faithful to the heretical positions of Eustathios—something that would not have occurred had they discerned in Meletios a like-mindedness in faith. In 360, the leader of the Homoeans, Akakios, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, [17] invited Meletios to assume the throne of Antioch, where he was accepted unanimously by a joint vote of both factions present there: the Orthodox faction and the other faction, which was Arian-leaning, since each side placed its hopes in Meletios for the support of its own positions. [18] Speaking from the ambo, Meletios, although he did not use the term “consubstantial” with reference to the Son, indicated through circumlocutory formulations that he adhered to the faith of Nicaea, which caused him to be exiled by the Arians. He suffered persecutions because of his steadfast adherence to the Nicene Creed, which led Basil the Great to support him and send letters on his behalf, vouching for his Orthodox mind. [19] Finally, Meletios presided over the Second Ecumenical Council, during whose proceedings he died. The groups of the Homoeans, Anomoeans, and Homoiousians were likewise called Arian because of their well-known Trinitarian positions, owing to their identification of the terms ousia and hypostasis. Nevertheless, during the period under consideration, these groups had not yet been synodically condemned, since they were addressed and condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. His ordination, therefore, was accepted not by economy but according to strictness, since in his person both the institutional character of the episcopal dignity, in the form of unbroken succession, and its charismatic character, as the bearer of the apostolic faith, were united. One cannot even consider the case of a correct confession of faith if there is no ordination from the Catholic Church. Otherwise, any unordained person styling himself a bishop who verbally confessed the Orthodox faith would thereby create grounds for his reception by the Catholic Church.

In the case of Anatolios, although the statement made by Saint Tarasios at the Council sufficiently clarifies the facts, we shall nevertheless set alongside it the corresponding positions of Voulismas, who, referring at numerous points to the circumstances surrounding the ordination of Anatolios by Dioscoros of Alexandria, expresses the perennial consciousness and practice of the Church: “The claim that the Fourth Council accepted an ordination performed by heretics, for which the interpreter adduces the example of Dioscoros, who ordained Anatolios, Patriarch of Constantinople, does not hold; for Dioscoros had not yet been exposed as a heretic, nor had he been synodically deposed, when he ordained Anatolios. It does not therefore follow from this argument that the Seventh Council accepted ordinations from heretics by economy and according to circumstances. For neither the Fourth nor the Seventh Council accepted an ordination performed by heretics who had been exposed and synodically deposed, but only by those who had not been exposed or convicted. The error must therefore be corrected by applying the definition and standard of the exposed and the unexposed. […] For one entrusted with spiritual governance cannot deal with such persons as he would those already convicted and exposed.” [20] At this point, Theodoros Giankou explains: “…3. Dioscoros of Alexandria did indeed ordain Anatolios of Constantinople, but when he performed the ordination, he had not yet been condemned for his erroneous doctrines. 4. The Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils accepted by economy only those ordinations performed by ‘unexposed’ and ‘unconvicted’ heretics. 5. Canonically, those are regarded as ‘convicted’ heretics who have been condemned ‘at trial,’ before the competent authorities and in accordance with the canonical procedure for the administration of justice, and not those who have merely been reprimanded ‘by the spiritual father seated in the confessional.’” [21] A little further on, on page 188, Voulismas writes: “For what agreement, then, is there between the canons of the Apostles and Fathers and your line of reasoning? The former accept neither ordination, Baptism, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, nor anything else from convicted heretics. Indeed, with regard to those from among them who take refuge in the Catholic Church, they command that some, according to the rule of strictness, be baptized and ordained anew, as the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea prescribe in their nineteenth canon; others coming from heresy, however, they receive according to the rule of economy, provided no evil cause exists in them, after they have submitted libelli, in accordance with the Eastern and Illyrian bishops in the first session of the Second Council of Nicaea. Yet they receive them not as persons ordained by convicted heretics, nor as persons born and advanced as heretics, but as Orthodox who had been ordained by Orthodox bishops or by unconvicted heretics and were subsequently brought under the error of the heresies.” On page 203, Theodoros Giankou comments: “Dorotheos Voulismas grounds his historical and canonical arguments for rejecting the ordinations of heretics upon the principle that there is unity in synodal and canonical formulation and practice. His positions, which express this principle, are formulated as rhetorical questions: ‘How can the Councils, if they accept the ordinations performed by convicted heretics, be reconciled with the canons of the Apostles, which do not accept the ordination of heretics? Or is it not clear even to a blind man that we shall introduce a contradiction among those who speak and establish canons through the same Spirit, if we interpret their canonical decrees so uncritically and not as they themselves understood them, testing them by the standard that surpasses even the Lydian touchstone—namely, the distinction between the convicted and the unconvicted? For that preeminent Father of the Seventh Council, Tarasios, who is admired by all for both his wisdom and his holiness, declared in the first session of that same Council: “We find the Fathers disagreeing in nothing; rather, since they all possess the same Spirit, they preach and teach the same thing.”” [22] Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Professor Theodoros Giankou states with absolute clarity in his 2009 book precisely what he does not clarify in his 2017 article concerning the essential distinction between synodically uncondemned and condemned heretics. He observes: “According to Voulismas, neither was Anatolios of Constantinople ordained by a synodically condemned heretic, nor do the sources establish that Meletios of Antioch was ordained by ‘convicted’ or ‘unconvicted’ Arians [‘no heretical hand, whether convicted or unconvicted, is shown to have ordained the most divine Meletios’]. […] Consequently, ‘before Dioscoros was deposed, the priesthood remained inalienably his, even though he had exercised it wickedly and unlawfully.’ Voulismas accepts that Dioscoros did indeed ordain Anatolios of Constantinople (449–458) and Maximos of Antioch (450–456)—although the latter was in fact ordained by Anatolios—but when he performed these Mysteries, Dioscoros had not yet been ‘convicted, publicly proclaimed a heretic, and synodically condemned.’ His condemnation occurred at the Fourth Ecumenical Council. At the Robber Council of Ephesus (449), Dioscoros ‘was both judge and accuser of the most holy Flavian [and was therefore at that time a member of the Church, which is why he participated in the Council], on behalf of Eutyches, who was of like mind with him and who had previously been synodically deposed by Flavian himself in Constantinople in the year 448.’ Following the condemnation and deposition of Flavian, Dioscoros ordained Anatolios, his apocrisiarius in Constantinople, hoping that he would become an exponent of his positions. Voulismas’s position that Anatolios was ordained by Dioscoros, who at that time was ‘unconvicted,’ is correct.” [23] Thus Mr. Giankou states by way of confirmation.

From the foregoing, it becomes clear that Professor Theodoros Giankou follows two mutually incompatible interpretations of one and the same question, which naturally lead to two diametrically opposed conclusions. The first interpretation, expressed in 2009 through Voulismas’s observations, reflects the perennial ecclesiastical practice concerning the reception of the priesthood. It takes as given a clear ecclesiological framework on the basis of which the Church examines whether economy can be exercised or whether, on the contrary, strictness must be applied. The second interpretation, expressed in 2017, takes as given the unconditional non-reordination of heretics, without clarifying the meaning of the term “heretic.” Thus, in the first case—that of non-reordination—an indispensable condition is that the ordination must originally have been performed within the bosom of the Orthodox Catholic Church, prior to the heretical deviation. Ecclesiology thereby determines the manner in which the priesthood of heretics is received. In the second case, however, the manner in which their priesthood is received determines the ecclesiological criteria and conditions of the Orthodox Church. Along this path, however, no boundaries remain and, in essence, there are no heretics. Since they are accepted a priori, the Mysteries of the Catholic Church and those of the various heterodox communities outside her are placed on an equal footing.

In conclusion, when the Seventh Ecumenical Council was called upon to heal an actual ecclesiastical problem, it did so in complete fidelity to its identity as an ecclesiastical council and to the Church’s clearly defined ecclesiological boundaries. The healing and overcoming of corruption do not occur vaguely or unconditionally. In every instance, they take place in a manner that does not negate the Church’s self-consciousness as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ and the repository of His grace. The unbroken continuity of the episcopal dignity was, we might say, the minimum requisite demanded by the Church before she would consider the possibility of reception on the basis of a correct confession of faith, within the unity of institution and charism. Characteristic is the manner in which the conciliar Fathers greeted the bishops who had come forward immediately after accepting their repentance: “God has safely brought back the Orthodox.” [24] In cases of ordinations performed outside her Body, economy cannot be exercised and, by extension, there can be no question of restoration, since the episcopal dignity was never bestowed. Such a notion would render the Mysteries performed within the Body of the Church equally valid with the various rites of formally recognized heretical groups. This, however, entails either an indefinite expansion or a complete repudiation of the boundaries of the Church. Consequently, the Seventh Ecumenical Council cannot under any circumstances be invoked in support of contemporary instances involving the unconditional reception of schismatics or heretics.

 

NOTES

1. For this particular distinction, see the study The Kollyvades and Dorotheos Voulismas: The Question of the “Examination” of the Rudder and the Kanonikon, Ereisma Publications, Holy Monastery of Panagia Chrysopodaritissa of Nezera, Chalandritsa, Achaia, 2020, pp. 661–670, which contains a relevant subsection entitled “A Historical-Canonical Consideration of the Distinction Between Convicted and Unconvicted Heretics.”

2. First Session, E. Lamberz, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Series Secunda, Volumen Tertium: Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Pars Prima, Concilii Actiones I–III, Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter, 2008 (= Lamberz I), p. 72.

3. “Letter of Tarasios and the Synod to the Emperors,” E. Lamberz, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Series Secunda, Volumen Tertium: Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Pars Tertia, Concilii Actiones VI–VII, Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter, 2016 (= Lamberz III), p. 860.

4. “Letter of Tarasios and the Synod to the Emperors,” Lamberz III, p. 858.

5. First Session, Lamberz I, p. 80.

6. Ibid., p. 88.

7. Luke 15:17.

8. Saint John of Damascus provides a semantic clarification of the terms knowledge, foreknowledge, and recognition. Recognition is essentially the return from imagination contrary to nature to the natural condition of true reality. John of Damascus, Dialogue Against the Manichaeans, P. B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 4, p. 393: “For knowledge is one thing, foreknowledge another, recognition another, determination another, and predetermination another. Knowledge is the knowing of things that exist or come into being; foreknowledge is the knowing of things that will be before they come into being; recognition is the true knowledge that arises after false knowledge; determination is a judgment and decision concerning things that have already occurred; and predetermination is a judgment and decision concerning things that will occur.”

9. Theodoros X. Giankou, “Photios the Great and Nikodemos the Hagiorite: Their Contribution to the Formulation of the Canonical Consciousness,” Theologia 88 (2017), p. 194.

10. Theodoros X. Giankou, The Kanonikon of Christophoros Prodromites, 2nd ed., Mygdonia Publications, Thessaloniki, 2009.

11. Ibid., p. 200.

12. On this basis may be understood the Ecumenical Council’s differing treatment of the leaders and teachers of the heresy and of the other heretical bishops. See First Session, Lamberz I, p. 80:  “Those who had fallen and become leaders of the impiety were to be forgiven if they repented, but were no longer to be given a place among the clergy; those, however, who had not been originators of the impiety but had been swept along by necessity and coercion, it was decided should be granted forgiveness and should also retain their place among the clergy, especially because they had furnished a plausible defense; and it appeared that this had somehow been done by economy.”

13. Ibid., pp. 185–186.

14. Ibid., p. 92.

15. See The Kollyvades and Dorotheos Voulismas, pp. 656–658.

16. See Stylianos G. Papadopoulos, Patrology, vol. 2, p. 445.

17. Concerning Akakios of Caesarea, see Konstantinos V. Skouteris, History of Dogmas, vol. 2: Orthodox Dogmatic Teaching and Its Distortions from the Beginning of the Fourth Century through the Third Ecumenical Council, Athens, 2004, pp. 129–133.

18. Particularly illuminating in the case of Meletios is the commentary of Dorotheos Voulismas. Dorotheos was an accomplished and systematic student of canonical collections and questions and, because of this particular expertise, was appointed by the Patriarchal Synod under Neophytos VII, Patriarch of Constantinople, as reviewer and supervisor of the Patriarchate’s canonical publications. In his correspondence with Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite concerning matters related to the publication of the Rudder, Voulismas is called upon, in this particular context, to set forth the opinion of the authoritative canonical commentators on this question. See Theodoros X. Giankou, The Kanonikon of Christophoros Prodromites, 2nd ed., Mygdonia Publications, Thessaloniki, 2009, p. 206: “Regarding the case of Meletios of Antioch, the ‘examiner’ of the two canonical collections maintains that the Arians merely participated in the election—in the ‘vote’—of Meletios and not in his ordination. The term cheirotonia, as the commentators on Apostolic Canon 1—Zonaras and Balsamon—also state, was understood as having the meaning of a vote as well. The assertion that Meletios of Antioch was ordained by heretics is shown in many ways to be false: he was not ordained by them, even though, because of the man’s great virtue, he was at one time elected by them as well. For he was first appointed bishop not of Antioch but of Sebaste in Armenia, following the deposition of Eustathios, as Meletios of Athens relates (Ecclesiastical History, book 1, chapter 9, section 6); and it is evident that, upon being appointed, he was ordained by Orthodox bishops. For no one has ever written or related that he was elevated to the throne of Sebaste in Armenia by heretics of any kind, whether convicted or unconvicted. Theodoret relates (Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 27) that the saint, having become displeased with the intractability of the Armenians, lived in quietude elsewhere. The faction of Arius, supposing him to be of like mind with them, petitioned Emperor Constantius to entrust him with the reins of the Church of Antioch. The Orthodox, who held fast to the apostolic doctrines, also voted together with them, knowing the soundness of the great Meletios in matters of doctrine and clearly recognizing the splendor of his life and the abundance of his virtue. They therefore took the greatest possible care to ensure that the decree was signed by everyone. That he was not ordained by the Arians but merely elected by them, with all the Orthodox also joining in the vote, is confirmed by the Synodical Book itself (Acts of the Councils, vol. 1, p. 263), which adds: ‘They appointed Meletios, Archbishop of Sebaste in Armenia, to the throne of Antioch.’ Theodoret states in the passage cited above that those who went out to meet him included not only those who had received the episcopacy, the other orders of the Church, and the entire multitude of the city, but also Jews and pagans who were eager to see the renowned Meletios.” See also ibid., p. 187: “Meletios, as Theodoret states, governed a certain city of the Armenians; then, having become displeased with the intractability of those under his authority, he lived in quietude elsewhere. The faction of Arius, supposing him to be of like mind with them and a sharer in their doctrines, petitioned Constantius to give him the reins of the Church of Antioch. Hence the Synodical Book also states: ‘When the throne of Antioch became vacant, Arians and Orthodox appointed the Archbishop of Sebaste in Armenia.’ Thus, as you see, the Arians voted together with the Orthodox, but they did not ordain Meletios as Bishop of Antioch. […] The statement made in the first session of the Seventh Council by one of those from Rome—or by anyone else—that Meletios, Bishop of Antioch, had been ordained by heretics must be understood as using cheirotonia in the sense of a vote, since, as you know, it also bears this meaning. Since Arians and Orthodox were intermingled for forty or fifty years, according to both Theodoret and the acts of the Councils, it would be appropriate, in response to anyone who might demonstrate—which I do not believe—that Meletios of Sebaste in Armenia was ordained by Arians, to say that the ordination was performed not by a body of heretics who had already been formally convicted, but by a mixed body—that is, by heretics who were, at that time, still unconvicted.”

19. In the excerpt from the following letter, we see Basil the Great defending, in a spirit of brotherly love, the Orthodox mind of Meletios, whom he regards as a true fellow communicant and concelebrant. He makes clear that Meletios was the victim of slanderers who, in order to harm him, portrayed him as aligned with and like-minded with the Arian heresy. Yet the slanders emanating from the Arians are sufficient in themselves to demonstrate the true mind and faith of Meletios. Basil the Great, Letter 266, to Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, PG 32, 993B:  “Brother Dorotheos grieved us, as you yourself wrote, by not addressing your Dignity entirely courteously or gently. I attribute this to the difficulty of the times. For because of our sins, we seem to prosper in nothing, if even the most earnest of the brethren are found neither courteous nor well suited to their ministries whenever everything is not accomplished according to our wishes. Upon his return, he related to us the conversations he had with your Honor in the presence of the most venerable Bishop Damasus, and he grieved us by saying that our most God-beloved brethren and fellow ministers, Meletios and Eusebios, were numbered among the Arian fanatics. Even if nothing else established their Orthodoxy, the war waged against them by the Arians would furnish no small proof of their rectitude to those who judge fairly. Your Piety ought also to be united with them in love by your fellowship in sufferings endured for Christ. Be assured of this, most truly honored one: there is no declaration of Orthodoxy that has not been proclaimed with complete boldness by these men, with God as witness and ourselves as hearers. We would not have accepted communion with them even for an hour had we found them limping in any respect concerning the faith.” See also Basil the Great, Letter 214, to Terentius the Count, PG 32, 785B–789C: “But again another report has reached us, namely, that you are residing in Antioch and are administering the affairs at hand together with the highest authorities. In addition to this report, we have heard that the brethren belonging to the party of Paulinos are discussing with your Rectitude the question of union with us—and by ‘us’ I mean those belonging to the party of the man of God, Bishop Meletios. I also hear that they are now carrying letters from the Westerners entrusting to them the episcopacy of the Church of Antioch, while disregarding Meletios, the most admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not surprised at this. Some are entirely ignorant of affairs here, while others who appear to possess knowledge explain them to those in the West in a manner that is more contentious than truthful. It is therefore not unlikely that they are either ignorant of the truth or have had concealed from them the reason for which the most blessed Bishop Athanasios came to write to Paulinos. We ask your Perfection, since you have there persons capable of relating accurately what occurred between the bishops during the reign of Jovian, to be instructed by them. Nevertheless, since we accuse no one and desire to have love toward all—especially toward those of the household of faith—we rejoice with those who have received the letters from Rome. If these letters contain some solemn and important testimony on their behalf, we pray that it may prove true and be confirmed by their deeds. Yet on this account we can never persuade ourselves to ignore Meletios, to forget the Church under him, or to regard as insignificant the questions over which the division arose from the beginning and suppose that they make little difference to the purpose of piety. For my part, far from consenting to withdraw merely because someone has received a letter from men and takes great pride in it, even if one should come from heaven itself, unless he conforms to the sound word of faith, I cannot regard him as being in communion with the saints. Remember, admirable sir, that the falsifiers of the truth, who introduce the Arian schism into the sound faith of the Fathers, put forward no other reason for refusing to accept the pious doctrine of the Fathers than the meaning of homoousios. They interpret it maliciously and to the slander of the faith, claiming that we say the Son is consubstantial according to hypostasis. If we give them any occasion by associating with those who say these or similar things through simplicity rather than malice, nothing prevents us from furnishing them with unanswerable grounds of attack against ourselves and from strengthening their heresy. For their sole concern in their discourses concerning the Church is not to establish their own teachings, but to slander ours. And what slander could be more grievous or more capable of unsettling the multitude than if some among us were shown to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one hypostasis? Even though they may very clearly affirm the distinction between the Persons, nevertheless, this very statement was anticipated by Sabellios, who said that God is one in hypostasis but is presented by Scripture under different Persons according to the particular requirement of each occasion: at one time He applies to Himself the words proper to the Father, when the occasion calls for that Person; at another, those befitting the Son, when He condescends to care for us or to perform other acts of the divine economy; and at another, He assumes the Person of the Spirit, when the occasion calls for words belonging to such a Person. If, therefore, some among us are found saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in their underlying reality, while confessing three complete Persons, how will they not appear to furnish clear and irrefutable proof that the accusations made against us are true? Concerning the fact that hypostasis and ousia are not the same, I believe that the brethren from the West have themselves indicated this by retaining the term ousia in its Greek form, being conscious of the limitations of their own language, so that, if there is any difference in meaning, it may be preserved through the clear and unconfused distinction between the terms. If we too must state briefly what seems correct to us, we shall say that the relationship of the common to the particular is the same as that of ousia to hypostasis. For each of us participates in being according to the common principle of essence, while through his individual properties he is this particular person or that. Likewise, in the matter before us, the concept of essence is common, such as goodness, Godhead, or any other such attribute, whereas hypostasis is contemplated in the distinctive property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or sanctifying power. If, therefore, they say that the Persons are without hypostasis, the absurdity of the assertion is immediately apparent. But if they concede that the Persons exist in true hypostasis, as they confess, then let them also number them, so that the meaning of homoousios may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead and the pious knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit may be proclaimed in the complete and perfect hypostasis of each of those named. Nevertheless, I wish your Dignity to be convinced of this: both you and everyone who, like you, is concerned for the truth and does not dishonor those who struggle on behalf of piety must wait for the heads of the Churches to take the lead in bringing about this communion and peace. I regard them as pillars and the foundation of the truth, and I reverence them all the more the longer they are driven from their homes, with separation imposed upon them as punishment. I therefore beseech you: preserve yourself for us free from prejudice, so that we may place our confidence in you, whom God has granted us as a staff and support in all things.”

20. Theodoros X. Giankou, The Kanonikon of Christophoros Prodromites, p. 184.

21. Ibid., p. 186.

22. Ibid., p. 203.

23. Ibid., p. 206.

24. Third Session, Lamberz I, p. 232.

 

Greek source:

https://www.romfea.gr/images/article-images/2020/10/romfea/oikoumeniki_sinodos_z.pdf