The Patristic and Canonical Necessity of Severing Communion with Those Professing Heresy

An excerpt from Orthodoxy and Heresy: Articles and commentaries concerning the contemporary heresy of Ecumenism and the grave responsibility of those who are in communion with it, directly or indirectly,

Published by the periodical of Fr. Theodoretos (Mavros), “The Hagiorite,” Athens, 1982, pp. 61-70, 84-94.

 

 

The Condemnable Nature of Communion with Heretics

What do God and His Church require Orthodox Christians (clergy and laity) to do when their bishop does not himself preach heresy, but nevertheless remains in communion with those who preach some false doctrine by word and deed, even if those who preach it have not yet been judged by a Synod?

The answer to the above serious question certainly cannot be brief and simple. We could summarize it in successive stages as follows:

A) If the heresy has been preached for only a short time (a few months), the faithful wait and anxiously observe to see how their bishop, or his fellow bishops, or the bishops of other Orthodox Churches will react. (For just as the Church of Christ is one, despite its various administrative divisions into patriarchates and archdioceses, so too one and the same responsibility rests upon all, clergy and laity, in the face of the false doctrine being preached, varying only according to the knowledge and rank of each individual.) And if their bishop reacts in a patristic manner, they are then obliged to support him with all their strength, awaiting the outcome.

B) If, however, contrary to expectations, their bishop does not react, but his fellow bishops do, or even a single Orthodox bishop does, then they are obliged to support that bishop, thereby indirectly rebuking, at least initially, the silence of their own shepherd, without, however, breaking communion with him.

If, however, the reactions of the bishop who is struggling against the heresy intensify and, in due course, culminate in the cessation of communion with the one professing false doctrine (provided that the latter remains obstinate in his erroneous beliefs), then the faithful are obliged to remain in communion only with the aforementioned bishop who is struggling against the heresy, withdrawing from the assemblies of their own bishop, who, through his silence or lukewarm reaction, continues to remain in communion with the one preaching heresy, thereby cooperating in and strengthening the false doctrine. The patristic teaching on this matter is perfectly clear: “Some have suffered complete shipwreck concerning the Faith; others, although they have not been overwhelmed in their thoughts, nevertheless perish together with them through communion with the heresy.” [11]

“All the teachers of the Church, all the Synods, and all the divine Scriptures exhort us to flee those who hold beliefs contrary to the Faith and to separate ourselves from communion with them.” [12]

And the great Theodore the Studite adds: “For Chrysostom declared loudly and emphatically that not only heretics, but also those who remain in communion with such persons, are enemies of God.” [13]

The aforementioned actions of the bishop who is rightly struggling against the heresy must not cease until the heretic has been condemned by a Synod. Otherwise, his resistance must continue even unto death, chains, and imprisonment, that is, in cases where the one professing false doctrine possesses political or ecclesiastical power over him, as has frequently occurred in the history of the Church.

It is understood that the role of the bishop who reacts in an Orthodox manner may be assumed by a clergyman or monk, provided that no bishop responds in a timely or effective manner. The examples are numerous. [14]

The factors of time and knowledge will always play a fundamental and decisive role in all the above, that is, how long the false doctrine has been preached and to what extent it has become known to the pleroma of the Church.

It must be noted, however, that in our days the factor of knowledge has been virtually eliminated, owing to the existing means of transmitting speeches and events, while the factor of time, although considerably reduced in comparison with the past, nevertheless continues and will continue to play a fundamental role because of the need to organize the resistance methodically until the heretic’s condemnation by a Synod. A classic example in this regard, to which all good shepherds may look, is the condemnation of the heretic Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, by the Third Ecumenical Council, in which the leading figures responsible for his deposition were not any of the heretic’s fellow bishops, but the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome, who were situated very far away! [15]

Concerning “Synodal Judgment”

The following question then arises: All well and good; those who reacted in this manner and brought about the deposition of the heretic deserve honor and praise, in accordance with the provisions of the Sacred Canons.

But how should the others be regarded—those who did not break communion with the heretic and continued to remain in communion with him until his condemnation by a Synod—since the relevant Sacred Canons say nothing about them?

If the Sacred Canons [16] do not speak of the fate of those who continued in communion with the heresiarch until his condemnation by a Synod, this does not mean that the nature of these most sacred canons is permissive and, consequently, that communion with the heretic is blameless or a matter of indifference? Quite the contrary!

The evidence is found in the Acts of the Holy Synods, that is, in the Sacred Tradition of Orthodoxy, which most clearly attests to the condemnable, culpable, and punishable conduct of such bishops and clergy in general. Only Archimandrite Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos has dared to assert precisely the opposite, showing complete disregard for the distortion of the truth that he has ventured to make. Thus, he writes:

“But the cessation of commemoration ‘before synodal judgment’ and condemnation does not have the purpose of avoiding defilement from the heresy being preached! No, my brother! If that were its purpose, then the Canons would not merely grant the right to cease commemoration on account of heresy ‘before synodal judgment,’ but would establish an explicit and clear obligation, under threat of the most severe penalties in the event of noncompliance... There is therefore no danger of our becoming... defiled, either by commemorating the Patriarch (so long as he has not yet been condemned), or, much less, by receiving into communion those who commemorate him”... “The canon is permissive and not obligatory”...

“That these things are true,” continues the Very Reverend Archimandrite, “is also demonstrated by the fact that, although countless bishops have been deposed for heresy throughout the long history of the Church, never has any clergyman been punished, or even merely reprimanded, for failing to hasten to separate himself immediately from a heretical bishop, but instead awaiting his condemnation by a Synod...” “Claims to the contrary are foolish manifestations of zealotry.” [17]

Why, then, did the most holy Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, contrary to Fr. Epiphanios, exhort the faithful of Constantinople, clergy and laity alike, to abstain from communion with Nestorius, who was preaching heresy, even though a Synod had not yet convened to condemn him? [18] It should also be noted that when the divine Cyril wrote the above, most of the faithful and clergy of Constantinople had already broken communion with their bishop who professed false doctrine, with the exception of a few less steadfast individuals and those who flattered him. [18a]

Why did Saint Hypatios, as soon as he learned of the false doctrine of Nestorius, cease commemorating him, even before the Synod had convened to condemn the one professing false doctrine? [19]

Why did Saint Maximos the Confessor break off all ecclesiastical communion, before “synodal judgment,” with almost all the Sees of East and West on account of the heresy of Monothelitism, to the point that he was considered “outside the Church” by his opponents? [20]

Why did the defenders of the holy icons, clergy and laity, who struggled before the Seventh Ecumenical Council, remain out of communion with the Iconoclasts for entire decades, enduring imprisonment and dwelling in mountains and caves for the sake of their good confession? [21]

Was Theodore the Studite, the leading figure among the defenders of the holy icons, also a “foolish zealot,” when he wrote: “Communion entails defilement merely through commemorating him (that is, the Iconoclast bishop), even if the one commemorating him is Orthodox”? [22] Or when, concerning a matter far less serious than Iconoclasm, namely the unlawful marriage of the emperor, he proclaimed with unsurpassed boldness: “We would rather endure anything, even unto death, than partake of communion with him (the priest Joseph) and those who concelebrate with him”? (PG 99, 972).

The extent of the falsehood, lack of logic and seriousness, and particularly un-Orthodox spirit contained in the words of the aforementioned archimandrite will, however, be demonstrated in greater detail below.

First of all, it is impossible for there to be a canon punishing a priest or bishop for failing to break communion with a heretic before synodal judgment. Why? Because, if such a canon existed, what role would the Synod have to play, since it would always arrive on the scene... “after the event”? And how could it be a true Synod, upholding the truth of the Gospel, if, instead of protecting the clergy and people under its pastoral care, it were itself dependent upon their protection? For this is precisely what would result from requiring everyone else to react immediately upon the appearance of heresy, while exempting the Synod itself, which would only intervene afterward!

Such a canon, if it existed, would be like a law requiring all soldiers and officers to fight without yielding as soon as the enemy appeared, while exempting the generals and chiefs of staff, who would be the last to convene, merely to announce that the enemy had been wrong to attack and that the soldiers and officers had done very well to resist him promptly!..

Unfortunately, it is such canons that Fr. Epiphanios seeks in The Rudder, and when he fails to find them... he declares the existing ones to be permissive, gravely misinterpreting their meaning!

But the contemporary Synodal Fathers do not appear to differ in their mentality from that of their self-appointed advocate. For entire decades now, although they have witnessed the heresy of Ecumenism growing and flagrantly overturning the “boundaries set by the Fathers,” which the Most Reverend Hierarchs are supposedly obliged to guard as the apple of their eye, whenever they convene, instead of condemning the false doctrine, they persecute those few among the faithful who have dared to resist the heresy, invoking the authority of the Sacred Canons! Truly, an exact repetition of the un-Orthodox episodes in the Church’s past.

But there is something else. By what logic would this hypothetical canon require the Synod to depose those clergymen who had not reacted before it did, when the very Synodal bishops who would carry out the deposition would themselves bear the same degree of guilt in comparison with those who had reacted before them?!

Such a canon would have a place ONLY if the bishops who would pronounce the “synodal judgment” had reacted promptly and in a patristic manner against the false doctrine, but had been unable to convene in a Synod to condemn the one professing it because of the intervention of the State and its protection of the heretic, as happened frequently, particularly during Iconoclasm. In that case, when the bishops in question finally convened, they would certainly have every right to condemn those clergymen who had not followed their example, as occurred at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. In such circumstances, of course, the consciences of the other clergymen are not put to the test, nor do they have time to be tested, as to what position they should adopt toward the false doctrine, etc.

Let the Very Reverend Archimandrite, therefore, not labor in vain in attempting to set his conscience at ease, along with the consciences of all those who knowingly remain in communion with the heresy being preached, even before “synodal judgment,” for he and those whom he defends are hard pressed on every side... [22a]

The Practice of the Church

But did not the Church of Christ, even BEFORE the establishment of the relevant Sacred Canons, successfully confront the heresies that arose, on the basis of the teaching of Holy Scripture [23] and her holy children, [24] as Saint Theodore also clearly testifies? “For we have a commandment from the Apostle himself that, if anyone teaches as doctrine or commands us to do anything contrary to what we have received, contrary to what the Canons of the various Synods, both Ecumenical and Local, prescribe, we must reject him and not even reckon him among the company of the saints” (PG 99, 988A).

This is precisely what the Holy Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council put into practice during the trial and condemnation of the Iconoclasts, notwithstanding Fr. Epiphanios’ assertion to the contrary, namely, that “never has any clergyman been punished, or even merely reprimanded, for failing to hasten to separate himself immediately from a heretical bishop...” We now present representative passages from the sessions of the Council.

A) Tarasios, the most holy Patriarch, said to the Bishop of Neocaesarea: “Has the truth remained unknown to you until now, or have you knowingly disregarded it? And if it has remained unknown to you, do not be ashamed to learn the correct teaching, just as you were not ashamed to learn the distorted teaching.”

Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, said: “Believe me, Master, it was unknown to me. I ask to be instructed, as the Master and the Holy Synod command.”

Tarasios: “Tell us what you wish to learn.”

Gregory said: “When I saw that this entire assembly speaks and thinks with one mind, I learned and became convinced that this is the truth which is now being examined and proclaimed. And for this reason, I too ask forgiveness for my former wrongdoings, and I wish, together with everyone else, to be enlightened and instructed. My transgressions and sins are immeasurable, and may God move the Holy Synod and the most holy Master to compassion...”

Tarasios: “You should have opened your ears long ago and listened to the divine Apostle Paul, who says: ‘Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle’; and again, when writing to Timothy and Titus, he commands them to ‘shun profane and vain babblings.’ What could be more manifestly wrong, or what could be more vain, than to call Christians idolaters?”

Gregory: “It was wrong, and we confess that it was wrong, but this is what was done, and this is how we acted. For this reason, we ask forgiveness for our transgressions. I confess, Master, before your most revered Holiness and all the brethren of the Holy Synod, that we have sinned, acted lawlessly, and done wrong; and we ask forgiveness for this...”

B) Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, said: “Wherefore I also, Bishop of the city of Ancyra, desiring to be united with the Catholic Church... make this present written confession of mine and submit it to you, who have received authority by apostolic right. In this confession, I also beg forgiveness from your divinely assembled Beatitude for my delay. For I ought not to have been late in confessing Orthodoxy; but this was due to my extreme ignorance, sluggishness, and negligence of mind.”

C) “To the Holy and Ecumenical Council, I, Theodosios (Bishop of Amorium), the least of Christians, confess, agree, accept, and embrace... And for this reason, I beseech you, O saints of God, and cry out: I have sinned against heaven and before you. Receive me as God received the prodigal son, the harlot, and the thief. Seek me out as Christ sought the lost sheep, which He took upon His shoulders.”

Savvas, the most devout Abbot of the Monastery of Stoudios, said: “According to the Apostolic Ordinances and the Ecumenical Councils, he is worthy of being received...”

Tarasios, the most holy Patriarch, said: “Those who were once accusers of Orthodoxy have now become defenders of the truth...”

D) The monks, taking up the matter, said: “But the Father (Athanasius the Great) receives those who were led astray and those who suffered coercion. Let them therefore say whether they were led astray or subjected to coercion when they departed from the truth.”

Hypatios and the bishops with him said: “We neither suffered coercion nor were we led astray, but were born into this heresy and were brought up and raised in it...”

And again, Thalassios, Eusebios, and Eustathios, the most devout bishops, said: “We have all sinned; we all ask forgiveness...” [24a]

Waiting Is Unjustifiable

Who could desire a better practical interpretation of the Sacred Canons? Who cannot discern in the preceding Synodal texts the Apostolic and Patristic practice, as it was lived until the time of the aforementioned Council Fathers? Being in complete agreement with both the letter and the spirit of Scripture, the Canons, and the entire Tradition, they consider that anyone who continues in communion with someone preaching false doctrine thereby joins the faction of the one professing false doctrine, as the Iconoclasts themselves acknowledged at the Council. At the head of this faction stands, as its leader, the “pseudo-bishop” of the Canon, who initiated the heresy. Conversely, those who have not remained in communion with the one professing false doctrine constitute the healthy resistance of the Church; in other words, they constitute its healthy part, which, when it becomes possible, will judge all those who have joined the faction of the one professing false doctrine, as occurred at the aforementioned Seventh Ecumenical Council. This is what the history of our Church teaches; this is what we have received from our Fathers to believe. Before such teaching, Fr. Epiphanios ought to have humbled himself, rather than devising unnecessary and unjustified arguments, thereby diminishing both himself and those who, in good faith, believe his words.

Consequently, today, when heresy has been preached for decades, when the actions and errors of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that are contrary to the Faith become known to the pleroma of the Church on the very day they occur, when everyone perceives and understands the dreadful deviation of the bishops of the Phanar and those who follow in their footsteps, when all these things are carried out openly, with approval, and with premeditation, how can Orthodox bishops throughout the world, as well as the clergy and people under their pastoral care, justify their condemnable silence and communion with the aforementioned fallen hierarchs?

And to answer the question we posed at the beginning, we write: God and His Church desire nothing more of the Orthodox, at a time when heresy is being preached, as it is today, than that they separate themselves from those who profess heresy and confess the truth even unto death, until the time when Orthodoxy shines forth once again.

The Grave Question of Communion

In Constantinople, communion with heretics was openly and solemnly manifested. On June 6–7, 1981, Patriarch Demetrios and those with him unfortunately entered into communion with unrepentant heretics, Papists, Protestants, and others. They entered into communion through joint celebration, joint prayer, concelebration, mutual blessings, friendship, and unity, outside the Orthodox Christian Faith, or rather, against it. For those who commune with heretics are “not... faithful” (Theodore the Studite, PG 99, 1081).

The question of communion, therefore, becomes more serious and more urgent. With regard to the position adopted toward this question, five categories of Orthodox Christians may be distinguished. The first consists of those who commune with heretics and perish, “having suffered complete shipwreck concerning the Faith” (Theodore the Studite, PG 99, 1157). The second consists of those Orthodox Christians “who have not been overwhelmed in their thoughts, yet nevertheless perish together with them through communion with the heresy” (ibid., PG 99, 1164). The third consists of those Orthodox Christians who are distressed by what is taking place, “being Orthodox in their minds” (ibid., PG 99, 1164). Yet, being uncertain about what they should do, they remain in communion with heretics, thereby becoming spiritually ailing and “stained (defiled) through heretical communion” (ibid., PG 99, 1313). The fourth category includes those who remain in communion with persons thus defiled. The fifth category consists of Orthodox Christians who are Orthodox both in mind and in practice. These wall themselves off from those who “obstinately” (Basil the Great, BEPES 55, 330) persist in communion with those professing false doctrine, and follow the path of strict canonical observance toward salvation.

“For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?” (2 Cor. 6:14). Heresy is lawlessness (Athanasius the Great, BEPES 32, 294). “And what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14). Heresy is called “outer darkness” (John of Damascus, M. 4, 1257). “And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” (2 Cor. 6:15). Heretics “belong to his faction” (Cyril of Alexandria, M. 4, 1117). “Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Cor. 6:15). Heretics “openly manifest their unbelief” (Athanasius the Great, BEPES 31, 225).

Let us Orthodox Christians stand firmly with the Orthodox Faith and communion. Let us remain steadfast in the divine light and the righteousness of Grace, “that we may attain unto Jesus Christ” (Ignatius the God-bearer, BEPES 2, 275).

(Good Confession, January 1, 1980).

<…>

Remediable Ecclesiastical Disputes

Examining more deeply and carefully the definition of divisions given by Basil the Great, “We call schisms those who have become divided from one another over certain ecclesiastical matters and remediable issues,” we observe the following:

A) Remediable issues may originate with those who separate themselves, as in the case of the Eustathians, who rejected marriage and the eating of meat. In this case, the remediable issue arose entirely and exclusively from them, through misinterpretation of and disobedience to the teaching of the Church, whereas those “from whom they became divided,” namely, the bishop, Synod, etc., bear no responsibility whatsoever either for the emergence of the remediable issue or for the subsequent separation of the Eustathians from the unity of the Church on account of it.

B) There is, however, a case in which the remediable issue is created by the bishop (or Synod), who acts neither indiscriminately nor uncanonically, but, out of pastoral concern, commendably endeavors to save an ailing portion of his flock. Certain faithful, failing to interpret his action correctly (which may appear innovative and contrary to tradition in letter and outward form, but in essence may be blameless and praiseworthy), separate themselves from communion with him.

A classic example of such a case from the ancient Church is the schism of the Cathari, who refused to receive into communion those who had married twice and those who had fallen into sin; and from more recent times, the schism of the Old Believers of Russia, who rejected the correct and necessary liturgical reforms of their Church. Both the Cathari and the Old Believers, although they desired to preserve what had been handed down, were nevertheless condemned, since the changes in question constituted necessary and obligatory reforms, rather than innovative and reprehensible actions on the part of their Church. It is understood that, before any change is introduced, every means must have been exhausted to prepare the flock accordingly and thus avoid causing scandal among them. Unfortunately, in the case of the Old Believers, the aforementioned pastoral precaution was not observed.

C) There is, however, another case in which the remediable issue is again created by the bishop (or the Church), but is indeed minor and capable of being remedied. We refer, that is, to the personal sins and transgressions of the bishop (“criminal accusations”), on account of which the faithful are not permitted to separate themselves from him, but must act with propriety and through the proper hierarchical channels, so as to prevent a greater scandal. In other words, in the present case, although the bishop is the source and cause of the remediable issue, nevertheless, because of the private nature of the transgression, the person who separates himself from the bishop is judged guilty of creating a schism, notwithstanding the fact that the one who created the remediable issue will also have to render a fearful account before God.

In light of the above, in order to place the de facto schism that has arisen between the G.O.C. and the New Calendarists in its proper category, it is necessary for us to become acquainted, in addition to what has already been stated, with the relevant teaching concerning divisions found in the Sacred Canons and in the Tradition of Orthodoxy generally, so that our final judgment may conform as closely as possible to the venerable practice of the ancient Church.

Necessary and Praiseworthy Scissions

In light of what has been stated above, the question arises: Can a bishop, Synod, etc., give rise only to remediable issues? Certainly not, just as those under their pastoral care often give rise not only to remediable issues but also to grievous heresies. In what way, then, can a bishop become the cause of an irremediable issue within the Church? Quite simply, when he publicly preaches or does something that seriously violates piety and justice, in accordance with the 31st Apostolic Canon, which states: “If any presbyter, despising his own bishop, assembles a separate congregation and sets up another altar, without having found the bishop guilty of anything concerning piety and justice (‘that is to say, without knowing him to be manifestly heretical or unjust,’ according to the wording of The Rudder), let him be deposed as one who is ambitious for power...”

Interpreting the term “justice,” Zonaras writes: “Contrary to duty and what is just” (S, II, 40), while Blastares considers the distinguishing characteristics of “justice” to be “living in a seemly manner and not harming others” (S, VI, 213). Consequently, according to the aforementioned Canon, the clergy and people under a bishop may break communion with him not only on account of heresy, but also on account of any action by the bishop that is “contrary to duty and what is just.” We have accepted that divisions should not be created on account of the bishop’s personal sins or his private violations of the Canons. Here, however, the Canon refers to heresy and injustice, that is, transgressions that are not confined to the sinning bishop himself, but which violate, on the one hand, the teaching of the Church and, on the other, the rights of the people under his pastoral care. And while the letter of the Canon ends here, its spirit extends further. For if the violation of the rights of the flock constitutes grounds for separation from its shepherd, how could the same not apply when the bishop publicly preaches contempt for and rejection of a written or unwritten tradition? Is it not among his duties and the obligations he assumed at his episcopal oath to observe all the Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Ordinances and Canons, written and unwritten, in accordance with the Apostolic injunction: “Stand fast, and hold the traditions,” which the Church later supplemented and expressed in the words: “If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition, let him be anathema”?

We observe that the same principle expressed in the 31st Apostolic Canon is also set forth in Canons 13 and 14 of the First-Second Council of 861. According to these Canons, every cessation of communion by a lower-ranking clergyman with his superior is severely punished, provided, of course, that the ecclesiastical superiors are not “impious or unjust,” according to the 31st Apostolic Canon, and that the separation of their subordinates has occurred “merely because certain criminal accusations may have been made against them” (Balsamon, S, II, 690). Both Zonaras and Balsamon regard “sacrilege, simony, fornication,” and, more generally, “violations of the Canons” as criminal charges or accusations. These must always be understood as personal transgressions and not as the rejection of or contempt for the Canonical Ordinances and Traditions of the Church publicly manifested within the Church.

The aforementioned Council, supplementing its Canons 13 and 14, proceeds in its 15th Canon to state clearly and positively (since what was said above concerning “criminal accusations” consists of expressions used by the interpreters and not by the Canons themselves) in which case the person who separates himself is not only exempt from punishment but, on the contrary, is even worthy of praise. It identifies this as the case in which a bishop preaches heresy with uncovered head, that is, openly and publicly.

But when the Fathers of the First-Second Council use the word heresy in the aforementioned 15th Canon, do they mean the term in its strict sense, that is, the distortion of dogmas alone, or something broader? In this regard, Canon 4 of the same Council can be of great assistance to us, for there the word heresy appears twice, referring to Iconoclasm. If, however, we consider that Iconoclasm, at least in its initial phase, constituted an overthrow of the forms of piety and worship, as well as the ecclesiastical order of the Church, which are preserved and expressed in the Sacred Canons and in the Tradition of Orthodoxy generally, it becomes readily apparent that the Fathers of the Council understood the word heresy in its broader sense, including the rejection of ecclesiastical traditions. [25] Indeed, it is for this very reason that the Church likewise subjects both heretics and those who despise her Traditions to anathema, knowing full well that every rejection of or contempt for them strikes at the very heart of the proclamation of salvation, the Gospel of Grace. “Those, therefore, who dare to think or teach otherwise,” declares the Seventh Ecumenical Council, “or, like the accursed heretics, to reject the ecclesiastical traditions and devise some innovation... we command that they be deposed” (Definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). In other words, the Council also characterizes those who despise the Sacred Traditions as heretics!

And as regards the Apostolic Traditions, surely no one would dispute that their rejection constitutes just grounds for the flock to break communion with those who despise them. But could we assert the same concerning the other traditions, that is, the Ecclesiastical Traditions? Certainly yes, since every rejection of them constitutes heresy.

Consequently, in accordance with the above, we may rightly assert that what the 31st Apostolic Canon intended to express by the terms “piety and justice” is contained in the word heresy in the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council. Moreover, we must not forget that “The Sacred Canons do not constitute a self-contained, independent, and self-sufficient part of the sources of Revelation, but are organically integrated into the Sacred Tradition of the Church as a whole. They interpret Holy Scripture and are themselves interpreted through it and by reference to the entirety of Sacred Tradition.” [26] And the practice of the Church in this regard teaches us that her faithful children have struggled not only in defense of dogmas, but equally in defense of the Traditions whenever these were despised by various impious persons throughout the centuries.

Saint Nicodemus is perfectly clear on this matter. “Time will not permit me,” he writes, “to enumerate countless examples of so many saints who suffered hardships and died for the sake of the Ecclesiastical Ordinances and Canons” (Concerning Frequent Communion, p. 108, 1962 edition).

In light of the above, any insistence upon an interpretation based solely on the letter of the word heresy in the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, while disregarding its spirit and the entire practice of the Church, would lead us to accept that, no matter how much a bishop despises and rejects the Sacred Traditions, the clergy and people under him cannot break communion with him, even if he were to abolish the holy icons, the impediments to marriage, Monasticism, the fasts, the common and prescribed order of worship, etc. But who could maintain such things without becoming a Protestant?...

Final Judgments

In light of the above, the final question arises: Can the consequences brought about by the calendar innovation be regarded as a remediable issue, which therefore did not justify the separation of the flock from those responsible for it, or, on the contrary, was this separation necessary, in accordance with what has been stated? Wishing to reduce these consequences to nothing, you write: “Our festal calendar, as we have emphasized, is an ecclesiastical tradition. It constitutes boundaries set by the Fathers, which must not be removed, and indeed are not being removed. And in confirmation of this, we ask with boldness, courage, and audacity: Which feast, even a single one, has been moved? Which has been abolished? Which has ceased to exist? Not one, never.”

Your above statements constitute a condemnable diversion from the subject, since the purpose of the festal calendar is not merely to indicate to the faithful the feasts of the Church’s annual cycle, thereby also regulating the fasts associated with them and the other observances of the faithful, but also to ensure the COMMON observance of all the above, as the Report of the Church of Greece itself clearly maintained! When this is not achieved, that is, the celebration of feasts by common agreement, we have a clear rejection of at least 50% of the Sacred Tradition of the festal calendar! For when this common observance is not achieved, especially on the great feasts, the external marks of the One Holy Church are disfigured, and the Church, the image of the Heavenly Kingdom, presents an appearance of confusion and disorder, which is not of God and, consequently, is not pleasing to Him or to the Church Triumphant, which established and observed the aforementioned good order.

For this very reason, the calendar innovation of 1924 constitutes an action very closely akin to the Iconoclastic reform, which, under the pretext of a purer and more spiritual worship, attempted to overthrow what had been handed down! So too in this case: under the pretext of greater chronological precision, but in reality motivated by a heterodox desire for union with the heretics of the West, whom they had officially described only three years earlier as “fellow heirs of the Kingdom of God,” having also recognized Anglican ordinations shortly before the Congress (1922), and at a time when the Greek world was mourning the Asia Minor Catastrophe, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in cooperation with the Church of Greece, was overthrowing a centuries-old order in the sacred institution of worship on a pan-Orthodox scale!!!

Even if the aforementioned heterodox Congress had abolished the common celebration of only a single feast, this still ought not to have been accepted by the faithful (and particularly by the faithful within the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece, as well as those within the Patriarchal jurisdiction, since the principal instigator of the innovation was the Metaxakis–Papadopoulos duo), on account of its sinful intentions. Consequently, the reaction of the Orthodox conscience to the innovations introduced in 1924 was highly commendable and fully justified by both the Sacred Canons and the practice of the Church.

And to be more specific regarding the sinister aims of the supposedly “Pan-Orthodox” Congress of 1923, we cite the following from its Acts. During one of its sessions, the Anglican Bishop Gore, a specialist in matters concerning the Eastern Churches, appeared quite unexpectedly and made, among other things, the following dreadful statements: “...The second step (toward union) will be taken for us by the calendar question, which will bring us to the common celebration of the feasts... Yesterday I presented two documents to Your All-Holiness: one bears the signatures of 5,000 Anglican priests declaring that they see no difficulty in full union... The second document is a proposal concerning the terms of union” (p. 87).

We ask: When were the above signatures collected, and why? Was it not some considerable time beforehand, and indeed immediately after the recognition of the priesthood of the signatories, with the aim of achieving union with the Orthodox, using the Congress of 1923 as a suitable instrument for accomplishing this unholy purpose? This passage alone is sufficient to vindicate the people of God, who, with a prophetic voice, proclaimed upon the change of the calendar, “They have turned us into Franks [i.e., Latins],” and resisted with all their strength both the external enemies of Orthodoxy and their own internal dictators and innovating shepherds.

We hope that you will not dare to characterize the events described above as “an extraneous alibi,” since they occurred BEFORE the calendar innovation, nor will you again draw parallels between them and the unilateral uncanonical actions of the period before 1920, since the latter received no pan-Orthodox publicity or acceptance, being entirely limited and isolated acts, of which the people were unaware and consequently bore no responsibility whatsoever for failing to react.

Certainly, during the resistance of the Old Calendarists, certain deviations from canonical propriety also occurred, attributable chiefly to the leading hieromonks and monks of the movement rather than to its Hierarchy, which, having been led astray—wrongly, of course—sometimes agreed with them. The most serious of these deviations was the declaration that Grace had been lost from the Church which introduced the innovation. What you regard as their second serious deviation, namely, their lack of communion with the Churches that retained the Old Calendar, is unfounded, because, as is clearly recorded in the history of their movement, they repeatedly sought communion with those Churches—so that, by convening a Synod, the irregularity and uncanonical situation that had arisen might be resolved—but without success, since those Churches preferred communion with the innovators rather than with the Old Calendarists, who were weak in worldly terms!

Consequently, in conclusion, we note that the sacred struggle of the Old Calendarists is fully justified, on the one hand, because of the unilateral change of the calendar, and, on the other, because of the profoundly uncanonical intentions of the Congress of 1923, through which un-Orthodox forces—both internal and external—sought to achieve, or rather to initiate, the union of falsehood with truth! For this very reason, we characterize the scission that arose as praiseworthy, in accordance with the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council and the patristic saying: “It is possible to separate rightly.” [27] We also regard the Church of Greece as chiefly responsible for creating not only the aforementioned scission, but also the disruption of the liturgical unity of Orthodoxy as a whole, something which rendered it “potentially schismatic” in relation to the Churches that retained the Old Calendar.

Thus, the humble confessors of the patristic Traditions, having proved faithful in little things, were found faithful also in great things, namely, in confronting the present culmination of the innovation of 1923, which is nothing other than undisguised false doctrine and heresy.

With regard, however, to the present [1976] leadership of the Old Calendarist struggle, we are obliged to repeat here as well that we disagree entirely with the course of action being followed [vis-à-vis, the affirmation of Matthewite ecclesiology in the infamous Encyclical of 1974, among other issues], which, instead of diminishing the errors of the past, is increasing them, with the result that their sacred struggle has been utterly discredited. Its complete replacement would be most desirable, but the decision on this matter rests with the most distinguished and veteran members of their heroic Church, that is, those among the clergy and laity who possess authority, boldness, and a deep concern over the deviation of the sacred struggle, and who desire its restoration. [28]

Thanking you for your hospitality,

I remain, with due respect,

THEODORETOS, Monk

Skete of St. Anne — Mount Athos

June 1976. [29]

 

Under Excommunication and Deposition

The more detailed reports concerning the recent meeting between the Pope and Patriarch Demetrios in Constantinople add sorrow upon sorrow. For they demonstrate that the fall was even greater.

As the ecumenist periodical Episkepsis reports, these two did not concelebrate at one Liturgy, but at two: one patriarchal and the other papal! On the evening of November 29, 1979, Demetrios and those accompanying him “attended” the “Liturgy celebrated by... the Pope... in the Roman Catholic Cathedral,” “wearing a mantle” and taking his place “at the throne of the (papal) church.” As he entered the church, the papal choir chanted a “special hymn” in his honor. And “at a certain point during the... (heretical) Liturgy, the Pope came to the center of the solea and exchanged a kiss of peace with the Patriarch” (Episkepsis, December 1, 1979, p. 7).

“On the following day, Friday, November 30,” the Pope and those accompanying him “arrived... and attended” the “Divine... Liturgy” of the Patriarchate. “In the narthex... he was received by the Patriarch, who was wearing the full patriarchal vestments, including the sakkos of Tiberias.” “The Pope was escorted to a specially prepared throne opposite the Patriarchal Throne.” “At the ‘Let us love one another,’ the Pope descended from his throne and the Patriarch came out of the Holy Sanctuary, and they exchanged a kiss.” “The Pope recited the Lord’s Prayer in Latin” (Episkepsis, December 1, 1979, pp. 11–12).

The aforementioned acts of impiety testify that Patriarch Demetrios permitted the heresiarch Pope not merely to perform “some” act as a clergyman, but unfortunately many such acts, in joint prayer and indeed during the Divine Liturgy. That is, to attend the Divine Liturgy as a clergyman. To sit during it upon a special throne as a Bishop. To recite the Lord’s Prayer as a believer and an ordained clergyman. To exchange a liturgical kiss with the Patriarch as the Archbishop of a Church of Christ. To be received ecclesiastically by the Patriarch in the narthex of the Holy Church as the Archbishop of the elder Church of Rome. To receive Demetrios himself into joint prayer during a papal Liturgy as the first Bishop of Christendom and an elder and beloved brother in Christ! And all these things in flagrant violation of the Sacred Canons, including the 45th Apostolic Canon, through which God commands: “Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon who has merely prayed together with heretics be excommunicated; but if he has permitted them to perform any act as clergymen, let him be deposed.”

Patriarch Demetrios, therefore, and those with him are, according to the Sacred Canons, both excommunicated and deposed, as Saint Theodore the Studite says concerning Joseph, the violator of the Sacred Canons: “According to them, the man is deposed” (PG 99, 998). They must, however, be excommunicated and deposed by the competent ecclesiastical authority, which, if it fails to carry out the will of the Lord, is itself subject to judgment.

(Good Confession, January 1, 1980).

 

NOTES

11. PG 99, 1164A.

12. PG 160, 105C.

13. PG 99, 1049A.

14. Cf. in this regard the lives of Saints Maximos the Confessor, John of Damascus, and Theodore the Studite, MANSI 4, 1096, 1256, and the most beautiful saying of Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite: “Within our own Hierarchy, when a priest or hierarch acts disorderly and holds erroneous beliefs, even a deacon or monk who conducts himself properly and holds correct beliefs may admonish them and restore them to proper order, as the examples are exceedingly numerous” (Synaxarion, November 8, note).

15. Sp. Milias, A Most Comprehensive Collection of the Sacred Canons... Venice 1761, Vol. I, p. 448.

16. The 31st Apostolic Canon and the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council.

17. Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, Articles – Studies – Letters, Vol. I, Athens 1981, pp. 215, 234.

18. MANSI 4, 1096; S. Milias, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 449–450.

18a. “There was in Constantinople a bishop named Dorotheos, who held the same beliefs as he did, a man given to flattery and rash in speech, as it is written. During an assembly, while the most reverend Nestorius of Constantinople was seated upon the throne of the Church, this man stood up and dared to proclaim in a loud voice: ‘If anyone says that Mary is the Theotokos, let him be anathema.’ Thereupon a great outcry arose among all the people, and they rushed out, for they no longer wished to remain in communion with those who held such beliefs. Thus, even now, the people of Constantinople remain separated from their assemblies, except for a few less steadfast individuals and those who flatter him. Almost all the monasteries and their archimandrites, as well as many members of the Senate, likewise refuse to assemble with them, fearing that their faith might be harmed by him and those accompanying him, whom he brought with him when he came up from Antioch, all of whom speak perverse things.” (Letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Celestine, Bishop of Rome, Acts, Vol. I, p. 443. Cf. ibid., pp. 451, 455).

19. ACTA SANCTORUM, November, Vol. II, p. 267.

20. “Yesterday... the Patriarch declared to me, saying: ‘To which Church do you belong? To that of Byzantium? Rome? Antioch? Alexandria? Behold, all these have been united, together with the provinces under their jurisdiction. If, therefore, you belong to the Catholic Church, unite yourself with them, lest, by introducing a strange way of life, you suffer something you do not expect.’ To them I replied: ‘The God of all, having blessed Peter for his correct confession of Him, declared that the Catholic Church is the right and saving confession of faith in Him...’

“‘Hear, then,’ they said. ‘It has been decided by the Emperor and the Patriarch, by order of the Pope of Rome, that if you do not obey, you shall be anathematized and suffer the death they have decreed.’ And the Saint replied: ‘May that which God ordained for me before all ages be brought to fulfillment, bringing Him the glory which He foreknew before all ages...’” (PG 99, 132A–C).

21. PG 99, 1177D, 1205B, 1365A–B, 1636–1637.

22. Ibid., 1669A.

22a. Concerning the interpretation of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, see also what is written in the study by the Athonite Fathers, Division and Apostasy, Athens 1981, pp. 34–38.

23. a) “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” (Titus 3:10–11).

b) “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:8).

c) To hold fast to the traditions as we have been taught, whether by word or by the epistles of the Apostles, and to continue in the things which we have learned and have been assured of; and not to be led astray or intimidated by adversaries, but to watch, stand fast in the Faith, and become steadfast and immovable. (1 Thess. 5; 2 Thess. 2; 1 Cor. 15, 16; 2 Cor. 13; 2 Tim. 3).

24. “Flee therefore heresies, for they are inventions of the devil” (Saint Ignatius). “Turn away from all heresies, as from beasts bearing deadly venom, concerning which I have also instructed you in writing...” (Saint Epiphanios).

24a. Sp. Milias, A Most Comprehensive Collection..., Vol. II, pp. 729–742.

25. “Heretics are not only those who reject the divine dogmas, but also those who reject the divine law, both evangelical and canonical, including even the canonically established order of the Church.” (Good Confession, January 1981, p. 3).

26. V. Pheidas, Historical-Canonical and Ecclesiastical Prerequisites for the Interpretation of the Sacred Canons, Athens 1972, p. 52.

27. “It is possible to separate rightly. For there is also an evil concord, just as there is a good disagreement.” John Chrysostom, PG 59, 314.

28. The Zealot Fathers on Mount Athos should likewise follow their example as soon as possible, provided, of course, that they first come to understand that they constitute a pleroma of the Ecumenical Patriarchate which protests and struggles in defense of the Sacred Traditions, and not... a parish of the G.O.C. of Greece on Mount Athos!

29. It should be noted that, although the above study had been submitted in good time for publication in Orthodoxos Typos, as a contribution to the dialogue then taking place between New Calendarists and Old Calendarists, the newspaper’s management nevertheless refused to publish it, even though much later it described the study as “perhaps the most noteworthy” contribution from the Old Calendarist side.