By Protopresbyter Theodore
Zisis
As translated from the original Greek and previously
shared by the defunct Russian-Faith.com website.
About
the Author
Protopresbyter Theodore
Zisis, professor of the theological faculty of Thessaloniki University named
after Aristotle (FUA) [1],
was born in 1941 on the island of Tacoc [2] in the village
of Panagia, to a priest's family.
In 1965, he graduated
from the Theological Faculty of Thessaloniki University and as the best
graduate was enrolled in the law faculty of FUA, but interrupted his studies in
connection with the beginning of the Faculty of Theology in the FUA.
He also graduated from
the graduate school in Thessaloniki, at the department of historical theology,
under the guidance of the famous pathologist P. Christ [3].
In 1971, he was awarded a doctorate for his dissertation "Man and the
Universe in the Housebuilding of God according to the teachings of St. John
Chrysostom," and in 1973 for a study on "The Art of Virginity. The
Holy Fathers of the Church in Defense of Celibacy.” He was appointed associate
professor of the theological faculty of the FSA.
In 1972-1973 and
1979-1980, Father Theodore was going through advanced training in West Germany
(Bonn).
Having presented to the
department along with other publications a large monograph “Gennady II Scholarius.
Life - Scripture - Doctrine”[4],
in 1980 he was elected a full-time teacher of theology. In 1982, after the
division of the Faculty of Theology of the FUA into two departments, he
moved to the department of pastoral and social theology, where he currently
teaches. He was the dean of this department twice.
Immediately after the
founding of the patriarchal Institute for Patriotic Studies at the Vlatadov
Monastery [5],
Father Theodore became his scientific associate, then he served as director of
the Institute (1977–1986), as well as editor and secretary (1968–1970) of the
Heritage magazine published by the Patriarchal Institute.
In 1970, he became a
research fellow at the Center for Byzantine Studies of the Federal Armed
Forces, then head of the department of theology (1988-1998), and later became
the director of the Center (1991-1995). Father Theodore is a member of the
editorial board of the Byzantine Heritage magazine and other publications of
the Center. For several years he was chairman of the Union of Theologians of
Northern Greece and published the journal The Union of Theologians. Repeatedly
he was the organizer and active participant in various international scientific
conferences.
Protopresbyter Theodore
Zisis is a cleric of the Ecumenical Patriarchate [6].
In December 1990, he was ordained deacon, and in March 1991 - to the rank of
presbyter in the monastery of St. Anastasia the Solvers [7] and
held pastoral services in it until the beginning of 1993. From April 1993 to
this day, with the approval of the official church authorities, he has served
in the church of St. Anthony the Great in Thessaloniki [8],
remaining in the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople.
He represented the
Ecumenical Patriarchate [9] and
the Hellenic Church [10] at
inter-Christian meetings many times, taking part in Orthodox dialogues with
both old Catholics and modern Catholics; he also participated in
inter-Orthodox meetings to prepare the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox
Church. For severe criticism of the justification of the union and unacceptable
documents for the church signed in 1993 in the town of Balamand [11],
the Patriarchate of Constantinople forbade him to participate in dialogues with
Catholics.
In 1998, together with
like-minded people, he founded the Orthodox Education Society. He currently
leads the publication of the theological almanac of the Society for the Life of
the Commandments, which, despite all the problems and difficulties, has been
published with God's help every three months for seven years.
Initially maintaining
good relations with the Archbishop of Athens Christodoulos [12] (when
he was still Metropolitan of Dimitriad [13]),
Father Theodore came to a sharp confrontation with him, especially since 2001 -
since the preparation and implementation of the visit of the late Pope John
Paul II to Athens. Protopresbyter Theodore believes that, led by His Beatitude
Christodoulos, the Hellas Church, due to ongoing close contacts with the
WCC [14] and
with representatives of other religions, has lost the faithful path indicated
by the apostles and holy fathers, and is following the path of inter-religious
and inter-Christian syncretism [15],
according to the paths of ecumenism to all.
In connection with the
irreconcilable position of Protopresbyter Theodore on this issue, as well as
because of his open criticism of ecumenical contacts and the moral decline and
conciliation of the bishopric in general, in June 2005 he was banned - a ban on
clergy. However, the outrage because of this breach of church unity and the
ardent support of many clerics contributed to the fact that in September 2005
the punishment was lifted.
Father Theodore speaks
German and French. During his fruitful life, he published a large number of
studies, monographs, and articles devoted to theological and historical topics
and various problems of social and church life.
Author's
Foreword
In 2005, the Greek Church
experienced a serious crisis: revelations against some bishops and the scandals
in which they were involved, affected not only herself, but also had
detrimental consequences for the most ancient church of Jerusalem. All this
shook the faith of the believers in the clergy and filled the quivers of
enemies of the Church with poisonous arrows.
Unfortunately, the
hierarchy was not able to resist the crisis, since it completely discredited
itself. Most archpriests were in fear and indecision, not daring to take any
steps to overcome the crisis. One serious and reasonable bishop explained
his inaction (as well as other hierarchs) by the fear of various attacks from
those who brought the Church to such a deplorable state.
As for the parish clergy,
consisting mainly of married clerics, they, deeply concerned by the
abasement of the holy dignity by unworthy shepherds, did not dare to express
their opinion on the current situation because of their fear of the bishop. The
cowardly ministers of Christ justified their indifference by obedience to the
bishops.
However, in this
situation, this argument was completely inappropriate and even unacceptable,
since it fettered any desire to resist evil and treacherously lulled the
conscience. Indeed, while the Gospel is being violated and the truth is
rejected, there is no justification for silence and inaction, for, indeed, God
gives up silence. Therefore, the Scripture says that there is “a time to be
silent, and a time to speak” (Eccl. 3, 7). And judging by the situation at that
time, it was precisely the time when it was necessary not to be silent, but to
speak. Therefore, we began to speak, analyze, propose a way out of the crisis.
Such boldness had quite
predictable consequences: the Archbishop Christodoulos punished us by
forbidding us in the ministry. Thus, an uncanonical act was committed, since
such actions against a cleric who was under the jurisdiction of another Church
(in this case, the Church of Constantinople) did not fall within the purview of
the Primate of the Church of Greece, and therefore we could in no way be
subject to his trial. Of course, Despota
did this not without the tacit consent of the Ecumenical Patriarch himself, who
also does not like the Orthodox word that agrees with Tradition…
It is difficult to
justify that which has no justification. Therefore, the fact that those
people who plunged the Church into the abyss of scandals are still not punished
causes righteous indignation and, in part, bewilderment. After all, to this
day, those guilty who were a direct source of temptation or because of their
silence and inaction were involved in scandals, have not been called to account
- but this is mainly the hierarchy itself. But those were easily punished,
who, pointing to the appalling state of affairs in the Church, called for
awakening, for those who were guilty of scandals or implicated in them to take
responsibility for what was happening. But, by the grace of God, and
thanks to the ardent support of many of our brothers in Christ, near and far,
we have stood and not changed our position.
The small fruit of this
tireless struggle for the purity of Orthodoxy was this small pamphlet, which
illuminates the subtle and painful topic for many of genuine obedience - that
obedience taught by the holy fathers, but which, unfortunately, is still neglected
and little known to us. And if the doctrine of true obedience is
completely forgotten, then false teachers and false pastors will triumph, who
will lead the flock in the wrong way, dragging it along with them into the
abyss of eternal perdition.
June 2006
Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis
Chapter
1
Immediately
After Ecumenism Came Homosexuality
Objectively assessing the
situation in which the Church finds itself today, it should be recognized that
it has strongly deviated from Tradition, participating in the heretical
ecumenical movement [16]. The
result of which were other deviations. So, in the church environment there
is a rapid decline in morals, many clerics completely abandon the Gospel and
the patristic way of life, and a considerable part of the episcopate surrounded
themselves with luxury, often surpassing even secular people in this.
All this, of course, is
the result of a cooling of faith. However, the current close contacts of
the Church with Catholics, the honors and receptions rendered to the Pope in
Greece [17] and in other Orthodox countries [18],
probably also give grounds for the adoption of the secular way of life of the
Catholic clergy by many clergy and justify complete pleasure, devoid of
Gospel and patristic ideals, in the “life” of some of our modern priests and
archpriests.
More recently, we wrote
that the pontiff came to Greece and stayed. It turns out that he
still left. But, leaving Greece, he left us a great many
"popes", of various sizes and dignity, everywhere planting Catholic
peace.
Especially frightening is
the penetration into the church wall of the worst sin of Sodom -
homosexuality. Such scandals, connected with the names of some hierarchs,
which have been left without due attention and consideration over the
years, without any spiritual healing, discredit honest presbytery and cause
distrust of the word of the Church. Who will now believe in us, the
shepherds, when we talk about modesty, non-possession, contempt for all worldly
and earthly things, asceticism, abstinence and virginity?
However, most clergy had
already stopped talking about it for a long time, because they themselves do
not believe in all this. Others hypocritically proclaim themselves to be
virtuous in words, but their deeds testify otherwise.
God's terrible anger
poured out on the Sodomites because of their sodomy, fire from heaven utterly
burned Sodom and Gomorrah [19], wiping these ancient cities from the face of the earth.
Angry words against homosexuality are contained in the Epistle of the Holy
Apostle Paul to the Romans, however, as in other sacred texts. Upon learning of
the case of fornication between close relatives in Corinth [20],
the apostle demands that the lascivious person be expelled from the church
community so that his example does not become a bad leaven. How can we dare to
judge the world, the apostle of tongues argues, when we ourselves leave sin
untouched in the body of the Church? “But I wrote to you not to communicate
with someone who, being called a brother, remains a harlot, or covetous, or an
idolater, or an abusive one, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with this one
don't even eat together. For what have I to do with judging those also who are
outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God
judges. So cast forth the corrupt one from among you” (1 Cor. 5, 11–13).
Could the apostle,
however, like other disciples of Christ and the holy fathers, imagine that
there would come a time when the gospel would be violated and God's law would
have no power? That not only fornicators would not be excommunicated from the
Church, but sodomites would also be allowed to ascend the throne, to touch
sacred vessels with their unclean, nasty hands? Could the saints of God have
thought that we would participate in the WCC and not only have a meal, but also
perform joint prayers with pseudo-Christians, with representatives of the
so-called churches that have fallen so far from the truth that they have begun
to bless same-sex marriage?
Nowadays, our bishops do
not dare to boldly fight against the sin of Sodom (which the preachers of the
gloomy Western Renaissance try to impose on Orthodoxy), since they themselves
trample the Gospel, tolerating sodomites, fornicators, and pedophiles in
the church community and not removing them from the body of the Church.
Therefore, the pointed
Church teaching against homosexuality ricochets back to those who dare to
pronounce it, with the help of such a counterargument: “Why don’t you notice
your shamelessness? Why don't you see a shameful, unnatural vice in your
midst?”
Unfortunately, today
church hierarchs prefer to maintain good relations with the powers that be,
obeying their worldly plans - syncretic, globalistic, ecumenical, environmental
and social (hypocritical in fact). They apparently forgot that there is nothing
more valuable and precious than God and true faith; that only Christ is the
Light of the world and that their most important ministry and mission is to
testify, preach and reveal this Light, which invariably shines in the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church. And everything outside the Church is the “Pagan
Galilee, a people sitting in darkness” (Matthew 4, 15–16), which should be
brought to the light, and not left in the darkness of godlessness, error, and
heresy.
No human can
themselves be a source of light, they cannot emit their own
light. Defiantly believing that he is emitting light, such a person will
in fact only thicken the darkness. Even with regard to the greatest of
those born of women, St. John the Baptist, the evangelist writes that “he was
not light, but [was sent] to bear witness to the Light. He came for a
testimony, to testify of the Light, that all might believe through it” (John 1,
7–8).
He who does not believe
that salvation in Christ is possible only in the Church, but believes that it
can be found in heretical gatherings, is not only not saved, but also
constantly suffers in himself the chastening wrath of God: “He who believes in
the Son has eternal life, but he who does not believe in the Son will not
see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3, 36).
Does the Light of Christ,
which enlightens all and invariably shines in the Church, have something in
common with the darkness of ecumenism, equalizing and equating all religions
and confessions of faith? Do we prefer the ascetic, equal-to-the-angels
and heavenly Forerunner, or the secluded and mundane ecumenical
leaders? Will we obey them - through whom the ancient earpiece and
tempter, who once whispered to Christ, whispers to us about earthly blessings,
vanity and power?
We are no longer the
light of the world, for we do not shine with the purity of our lives, nor the
salt of the earth, for we do not protect the world from the increasing moral
decay. And therefore, as spiritually unfit, we are despised and trampled upon
by people: “You are the salt of the earth. If salt loses its strength,
then how can you make it salty? It is no longer worth anything,
except to be thrown out to be trampled upon by men” (Matthew 5:13).
Previously, our Church,
our ascetic, holy and immaculate Orthodoxy, thanks to the virtuous life of
Orthodox pastors, had the moral right to denounce the prodigal lifestyle of the
Roman Catholic clergy, as, for example, did St. Simeon of Thessalonica [21]: “And
even fornication is not at all punished by their priests, but they openly have
concubines and youths for debauchery, and at the same time they act as priests
... And they live a life contrary to the Gospel, because none of the pleasure
and debauchery among them is subject to censure, and it is not considered to be
something impermissible for Christians".
And today, our clergy,
which have become a hotbed of sodomites and perverts, are already plagued with
moral decay. The hierarchy, however, is not at all concerned about how to
protect young people from seduction from the true path, or how to prevent all
their communication with perverse personalities, especially in the church
fence. Instead, it turns church justice against those who have a heartache
for Orthodoxy, for its purity; it accuses them of disobedience and even of
provoking a split of those who are faithful to Tradition.
But can a statement of
such facts, testifying to the ever-growing decline in morals among clerics,
actually confuse and insult the believers, can it be a temptation?
Indeed, our remarks
regarding matters of faith and church life worry many, and perhaps even depress
them. But we raise these problems from the best of intentions and good
intentions, and not because of any personal hostility to anyone. Honoring
the episcopal dignity and good archpriests, we never incited anyone to
split. And we don't intend to do this in the future either.
Chapter
2
Blessed
Disobedience or Evil Obedience?
For a number of reasons,
the great virtue of obedience, unfortunately, is misunderstood by
many. Because of this, believers lose their freedom in Christ, their
inner, spiritual potential and all ability to fight and practice
asceticism. And in the hands of some, seemingly pious, “confessors” often
turn out to be weak-willed and unfree creatures, into some kind of wordless and
meek slaves...
The issue that has long
existed in the Church has prompted us to seriously turn to the subject of
obedience: most of us often identify the hierarchy, the primate and bishop with
the Church itself, individuals with the whole institution, which the Church undoubtedly
is. And therefore, the manifestation of disobedience in some issues to any
of these persons is perceived as disobedience to the Church itself.
But what does obedience
to the Church really mean?
Does obedience to the
Church mean obeying the head of the Church, the bishops and priests as
individuals - regardless of whether they are good shepherds, or mercenaries
throwing sheep to their fate or even into the arms of wolves? Despite the fact
that they themselves might not be obedient to the truth of the Orthodox faith?
Are they “faithfully teaching the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15)? Should we obey
them regardless of whether everything they say and do is in accordance with the
Orthodox teaching or a fallacy? And is it proper for us to follow any clergy
and obey all of them, good and evil, observing everything that they teach, not
deciding whether this is true or false?
Of course not! If
such a distorted idea of obedience prevailed in the Church, then heresy would
reign in it today, for the saints would have to remain in obedience to the
heretical patriarchs and hierarchs; then Nicolaism [22],
coupled with homosexuality, would have established itself forever in the
Church...
All that the Holy
Scriptures and holy fathers say about obedience to priests means obedience to
good shepherds, vigilantly rejoicing in the truth and the salvation of the
faithful. A classic example of this is an excerpt from the Epistle of the
Holy Apostle Paul to the Hebrews: “Obey your teachers and be humble” (Heb.
13:17). However, he considers a necessary condition for such obedience,
first of all, to be the vigilant care of the pastors for the spiritual
salvation of the flock: “For they vigilantly take care of your souls, as they
must give an account” (Heb. 13:17).
The apostle also
encourages believers to remember their teachers. But what
teachers? Those who, by an example of their lives, teach the word of God:
“Remember your teachers who have preached the word of God to you, and, looking
at the end of their lives, imitate their faith” (Heb. 13:7).
The same applies to the
words of St. Ignatius of Antioch [23] about
obedience to the hierarchy. Many advocates of bishopric centered
ecclesiology appeal to his messages quite rashly, trying to find a legitimate
basis or justification for the undivided authority of bishops, which often
takes the form of tyranny even worse than that of the papacy.
Indeed, in his epistles,
St. Ignatius encourages full obedience to the archpastor. But to every
one? Father George Metallinos [24],
attending various meetings of the clergy, where, with reference to the saint,
substantiates the need for unquestioning and absolute obedience to the bishop,
he always notes that he should also specify what merits he must have in order
to demand obedience to himself. Indeed, not every bishop meets the high
criteria that a true bishop must meet.
And in his epistles, St.
Ignatius the God-bearer certainly implies obedience to the good archpastor,
without a doubt, like he was himself. How many of the current hierarchs,
like the saint, are an examples to follow - with their humility, ascetic character
and active work against heresies, as well as their confession and willingness
to suffer for the truth even to death? But it is precisely such worthy
bishops who faithfully teach the word of truth that the Church commemorates
during the celebration of the Eucharist.
Is it conceivable to obey
clergymen who do not preach the truth of the Gospel, who lead their flock to
the abyss of perdition by the example of their lives, or who justify the heresy
of heresies — ecumenism? And what would be worth imitating in the lifestyle
of such clerics?
Holy disobedience is
absolutely necessary when heresy and moral decay take on enormous proportions,
when the Church, in the person of the hierarchy, falls into error, as is the
case today with respect to the arch-heresy of ecumenism…
Heresy defiles and
afflicts the whole body of the Church, and therefore it does not matter that
the pontiff visited only Athens or that the WCC met within the metropolitan
area of Attica [25]. In
matters of faith there is no such thing as "in my jurisdiction" or
"in someone else's competence." So, the heretic Arius [26] appeared
in distant Alexandria [27],
and the Cappadocian fathers began to fight the new false doctrine [28]; or,
for example, Nestorius began his heretical sermon in Constantinople [29],
but the struggle was conducted mainly by Bishop Cyril of Alexandria [30].
Thus, no bishop can
justify the fact that the pope’s foot didn’t enter the boundaries of their
dioceses, or that the WCC conference was not held in their metropolis, or that
they personally did not perform joint prayers with Catholics and Protestants.
Since they did not oppose this, did not oppose it in any way, did not protest
and did not raise their voice against this wickedness, it means that, along
with all those involved in the heresy of ecumenism, they share responsibility
and bear blame for what was done, and are equally involved with others in this
error. After all, according to St. John Chrysostom [31],
the bishop should not only watch over his own diocese, but also over the
Ecumenical Catholic Church [32] as a whole: “The primate should take care not only of the
Church entrusted to him by the Spirit, but also of the ecumenical ".
Since we do not see
anyone in the church hierarchy fighting ecumenism, opposing it, or somehow
resisting the onslaught of Catholicism and the anti-Orthodox activities of the
WCC, we are forced to raise our voices ourselves. But as soon as the Lord enlightens
the archpastors, and they begin to do at least something in the current
deplorable situation, we will immediately be silent. And until this
happens, we, simple clergy and monks, will have to fight it ourselves.
We are all responsible
for the Church, and not only the bishops, for the Church is not someone else's
private property. The bishop, together with the clergy, as well as the laity,
as one body with the head - Christ, are responsible for it, each in their own
way. Often, when patriarchs and hierarchs fell into error, only the elders and
monks stood up to protect the Church from all kinds of heresies, and the
faithful people have for centuries been generally recognized as the guardians
of Orthodoxy.
And finally, having
represented the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Church at inter-Christian
conferences, we have seen that such theological dialogues not only lead to
nothing, but, on the contrary, lead to apostasy [33] and
falling away from Orthodoxy. Orthodox ecumenists participating in various
meetings should do not witness about the truth of our faith, although they
claim that they do. Actually, they simply hide behind this claim, using
arguments to justify their participation in the WCC and other such
organizations, and nothing more.
Chapter
3
The
Holy Scriptures on Obedience
Scripture makes a clear
distinction between good shepherds and evil mercenaries, true and genuine
servants of God, teachers and prophets on the one hand, and false priests,
false teachers, and false prophets on the other.
Here are quotes from the
book of the holy prophet Jeremiah [34],
which are used by St. Gregory Palamas [35] in
relation to modern heretical false shepherds:
- “Amazing and terrible things are
committed in this land: prophets prophesy lies, and priests dominate
through them” (Jer. 5:30–31).
- “The shepherds became meaningless and
did not seek the Lord, and therefore they acted recklessly, and their
whole flock was scattered” (Jer. 10:21).
- “Many shepherds spoiled My vineyard,
trampled down My plot with their feet; My beloved site was made an empty
steppe; they made it a desert” (Jer. 12:10–11).
Christ himself clearly
divides the shepherds into good ones and evil ones, prompting obedience only to
the good shepherds, and by no means to the evil ones — the mercenaries who are
only interested in their own profit and who do not intend to sacrifice themselves
for the sake of the sheep, leaving them defenseless when attacked by wolves:
“A good shepherd lays
down his life for the sheep. But the mercenary, not the shepherd, to whom the
sheep are not his own, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees;
and the wolf plunders the sheep, and disperses them” (John 10:11–12).
Many false shepherds
entered the sheepfold, but not through the door, that is, not by the grace of
God, but by “another way,” namely, by means of various types of
simony [36]. And
therefore, they, as Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain notes in his
“Exhortative Instructions” [37],
are not the chosen vessels of God, and they are not even proteges of the
people, but simply impostors.
That is why the sheep
look at them like strangers, do not obey them and do not follow them - after
all, they only follow the true shepherds:
“Verily, verily, I say
unto you, he who does not enter the sheepfold through the door, but climbs in
another way, the same is a thief and a robber; and the one entering by the
door is the shepherd of the sheep. The doorkeeper opens the door for him,
and the sheep obey his voice, and he calls his sheep by name and leads them
out. And when he will bring out his sheep, he goes before them; and
the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. They don’t follow a
stranger, but they flee from him, because they don’t know a stranger’s voice”
(John 10:1–5).
However, if the sheep,
that is, the believers, for some reason nevertheless follow the evil shepherd,
then they themselves will be responsible for this action. This is clearly
stated in the Apostolic decrees. [38] The
laity cannot claim that they are only obedient sheep, that they themselves do
not decide anything, and that all responsibility lies exclusively with the
shepherd, who will give the answer for everything. To think that way is
disastrous, for a certain death awaits the sheep, not only when they do not
follow the good shepherd and therefore are attacked by wolves, but also when
they follow the evil shepherd. In conclusion, the Apostolic
decrees offer the following advice, which is relevant at all times: "Therefore,
it is necessary to run away from the shepherd-destroyers."
It is impossible to
mention everything that the New Testament says about false teachers, false
prophets, and false pastors. We will cite only the words of the holy Apostle
Paul, addressed to the elders of Ephesus [39],
whom he called to Militus [40],
returning to Jerusalem from his last apostolic journey. He warns them that
shepherds will appear soon — wolves in sheep's clothing — heretics who will do
anything to disperse the flock. However, those who pervert the Gospel in order
to attract listeners and try to make them their followers will also come out
from among the elders themselves:
“So pay attention to
yourself and to the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you
overseers, shepherding the Church of the Lord and God, which He has acquired
for Him with His Blood. For I know that, after my departure, fierce wolves will
come in to you, not sparing the flocks; and from among yourselves people will
arise who will speak wrong things, in order to entice the disciples after
themselves” (Acts 20:28-30).
And finally, the apostle
warns the faithful that in matters of faith and obedience it is necessary to
exercise such caution and prudence that even if he himself or an angel begins
to teach something else, previously unknown, then they should not obey:
“But if even if we
or an angel from heaven begin to preach a different gospel to you than the one
that we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).
Chapter
4
The
Holy Fathers on Obedience
Before giving examples of
some statements of the saints regarding blessed obedience to bishops who
faithfully teach the word of truth, and holy disobedience to heretics, we note
the following. Many holy fathers, based on the Holy Scriptures, spoke directly
and frankly about evil shepherds, strongly speaking out in favor of expelling
them from the Church, especially when they seduce the people of God by their
behavior.
Now, when they distort
and abolish the Gospel, refuting and subverting the holy fathers, such false
shepherds not only are not expelled, so that the so-desired and long-awaited
catharsis can set in, but, on the contrary, they also receive unquestioning obedience. Those
who refuse to obey those who pervert the Gospel and denounce them as being a
source of temptation, are called insolent troublemakers and have trials over
them to expel them from the Church. Is this not something ridiculous, strange
and entirely unreasonable?
1.
St. Athanasius the Great
Saint Athanasius [41],
realizing the seriousness of the question of unworthy, evil clerics, who seduce
the faithful with their behavior, boldly states the following: It is preferable
for believers to gather in prayer houses, that is, in churches, alone - without
bishops and priests - rather than inheriting fiery hell together with them, as
happened with those Jews who, together with Annas and Caiaphas [42] rebelled against the Savior:
“If the bishop or the
priest, being the eyes of the Church, have unkind behavior and seduce the
people, they should be cast out. It’s better to gather in the house of prayer
without them than to be cast into the fiery hell with them, like Annas and
Caiaphas.”
For us it is like hearing
thunder on a clear day to learn that the clergy of all stations, whom we had
thought to be pious and self-controlled, and whom the monks were ready to give
full obedience to, had turned out to be possessed with wicked vices, even
those vices which we had not known of before.
One should be very
careful with such hypocrites and "ascetics" with long, decorated
beards, who do everything “so that their people can see” (Matt. 23:5). After
all, the hypocrisy of old is undermining Christian morality, even among the
monks. (Saint Eustathius of Thessalonica [43],
who lived in the 12th century, was an enlightened and straightforward hierarch,
and dedicated a separate work, “On Hypocrisy,” in which he condemned this sin
angrily.)
Saint Athanasius writes
of such duplicitous false shepherds as follows:
“The Lord said: ‘Beware
of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are
ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.’ If you see,
brother, someone who has a decent appearance, don’t look to see whether he is
dressed in sheep’s wool, whether he bears the name of priest, bishop, deacon or
ascetic, but be quick to learn about his business, whether he is chaste, hospitable,
merciful, loving, earnest in prayers, and patient.
“If his god is his belly,
if his throat is the path to hell, if he is greedy for money and makes it his
god — leave him alone. He is not a wise shepherd, but a predatory wolf.
“If you know how to ‘tell
trees by their fruits’ — what kind of breed, taste, and quality they are — then
all the more you should recognize betrayers of Christ by their deeds, since
they, bearing the guise of reverence, have a devilish soul.
“You do not collect
grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles, so why do you think that you
can hear something good from criminals or learn something useful from traitors?
Therefore run away from them, like from the wolves of Arabia, like from the thorns
of their preaching, the burdocks of their injustice and the crafty tree.
“If you see a wise man,
as Wisdom teaches, go to him, and let your foot wear out the threshold of his
door, in order to learn the inscriptions of the law and the gifts of grace from
him. Not an eloquent word or an impressive appearance is introduced into the
Kingdom of Heaven, but a perfect and unsophisticated faith along with virtuous
and brilliant prudence.”
We will give one more
remarkable case from the life of St. Athanasius. One day he received the news
that the monks of Cappadocia had risen up against the great saint Basil [44],
when he, wanting to return moderate pneumatic wings to Orthodoxy [45],
for the sake of oikonomia [46] avoided
calling the Holy Spirit “Consubstantial” for some time. The presbyter
Palladium, who reported this, wanted Saint Athanasius to instruct the
Cappadocian monks to remain in one mind and obedience to their
archpastor.
However, the answer of
the true champion of the Orthodox faith is completely opposite to the
instructions that the current patriarchs and hierarchs give to monks when they
try to protest against the deviation of the hierarchy from the teaching of the
Church. So, St. Athanasius writes:
“I already know about the
Caesarean monks from our beloved Dianius, that they resist the bishop, our
beloved Basil. I praise you for notifying me of this, and I told them what
follows: that as children they should obey their father and not contradict him in
what he teaches, after consideration.
“If it were possible to
suspect him of an incorrect understanding of the truth, then it would be good
to go against him. But if you are firmly convinced, like all of us, that
he is the praise of the Church, and strives more for the truth, teaching
those who need it, then it is necessary not to confront him, but rather to
approve his good conscience.
“For from what the
beloved Dianius told me, it is revealed that they are indignant in vain. Basil,
as I am firmly convinced, has become weak to the weak, that they may be
converted. And our beloved ones, while looking at the goal and watching it
(and keeping to the truth), let them glorify the Lord, who gave Cappadocia such
a bishop, which every country would like to have.”
As you can see, St.
Athanasius does not condemn the monks for being interested in matters of faith,
and he does not compel them to confine themselves to fulfilling their monastic
vows only (as if there is a higher duty than preserving the faith and protecting
it!). He does not encourage the monks, having rejected canonical rigor, to
follow the position of St. Basil, but advises them to try to understand his
good intentions and approve of them. And since there is nothing reprehensible
in this position of St. Basil, St. Athanasius encourages the monks to remain in
obedience to their archpastor and to trust him. However, if there really was
something doubtful in the position of the Cappadocian bishop, then their
disobedience would be completely appropriate and fully justified.
But can we today, as the
holy Athanasius once did, advise monks to remain obedient to ecumenical masters
who have even abolished the very meaning of oikonomia
as a temporary deviation from canonical rigor [47]? Can we say with
certainty that these current relations with Catholics, Protestants,
Monophysites [48] and other heretics occur exclusively for the sake of oikonomia?
Not at all! Indeed, none
of the ecumenist hierarchs ever supported the defenders of the Tradition,
explaining that the evasion of the purity of church teaching is allowed only
for a short time and only for the sake of oikonomia,
so that some of the erring and heretics — Catholics, Protestants and
Monophysites — should convert to Orthodoxy. On the contrary, the opinion is
imposed on us that everyone and everything belongs to the Church, and no one is
outside its borders. As a result, the very notions of heresy and error went
into oblivion.
Thus the position of the
ecumenists is not, apparently, a temporary phenomenon, for the benefit of the
weak, but something permanent, because today no one treats the erring as
infirm. Having elevated oikonomia to
the rank of rule and even law, ecumenists completely neglect canonical rigor,
rejecting it, supposedly seeing in it a manifestation of fanaticism and a lack
of love. Presenting their position on canonical rigor, they punish all those
who dare to point out that in this case we are talking about evading the purity
of the Orthodox faith. Those who adhere to canonical rigor in dogmatic issues
they call extremists, fanatics and fundamentalists.
So, according to St.
Athanasius the Great, there is a righteous, uncondemned disobedience — holy
divine disobedience — which is permissible and even necessary in cases where
the church hierarchy incorrectly teaches the word of Christ's truth.
2.
St. Basil the Great
St. Basil speaks very
sharply with respect to those bishops who betray their faith for the sake of
power and the benefits that accompany their position: he does not even consider
them archpastors! And therefore, for example, he advised the Nikopol elders not
to have anything to do with their Arian-loving bishop Fronton.
In fact, St. Basil
induces them to disobedience - to holy and divine disobedience. He also warns
that one should not be tempted by the fact that such hierarchs can often seem
to be Orthodox and have the true faith:
“Just do not be deceived
by the false word of those who proclaim it to be the true faith. After
all, they are the betrayers of Christ, not Christians, who always prefer to
live for their own benefit, and not in truth. When they decided to take this
empty power, they joined the enemies of Christ, and when they saw that the
people were indignant, they again pretended to be true believers.
“I do not consider a
bishop and do not rank among the priests of Christ the one who, with unclean
hands, was put forward to a place of primacy in order to destroy the faith.”
Wanting to express his
opinion regarding the heresy-disease that hit the Church and to enlighten
elders in this matter (however, leaving them the right to act on their own and
at their discretion), St. Basil turns to the clergy of another diocese, without
waiting for any approval or permissions from the higher church authority — the
patriarch or the synod.
(We are often advised to
take a blessing and notify the priesthood about everything, no matter what we
are going to do, but we do not do anything reprehensible when, together with
other clergymen and monks, we speak out on a number of serious church and theological
problems.)
So, in his epistle, Saint
Basil the Great writes:
“Such is my judgment. And
you, if you have at least something in common with us, of course, agree. If you
rely on yourself, then everyone is his own master, and we are innocent of his
blood.
“I didn’t write this out
of mistrust, but in order to resolve the doubt of those who know my opinion
about how some would not gather with us or shake hands, and when peace came,
they hastened to rank themselves as priests.”
The saint displayed an
uncompromising attitude towards heresy and its adherents in an unflattering
way. It extended to the powers that be, including the emperor
himself. Valens, who supported the Arians [49],
sent the eparch [50] Modestus
with the order to persuade the stubborn and unyielding saint to obey [51] For
all, having obeyed, yielded, both the patriarchs and the hierarchs — only Saint
Basil was disobedient. (Probably, those prone to concessions and compromises
said: "What, is he the only one who has the right faith? Are all the
others mistaken?")
During a conversation
with Modest, when the subject turned to obedience to the emperor and the fact
that all the others had long submitted, the illustrious archpastor answered the
eparch like this:
“You are rulers, and I do
not deny that the rulers are significant people, but you are not superior to
God. It is important for me to be in fellowship with you (why not, for you are
God's creature), however, no more important than to be in fellowship with any
other of your subordinates, for Christianity is determined not by the dignity
of persons, but by faith..."
"No one has ever
talked so freely to me." the emperor's messenger said.
"Perhaps,” answered St.
Basil, “you have not met a real bishop, otherwise, no doubt, when dealing with
a similar subject, you would have heard the same words from him. For in
everything else, oh ruler, we are modest and humbler than any, as we are
commanded to be. But not only before such power as yours, for we would not
be arrogant before anyone else either. But when it comes to God, and they
dare to rebel against Him, then despising everything in the world, we only
hold Him before our eyes.”
To the question: “Should
one obey everyone, no matter what he orders?” — that is, whether everyone
should be obeyed in everything — the Great Ecumenical Hierarch Basil
answers the monks this way: For those for whom obedience, along with non-possessiveness
and virginity, is one of the three monastic vows and one of the main virtues,
it makes absolutely no difference who demands obedience from us, whether he is
superior to us or below us. The only important thing is whether what we
are advised or encouraged to do is in accordance with the commandments of God,
with the Gospel truth.
Differences in dignity,
ranks, or fasts should not affect obedience — obedience should be shown even to
those who are lower than us in position. Therefore, the lords and even the
leaders of the Churches should listen to the opinion of the lowest in rank when
they give good advice, as the holy prophet Moses once obeyed
Jethro [52].
So, when we are prompted
to do something that is in harmony with the commandments of the Lord or
encourages them to be fulfilled, then this should be followed with great zeal,
as the will of God. However, when we are commanded to do something contrary to
the commandments of God, something that distorts or defames them, we must
respond to it in the same way that the apostles once responded to the high
priests: “We must obey God more than men” (Acts 5:29).
Therefore, St. Basil also
teaches us to avoid and in every possible way to turn away those shepherds
who hinder us from obeying the commandments of God or who are inclined to do
things that are objectionable to the Lord, no matter how true and sincere their
piety and high position in the Church may be:
“Even if someone is very
noble and extremely intelligent, but hinders the fulfillment of the
Lord's commandments or encourages others to do what is forbidden by Him,
one must run away from him. He must be considered to be abominable for every
one who loves the Lord."
3.
Saints Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom
St. John Chrysostom
and St. Gregory the Theologian [53], in
their writings, tirelessly sing the grandeur of holy clerical dignity. [54] In
a truly incomparable way, while depicting the height of pastoral service and
the highest spiritual qualities and the purity of clergy, they at the same time
expose the fall and inconstancy of many of them — so that the difference
between good and evil shepherds is understood.
Many of their writings
often mention evil bishops. But this does not mean that they thereby
fell into the sin of condemnation or reproach. Their only desire was to
warn and protect the faithful children from evil bishops, who will also benefit
from such a conviction, naturally, if they humbly and impassively want to hear
the truth, thereby revealing true wisdom, for it is written in the
Scripture: “Do not reprove the scolder, lest he hate you;
reprove the wise man, and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8).
St. Gregory, who suffered
many persecutions and exiles from bad hierarchs, writes that he is not afraid
of anything, neither attacks from humans, nor attacks from wild animals. The
only thing he fears and would like to avoid is the evil bishops: “Deliver
me only from evil bishops.” For the archpastors, appointed to be
teachers, instead became the doers of all kinds of atrocities and various
vices: “It is a shame to say as that it is this way, but I will say:
those who are set to be teachers of the good, are the source of all evil.” We
find a similar idea in St. John Chrysostom: "I’m not so afraid of
anyone as bishops, excluding a few."
St. Gregory the
Theologian also has wise words about this fact: The world that alienates us
from God is bad (that is, when we accept what is not pleasing to Him or
participate in what is contrary to His holy will), but war is laudable when we
fight against lies, error, and sin.
We will state it this
way: as there is good and bad obedience, so there is bad and good
disobedience. And just as St. Gregory, speaking about peace and war, says
that “scolding is better than a world that is parting with God,” we dare to
claim that disobedience is better than obedience that separates us from the
Lord.
4.
The Venerable Maximus the Confessor
Saint Maximus, rightly
called the Confessor [55],
gives us an example of that responsibility in the struggle for the preservation
of faith, which, first of all, is borne by the clergy, and then by the monks
and the laity.
In those days, the heresy
of monothelitism reigned everywhere [56] (nowadays,
unfortunately, the worst of all heresies — ecumenism — reigns everywhere)
and the entire episcopate of the powerful Church of Constantinople obeyed the
emperor and patriarch, who supported the heretics. There was only one monk who
was 'rebellious' - the Monk Maximus. (Surely he was also known in his time as a
rebel and disobedient, as even today opponents of ecumenism are accused of
disturbing and scandalizing the flock with their words.)
Patriarch Peter [57] condemned
St. Maximus for disobedience to the Church and threatened him with punishment.
The monk replied that the Church is the right confession of faith,
the truth of the Church, from which he would never fall away, and
that the one who obeys the Church is not the one who changes the truth,
but rather the one who protects it.
Here is a small excerpt
from this dialogue:
“The patriarch addressed
the confessor with the words: ‘What church are you part of? Constantinople,
Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? Here are all [these Churches]
with the dioceses subject to them [united]. So, if you, as you say, belong to
the Catholic Church, then unite [with everyone] so that, introducing a new and
strange way, you will not be exposed to what you do not expect.’
“The saint replied to him
in a manner worthy of his wisdom and piety: ‘God declared to everyone the
righteous and saving confession of faith in Him, by the Catholic Church,
calling Peter blessed for confessing Him. However, I want to know the
condition (confession) on which the unification of all the Churches took place,
and if this is done well, I will not alienate myself.’”
Seven hundred years
later, St. Gregory Palamas, who certainly knew the position
of Maximus the Confessor, even more strictly stated that only those who
accept the truth of the Church belong to the Church; those who are disobedient
to this truth can in no way make up the Church, and have nothing to do with it.
Such people engage in self-deception, even if they call themselves priests or
bishops. Genuine and true Christianity is characterized and determined,
not by individuals, but by immutable truth and adamant faith:
“And those who are from
the Church of Christ are of the truth, and those who are not of the
truth, they are not from the Church of Christ, however much they may
lie about themselves and call themselves holy shepherds and
archpastors, even if others also call them this. After all, we remember that
Christianity is determined not by appearance, but by the truth and accuracy of
faith.”
By carefully studying
the works of St. Maximus the Confessor and his views, we can
learn a lot that would be to our interest, but we will turn only to those facts
that are vivid examples of good disobedience.
Saint Maximus
"sobbed and was gripped by the deepest sorrow", seeing how the heresy
of monothelitism, supported by the state and church authorities, spread to
the West and East. Therefore, he left the Church of Constantinople and
went to Rome, which was not defiled by this heresy, and “pure from such a
shame.” “Having left these places, he arrived there, defending the
doctrine and following Orthodoxy there, although not without difficulty,
and not without fatigue and torment did he follow such a path.”
On the way to Rome, the
monk visited church communities in Africa in order to support and strengthen
the Orthodox, communicated with local bishops, strengthening the Chalcedonian
faith in them [58],
arming them with arguments against heretics, passing on his knowledge and
experience. After all, he perfectly understood that to confront the
heretics, church dignity is not enough — theological knowledge and rich
experience are necessary. (Now, some believe that after the episcopal
ordination they become skilled theologians and therefore require absolute
obedience to themselves.)
Being a simple hieromonk,
he was superior to any archpastor in wisdom and judgment. Therefore, the
hierarchs obeyed him. “After all, even if they were higher in position,
they were lower in wisdom and understanding, not to mention the other
virtues and the good glory that this man enjoyed among all. Therefore,
they yielded to his words and unquestioningly obeyed his exhortations and
advice, which brought them such a great benefit. ”
Having entered the
Diocese of Constantinople for the second time in 654, the Monothelitic
Patriarch Pyrrhus [59] again
returned to his heretical convictions, although before, after his conversation
with the Monk Maxim, he had publicly condemned the heresy. Now he tried in
every possible way to break the will of the saint, “thinking that if he
subjugates him, then he will subjugate everyone else.”
Therefore, despite the
advanced years of the ascetic (at that time he was eighty years old), St.
Maximus was subjected to indescribable humiliation and torment, together with
his disciple Anastasius, as well as Pope St. Martin [60] and
other Western hierarchs who were forcefully brought to Constantinople.
With the help of a false,
crudely concocted accusation, at multiple meetings, heretical bishops tried to
break the confessor and intimidate him, but all their efforts were in vain.
Threats and flattery interspersed with interrogations did not intimidate or
seduce the saint, who remained faithful to the Truth and “completely
adamant, firm and unshakable in spirit.”
Therefore, the heretic,
Bishop Theodosius of Kessaria, made another attempt to convince the saint, saying
that they completely agree with him and that they were not
changing the creed, but acting so solely for reasons of oikonomia [61].
“What appeared for the sake of oikonomia
should not be taken as a true dogma, just as the typos now offered to us appeared under the pretext of oikonomia, and not in accordance with
the dogmas.”
The
Venerable Maximus answered that there was no room for oikonomia and compromise in matters of faith, and those who
try to justify their deviation from the purity of the Orthodox teaching by oikonomia, are liars who should not only
not be obeyed, but, on the contrary, should be turned away in every way, so
that through fellowship with them one does not participate in their wickedness.
“This comes from false
teachers and deceivers, who should not be trusted, but should be evaded as
far as possible, and one should move away from them so that he does not become
a victim of any evil from communicating with them.”
No methods or tricks
could break the saint, who declared: “All the power of heaven will not convince
me to obey you, for what I will bring as my justification (I do not mean
to God, but to my conscience), if for the sake of human glory, which is
nothing, I renounced the Faith that saves me?” (Today, heretical hierarchs, in
pursuit of human glory, having completely forgotten about God and their
conscience, are calling us to implicit obedience, forcing us to submit to
ecumenism.)
And finally: in the life
of the Venerable Maximus it is told how, with the beginning of the spread
of heresy, “the emperor left the correct teaching, and much of the
Church with him, and a considerable part of the people turned to heresy."
In the end, the only patriarch to be faithful to Orthodoxy was Saint
Sophronius of Jerusalem [62], around whom the Orthodox, clergy and laity were able to
rally: “The whole priesthood and the Orthodox people gathered around him.”
(God grant that in our
days the Lord would show the world at least one patriarch or two or three
bishops, spotless from the shame of ecumenism, so that “the priesthood and the
Orthodox people” could unite around them.)
In conclusion, I would
like to emphasize the enormous contribution that the holy fathers made to the
formation of a healthy relationship between the Church and the Byzantine state,
first of all, their zeal in preventing "an emperor-pope" [63],
and also their efforts to establish a symphony [64] between
the Church and the state.
Thus, St. Maximus,
condemned for his words that “it is unjust and ridiculous to call the king a
priest,” explains that in reality he only formulated and expressed the Church’s
position on this issue, according to which “accepting definitions and talking about
dogmas are more appropriate to priests than kings. Since they are allowed to
perform the ritual of anointing and ordination, to make the offering of bread,
to stand before the altar, and to fulfill all the rest of the Divine
mysteries."
5.
The Venerable Theodore the Studite
The lives of Saints Maximus
and Theodore [65] are
somewhat similar. The Venerable Theodore was also a simple hieromonk (by
the way, so was St. John of Damascus [66],
who crushed the iconoclasts - the patriarchs and hierarchs. Maybe some
people believe that he also was disobedient to the Church?). But
it was St. Theodore the Studite who had to defend the truth in two important
and serious Church and theological issues of that time, while the official
church, represented by the patriarch and the synod, compromised and made
concessions, thereby abolishing and overthrowing the Gospel, the Holy Canons
and Tradition in general.
The first problem arose
in connection with the second marriage of the autocrat Constantine
VI [67],
and the second as a result of the iconoclastic [68] policy
of the emperors Leo V [69] and
Michael II. [70]
For no good reason,
Emperor Constantine hid his legal wife in a monastery and began to demand
a church blessing for marriage with his beloved Theodota.
However, divorce and
second marriage are prohibited by the gospel and church canons. As you know,
the Lord Himself abolished the ease with which the law of Moses allowed divorce
(which was not always to the woman's benefit), completely forbidding divorce
for any reason, except in the case of marital infidelity - “except for the
fault of adultery” (Matt. 5:31–32). Thus, Christ taught about the
permanence of marriage: “So what God has joined, let
not man separate” (Matthew 19:3-10).
Therefore, the emperor’s
second marriage, which was nevertheless consecrated by the presbyter
Joseph [71] when
Saint Tarasius finally gave way, was considered by the Venerable Theodore
not as a marriage, but as "adultery", and the one who performed
the marriage was not a priest, but an "adulterer." However, the
ascetic not only did not approve of the king’s second marriage, considering him
“outside the divine and human institutions,” but also immediately condemned
this act, interrupting church communion with both the “adulterer” himself and
those who were in communion with him — with the ruler himself and
even with the patriarch.
The saint explained that
this lawlessness overthrows the Gospel and abolishes the holy canons; it is
nothing more than an attempt to change the unchanging commandments of God and
make them changeable, which makes God Himself changeable and perverse:
“Justifying this daily
with the above references and exceptions, they really violated the Gospel,
according to the judgment of the saints, and it is suggested that
for every crime there is oikonomia, in order to
change the unchanging commandments of God and make them changeable
... It follows from this that God is changeable and perverse. It’s as if
someone had bluntly said that the Gospel is indifferent to salvation
and perdition.”
In another place, St.
Theodore, referring to the opinion of St. Basil about the immutability of the
commandments, wrote:
“So, the commandments of
God are said by true teachers to be necessarily observed, and not
perverted so that they may be observed, or not observed — to observe such and
such, or sometimes not, or sometimes to observe it, and sometimes not. God's
commandments must always be observed, by every person and at all times.”
The saint rightly
believed that if one did not condemn this adultery, then the example of the
Roman emperor[72] could
also bring evil to other rulers of the state, and also serve as a bad
example outside the empire, being passed down from generation to generation as
an incurable disease:
“So the king of the
Lombards, and the king of the Goths, and the governor of the Bosphorus,
referring to this violation of the commandment, indulging in depraved
aspirations and unrestrained desires, will hold up the act of the Roman
emperor as a convenient excuse, since he fell into the same sin, having
received the consent of the patriarch and the bishops."
However, it was not the
emperor’s sinful act, but the bluntness and boldness of the abbot of the
Studion monastery, St. Theodore, that served as a model for other bishops,
elders and monks. Having ascertained that the position of the saint in all
respects agreed with the Gospel, they excommunicated those who, within
their jurisdiction, did such lawlessness, belittling and devaluing Tradition.
“It is not permissible for you to have wives contrary to laws decreed by
Christ,” they echoed after St. Theodore, echoing what Saint John the Baptist,
the patron saint of the Studion, said to Herod: “You must not have your
brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18).
A fearless defender of
Tradition, the Venerable Theodore was well aware that this standing up for
the truth could cost him a lot. He understood that not only he, but also all
the inhabitants of the famous Studion Monastery could suffer for their firm
determination in upholding their convictions. However, in spite of everything,
St. Theodore boldly continued to uphold the truth, for which he was ready to
sacrifice everything.
Therefore, he despised
his peace and the peaceful spiritual work of his quiet monastery. He was
not afraid of suffering, difficulties, or intimidation; he was not seduced
by promises and bribes. For he considered the defense of Gospel truth to be
above everything else in the world, the distortion of which will
certainly entail the most serious consequences for spiritual life and salvation
itself.
Soon, in fact, he was
sent into exile, and the brethren were forcibly distributed to other
monasteries. But although persecution was raised up against the Venerable
Theodore, he did not suffer in vain, because his words and deeds ultimately
restrained the spread and aggravation of evil. “For passions that are left
without punishment constantly strive for the worst, like vipers.”
However, the saint
suffered even more torment, from the severity of which he was many times on the
verge of death, when he confronted the iconoclast emperors.
Leo V resumed the
iconoclastic debate and erected new persecutions against the monks, especially
against the main "instigator" — the Abbot of Studion,
St. Theodore. Unfortunately, some bishops who agreed with the heretic king
were immediately found, while others, unable to withstand the pressure, were
forced to obey him. Therefore, when the ruler convened a
council (815), which was to make a final decision regarding icon
veneration, almost all the clergy and the monks were on his side.
At a meeting of the
council, the king set forth his point of view, calling the veneration and
worship of holy icons idolatry. In response to this, the icon-loving fathers
expressed an Orthodox position, stating at the end that it would be wrong and
completely against the Scriptures for them to continue sitting and discussing
things with them, having ascertained that they were heretics. “It would be
a great blessing for us, having learned that you are such people, to stop
meeting with you. After all, the divine David would agree with us, saying
that he would neither sit in a vain meeting, nor enter with the lawless, nor
gather in the church of the evil ones. ”
After such a unanimous
declaration, the Venerable Theodore "showed yet greater and more
obvious courage." Despite the fact that the patriarch himself was present
at the cathedral (the ruler did not succeed in subjugating him either) and
there were other hierarchs who disagreed with the heresy and strongly opposed
it, it was Saint Theodore, a simple hieromonk, who undertook to completely
refute the king's arguments, since he was the most educated and virtuous among
those present. “He was the first to speak because of the greatness of his
speech and virtue.” (After all, it is not consecration by itself that makes a
bishop a skilled theologian.)
The Monk Theodore, as the
best of the theologians, irrefutably proved the necessity of the veneration of
holy icons. Moreover, calling the heretics humanoid beasts, and their words and
behavior deadly, he advised, as far as possible, to distance oneself from them
and not even to meet with them at all, because with heretics "to talk
is not only unnecessary, but simply harmful."
The emperor was enraged
by the uncompromising position of the Venerable Theodore. He suppressed his
anger with difficulty and, showering the confessor of Christ with abuse and
ridicule, said with irony that they should meet again and continue the polemic,
since he did not want to give St. Theodore a martyr's crown.
The general position of
the icon-worshipers regarding the king’s proposal to meet again to discuss this
issue is of great importance for us, since it clearly indicates the
futility of continuing theological dialogues with the so-called heterodox, as
the heretics are now respectfully called. The Holy Fathers believed
that talking with those who were already condemned by the Church was
meaningless, since they were completely immune to the truth, unable to accept
it:
“After all, it’s useless
to talk to the accused again, because they are deaf to the perception of the
best things and incorrigible in everything."
In addition, the ascetic
was perplexed: why had the emperor called them to the cathedral to discuss
the issue, if the outcome was already predetermined in advance? After all,
the discrepancy in the positions of the parties and the lack of an objective
judge, able to impartially judge and make the right decision, did not portend
anything else. And who would go against the will of the sovereign? After all,
almost all fell under the power of the king, unable to withstand threats and
fearing persecution.
The
Venerable Theodore also reminded the autocrat, as other great fathers had
done before him, that rulers should not interfere in church affairs, since this
is the sphere of the clergymen. "The questions of the Church belong
to priests and teachers, but the emperor is allowed to manage external
affairs."
When the autocrat in fury
asked the saint: “Are you then casting me out of the Church today?” - the
fearless ascetic answered that he did not do this, but the holy apostle Paul,
who says that the Lord placed, firstly, the apostles, secondly, the prophets,
and thirdly, teachers, but not kings (see Ephesians 4:11–12). And, perhaps, the
emperor himself set himself outside the Church by his actions: “And of course,
you yourself, by doing what you yourself wish, have put yourself out [of
the Church].” If he wanted to return to the bosom of the Church, he must
support those who stand up and follow the truth: “If you want to be inside the
Church once more, then stand with us who honor the truth."
These dialogues are of
exceptional interest to us because they answer the question: “Who
really excommunicate themselves from the Church: those who do not obey heretics
and heretical archpastors and rulers, or those who separate themselves from the
truth of the Gospel and the dogmas of faith?"
Not ceasing to make
terrible threats, the hierarchs and rulers, assuring themselves that they could
not make the Venerable Theodore and his like-minded people obedient to their
errors, began to make every effort to ensure that they at least shut up. Thus,
the eparch of Constantinople forbade the adherents of the saint to get
together, demanding them "not to teach or talk about the faith at
all." (The opinion that ordinary believers, and monks, too, should not
deal with issues of faith, is very common in our days, since it continues to be
actively introduced into the minds of people.)
The
Venerable Theodore replied to this in the same way that the
apostles answered the rulers of the Jews: “You be the judge: is it right
before God to listen to you more than to God?” (Acts 4:19). (Therefore, we
would rather prefer to lose our tongues than to stop defending the
Orthodox faith, to the best of our ability to help it with our own words. It
would be something strange and unreasonable if we, seeing some efforts to
increase dishonesty, were sitting idly by at this time: “What is the
reasonable basis for you strive to hold on to the worst and to remain
silent about that which is much better?”)
As regards the question,
should one speak and stigmatize evil, or is it better to remain silent, being
obedient to the bishops and priests, Saint Theodore is clear — when the
faith is in danger, no one should remain silent, but speak. No
one can justify themselves by saying that "I’m not an
archpastor or a shepherd, or even some important person, but just a
simple person." — “For the commandment of the Lord is not to
remain silent at a time when faith is in danger. “Speak,” He said, “and do
not be silent” (Acts 18:9). “But if anyone hesitates, my soul does not favor
it” (Heb. 10: 38). And again: “If they become silent, then the stones will cry
out” (Luke 19:40). So, when it comes to faith, you should not say, “Who am
I?
When a teaching of the
Church is distorted and Christ is persecuted, in this case, when they were
fighting against the holy icons, not only “he who has an advantage in rank and
knowledge, [...] but also he who holds the place of a disciple, must
boldly speak the truth and freely open their mouth." After all,
heretics are seeking to ensure that the word of truth is not heard anywhere,
but that error should reign everywhere.
If silence alone is
already partly a sign of consent, then the written approval of heretical
opinions in the face of the whole Church is already a betrayal of Orthodoxy.
Unfortunately, today we have become unwitting witnesses of such betrayal -
through the adopted documents and written decisions, the heresy of heresies -
the wickedness of ecumenism - is spreading and dominating in our days.
No one is required to be
in obedience to bishops and synods, when they are not faithfully teaching
the word of truth. So, when the Council in 809
forgave the "adulterous" hieromonk Joseph, removing the ban from the
priesthood and taking him into the clergy of the Church of Constantinople, the
Venerable Theodore stopped all communication with the false teachers. And
he didn’t mention any of those present at this “adulterous” council or who
shared the opinion of its participants, for he rightly believed that “this
adulterous heresy”, together with the perversion of the Gospel, violates and
abolishes the holy canons.
Not only did he
himself did not abide in obedience, but he also advised others to show
disobedience and to stop the commemoration of heretics and their
accomplices, for heretics and those who are in communion with them are not the
Church:
“So that you, knowing
that this is a heresy, avoid heresy or heretics, so that you may not have
fellowship with them and may not commemorate them at the Divine Liturgy in
the sacred monastery; for great threats are uttered by the saints to those
who participate with heretics, even for those who eat with them.”
From these and other
similar statements it follows that the termination of communion for the
Venerable Theodore meant not just some criticism or censure of the deed,
but precisely the termination of the liturgical commemoration of the
name of the bishop.
Thus, the heretical
synagogue is not the Church; heretics and those in communion with them can in
no way constitute the Church. Therefore, based on the centuries-old patristic
Tradition, according to which the Church exists where there is truth, and also
on the words of the Lord that He dwells where two or three gather in
His name (Matthew 18:20), the Venerable Theodore argued that three Orthodox
Christians can make up the Church:
“We will not submit to
this disturbance of the Church of God, which itself may consist of
three Orthodox Christians, as defined by the saints.”
Thus, we, being Orthodox,
are not only not obliged to obey those clerics who teach who-knows-what,
defining new dogmas and offering hitherto unknown teachings, but we shouldn't
even commemorate them as clergy:
“We have a command from
the apostle himself, that if anyone teaches or commands us to do something
other than that we have adopted, something other than that which is according
to the rules of the Ecumenical and Local Councils, that one should not be
accepted and we should not consider him to be among the saints; we shall not
utter that painful word that he uttered."
Let us cite another
episode concerning the confrontation between the Venerable Theodore the Studite
and his disciples, and those who demanded obedience to their errors.
So, when the emperor set
out to justify and restore the “adulterous” hieromonk Joseph [73] at
the council, the Studites resolutely opposed this again, despite all the
torment they suffered during the first persecution of the truth.
Wanting to persuade the
studite monks to switch to his side, the king gathered them in the palace
in order to speak with them. Having singled out the most prominent and educated
monks, the king tried to persuade them to break with the Venerable Theodore,
their spiritual mentor (whom he had previously exiled to one of the Prince
Islands [74]). But all his attempts were unsuccessful, since these
arguments were completely rejected by them. Then, going to the monastic
assembly, he used the following trick: he suggested that those who wished
to obey his advice “and be in communion with the patriarch and the
collegiate church” should stand at his right hand, and those who persisted
and remained unconvinced should stand on his left hand. He thought that
with such a trick he would be able to mislead them, and lead those who had left
everything in the world for the sake of divine obedience, "for a divine,
obedient, immaculate life" to obey him.
But, the monks, all in
one accord, did not hesitate to stand on his left hand, the autocrat,
amazed by such a “bold confession,” became enraged and ordered for all the
monks to be sent to the nearest monasteries, “so that they would be protected
by reliable guards as those who did not obey the royal and priestly
orders."
The Venerable Theodore
the Studite († 826), having made an invaluable contribution to finally bringing
the Triumph of Orthodoxy, did not live to see this joy, presenting himself
to the Lord shortly before the Council in 843, at which the veneration of icons
of the saints was finally restored by the righteous Queen Theodora [75].
Another saint, the
Venerable John of Damascus († 754), who worked hard to bring the Church to
the triumph of the 7th Ecumenical Council (787), also did not see the fruits of
his vigorous struggle for truth in the first period of iconoclasm.
But this triumph of
Orthodoxy was made possible largely thanks to their activities aimed at
supporting the Orthodox faith among monks, against whom the iconoclasts
fiercely rebelled. For the monks alone, in contrast to the often pliable
and secular church authorities, always led the struggle for the purity of
faith.
If the church hierarchy
even today, as well as the monastics, would fight against all innovations and
deviations from the truth in the same way as the Venerable Theodore the
Studite did, then not only would a third marriage not be recognized and blessed,
but even a second marriage; and the matter would never have reached the
acceptance and recognition of non-Orthodox marriages. Some of our clergy
(especially celibates) would never have become a laughing stock and shame for
Orthodoxy, would not have become so sadly like the Catholics - with their
licentiousness and depravity. The Greek Prime Minister [76],
having a legal spouse and children, would never have dared to appear on the
plane with his mistress in front of all honest people! (And after all, not a
single word of indignation or condemnation of the act of the head of government
was heard from the lips of the church; mouths were firmly shut
because of moral squalor and spiritual decline.)
The most regrettable
thing is that most of the inhabitants living comfortably in the cloisters,
generously financed by the state and the European Union, as well as by the
donations of believers, reassure themselves by saying that they pray, fulfilling
their spiritual duty — and yet at this time the Orthodox faith is
overthrown, and ecumenism and the accompanying permissiveness and
licentiousness strengthen their position.
In one of his epistles,
St. Theodore the Studite refers to such indifferent monks who do not dare to
join the struggle for truth, because they value quiet monastic residence above
all else (the situation is painfully familiar — after all, much of the
same thing happens today): “And why do we prefer current prosperity
to God’s habitations and suffering for the good?”
It turns out that many
people prefer a quiet, carefree life in monasteries, rather than obedience to
the commandments of God. Those who hide behind the walls of the cloisters and,
having monastic posts, prefer to sit back when it is necessary to defend the
truth — they betray the faith and destroy their souls, which are more
precious than anything.
Thus, it is not enough
for us to be Orthodox only deep down in our souls — it should also be
externally manifested. In this regard, the Venerable Theodore edifies one
of the abbots:
“Therefore, beloved
brother, if you want to be with us, the humble, then refuse to own the
monastery, as you promised; to this we encourage you. Pray that you will
be Orthodox both internally and externally, saving your venerable soul,
which cannot be compared to any visible thing. ”
From all this it follows
that many spiritual fathers, abbesses and elders should not remain
inactive and serene, keeping their children from participating in the struggle
against ecumenism, the receptacle of all heresies and delusions. After all, such
a position runs counter to the whole history of Orthodox monasticism. So, when
Emperor Anastasius [77],
who was attached to the Eutychian [78] and
Manichaean [79] heresies,
decided to support the sinfulness of the Monophysites, the
Venerable Savva [80] and
Theodosius “ardently rebelled in defense of the faith, . . . they were
ready to suffer death rather than change anything that had been
ordained."
Saint Theodore is no
exception. When speaking at the iconoclastic council he boldly
professed his faith, and no one was able to persuade him to change
it. Nothing could shake the faith of the saint or convince him to remain in
obedience to the heretics and in fellowship with them - he even
preferred to die rather than give up his convictions: “Finally, no
matter how much the rulers wish it, our humility is more likely to suffer to
death than renounce our sincere confession.”
The monks should show
such constancy and strength in their faith, resolutely
resisting even the slightest innovation or deviation from the faith.
This is their job.
“So, those who now
profess to be monks, let them show it by their deeds. The monk’s business is to
prevent even the slightest innovation in the Gospel, so that, having shown
the laity what heresy and fellowship with heretics is, they may not be
held accountable for their destruction.”
Thus, the zealot of
Tradition also points to their responsibility, especially with regard to not
setting bad examples for the laity - for if the monk does not count
everything other than Christ to be garbage, then what should a lay
person with certain responsibilities to his family do? “If the monastics do not
consider everything to be garbage, that they may gain Christ” (Phil. 3:8), that
is, the monasteries and everything that is in them, then how will the layman be
able to leave his wife, children, and everything else for Christ?” And finally:
from the life of St. Theodore the Studite it becomes obvious to everyone that
knowledge of the Church Tradition is not of such great value, as is firm
adherence to the Tradition and observance of everything that was received from
the Holy Fathers. How right they were when they taught absolute steadfastness
in matters of faith, and completely excluded even the slightest deviation in
dogmatic and moral issues.
It was this unshakable
standing up for the truth that kept our faith in pristine purity right up to
the 19th century. Further on, unfortunately, the dominance of the
modernist spirit, the brainchild of Western Enlightenment, was universally
established. And then, from the beginning of the 20th century, the greatest of
all heresies, ecumenism, gradually spread, which today has almost
completely prevailed, having seized the minds of the representatives of the
official Church and gaining unlimited access to church educational
institutions.
All of this led to the
rejection of Tradition, even the Gospel itself. It led to dogmatic and
moral minimalism. Vivid examples of this are the attempts [81] to
prove the Orthodox Christianity of the Monophysites Dioscorus [82] and
Severus [83] and declaring
that the Catholic Church is a sister church. In moral life, it is a
justification of premarital relations and even a discussion about the
possibility of recognizing same-sex marriage.
6.
The Venerable Symeon the New Theologian and St. Mark of Ephesus
And finally, we give the
opinions of the Venerable Simeon the New Theologian [84] and
St. Mark of Ephesus [85] on
this topic.
Addressing future monks,
the Venerable Simeon advises them to be very careful and attentive in
choosing an elder who can be their teacher, whom they will obey and whose will
they will submit to. For there is a high probability of meeting an inexperienced
and passionate mentor, and, instead of learning angelic living, they will be
taught the ways of the devil, “for good teachers have good lessons and
bad teachers have bad lessons; bad fruit always grows from bad
seeds."
With tears and many
pleas, we should ask the Lord to send us an impassive and holy spiritual
leader. But if we find such a person (which is very
difficult), it seems to us that each of us needs to carefully examine the
Holy Scriptures and the creations of the Holy Fathers, so that, having them as
a foundation, we can judge what the spiritual father teaches and does, and how
he acts in certain situations. And then we will only be obedient to that
which is in agreement with Scripture; that which turns out to be contrary
to it should be dismissed as false and alien. This is absolutely
necessary and even urgent, because in our time there have been many deluded
people and false teachers.
“With prayers and tears,
implore God to send you a passionless and holy leader. Search the
Divine Scriptures themselves, and especially the active scriptures of the holy
fathers, so that comparing them with what your teacher and abbot teach, you
can, as in a mirror, see how much they agree among themselves, and then you may
accept and agree with that which agrees with the Divine Scriptures, and bring
it to heart, while you should put aside that which does not agree with the
Scriptures, judging what is good, that you may not be seduced. For you
know that in these days there are many deceivers and false teachers. ”
Previously, St. John
Climacus [86] gave
the same instruction to novices, in order to avoid the danger of obedience
to an evil elder:
“Test this helmsman,
so that we may not receive a simple rower instead of the helmsman, a sick
person instead of a doctor, a passionate person instead of one who is free from
passions, or the abyss instead of the harbor, and thus we may not
readily fall into perdition. "
Thus, the saints
are united in the opinion that obedience should not be given without thought,
but with discernment; one should not obey all spiritual mentors,
but only the saints and those who are dispassionate, and even then, after an
attentive test of the words and deeds of the spiritual father, based on
patristic teaching...
In one of his epistles,
the holy apostle Paul instructs us:
“Brethren, in the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ, we command you to depart from every brother who
acts disorderly, and not according to the tradition that you received from us”
(2 Thess. 3:6).
Therefore, for example,
Abba Pimen ordered one ascetic to immediately stop studying with his elder,
since continually living together with him would be harmful for the monk's
soul, because his spiritual father had violated the morals of the Church Tradition.
The compiler of the life
of the Venerable Symeon and his closest disciple, Saint Nikitas
Stithatos [87],
reports one interesting detail for us. In order to completely surrender to the
Divine Hesychia — silence and contemplation, the Venerable Symeon
transferred the spiritual leadership of kinovia [88] to his associate Arseny and encouraged the monks to
remain obedient to the new abbot, bearing in mind the commandment of the holy
Apostle Paul: “Obey your teachers and be humble” (Heb.13:17).
But at the same time, the saint clarifies that such obedience should be
with reasoning, and not at all unquestioning or absolute:
“And in everything that
does not contradict the commandment of God, the apostolic decrees and rules,
you must in every way obey him and submit to him as to the Lord. But in
everything that threatens the Gospel and the laws of the Church, one should not
obey his instructions and commands, nor even an angel, if he suddenly came down
from heaven, preaching to you something other than what the visionaries of
the Word preached (see: Gal.1:8)".
A necessary condition for
submission and obedience to any elder is his spirituality. Only if we are
convinced that our mentor is in communion with the Holy Spirit should we
be in unquestioning obedience to him. Otherwise, we do not obey God, but
man, and become not servants of God, but slaves of people.
Those spiritual
fathers who, not being vessels of the Holy Spirit, pretend to be saints,
lead many to perdition. In vain will some recall the Venerable Zacharias or
Acacius, who were obedient to inexperienced elders. After all, they
achieved salvation only due to the fact that they worked according to the
advice of other spiritual fathers, and therefore could remain in external
obedience to those “insufficient” elders. However, this is an extraordinary
case...
Saint Mark of Ephesus
went down in history as a fearless confessor, a fighter for the purity of
Orthodox teachings and a fierce opponent of Catholicism, as an
antipapist (as St. Athanasius of Paris calls him in his book of the same
name [89]).
And hardly anyone would dare to reproach him for insubmission and
disobedience because he was the only one of the whole bishopric of
Constantinople who did not obey the decisions of the Ferraro-Florentine Uniate
Council [90] and
preserved the truth of Orthodoxy, despite all the humiliations and insults from
the Catholics and Latin Orthodox (which are nothing more than the likeness of
the current ecumenists).
Nevertheless,
“intelligent” ecumenists try to distort the face of St. Mark and distort
historical reality itself, in order to justify their close and constant
contacts with the Catholics and their loyal attitude towards the pope, they
boldly and illegally appeal to the saint, referring to what St. Mark said,
addressing the Roman pontiff with a welcoming speech at the very beginning of
the council.
Indeed,
the Metropolitan of Ephesus, like the whole Orthodox delegation, still had
good hope that they would nevertheless be able to convince the Catholics to
publicly renounce their errors and accept the truth of the Orthodox faith.
Therefore, with great reasoning and, undoubtedly, oikonomia for
the sake of himself, he really spoke very courteously and meekly at the opening
of the council in order to honor and respect the pope and, if possible, attract
the lost sheep.
But during the long
meetings of the council, Saint Mark became convinced that the Catholics,
despite the many theological arguments given by him, were completely embroiled
in heresy and persistent in their delusions. He saw that egoism, complacency
and arrogance reigned supreme. He was convinced of the secular way of thinking
of the Latins, their worldly mentality and lust for power. And after that, the
saint, despite the fact that the work of the council was still ongoing,
resolutely declared to the Orthodox delegation, “that the Latins are
not only schismatics, but also heretics. And our Church kept silent about this,
due to the fact that their tribe is great and stronger than ours."
In response to this, some
said: "The difference between us and the Latins is small, and if we
want, may easily be corrected."
When the saint noticed
that the difference was actually quite big, they answered him: “This is
not heresy, and you cannot call it heresy, for none of the educated and holy
men have called it heresy”.
And then St. Mark
categorically uttered:
“This is a heresy, and
our predecessors also thought so, but they did not want to expose the
Latins as heretics, waiting for their conversion and caring for the
preservation of love; and if you want, I will show you that they considered
them heretics."
The confessor asserted
the same thing in one of his epistles:
“We turned away from
them, as from heretics, and therefore disassociated ourselves from them ... It
is clear that they are heretics, and we cut them off as heretics.”
Thus, Catholicism is a heresy -
this is the unanimous assessment of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church
since the time of St. Photius [91].
Therefore, the continuation and immutability of this unanimous patristic
position - the so-called consensus of the fathers (consensus Patrum) [92] -
is a cause of great damage and considerable harm to the current hierarchs
(and even the most senior ones) who claim that Catholicism is not heresy at
all, but the Catholic Church is not just a church, but also a
"sister." (This happens either because of ignorance, which, however,
is healed by knowledge, or by conviction and as a result of Latin wisdom - and
then this state is completely hopeless and irreparable.)
By this they derogate the
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, for the undeniable fact is called into
question that it alone is the Church of Christ in which the salvation of
believers is possible, and also the eternal boundaries that our fathers
laid down are destroyed.
Upon the return of the
delegation from Florence and the enthusiastic meeting of St. Mark with the
faithful of Constantinople, the Latin Orthodox (prototypes of the current
ecumenists) sent him into exile on the island of Lemnos [93] (1440–1441),
so as not to have in the person of the saint a barrier for the implementation
of the decisions of the Uniate robber council, and so that his words would
not be publicly proclaimed.
What did St. Mark do in
this situation? Maybe he obeyed the Latin-minded Patriarch Mitrophan [94] and his successor Gregory [95] and
continued to remember them at the service so that he would not be considered
disobedient or the organizer of a schism [96]?
(Those who neglect the Gospel and patristic truth and canonical rigor and
prefer to please men rather than God would advise him to do just that.)
On the contrary, the
archpastor, wise in divine and unshakable convictions, not only
broke communion with the Latin people, but shortly before his blessed
death, already on his deathbed, ordered that none of the heretical bishops
or clergy and those who were in communion with them be at his burial,
funeral services or memorial services. Thus, he wanted to save the
believing people from any scandal or seduction, because, otherwise, it
might seem from the side that behind the scenes, perhaps, by stealth, Saint
Mark nevertheless recognized communion with the patriarch and his ilk.
The saint resolutely
declared that he did not want to have anything in common with the Latin-minded
either in this life or after his death, because he was convinced that the more
he moved away from the patriarch and his ilk, the closer he came to God and His
saints. In his dying words, Saint Mark says that all communication with the
Latinists (read, ecumenists) should be broken until the Lord himself rules and
makes peace in His Church:
“I will tell you about
the patriarch, [97] so
that he won’t think, perhaps, to show me some honor in burying my humble body
or in funeral services for me, or to send one of his bishops, or clergy,
or even any of who are in communion with him in order to take part in prayer or
to join clergymen from our inheritance. They are not invited to attend
these services, so that they may not think that I, perhaps, secretly
commemorated him."
"And so that my
muteness would not give anyone who does not know my views good reason to
suspect some kind of agreement, I say and testify to the many worthy
men that I absolutely and in no way want and do not accept
communion with him or those who are with him, neither during my life
nor after my death, as I do not accept either the former union, or the
Latin dogmas, which he himself and his like-minded people accepted, and for the
sake of which he took this presidency, with the goal of overthrowing the right
dogmas of the Church."
"I am absolutely
sure that as far as I stand from him and the like, I am so closer to God and
all saints; and as far as I separate myself from them, I am thus far in unity
with the truth and with the holy fathers, theologians of the Church; and I am
also convinced that those who classify themselves with them [98] are
far removed from the truth and the blessed teachers of the Church."
"And therefore I
say: as during my whole life I have been separated from them, so during my
departure, and even after my death, I turn away from communion and union
with them, and swear oaths that none (of them) come closer neither to my burial,
nor to memorial services for me, and also (and in relation) to someone else
from our inheritance, with the aim of trying to join and serve in our (divine
services), for this means to mix that which cannot be mixed; but it is fitting
for them to be completely separated from us until God grants the correction and
peace of His Church.”
Chapter
5
Do
We Have the Right to Speak?
At present,
unfortunately, the state of affairs in the Church is as follows: the hierarchy
makes those who firmly adhere to Church Tradition and Orthodox traditions
remain silent so that the arguments of ecumenists and renovationists will
triumph completely; that the people remain unenlightened, without any kind of
guidance; so that there is no genuine dialogue, exchange of opinions and
arguments, thanks to which the truth would immediately be revealed.
Church authorities do not
even accept conferences organized by us in the university environment; they
believe that they cannot be carried out without a blessing, because they
secretly desire for us to show obedience and stop preaching and witnessing the word
of truth, which has always irritated and continues to annoy those who do not
want to follow it.
But if we are to be
guided by such logic, then, probably, in order for Christ to speak with the
people, it was necessary for Him to have the permission of Annas and Caiaphas,
the scribes and Pharisees? Perhaps he and his disciples should be obedient to the
high priests? After all, the bishops forbade the apostles to preach Christ, as
today they forbid many to speak of holy Orthodoxy: “They ordered them not to
speak or teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18).
In the history of the
Church, heretical patriarchs and hierarchs repeatedly sent confessors of faith
to prison and exile, so that only their “theological” opinion could prevail.
So, St. Gregory the
Theologian was forced to serve in the small house church of St. Anastasia,
while the rest of the churches of Constantinople were in the hands of the
Arians - bishops and clergy who preached dishonesty in them. Well, should St.
Gregory also have to take permission to pronounce his wonderful theological
words and to return Orthodox teaching to Constantinople captured by the Arians?
Don't you think that in
our days the Church has been filled with false teachers who watch over
everything? That today in churches you rarely hear the Orthodox word —
genuine — without any impurities and introductions from the outside?
That the ecumenical heretics are now working in the Church?
And yet, it turns out
that we must take permission or a blessing from them in order to free the
Church from ecumenical captivity?
Orthodoxy is the one true
faith that preaches and proclaims the true name of Christ. All other religions,
as the holy martyr Cosmas of Aetolia said [99],
are false teachings, errors and heresies. But they are the ones that are
allowed today. All the conditions are created in order to do their dirty work
through all kinds of mass media, print media and television - to wage a
struggle against the Gospel truth and holy Orthodoxy.
For those who are trying
to destroy, forget, and prohibit the Orthodox teaching, we wish to use the
words with which the holy apostles once addressed the Jewish bishops, who
apparently continue to exist in our days, but in a slightly different guise:
“We must obey God rather than men”(Acts 5: 27–29)!
ENDNOTES
[1] FUA
- the largest university in the Balkans, founded in 1924, began to function
since 1926; totals seven faculties, about 95 thousand students study in it; the
theological faculty was opened in 1942.
[2] Thassos
is an island in the northern Aegean off the coast of Thrace.
[3] Panayot
Christou (1917–1996) - professor at Thessaloniki University, doctor of
theology; in 1966-1967 was Minister of Northern Greece, in 1973-1974. -
Minister of Education; in 1966–1989 - Director of the Patriarchal Institute of
Patriotic Studies; in 1989-1994; - Director of the Center for Theological and
Patriotic Studies.
[4] St.
Gennady II Scholarius (1405– after 1472) - Patriarch of Constantinople
(1453-1460). He was born in Constantinople and was baptized with the name
George. He received a classical education. He taught logic and physics in
Constantinople, then served as a judge and imperial secretary; In this
capacity, in the retinue of Emperor John VIII (1425–1448) and Patriarch Joseph
II (1416–1439), he went to the Ferraro-Florentine Cathedral (1438–1439),
speaking at it with the support of the union. But on his return, he joined the
main enemy of the union - St. Mark of Ephesus (1392 / 93–1444 / 45), his
spiritual father, after whose death he became a fighter with the unity and
wrote a number of polemical compositions. Under Emperor Constantine XI
(1449–1453), he tonsured monks and lived in the Kharsianite monastery.
Condemned the renewal of the union in 1452. After the fall of Constantinople
and the death of Patriarch Athanasius II (1450–1453), he was elected the new
Primate of the Church and tried in every possible way to alleviate the fate of
the subjects. Sultan Mehmed (Magomed) II Fatih (Conqueror) (1444 and 1451-1481)
approved his election, providing complete independence in church and civil
affairs - he was in charge of the entire Orthodox population of the Ottoman
Empire; at the same time, he was entrusted with all responsibility for the
behavior of Christians. The agreement reached by him with Sultan Mehmed
determined the relations of the Church with the Muslim authorities until 1923.
The Sultan highly valued the saint, more than once talked with him on religious
topics; at the request of Mehmed, he composed the Confession, which outlines
Christian doctrine; it was of great importance in the East, was reprinted many
times and was translated into many languages, including Turkish and Arabic. At
the end of his life he retired to the monastery of Prodrom near Serra, where he
rested and was buried.
[5] The
Vlatadov Monastery (Vlatadon) was founded in 1355 by the Vlatal brothers -
Dorotheus and Mark, monks from Crete, disciples of St. Gregory Palamas
(l296 – l359), who slept in this monastery; It is stavropegic and falls under
the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople; Viceroy Panteleimon,
Metropolitan of Tyrol and Serenti. According to legend, on the square of the
present monastery church, in its southern part, there is a place from which the
holy apostle Paul preached († 67). According to another version, the monastery
was founded in that place near the city walls, where the apostle once hurriedly
left the city, persecuted by his fellow tribesmen.
[6] The
Church of Constantinople (Ecumenical Patriarchate), traces its apostolic
succession from the holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called († c. 37), who made
the apostle of the seventy Stachius (38–54) bishop of Byzantium.
Already in 381, the Second Ecumenical Council assigned it the second place
after the Roman Church in the diptych of the Churches. And the IV Ecumenical
Council (451) recognized it as equal with the Roman Church. With the fall of
Rome in 1054, the Church of Constantinople began to take first place in the
diptych. After the VII century. Egypt, Palestine and Syria were conquered by
the Persians, and then, finally, by the Arabs, and these areas fell under the
rule of Islam, the only patriarchal chair in the Empire remained
Constantinople, and therefore it became known as the "Ecumenical",
because the universe - ecumenical - was what they called the empire. Despite
the fact that since the end of the V century the title
"Ecumenical" is found in relation to the primates of the Church of
Constantinople, officially the patriarchs held the title starting with
Herman II (1222–1240). Since 1991, the 232nd Primate is His Holiness
Bartholomew (Archondonis); the residence of the patriarchs (since 1601) is
located in the Fanar district (Constantinople). The canonical territory is
Turkey, part of Greece (Crete and some of the Dodecanese islands), as well as
dioceses in Western Europe, North and South America, Australia and New Zealand,
as well as Athos. The Finnish Autonomous Church also belongs to its jurisdiction.
[7] The
monastery of the Great Martyr Anastasia was founded in the 9th century in
the area where, according to some reports, Saint Anastasia spent the last years
of her life before her martyrdom († c. 304); the monastery is stavropegic
and belongs to the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople; hegumen -
Apostolos, Metropolitan of Miletus. Note that in Greek the great martyr
Anastasia is literally referred to as liberating from the spell - she is
revered as a healing of bodily and mental illness, as well as relieving from
the effects of poisons and potions, various drugs, including witchcraft and
witchcraft. The saint prays for healings, as well as for deliverance from
witchcraft.
[8] Thessalonica
(in the old days also Solun, and now Thessalonica, from Turkish. Selanik) - the
main city of Northern Greece, embracing parts of ancient Macedonia and Thrace;
It lies in the north-eastern part of the Gulf of Aegean Sea and is the second
largest and most important after the capital. According to one version, the
city was founded around 315 B.C. on the site of more ancient settlements - Term
- by the Macedonian king Kassandrom (317–298) [son of Antipater († 319), one of
the dialects of Alexander the Great (356–323) ], who named the city in honor of
his wife Thessaloniki, half-sister of Alexander, daughter of Philip II
(382–336), named by his father in honor of the victory over the Thessalians
neighbors, one of the Greek tribes (literally the name Thessalonica means
“victory over Thessalonians”). During the second apostolic voyage in the summer
of 50, the Apostle Paul († 67) preached in Thessalonica and founded the
community to which he wrote two Epistles to the Thessalonians - the earliest
written book of the New Testament (early 50s). During the tetrarchy,
Thessalonica becomes the residence of co-ruler and son-in-law of Diocletian
(284–305, (313) - Galerian (292–305 - Caesar, 305–311 - emperor), who is the
first in the Empire to issue an edict on religious freedom (311). Saint Great
Martyr Dimitri († c. 306), saints Equal to the Apostles Cyril and Methodius (IX
c.) were born, the great theologians Gregory Palamas (XIV c.), Nicholas
Kavasila (XIV c.), exegete Simeon of Thessalonica (XV c.) ), the canonist
hieromonk Matthew Vlastar (XIV century) worked there. From 1430 to 1912 the
city was in the hands of the Turks. Thessalonica is divided into dioceses: 1)
Thessalonica, 2) Stavrupol and Naples, and 3) New Kriniy and Kalamaria.
[Macedonia (Ematia) - a state that existed since the V century. BC R. in the
central part of the Balkan Peninsula. In the war with Rome, the last Macedonian
king Perseus was defeated at the Battle of Pidne (168), and Macedonia was
divided into four districts, and in 148 turned into a Roman province. Until the
fifth century B.C., the capital of Macedonia was Egi (now Vergina),
and then Pella - the birthplace of Alexander the Great. As a result of the
Balkan Wars (1912–1913), Macedonia was divided between Serbia (Vardar
Macedonia), Greece (Aegean Macedonia) and Bulgaria (Pirin Territory). Thrace is
a region in northeastern Greece that borders Turkey and Bulgaria and is the
southwestern part of historical Thrace, the northwestern part of which belongs
to Bulgaria, and the eastern part to Turkey].
[9] Constantinople
(Old Russian and Slav. - Tsargrad) - the capital of the Byzantine Empire. It
was founded on November 8, 324 (consecrated on May 11, 330) on the European
shore of the Sea of Marmara, near the Golden Horn of the Bosphorus Strait, on
the site of the megarian colony of Byzantium by Saint Equal-to-the-Apostles
Constantine I (306–337), who, according to legend, personally outlined with his
spear the borders of the future city in the earth. The transfer of the capital
from Rome (founded in 753 BC by R.H. Romulus) caused the rapid growth of the
city, which was initially called the New Rome (Nova Roma). For greater
resemblance to Rome, seven hills were found in the city. In 1204–1261 the city
was the capital of the Latin Empire. Since the end of the XIV century. Turks
have repeatedly tried to take possession of it. After a long siege on Tuesday,
May 29, 1453, Constantinople fell, becoming until 1923 the capital of the
Ottoman Empire. Since 395, this part of the empire was called the Eastern Roman
Empire or simply the Empire (especially after the fall of Rome in 476), and in
1562, Jerome Wolf (J.Wolf) from Göttingen, who published texts of Byzantine
historians (Corpus Byzantinae Historiae), first used the new term - Byzantium.
[10] In
Greece, there were two major church centers - Thessalonica and Corinth, located
in the jurisdiction of Rome. Since the time of Diocletian (284–305), Greece
with the nearest islands has been part of the Eastern Illyric (Illyria)
prefecture, which since 364 belonged to Rome. Since the final division of the
empire under Theodosius the Great (379–395), Illyric retreated to the Eastern
Empire, but remained in church subordination to Rome. The capital of the
prefecture was Thessalonica (from the end of the 4th century). Therefore, the
Bishop of Thessalonica began to seek power over other bishops of Greece.
For this, already in 381, the Bishop of Thessalonica Aholius established direct
relations with Pope Damas (366–384) and acted as his vicar; and in 385, Pope
Siricius (384–398) gave another Bishop of Anisios of Thessalonica the right to
affirm all hierarchs in East Illyric. This actually established the patriarchy
in the Balkans, whose head - the bishop of Thessalonica - was subordinate to
the pope. This power, called papal vicarism in Illyric, was confirmed by Pope
Innocent I (402–417), and then by Boniface I (418–422). Evidence of the special
role of the Bishop of Thessalonica is the fact that since that time he has
been holding the title of “Most Holy”, which is inherent only to the Ecumenical
Patriarch. In 421, Emperor Theodosius II (408–450) transferred Thessalonica to
the jurisdiction of Constantinople; however, the pope's protests forced him to
reverse his decision. Thus, the Roman pontiffs retained their jurisdiction in
Thessalonica until the 8th century, until Emperor Leo II (717–741), due to
support by Pope Gregory III (731–741) of the venerated icon veneration, did not
take away Eastern Illyric from them, subjecting it to the Ecumenical to Patriarch
Anastasius (730–754) and abolishing the papal Thessalonica vicariate (c.
732). Finally, Greece becomes part of the Church of Constantinople in 880.
Politically, Hellas made up the bulk of the Byzantine Empire, and in the church
- the main part of the Ecumenical throne. The time of Latin domination was
difficult (1204–1261). Catholic bishops were placed in Corinth, Athens, and
other important cities, subordinate to the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople.
Especially difficult was the position of the islanders. More than others, under
the rule of Catholics were Crete (until 1669) and Corfu (until 1799). Catholic
domination was replaced by Turkish rule in the 14th – 15th centuries. The
dioceses of Greece at that time were subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople.
In 1833, after Greece gained independence (1830), for political reasons, the
autocephaly of the Church of Greece was uncanonically proclaimed. Only in 1850
the Church of Constantinople granted her canonical autocephaly. The Church of
Greece is the only Local Church led by the Synod and not the Primate: the
Archbishop of Athens is only the chairman of the Synod, 12 members of which are
elected annually, and all the bishops of the Church of Greece (88 hierarchs, 11
of them titular and vicar) with a certain periodically participate in the work
of the Synod, the thirteenth member of which is the Archbishop of Athens. Of
the 80 dioceses of the Greek Church, 36 are spiritually subordinate to the
Ecumenical Patriarch - these are the metropolises in northern and island Greece
located in the so-called New Lands that were freed from the Turks after the
Greek Church gained autocephaly.
[11] Union
of Balamand. On June 17–24, 1993, at the theological faculty of the University
of Balamand (an area near Tripoli, in northern Lebanon), the 7th plenary
meeting of the Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue between
Catholics and Orthodox representatives of the Churches of Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, Russia, Romania, Cyprus, Albania, Poland, as well as
France. The Commission dealt with theoretical and practical issues that arose
as a result of the activities of the Uniate organizations, which became more
active in Central and Eastern Europe. The result of the work was a document, a
draft of which was developed by the coordination commission as far back as
1991: “Union - the old method of unification and the current search for full
communication”. Although the union in it, as a model of unification that has
receded into the past, is rejected, the right to its continued existence is
recognized; Orthodox ecclesiology is reinterpreted, since the Roman Catholic
Church is recognized as sisterly, and its sacraments are recognized as valid
and gracious. Many argue that we are talking about the conclusion of a new,
Balamandic union.
[12] His
Beatitude Christodoulos (Paraskevaidis) from April 28, 1998 to January 28, 2008
was the Archbishop of Athens and All Hellas, the head of the Greek Orthodox
Church. The 21st Primate of the Church today is His Beatitude Archbishop Jerome
(Lapis), the former Metropolitan of Thebes and Levadia.
[13] The
Dimitriad and Almiros metropolis is located in Thessaly (a region in the center
of the eastern part of continental Greece), the department is the city of
Volos, the administrative center of the prefecture of Magnesia.
[14] The
ecumenical movement finally took shape at the First General Assembly of
Churches in Amsterdam (1948), where the World Council of Churches (WCC) was
created - a body uniting and coordinating the activities of religious
organizations participating in the ecumenical movement - there are about 300 of
them, they are mainly Protestant (Catholics do
not participate in the WCC). All Local Orthodox Churches also participate in
the activities of the WCC, with the exception of the Georgian (withdrew from the
WCC on 05/19/1997) and the Bulgarian (terminated on 09/04/1998).
[15] Syncretism
is an unprincipled and non-methodological mixture, combination, inorganic
fusion and interpenetration of heterogeneous elements, for example, various
cults and religious systems, doctrinal and religious positions, the unification
of elements of different religions, religious representations of different
peoples in one doctrine. Syncretism is close to eclecticism; the latter tries
to isolate principles from various systems and organically link them into a
single whole, while syncretism unites diverse principles, without giving them a
true unification. This was manifested in Alexandrian philosophy, among Philo of
Alexandria, among Gnostics and others who tried to combine Greek philosophy
with Eastern teachings. Attempts to unite heterogeneous religious systems
usually have the following directions: first, the combination of incompatible
teachings (for example, atheism and theism, Christianity and Buddhism);
secondly, combining various teachings by cutting off opposing ideas (or giving
them a special meaning consistent with other teachings); and, finally, the rise
above the teachings, characteristic of occult syncretism (all religions and
teachings are declared to have part of the truth or private truth, the
completeness is assigned to that doctrine, under the auspices of which the
unification of beliefs is supposed).
[16] The
ecumenical movement, otherwise known as ecumenism (from the Greek
ecumenical - inhabited world, the Universe), is the movement of Christian
confessions to unity in faith, to the elimination of disunity between them and
the unity of church forces on an international scale. It arose on the
initiative of the Protestant churches of the United States and Western Europe
in the early twentieth century. The declared goals of the ecumenical movement
are to strengthen the influence of religion and develop a common Christian
social program suitable for believers living in countries with different social
systems, as well as cooperation with Christians of various faiths in the social
sphere, in various humanitarian programs. According to another opinion,
ecumenism is a religious movement that aims at uniting through compromises,
mutual concessions of all existing religious movements, first Christian, and
then all others, into a single, ecumenical church. Due to the fact that
ecumenism is understood differently in the Protestant world, and much of what
the WCC adopted does not correspond to the teachings of the Church, Orthodox
representatives prefer not to talk about participation in the ecumenical
movement, but about a multilateral inter-Christian theological dialogue - in
the hope to return the lost sheep to the fold of the Church. However, the
Moscow meeting of the heads and representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox
Churches back in 1948 gave a negative assessment of the ecumenical movement as
a whole and found it inappropriate to participate in the Russian Orthodox
Church.
[17] The
visit of the pontiff to Greece took place on May 4, 2001.
[18] In
addition to Greece, the late Pope John Paul II also visited other Orthodox
countries - Georgia, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine.
[19] Sodom
and Gomorrah (Sedom and Amora) - cities that have become a symbol of depravity
and immorality, as well as Divine retribution; Sodom is associated, in
particular, with the sin of sodomy; however, the depravity of the inhabitants
and mistreatment of the aliens differed in both of these cities. According to
the book of Genesis (Genesis 19, 24–28), the Lord rained sulfur and fire on the
plain cities of Sodom and Gomorrah after the righteous Abraham could not find
even ten righteous in Sodom. In addition to these cities, Adma (Adam), Sevoyim
(Tsevoyim), and, apparently, Sigor, were exterminated. The exact location of
these cities remains unknown, suggesting that they rest at the bottom of the
southern part of the Dead Sea - the only sea where there is no life.
[20] Corinth
is a city and port in Greece, in the north-east of the Peloponnese peninsula,
on the Isthmian Isthmus (at the Corinth Canal). According to mythology, the
founder of the city was Sisyphus (Sisyphus), subsequently ordered by the gods
to eternally roll a huge stone onto the mountain, which, having barely reached
the top, rolled down each time (hence the expression “Sisyphus labor”). The
Holy Apostle Paul († 67) preached in Corinth, having been in the city for a
year and a half; it is from here in the early 50's that he sent two
letters to the Thessalonians.
[21] St.
Simeon of Thessalonica († c. 1429) - Byzantine theologian and church writer,
Archbishop of Thessalonica (after 1410). He led the defense of the city from
the Turkish invaders (Thessalonica surrendered during the second attack only
after his death, in 1430). He is known as the author of a number of polemical
writings, as well as works detailing and symbolically interpreting all aspects
of Orthodox worship and church life, explaining the purpose and meaning of
various church rites and sacred objects.
[22] Nicolaism
is a heresy of the apostolic age, in relation to which Christ, through the holy
Apostle John († c. 104), has twice uttered that He hates the teaching of the
Nicolaitans and their work (Rev. 2, 6; 15). There is no general opinion as
to who Nicholas was and what his teaching was. Some in his name find
something that could somehow clarify the essence of heresy, believing
that Nicholas is a symbolic name. Others, such as Hierarchs Irenaeus of
Lyons (140–202) and Hippolytus of Rome († 235), attribute its origin to
Nicholas, an alien of Antioch, converted from the Gentiles, to one of the seven
deacons mentioned in the Acts of the Holy Apostles (Acts 6, 5),
who subsequently distorted the teaching of Christ, becoming the founder of
heresy. But there are those (e.g., the hierarchs Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50 -
c. 107) and Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - up to 250), as well as Eusebius of
Kessaria (260 - c. 340)) who claim that heretics hiding behind his name, they
perverted the meaning of Nicholas' words: “the flesh must be put to
death,” meaning that the body must be suppressed, trampling passions and
getting rid of carnal lusts; that follows, realizing lust, humble the flesh.
Considering matter to be evil, the Nicolaitans taught about the need to
mortify the flesh and elevate the spirit above matter, defeating sensuality in
an unusual way - through the satisfaction of passions, for all of them, as the
Nicolaitans believed, even the most rude and low, are natural and useful.
According to the teachings of Nicholas, only a sinner can receive grace
from God, therefore, to receive greater grace, one should sin more. This heresy
arose as a result of opposing Jewish influence - its adherents denied, in
particular, the restrictions of the Apostolic Council (49) regarding idolatry
and fornication, thereby preaching a compromise with paganism. Nicolaism is
considered the very first heresy preceding all Gnostic heresies. Some believe
that the concept of Nicolaism refers to the carnal sinfulness of clergy.
[23] The
Holy Martyr Ignatius of Antioch, the God-Bearer (c. 50 - c. 107) is one of the
apostolic men. Born a Syrian; his name Nurono meant "fiery"
(Ignatius - from Latin. ignis - fire). It is believed that he was the child
whom the Lord placed among the people and said that if we are not like
children, then we will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18, 1-14). This
legend is first encountered by the Monk Simeon Metaphrastes († c. 960).
Saint Gregory the Dialogist (590–604) claims that the holy martyr was one of
the disciples of the Apostle Peter († 64/67), other fathers believed that he
was in the circle of the apostles Paul († 64/67) and John († c. 104). The
council of all the apostles was appointed after the Holy Entry (57–86), the
successor of the apostle Peter, bishop of Antioch of Syria (according to
another version, he was ordained by the apostle Peter himself). His writings
are attributed to the monuments of early Christian writing - fourteen letters
reached us, in some of them he extols the episcopal dignity and demands
unquestioning obedience to the bishop.
[24] Archpriest
George Metallinos is a professor of the theological faculty of the University
of Athens, a well-known modern theologian and an outstanding church writer.
[25] Attica
is a prefecture on the southeastern tip of Central Greece, located on the
peninsula of the same name, which extends deep into the Aegean Sea and ends at
Cape Sounius. In Attica is the capital of Greece, Athens.
[26] Arius
(260– c. 336) - presbyter in Alexandria, who taught that Christ is not
consubstantial with God the Father, but subservient to him and created by him
before all things; having made Him God, the Father, through Him, created
everything that exists, but the Son is less than the Father in Divinity,
properties and glory, and the Holy Spirit is less than the Son, who created him
as an instrument for creating the world. The doctrine of Arius was first
formulated by him in 318 during disputes with the Archbishop Alexander of
Alexandria (312–326). Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and, especially, Valens
(364–378) openly patronized the Arians. Only during the reign of St. Theodosius
I the Great (379–395) was Arianism condemned as heresy by the Ecumenical Councils
— I of Nicene (325) and II of Constantinople (381), and Arius himself was
excommunicated and exiled. In Nicaea, the Creed was adopted with the anti-Arian
confession of the Son as “from the Father born, uncreated, consubstantial
(omousios) to the Father”, thus omusianism (Christ consubstantial with God the
Father) triumphed - a teaching opposite to Arianism, which affirmed omiusianism
(resident). Among some peoples (Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Burgundians, Vandals and
Lombards), Arianism persisted until the VI – VII centuries because of the
simplicity and closeness to the concepts of the Gentiles, since the trinity of
the Divine, in fact, replaced the hierarchy of polytheism (the Son is less than
the Father, and the Holy Spirit is less than the Son).
[27] Alexandria
(Arabic: Al-Iskandaria) - a city in northern Egypt, in the western part of the
Nile Delta, founded by Alexander the Great (332–331 BC); during the time of the
Ptolemies (330–305 BC) - the capital of Egypt and the center of Hellenistic culture,
the focus of famous scientists and writers of the whole era (Alexandria). Here
the translation of the Old Testament into Greek was created - the Septuagint
(271 BC). The Alexandria Library, which stored about 500 thousand scrolls,
burned down in the 1st century. BC R. At the northern tip of about. Faros (now
an inseparable part of the mainland) was the famous Alexandria lighthouse (110
m). In 646, the Arabs took possession of the city. The apostle Peter († 64/67)
ordained the bishop of the Apostle Mark († 62) for the Alexandria Church, who
suffered martyrdom here.
[28] Cappadocia
is a region located in central Anatolia (the ancient name of Asia Minor dating
back to the 10th century was first used by the emperor
Constantine Porphyrogenitus (945–959)). [Asia Minor is the westernmost
peninsula of Asia, bounded in the north by the Black and Marmara Seas, the
Straits of Constantinople and the Dardanelles, in the south by the
Mediterranean, in the west by the Aegean Sea, and in the east by Armenia. The
name Asia Minor appeared at the beginning of the 5th century. according to R.
Kh.]. It was called Cappadocia in the fourth century. Saints Basil the Great
(330–378), Gregory of Nyssa (335–394) (they were siblings), Gregory the
Theologian (300–391) (Nazianzen; friend of St. Basil) and Amphilochius of
Iconium (340–400) (cousin of St. Gregory ) not only because they all came from
Cappadocia and were close friends and the episcopal ministry took place in this
area, but also because of the commonality in their teaching, which occupied a
conciliatory position between the schools of Antioch and Alexandria, since,
adhering to the philosophy of Plato , they were not alien to Aristotelian
views. Using the exact concepts of the Aristotelian school, they not only
interpreted and revealed church doctrine (mainly triadology), but also gave it
a form and precise expression, translating it into the language of
philosophical concepts, which primarily affected terminology. The Antiochian
theological school was founded in Syria in the late III - early IV
centuries. Tradition traces it to the apostle Paul, but presbyter
Dorotheus is considered the founder; one of its founders was the holy martyr
Presbyter Lucian († 311), whose disciples were Bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia,
Leontius of Antioch, and others. The Alexandrian theological school arose
in 180, but some attribute its beginning to the apologist Athenagoras or even
to the apostle Mark († 62 ) Its founder was the catechet Panten († c. 200), the
most prominent representatives were: in the III century. - Receiver of Pantena
St. Clement of Alexandria and Origen; in the 4th century - Saint
Athanasius the Great, in the 5th century - St. Cyril. In contrast to the
idealistic and speculative path that the Alexandrians followed in the study of
Scripture, interpreting it allegorically, the Antiochians adhered to its
literal meaning, trying to resort to historical criticism. In philosophy, they
adjoined Aristotle, while the Alexandrians adhered to the teachings of Plato.
In the question of the relation of the Divine and human natures in the person
of the Savior, they opposed the Alexandrians, who resolved it in the sense of
enriching the human nature of Christ and uniting natures, they explained the
concept of complete unification. The Antiochians, however, stood for a strict
distinction between the two natures, even when they were united in one person
and in Christ they saw a man connected with God's Word (Logos) into one
inseparable unity, a man whom the word had chosen as its instrument and temple,
but which had developed morally in a purely human way as expressed in the
struggle against temptations and in His sufferings and death. The difference in
their approaches to the Christological problem can be expressed as follows: the
Antiochians spoke about the Word united with humanity, the Alexandrians - about
the Word embodied; that is, the former never overlooked the fullness of the
human nature of Christ, while the latter spoke primarily of the divinity of the
Word made flesh. And therefore, if some Alexandrians came to Monophysitism,
then the heresyarchs Arius (IV c.) And Nestorius (V c.) came out of the school
of Antioch, who was reproached for the fact that he allowed two persons in
one Christ. The main representatives of the school of Antioch: in the IV
century. Bishops Theodore of Heracles, Eusebius of Emesses, Hierarchs Cyril of
Jerusalem and Eustathius, Ephraim, Deacon of Edes, Diodorus of Tarsus; in the V
century the disciples of Diodorus - St. John Chrysostom, Meletius of Antioch
and Theodore of Mopsuesta with the disciples - Theodorite of Cyrus and
Nestorius, Iva of Edes, Vasily Selevsky. Some of its representatives were
canonized after death (Hierarchs Eustathius and John Chrysostom); Someone was
posthumously anathematized (Theodore of Mopsuestia), some of the writings were
condemned (Theodoritus of Cyrus, Iva of Edesa), still others were
condemned as heretics during their lifetime (Diodorus of Tarsus, Nestorius).
However, saints, erring people and heretics also came out of the walls of the
Alexandrian school. Thus, the bishops Clement, Athanasius and Cyril were
counted as saints. Three centuries after his death, Origen was convicted at the
V Ecumenical Council (553). And Apollinaris of Laodicea (IV c.) and Eutyches (V
c.), while still alive, were convicted of heresy.
[29] Nestorius
(after 381– c. 450/2) was Patriarch of Constantinople (428–431). In
Christological debates, emphasizing the human nature of Christ, he called the
Mother of God "the Mother of Christ" and even the "Mother of
Man", as the one who gave birth to the man Jesus, with whom the Word of
God was united, staying with him in a special moral or relative combination; he
was only the abode of the Divine, through the influx of the Holy Spirit
becoming Christ, that is, the Anointed. The dogma of the Incarnation was
subverted by all this. His views were condemned as heretical at the Third
Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (431), and Nestorius himself was excommunicated.
[30] St.
Cyril I (375–444) - Patriarch of Alexandria (since 412), one of the Church
fathers, creator of the doctrine of the God-man: in the fight against
Nestorianism, he formulated the principles of Christology (the doctrine of the
Incarnation as a real connection in the person of Christ of two natures -
Divine and human, about their relationship - the communication of properties
and the method of combination and unity - without mixing, merging,
co-dissolving or absorbing). The author of Epistola Synodica with twelve
anathemas of Nestorius (428–431), as well as polemical writings against
him, which affirm the inseparable union of natures in Christ, starting from the
moment of His birth in the world; in these works the term “hypostatic unity” of
the two natures was introduced without mixing or separation. Participant of the
III Ecumenical Council (431), condemning the heresy of Nestorius and affirming
the veneration of the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God.
[31] St.
John I (354–407) - Archbishop of Constantinople (398–404), one of the greatest
fathers of the Church. For the sermons against luxury that Empress Eudoxia (†
404), the wife of Arkady (395–408), took at her own expense, the saint was sent
into exile, but the ensuing earthquake prompted the queen to return him to the
capital. Sermons against the evils of high society led to a new persecution of
the saint (of the six years of the patriarchate, he spent three in exile).
Saint John died in exile under the Commands (Abkhazia), on the way to Pitiunt.
The transfer of the relics of the saint to Constantinople took place in 438.
For his sermons (c. 1000), St. John, starting from the VI century, was called
Chrysostom. He left interpretations on many books of scripture and is revered
by the Church as a great exegete. He composed the rite of the Liturgy
bearing his name, and introduced Cross processions into the Church.
[32] There
is a difference between the concept of “conciliar” (catholic) and the concept
of “ecumenical”. Collectiveness means the spiritual unity of all members of the
earthly Church between themselves and with the Church Triumphant in Heaven
led by Christ; universality means that the Church of Christ has a universal
distribution, i.e. universal, throughout the universe - “even to the ends of
the earth” (Acts 1, 8). The universality of the Church is a component of the
unity of the Church. Having spread throughout the world in the form of Local
Churches, the holy Church, however, has not lost its unity, its collegiality,
because the only foundation for genuine collegiality is truth - Orthodoxy. For
the first time the word "Catholic" to refer to the Church is found by
the holy martyr Ignatius the God-bearer (c. 50 - c. 107) (Epistle 8 to
Smyrna).
[33] Apostasy
(Greek falling away, retreat) - in the narrow sense, spiritual apostasy and
man’s retreat from God; broadly, the process of mankind's departure from
Christian faith and piety, which will precede the arrival of Antichrist; it is
apostasy that will end human history. Prophecies about this are contained in
the Holy Scriptures (Apocalypse and the so-called "small" Apocalypses
(Matt. 24; Mark 13; Lk. 21: 5–36). Despite the fact that before the end of
the world the Gospel will be preached to all nations (Matt. 24:14), at His
Second Coming, Christ is unlikely to find faith on earth (Luke 18:8).
[34] The
Prophet Jeremiah (VII – VI centuries BC) is the second of the four great
prophets of the Old Testament, the last prophet of the kingdom of Judea. The
basis of the Old Testament book bearing his name is made up of the sermons and
sayings of the prophet, recorded by him and his companion Baruch. The
peculiarity of this book is the discrepancy between its Hebrew text and the
translation of seventy interpreters (Septuagint), which relates to the location
of some chapters, as well as the lack of 2700 words in the Masoretic text. The
prophet is credited with the authorship of the Lamentation of Jeremiah, as well
as the noncanonical Epistle of Jeremiah, a polemical work against idolatry.
[35] St.
Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) was Archbishop of Thessalonica. At twenty, retiring
to Mount Athos, he began to comprehend the wisdom of the 'smart work',
requiring solitude and silence; such a monastic work was called hesychasm (with
Greek rest, silence). Opponent of Barlaam and Akindin in the question of the
nature of the Tabor light. The Council of Constantinople in 1341 adopted the
position of St. Gregory (against the heresy of the monk Barlaam from Calabria,
Southern Italy) on distinguishing between the essence of God (beyond and
inaccessible) and His energies that permeate the world and are communicated to
man; for the feat of fasting and prayer, the Lord illuminates the faithful with
the uncreated Light, as He shone on Tabor. The teachings of Barlaam were
condemned as heresy, and he, given over to an anathema, withdrew to Italy.
However, the Bulgarian monk Gregory Akindin continued the polemic.
Patriarch John XIV of Kaleka (1334–1347), who adhered to heretical
opinions, supported the emperor Andronicus III (1328–1341), excommunicated the
saint from the Church (1344) and imprisoned him. In 1347, after the death of
the patriarch, the saint was released and elevated to the rank of archbishop of
Thessalonica. Blanchernay Cathedral (1351) attested to the Orthodox
Church’s teaching, which was recognized as the official doctrine of the Church.
Nine years after his death, he was canonized at the Council of Constantinople
under Hierarch Philotheus Kokkin (1353–1354 and 1364–1376), who wrote his
life and made him service. Palamas, like Kokkin, are the birth names of these
saints, something similar to modern surnames.
[36] Simony
is a term that appeared in the IV century. It comes from the name of
Simon the sorcerer, who, as stated in the Acts of the Holy Apostles (Acts 8,
9–24), asked the disciples of Christ to sell him the gift of the knowledge of
the Holy Spirit; means bribe-taking of the gracious hierarchical ministry in
the Church; this was the name of the practice of buying and selling church
offices or clergy, common in the Middle Ages in Western Europe.
[37] The
Venerable Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (1749–1809) was an enlightened monk on
Athos. In 1777 he participated in the preparation for the publication of the
Philokalia (Love of the Beautiful), a collection of ascetic creations of the
Holy Fathers and other books. From this his main work began - to translate,
write and publish spiritual books. He translated from Latin and significantly
edited the book of the Italian monk Lorenzo Skupoli “Unseen Warfare”,
translated into Russian by St. Theophan the Recluse (1815–1894). The honorable
head of the saint is kept on Athos in the cell of Skurtheon in Karey (the
administrative center of the Holy Mountain). He was counted among the saints on
May 31, 1955 by the decree of the Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople
(1948–1972).
[38] Apostolic
ordinances is a written monument whose full title is “Decisions of the Holy
Apostles through Clement, the Roman Bishop and Citizen” (“Constitutiones
apostolicae”), attributed to the holy martyr Clement of Rome († 101). The
edition of the collection goes back to the 5th century. It is based on a
variety of sources, such as the “Catholic Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and
Holy Disciples of our Savior” (III century) and the “Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles” (Didachi) (end of the 1st century). The collection contains prayers,
the order of Baptism and the Eucharist, a list of consecrated bishops and their
first successors; decisions on the catechumenate, on the home life of men,
women and virgins; instructions regarding the rules and regulations of church
life, the rights and duties of spiritual persons, their election and
dedication, in relation to church holidays, fasting, prayers, worship; it
speaks of the duties and activities of the bishop, of persons close to him, and
of his employees — deacons, deaconesses, subdeacons, and readers; widows and
orphans; about the martyrs, about the celebration of Easter, about the attitude
to heretics; about talents, about ordination.
[39] Ephesus
- the largest of the twelve cities of Ionia (an area on the western coast of
Asia Minor near the Aegean; now these are the territories adjacent to Izmir in
Turkey), was originally the center of the Asia Minor Greek colonies, and during
the rule of the Romans - the main city of the province of Asia.
[40] Milit
is a city in Caria, in the southwest of Asia Minor. Christianity in
Milit was planted by the apostles, and one of the bishops of
Milit was present at the Council of Nicaea (325). In the New Testament,
the name of the city is found several times (Acts 20, 15–17; 2 Tim. 4, 20). It
should not be confused with Melite, the island visited by the holy apostle Paul
(Acts 27, 27–44; 28, 1–11) and which some (starting with Emperor Constantine
VIII Bagryanorodny, the tenth century) identify with the island of Melenia,
today's Mliet, off the coast of Croatia; but according to the latest scientific
data (N. Warnecke) - this is Kefallia island in the Ionian Sea.
[41] St.
Athanasius I the Great (c. 295–373) was the Patriarch of Alexandria (p.
328), the main opponent of the Arians and protector of the Nicene creed. For
his resistance against the Arians, he was expelled five times by emperors and
spent several years of his bishopric away from the diocese. The creative
heritage of St. Athanasius is quite extensive. The Life of St. Anthony became a
classic example of hagiographic literature and played a large role in the
spread of monasticism.
[42] The
Sanhedrin (from Greek together, congregation; Heb. Sanhedrin), led by high
priest Caiaphas, condemned Christ to death. The Sanhedrin is the supreme
council and court of the Jews, where the most important religious and civil
affairs were discussed. It was an aristocratic supreme judicial body and
consisted of 71–72 members, co-optated from the best Pharisees and Sadducees
(priests). It also included retired high priests, chiefs of priestly attitudes,
perhaps some of the influential scribes, legalists, and elders. Membership in
the Sanhedrin was lifelong. The Sanctuary was convened and led by a high
priest, elected from among the Sadducees. After the conquest of Judea by the
Romans (63 BC), the Sanhedrin could pass death sentences, but their execution required
the consent of the Roman ruler (at the time of Christ it was the fifth
prosecutor of Judea and Samaria Pontius Pilate (26–36)). Until the destruction
of Jerusalem (70 AD), it functioned in the capital of Judea. The name Sanhedrin
is found only in the Gospel and the Acts of the Holy Apostles; from these books
the names of some members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin came to us: high priest
Caiaphas (18–36 according to R.H.), his father-in-law Annas, former high
priest (6–15 years according to R.H.) (high priests at different times
there were five of his sons), the high priest Ananias, the Pharisee Gamaliel,
as well as Saints Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.
[43] St.
Eustathius of Thessalonica (c. 1115–1135 - c. 1193 or 1195–97) was born in
Constantinople, where the years of his studies passed, early became a monk in
the monastery of St. Euphemia, then he was a patriarch deacon (1150). After
1174, he was elevated to the rank of Bishop of Mir Lycian, and later
(1177–1180) he became the metropolitan of Thessalonica. In 1185, he was an
eyewitness to the capture of Thessalonica by the Normans and described
this event in the historiographical work “On the fall of Thessalonica”. In
1191, he temporarily left the boundaries of his diocese due to threats from
opponents of his transformations aimed at correcting the moral and spiritual
state of the clergy, monks and lay people. A wonderful rhetorician, author of
many speeches, scholiums and messages, as well as a number of philological
treatises - comments on ancient works. Originality and acuteness are
distinguished by his works - “On the correction of monastic life”, “On
hypocrisy”.
[44] St.
Basil the Great (330–378) was the Archbishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia,
ecumenical father and teacher of the Church. His parents, the presbyter
Basil the Elder († c. 341) and Saint Emilia (Emmelia) († 375), had ten
children, five of whom were counted as saints — the Venerable Macrina (327–379)
and the righteous deaconess Theozva (Theosebia) ( † 385), as well as
Saints Gregory of Nyssa (335–394) and Peter, Bishop of Sebaste of Armenia
(349– c. 392). In his writings, St. Basil actually laid the foundations of all
theological terminology, the entire system of Orthodox dogmatic thought,
dividing and defining the concepts of hypostasis and usii (essence). He
expresses the attitude of the persons of the Trinity as follows: God is one in
essence, but threefold in hypostases. The theology of the saint served as the
basis for the whole Christology of the IV, V and VI Ecumenical Councils. The
saint played a prominent role in the victory over Arianism. One of the main
liturgies of the Church, performed ten times a year, is associated with the
name of St. Basil. He also introduced antiphonic singing into the service. St.
Basil was the founder of Asia Minor cenobitic monasticism. He left behind
many creations, among them the Six Days, which sets out the principles of
Christian cosmogony, is especially famous. For his mercy and help to the poor,
as well as the fact that his memory is celebrated on the first of January
according to the old calendar, in Greece Saint Basil (Ai-Vasilis) is revered
just like Saint Nicholas (Santa Claus) in the West.
[45] Pnevmatomakhs,
or semi-Arians (Greek Dukhobors),were heretics who had the correct and
Orthodox teaching of the Son (they recognized Him as consubstantial with the
Father), but they blasphemed the Holy Spirit, not reckoning Him to be of one
essence with the Divine Father and the Son, considering him created, like
Angels, a being subordinate to God the Father and Christ. They did not allow
the Holy Spirit to be called God and denied him being consubstantial with the
Father and the Son. One of the names of Dukhoborobstvo, Macedonianism, comes
from the name of Macedonius I, Bishop of Constantinople (342–346 and
351–360), who was not directly involved in heresy, but the heretics stole his
name after his death.
[46] Oikonomia (from
"ikos" (house) and "nomos" (law), literally Management
or dispensation of a house, deeds; home economics, house-building) is God's
management of His house, that is, the Divine plan for the salvation of the
world He created; God's house-building is the plan of salvation that pervades
the whole history, His providence for the whole creation, concerning the
creation of the world, including the creation, special care and guidance of
human life, the very incarnation of God the Word, the atonement of fallen
humanity and, finally, the dispensation, consecration and management of the
Church. In other words, house-building is a constant manifestation (Epiphany,
revelation) of the Holy Trinity in creation and history; in housekeeping, God
reveals Himself, creating the world, preaching about it, incarnating, teaching
His grace through the divine energies. [In this connection, it is very
important to distinguish the Trinity that is eternal in Its essence (oussia)
and the hypostatic properties of Her Persons (fatherland, sonship and origin),
to which no one can be involved, and the Trinity of house-building (economic)
in Her manifestations in relation to creation through the uncreated Divine
energies, through participation in which a person receives deification. It is
impossible to know God outside the “economy” in which He reveals Himself - the
transcendental God in His economy is becoming immanent thanks to the energies
that pervade the whole creature.] The housekeepers of the Spirit (clerics) are
called to solve church issues in accordance with this housekeeping of God - in
the spirit of Divine humanity, wisdom and His will for the salvation of man -
for the purpose of the economy is one - both for the Lord and for the shepherd
of souls, all care and care is to return the lost sheep and healed by the snake
to heal. The idea of economy as a church-creative thinking is primarily
associated with love: the Church, temporarily and reasonably not applying the
full rigor of canonical rules (acrivia), continues the Divine house-building in
order to achieve the same goal - “seek and save” a person (Luke 19, 10).
Therefore, for the sake of the benefit, development, growth of the Church, the
observance of church unity for the salvation of man, for the sake of that
church building, house-building, economy, which pastors are called to be guided
by, in practice a temporary deviation from the letter of the law is allowed.
The Church condescends to human weakness and suffers, without resorting to
punishment (deviation from acrivia), in order to help a person, keep him in his
bosom and, introducing him to life in Christ, lead to the knowledge of the
truth for his growth in “the fullness of Christ "(Ephesians 4, 13),
again making it one of the members of the Saints' society - the Church. For the
sake of this, indulgence is required, the gracious kenosis of the Church for
those who have fallen from it. In this regard, a number of rules, in cases
where their literal fulfillment is not useful, contains instructions about
their philanthropic or useful for the Church application, in which one can see
the manifestation of the Church’s house-building concerns. However, oikonomia
in no way cancels the canons, for, as a rule, they always show the right path
to the truth - to its knowledge and life according to it. And despite the fact
that the strength of some canons in practice or for reasons of housebuilding
sometimes weakens, their eternal and indisputable authority is not diminished -
for the sake of the benefit of its fullness, anyone can renew the force of
these rules, even if they have not been applied for many centuries. In a narrow
sense, oikonomia is a possible condescension in the practical application of
church laws and the softening of canons (for example, with respect to penances,
concessions in fasting), allowed in a specific situation in relation to a weak
person, for the sake of his spiritual good; such advisable relief is always
temporary.
[47] Acrivia
(Greek: accuracy) is the application of the full severity of canonical rules in
the specific circumstances of the life of the Church, that is, the exact
fulfillment of church canons, in accordance with the letter of the law. St.
Basil (330–378), using the term acrivia, remarks that we “must <...> obey
the rules with precision” (Rule 1), that is, preference should always be given
to acrivia. If questions of canonics, church practice and discipline, depending
on the situation, can be solved both on the basis of acrivia and economy, then
questions of a dogmatic nature should be resolved only from the principle of
acrivia. The Holy Fathers understood oikonomia as an indulgence in comparison
with acrivia, that is, as a measure of pastoral expediency, and acrivia as a
theological criterion, which forms the canonical basis of the Church, is a
practice proceeding from its self-awareness, according to which there are no
Sacraments or salvation outside the Church. In other words, acrivia and economy
are not equivalent. This means that one cannot be arbitrarily replaced by
another, for example, as happened with the method of Baptism -
sprinkling is an exception when you cannot baptize by immersion. However,
just such a method of baptism is now widespread - acrivia is completely
unjustifiably replaced by economy, condescension has become the rule. According
to the Monk Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (1749–1809), the economy, which some
of the fathers sometimes resorted to, can be considered neither a law nor an example.
Church use requires either rigor or indulgence, that is, it is an economy of
rigor, when considerations of economy, for example, can sometimes require the
use of acrivia (for example, for edification). Both oikonomia and acrivia serve
the same creative purpose — building the house of God, that is, the economy of
the Church, are those means that equally contribute to the spiritual salvation
of believers and the opposition to sin. The combination of canonical acrivia
and church economy constitute two aspects of the same work of serving the
saints, for the building up of the Body of Christ (see Ephesians 4, 12), given
to the clergy, who have been given by the Lord the authority to bind
and decide (cf. . 20, 23).
[48] Monophysitism
(from the Greek: the one-born) is a Christological heresy, founded in the 5th
century by the Archimandrite of Constantinople Eutyches (412–444) and
supported by the Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscoros (444–451). Monophysites claimed
that during the incarnation of Christ the two natures became one - the
Divine, and the perceived human nature became only the property of His Deity -
absorbed by him and losing all his own reality, it can only be mentally
separated from the Divine. But if human nature in Christ was completely
absorbed by the Divine, then God in Him, although embodied, did not become
human, perceived only to be in the flesh, but did not become completely human.
This doctrine arose as a refutation of the already condemned (431) Nestorianism,
which separated the two natures in Christ, up to the violation of His personal
and hypostatic unity. The Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon (451)
condemned Monophysitism and drew up its definition in which Christ is confessed
to be perfect God and perfect Man, consubstantial with the Father in
Divinity and us in humanity, dwelling in incarnation as well and inseparable in
two natures, but in a single hypostasis . Decisions of the Council were not
adopted in Egypt, Armenia, Syria and Ethiopia. Bloody riots took place in the
east of the Empire, a long unrest began. The kings feared the retreat of the
rebellious provinces and therefore forced the patriarchs to agree with
heretics, however, the firm position of Rome and the uprising of the Orthodox people
in Constantinople led to the fact that the Monophysite hierarchs were
everywhere deposed and fled to Egypt (519). In the VII century. Monophysite
doctrine gains a new life in monotheletism.
[49] Valent
II Flavius (FlaviusValens) (c. 328–378) - emperor of the eastern part of the
Roman Empire (p. 364)
[50] Eparch
(Greek ruler, chief) - in Byzantium, the mayor of Constantinople (with its
district), the head of the executive branch of Constantinople. Appointed and
subordinated directly to the emperor. He had a large staff of employees, a
military detachment, a prison; was in charge of the activities of firefighters.
His functions, in addition to judicial (only Vasilevs could cancel his
sentences) and police (including monitoring the stay of nonresident and
foreigners in the capital), included supplying the city, regulating handicraft
production, intra-city and foreign trade (including prices), and control over
spectacles (organization of ceremonies, festivities, performances at the
hippodrome, executions, burial of members of the royal family). He took care of
the improvement of Constantinople, of security and maintenance of order
(including the prevention and suppression of uprisings), controlled the work of
all public institutions, and organized the construction of public works in the
city. During the absence of the emperor in the capital, the eparch often headed
the government and the military forces in the city obeyed him. This post
appeared in the middle of the 4th century, but after the capture of
Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204, it was actually abolished; in the 14th
century although it is mentioned, it is rather a title that has nothing to do
with city government.
[51] Emperor
Valens (364–378) was inclined to Arianism by his wife Albia Domnica and began
to act in favor of heretics, raising up all kinds of persecution of the
Orthodox - by his order eighty elders in Nicomedia were put on a ship and
set on fire, and many Orthodox that were in Antioch were drowned in the
river. In particular, the monks of Egypt and Pontus (northeastern part of
Cappadocia) were persecuted, many of whom were put to death. Knowing the
strength of St. Basil (330–378), Valens really wanted to persuade him to
convert to Arianism. Intending to go to Caesarea himself, he first sent an
eparch - the Arian Modestus, who had been instructed to convert St. Basil to
Arianism, and failing that, to expel him from the city. Soon, Valens arrived in
Caesarea, whom Modestus informed that he had obtained nothing from the
saint. The king sought the opportunity to speak with the saint in person. There
were no Arian churches in the city, therefore, at the Epiphany, the emperor
with his retinue entered the temple where St. Basil served. At the same time,
he himself brought the gifts to the altar, but none of the clergymen touched
them, not knowing whether the archpastor would accept them from the heretic.
Valens was so embarrassed that he left the temple. Another time, when St. Basil
was not serving, he invited the king to the altar, where he spoke a lot about
dogmas. Valens was delighted with the conversation with the wise hierarch.
Thus, the saint was still left in his pulpit, but the diocese was divided, and
the bishop-Arian became the head of the second metropolis. Saint Basil took a
retaliatory step - in order to have the votes of Orthodox bishops, if
necessary, he elevated his brother Saint Gregory of Nyssa and friend Saint
Gregory of Nazianzus to the hierarchal rank, which, however, they very
much opposed.
[52] Jethro
is the priest of Midian, father of Zipporah, wife of the holy prophet Moses.
“And Moses listened to his father-in-law's words and did everything that he
said” (Ex. 18, 13-24).
[53] St.
Gregory I the Theologian, or Nazianzen (c. 300– c. 391), is an outstanding
theologian, one of the three ecumenical teachers of the Church. Friend and
Companion of St. Basil the Great (330–378); son of St. Gregory (Elder), Bishop
of Nazianzus. He was bishop of Sasim (Cappadocia), but most likely he never
served the liturgy within his diocese. After the death of his father, he
inherited the diocese of Nazianzus (Cappadocia), and then was elected
patriarch to the Arian kingdom of Constantinople (379–381). He presided at the
Second Ecumenical Council (381), contributing to the establishment of
Christology and the Orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit as the third
Person of the Trinity. He is the author of many theological works, among which
the Five Words about Theology are especially notable, for which the Church
calls him the Theologian. Autobiographical poems "About my life",
"About my fate" and "On the sufferings of my soul" are in
the same line as the "Confession" of St. Augustine (354–430).
[54] This
refers to the Second Word (3rd Russian translation) of St. Gregory (300–390),
as well as the “Six Words about the Priesthood” written by St. John Chrysostom
(354–407) on the following occasion: St. Basil (330–378) became aware that the
bishops who had gathered in 374 in Antioch had set out to set both of them as
archpastors. Saint John, understanding the height of the priestly calling, and
even more so the bishop's ministry and considering himself unprepared for the
proper performance of the duties of a pastor, hid secretly from everyone and
even from his brother Basil, who was elevated to the bishop (probably Rafana of
Syria, near Antioch). Soon, when he saw St. John, St. Basil expressed his
friendly reproaches to him for evading the priesthood, a brilliant answer to
which are these words about the priesthood written between 374 and 386, when
St. John was already ordained as presbyter.
[55] The
Venerable Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662) was a Byzantine theologian, the
main opponent of the Monophelites, including Emperor Heraclius I (610–641) and
Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius I (610–638). His father was a Samaritan
craftsman, and his mother was a Persian slave who was baptized. At birth he
received the name Moskhion. After the death of his parents at the age of ten,
he was transferred to one of the Palestinian monasteries for education, where
he was named Maxim. The Persian invasion of Palestine and their capture of
Jerusalem (614) forced the monk to leave the Holy Land. So he ended up in the
capital of the empire, where he became secretary of the emperor Heraclius, but
soon left the service and went to one of the monasteries near Constantinople,
but the invasion of the Persians and Avars (626) forced him to leave the city.
Having visited Crete and Cyprus, he lived for some time in North Africa, then
in Palestine and Syria. In 641–645 the monk again labored in the north of
Africa, where in 645, in a dispute with the Monothelites in Carthage, he
defeated the former Patriarch of Constantinople Pyrrhus (639–641 and 653–654).
In the same year, he went to Rome and, closely converging with the pope,
Hierarch Martin (649–653), was the main initiator of the Lateran Cathedral
(649), at which anathemas were proclaimed to the main heresiarchs of the
Monothelites. The saint argued that will and energy are inherent in nature,
and, therefore, in Christ, in the presence of two natures, there must be both
Divine will and action, as well as human. For this, in 653, Saint Maxim, like
the pope, was arrested, convicted and exiled. For his irreconcilable position
in 662, the monk was once again brought to the capital, again convicted,
subjected to cutting off his tongue and cutting off his right hand, and exiled
to Lazika (Western Georgia), where he soon died and was buried in the Shemari
fortress (662). The doctrine of St. Maximus triumphed at the Sixth Ecumenical
Council (680).
[56] Monothelitism
(Greek: one will) is a heresy that took shape in the 7th century and
representing a modification of monophysitism. According to the Monothelites,
Christ, in the presence of two natures - Divine and human, has a single will -
Divine. Monothelites managed to persuade most hierarchs of Egypt, Syria and
Byzantium to believe this heresy - it was supported by all the eastern
patriarchs (except St. Sophronius of Jerusalem; 580-638), as well as Pope
Honorius I (625-638). In an effort to return to the Church and annex to the
Empire monophysitic areas - Egypt, Syria and Armenia, Emperor Heraclius I
(610–641) supported monoenergy — the compromised teaching of heresiarch
Patriarch Sergius (610–638) that two natures exist in Christ, but only one
Divine energy, action. Then monoenergism grew into monotheletism. The Venerable
Maximus (580–662) argued that the will, as a natural desire, is an
indispensable expression of nature, and not hypostasis, and therefore, two
natures cannot have one will - without two wills there cannot be two natures in
Christ. The Monothelites believed that the recognition in Christ of two wills
was tantamount to recognizing in Him a propensity for both good and evil. But
with the sinless Christ, these two natural desires (wills) did not lead to
moral conflict, since one (human) was in complete agreement with the other
(Divine). Monothelitism led to monophysitism, denying the full incarnation of
the Word of God. The persecutions started strengthening against the
Orthodox, and the Arabs' seizure of the eastern regions of the empire (Egypt
and Syria), where there were centers of Monothelitism, stopped theological
debate. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (680) decreed that two energies and two
wills abide in Christ, of which the human in perfect agreement follows or obeys
the Divine, but is not destroyed by it. The emperor from Armenians, Philippe
Vardan (711–713), wanting to reconcile his compatriots with the Empire, tried
to reverse the decisions of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, but the renewed
polemic was drowned out by the first outbreaks of iconoclasm.
[57] Peter
(654–666) was the last monothelite patriarch of Constantinople,
successor to Pyrrhus (639–641 and 653–654). Presided over the trial of St.
Martin (649–653) and the Venerable Maximus the Confessor (580–662).
[58] The
Chalcedonian faith is in an unbounded, unchanging, inseparable and inseparable
hypostatic unity of two natures in Christ; this dogmatic definition (“oros”)
was adopted at the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon (451); according to
it, the two different natures in Christ - human and Divine - formed one
hypostasis (personality); the first two definitions are directed against the
Monophysites, the last - against the Nestorians. (Holy Empress Pulcheria
(398–453) and Emperor Marcian (450–457) announced the convening of a new
cathedral in Nicaea in October 451. More than 500 bishops arrived by the
appointed date, but such a large amount of bishops had not gathered before, and
Marcian was busy with military affairs to defend the city from a new wave of Huns,
so he ordered the council to be held closer to the capital. )
[59] Pyrrhus
(† 655) was Patriarch of Constantinople (639–641 and 653–654), successor to
Sergius I (610–638), a staunch monothelite, one of the heresy ideologists.
While still an abbot, Pyrrhus corresponded with the Venerable Maximus (580–662)
on the issue of monoenergy - the teachings of Patriarch Sergius that due to the
hypostatic unity of natures, only one divine-human energy (action) is possible
in Christ. Then, in 638, Sergius and Pyrrhus composed the Monotheletite Ectesis
(Statement of Faith), signed by King Heraclius I (610–641), distributed
throughout the Empire and then proclaimed Pyrrhus' as the official doctrine of
the Church. Upon the death of Heraclius, Pyrrhus was involved in a dynastic
struggle. At the same time, his relations with the imperious August Martina
became aggravated, so he was arrested, overthrown [another monothelite -
Paul II (641–653) became the patriarch] and exiled to Carthage. Here in 645, he
held a theological debate with the Venerable Maximus, after which Pyrrhus
publicly declared himself defeated and, returning to Orthodoxy, departed for
Rome, where he repented to Pope Theodore I (642–649). Soon, however, while in
Ravenna, Pyrrhus sent the pope a renunciation of his reunion with the Church
and returned to monothelitism. Pope Theodore anathematized Pyrrhus, this act in
649 was enshrined in the Lateran Cathedral, which condemned the patriarchs
Sergius and Paul. The 6th Ecumenical Council (680) added to their names
Pyrrhus’ successor in the pulpit, the monothelite patriarch Peter (655–666),
excommunicating them all from the Church. Pyrrhus died in 655 in Constantinople
during negotiations with representatives of the pope on the restoration of
church communion.
[60] St.
Martin the Confessor (649–653; † 655) was the Pope of Rome. To fight
against the heresy of the Monothelites, which became widespread (even the
emperor Constant II (641–668) and the Patriarch of Constantinople Paul II
(641–653) were its adherents), the saint convened a Lateran Council in Rome
(649), which was close to the ecumenical authority, during which he
condemned monothelitism. For this, in 653 he was arrested and secretly sent to
Constantinople. On a far-fetched accusation of secret communication with the
enemies of the Saracen Empire, blasphemy of the Virgin and non-canonical
accession to the papal throne (he was elected after a two-month vacancy,
without approval by the Byzantine emperor), the saint was sentenced in 654 and
underwent a year of imprisonment. In 655, he was called to trial in
Constantinople and sentenced to death on libelous charges, but at the request
of the patriarch, the execution was replaced by exile to the Crimean peninsula,
where he was secretly sent. Here, in deprivation, Saint Martin spent the last
two years of his life.
[61] From
the constructive understanding of economics, it follows that it is impossible,
for reasons of economy, to depart from the teachings of the Church, from the
truth, for the destruction of the foundation of the Church, the diminution of
truth, would be contrary to the basic meaning of homebuilding - creation.
Therefore, the Holy Fathers could, for the sake of economy, retreat only from
the external form of the rules or even the Sacraments, but not from the truth
itself, to which they sought to attract as many human souls as possible. For
they knew that not all standing for the canonical truth corresponds to the
sacred canons, but can also be considered as contrary to their spirit and main
goal - building, when it leads to the fragmentation of the Church. But
oikonomia under no circumstances can allow or justify a sinful act, cannot
declare sin "to be nonexistent." According to St. John Chrysostom
(398–404), “only that which is not lawless is house-building”. Sin has no place
in the Church - it cannot allow sin into itself, cannot and should not bear
heresy, insanity, and neglect of canons and commandments. Everything related to
the establishments of the Spirit must be observed with all accuracy and
thoroughness. The church will always accept a repentant sinner in order
to forgive sin, heal it, and destroy it by grace, but never to say that
there was no sin. The Church is ready to accept people, one at a time and by
communities, but it will never accept sinful, heretical institutions, it will never
reconcile with an alien dogma. Therefore, one who, being in a heretical hostage
and believing himself to be baptized, embarks on the Church, receives the grace
of Baptism, which he did not have before, either when he is baptized with true
Baptism, or, by economy, in the very union, through Penance or Anointing. Like
the one who received ordination from the hands of a heretic or schismatic,
he is accepted in the existing dignity, receiving the grace of consecration in
the Sacrament by which he is accepted into the Church. Therefore, the principle
of church economy does not in any way contradict the dogmatic teaching on the
uniqueness of the Church, for it does not give the slightest reason to assert
that saving grace can be taught outside the Church and that such “sacraments”
can be real (or have some degree of reality) and grace.
[62] Saint
Sophronius I (the Wise) (c. 580–638) - the patriarch of Jerusalem (634–644), is
known as an implacable opponent of the Monotheelite heresy (by 630 the
remaining patriarchal thrones in the East were occupied by heretics). He is the
author of the words in praise of the Venerable Mary of Egypt and Saints
Cyrus and John (the reason for the compilation was his miraculous healing from
eye disease). Together with St. John Mosch (Euratus) (545–619) he composed
“Limonar” or “Spiritual Meadow” (Sinai Patericon) - a collection of lives and
teachings of modern ascetics. Revised and corrected the Charter of the
monastery of St. Sava the Sanctified. He was the author of many three odes
canons on the days of the Fourteenth, not later included in the Studio Charter
(he introduced this charter into general use in Palestine). He also
created the rite of the Great Hours for Christmas, not quite the same as
the ones used today. He should probably be credited with the final formation of
the rank of the Great Blessing of the Waters. Of the theological heritage, the
district epistle, published when he entered the pulpit, is best known, where he
offers a detailed confession of faith in view of the emerging Monothelite
heresy. Subsequently, at the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680), it was adopted as
an accurate account of faith. The sermons of the saint are interesting in those
historical details that allow us to imagine the life of the Church in Jerusalem
conquered by the Arabs (638). Also preserved are his homilies, set forth in poetic
form.
[63] Caesarepapism
(Caesaropapism) (from Latin caesar - Caesar and papa - pope) is a
religious-political model in which both secular and spiritual power are
concentrated in the hands of a secular ruler, either directly or through
complete submission from the church hierarchy. Under caesarapapism, the ruler
is perceived as the vicar of Christ on earth, although, as a rule, this refers
to the position, and not to the person. This conditional term was introduced by
Western historians (I. Hergenreter et al.) to refer to the system of relations
between secular and ecclesiastical authority, characteristic of Byzantium,
where the emperors essentially ruled the Church, uniting the head of state and
Church in one person, appropriating supreme rights in church governance and
putting himself above the power of the patriarchs, subordinating the Church to
its interests. The reign of emperors Theodosius II (408–450), St. Justinian I
(527–565), Heraclius I (610–641), Constant II (641–668) and Manuel I
(1143–1180), and then emperors were noted -Iconists. A similar relationship
arose after the reformation in Protestant countries, where the sovereigns
appropriated the authority of the highest bishops. Some historians see
something similar in the relations between the monarch and the Church that were
established in Russia after the destruction of the patriarchal power (1721).
[64] Symphony
of authorities (literally consent, consensus) - in Byzantium, even under St.
Constantine (306–337), the material power of the state and the spiritual power
of the Church were first united according to the principle of “symphony” of
these two authorities. For the first time, this ideal harmonic relationship
between the Church and the state was formulated in the Sixth Law by the
Holy Emperor Justinian I the Great (527–565), finding a suitable term for the
new relations of the “priesthood and kingdom”: “If that (priesthood) will be
impeccably and involved in everything boldness towards God, and this (kingdom)
will correctly order the society handed over to him, then there will be a kind
symphony ... ” The opposite of symphony is caesarepapism and papocaesarism.
Both of these models violate the principle of proper relations between the
Church and the state - in the first system, the state prevails, in the second -
the Church.
[65] The
Venerable Theodore the Studite (759–826) is one of the main teachers of
asceticism and an apologist for icon veneration. He and his wife Anna both were
tonsured and he enetered the monastery of Saccudion, in 794 becoming
its abbot. Due to conflicts with secular power, St. Theodore the Studite
was repeatedly expelled from the monastery. The first time he was exiled
because of a protest against the adulterous marriage of Emperor Constantine VI
(780–797) with Theodota, a relative of the Venerable Theodore (after her
marriage she even tried to appease him with gifts, but he rejected them).
Another time, Emperor Constantine wanted to visit the monastery of Saccudion,
passing nearby, but the monks did not come out to meet him. For this insult and
for exposing the king, the saint was imprisoned, from where in 796, after
severe tortures, he was exiled to Thessalonica. After the death of Constantine,
his mother, the holy Empress Irene (797–802), freed the
Venerable Theodore, and in 798 he settled with his students in the Studio
monastery. Under him, the number of brethren increased from 12 to 1000 people
and the studites gained enormous weight in church life, even the patriarch and
emperor had to take them into account. Soon the saint was again persecuted by
Nicephorus I Genik (802-811) - when the question arose about the pardon of the
excommunicated priest Constantine, the Monk Theodore rebelled against this,
again contrary to the emperor and patriarch, and was expelled to one of the
Princes' Islands, where he spent two years (809–811). After the death of the
king, he returned to the capital. Under Emperor Leo V the Armenian
(813–820), he condemned iconoclasm, was imprisoned, and after terrible torture
he was sent to a distant exile where no one was allowed to see him; but the
saint continued his struggle for the purity of Orthodoxy with his messages to
various people (more than 500 of his letters were preserved), for which he was
subjected to beatings and deprivations. Although the death of Leo ended the
Venerable Theodore's exile, he ended his long-suffering life path again in
wanderings, surrounded by devoted disciples. But just two years after his
death, he was canonized, and at the Council in 843, when Orthodoxy triumphed,
his name was glorified.
[66] The
Venerable John of Damascus (c. 680– c. 784)was a theologian, anthem, and
melurgist. He was born in a Christian Arab family near Damascus - his worldly
name was Mansour (from Arabic, meaning victorious). He was the treasurer of the
caliph, but after being slandered he left Damascus, becoming a dweller in
the monastery of St. Sava near Jerusalem. Being the main opponent of
iconoclasm, he suffered for his fervor - the caliph, believing the forged
letter drawn up by the iconoclast emperor Leo III (717–741), ordered that St.
John have his right hand cut off, which grew back again by the fervent
prayer of the righteous man before the icon of the Virgin. He placed the image
of the healed hand in the salary of this icon, which is why the icon became
known as the Three-Handed. His unsurpassed works - “The Source of Knowledge”,
as well as “An Accurate Presentation of the Orthodox Faith” - became models for
theologians for many centuries. He systematized and recorded the melodies of
the liturgical circle, the Oktoechos, contributing to the design of the
Byzantine system of eight tones; author of more than 60 canons, for example,
such as Easter and the Virgin. He also wrote theoretical works on the
construction of tones and their connection with the ancient Greek tropos.
For all this he was nicknamed 'the golden speaker'.
[67] Constantine
VI (771– after 797) - the last emperor (from 780) of the Isaurian (Syrian)
dynasty.
[68] Iconoclasm
arose at the beginning of the VIII century. It was a heretical movement against
icon veneration, which had been mistaken for the idolatry condemned in the
Old Testament. From a dogmatic point of view, the prohibition of the image of
the Son of God (His principle indefinability) denies the fullness of the
incarnation of God the Word. The persecution of icons began under Leo III the
Isaurian (717–741), who banned the veneration of icons in 730. The persecution
was continued under his son Constantine V Kopronimus (741–775)
and grandson of Leo IV Khazar (775–780). The Iconoclastic Cathedral of 754 in
Hieria condemned icon veneration; on it the basic principles of iconoclasm were
formulated, and the veneration of icons was equated with idolatry and declared
heresy; tens of thousands of sacred images (icons, frescoes, sculptures) were
destroyed, those who kept them were persecuted. The son of Leo IV, Constantine
VI (780–797), under the influence of his mother Saint Irene, convened the Ecumenical
Council in Nicaea VII (787), which condemned the heresy of iconoclasm and
approved the dogma of icon veneration. The second wave of persecution of icons
was under Leo V the Armenian (813–820), who convened a new iconoclastic council
(815), at which the decrees of the VII Ecumenical Council were canceled and the
decrees of the iconoclastic council of 754 entered into force, but the icons
were ordered not to be considered idols . Persecution continued under Michael
II Travle (820–829) and Theophilus (829–842). The final restoration of icon
veneration occurred in 843 under the Holy Empress Theodora, when
the zealous defenders of Orthodoxy were canonized and the iconoclasts
anathematized. The Roman Church, not affected by the iconoclasts, always firmly
opposed the iconoclastic emperors. However, this did not stop her at the
cathedrals in Frankfurt (794, the initiative of Charlemagne) and Paris (825) to
recognize the service of the icons as idolatry; however, their significance as
decoration of temples was not denied. All this ultimately led the West to
replace the sacred church image with the secular, unspiritual canvas of the
Renaissance and, in response to this, to restore the elements of iconoclasm in
Protestantism.
[69] Leo
V Armenian (813–820) was a Byzantine emperor and a secret iconoclast who
contributed to the rapid restoration of this teaching. In 814, he then
instructed the little-known clergyman John, nicknamed Grammatik for his
scholarship [John VII Morokharzaniy (Hovhannes Kerakan), the Patriarch of
Constantinople (837–843), a native of Armenia, an ardent iconoclast; ideologist
of the revival of iconoclasm], once again from a theological point of view to
consider the issue of icons; the wicked one confirmed: icons cannot be
worshiped. In 815, a new iconoclastic council was convened in Constantinople,
repealing the decisions of the 7th Ecumenical Council (787), prohibiting
"the production of icons and the worshiping of those things
that disagree with tradition, or are, more accurately, useless,"
and proclaiming a return to the decrees of the iconoclastic cathedral in Hieria
( 754). Returning to the beginnings of Leo III (717–741), Leo the Armenian
declared: “You see that all the sovereigns who recognized the icons and
worshiped them [referring to Constantine VI (780–797) who ruled before him, St.
Irina (797–802 ), Nicephorus I (802–811), Stavraki (811) and Michael I
(811–813)], died either in exile or in war. Only those who did not venerate the
icons died their death on the throne and, transferred with honor to the
imperial tombs, were buried in the church of the Apostles. "I also want to
imitate them and destroy the icons, so that after the long life of me and my
son, our kingdom may last until the fourth and fifth generation."
[70] Michael
II (820–829) was the emperor of Byzantium, the founder of the Amorian
(Phrygian) dynasty, nicknamed Travl (lisping). He was poorly versed in
theological subtleties and was indifferent to questions of faith. He himself
was not an iconoclast by conviction, however, the official religious doctrine
of the state continued to be iconoclastic - in the churches, holy images, if
they still existed, were placed high up, out of sight, and contempt for icon
veneration was inspired in schools as a result of ignorance. Papal ambassador
St. Methodius I (future Patriarch of Constantinople, 842–846) was punished
with whips by Michael for his call to restore icon veneration. Deposed
under Leo V (813–820), Patriarch Nicephorus I (806–815) wrote to Michael,
asking to revive icon veneration. The emperor answered him: “I did not come to
innovate the dogmas of faith and did not destroy ... what
is established. Let everyone act according to his will and desire
... We have found the Church in this position, in this position we decide
to leave it. Therefore, we determine that no one dares to raise the word
neither against the icons, nor for them ... and may deep silence be
held in relation to the icons. ” However, he gradually abandoned his
original intentions, and began to persecute the Orthodox: he expelled some
icon-worshiping preachers from the city, and imprisoned others.
[71] Hieromonk
Joseph, abbot of the Kafarov monastery near Nicaea, clergyman of the
church of St. Sophia of Constantinople, economist of the Great Church (a
position close to the modern protopresbyter)
[72] Romei
(Greek for Roman) was what the Byzantines called themselves, based on the
Greek pronunciation of the word "Roman". Initially testified to the
civic belonging to the Roman Empire, later, after the fall of its Western part
in the 5th century, to the Byzantine Empire. Different nationalities inhabiting
it perceived the culture and language of Byzantium, becoming their carriers.
But at the same time, all these people remained different in nationality and
they distinguished themselves among other Romans - they shared a common
language of communication (Greek) and cultural elements introduced by
Byzantium. Despite the fact that they considered themselves to be Roman, the
Byzantines from the “center” of the empire did not consider them to be such,
calling them anything, but not Roman — barbarians, Scythians, and so on. Seeing
their superiority over the barbarians in the cultural-state sphere, the Romans,
however, were alien to ethnic antipathies. Modern Greeks still call themselves
Romans, since the Eastern Roman Empire lasted another thousand years after the
fall of the Western (476).
[73] During
the time of the Hierarch Tarasius (784–806), Joseph was cast out of the
priesthood because in 795 he performed the wedding of
Emperor Constantine VI (780–797), who forcibly tonsured his first
wife Maria and married his mistress Theodota (a relative of St. Theodore
the Studite; 759–826). Joseph, using the change of both civilian (Nicephorus I;
802–811 became emperor) and church authority (Saint Nicephorus I was elected;
806–815), ensured that in 806 the new patriarch, under pressure from the tsar,
allowed Joseph to serve. Seeing this, the Venerable Theodore stopped
remembering the patriarch, who ultimately, fearing the emperor’s actions aimed
at harming the Church, made further concessions: in 809, he convened a local
Council, which decided to remove the ban on the priesthood from Joseph. Then
St. Theodore protested against such lawlessness, convincing the patriarch
"to deprive the priesthood of those who are overthrown by the canons and
the former patriarch, was dismissed for nine whole years." The patriarch
shied away from negotiations with the Venerable Theodore on this matter.
Then St. Theodore and the Studites publicly separated themselves from him.
Together with them, many believers were separated from the patriarch. For
his refusal to submit to church authorities, the Venerable Theodore (whom
the patriarch called "a renegade from the Church"), together with his
brother Joseph and uncle, St. Plato, was exiled to one of the Prince Islands,
where he stayed two years, until the death of the emperor. After which
Patriarch Nicephorus again deprived Joseph of the holy priesthood. And then the
Church "again lived in peace, which, through the fault of Emperor
Nicephorus, has not existed here for more than five years."
[74] The
Princes' Islands is a group of nine islands in the northeast of the Sea of
Marmara, near Constantinople. In Byzantine times, some of them were
monasteries, which served as a place of exile for deposed emperors and
patriarchs, as well as disgraced dignitaries and monks. The Hulk is the place
of exile of the Venerable Theodore the Studite, who stayed there from
809 to 811. On Oxia, the first exile was St. Plato the Confessor (809–811). The
principle is the largest of all the island, the Byzantines called it "the
island of the prince." The principle was the place of expulsion of a
significant number of Byzantine church and secular dignitaries. By 821, St.
Theodore the Studite (759–826) found refuge with some of his students on it,
and he died there.
[75] The
righteous Empress Theodora I († 867) - the wife of the emperor Theophilus the
iconoclast (829–842), came from the ancient noble Armenian family Mamikonyan.
Less than two months after Theophilus died, the holy Queen Empress Theodore,
becoming the first regent (842–856) with her young son, put an end to the
struggle against iconoclasm, the second wave of which has risen since the reign
of Leo V (813–820). To do this, on March 11, 843, on the first Sunday of Lent
in Constantinople, a local Council was convened, which, having approved the
dogma of icon veneration of the VII Ecumenical Council (787), restored the
veneration of icons, and all iconoclasts were anathematized and even forced to
participate in the general procession with icons that passed through the
streets of the capital. The acts of the Cathedral were carved on three large
plates placed in the church of St. Sophia. In memory of this event, the annual
celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, the procession and the special Rite of
Orthodoxy were established, on which the “Synodic on the Week of Orthodoxy” is
read, consisting of acts of the Council with some later additions.
Subsequently, this holiday acquired the general character of the triumph of the
Church over all heresies. When her son, Emperor Michael III the Drunkard
(856–867), reached adulthood, St. Theodora left Constantinople as a result of
intrigue and with four unmarried daughters and retired to a monastery,
where she reposed.
[76] Papandreou
Andreas (1919–1996) was the Prime Minister of Greece (1981–1985, 1985–1989 and
1993–1996). He was the founder (1974), leader and chairman (1984–1996) of the
Pan-Greek Socialist Movement (PASOK); along with the right-wing party New
Democracy, now in power, it is one of the most influential political groups in
Greece, the largest opposition party in parliament.
[77] Anastasius
I of Thrace (c. 430–518) was the emperor of the Eastern part of the Roman
Empire (p. 491), nicknamed Dikor (literally: different eyes) for his
different eye colors - black and blue. Some historians and chroniclers called
him the Unholy for Monophysitism. Patriarch Euthymius I (490–496) agreed only
agreed to crown Anastasius after he recognized the definition of the
Council of Chalcedon. His reign passed in disagreements between the
Monophysites and the Orthodox, since the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical
Council were neither explicitly recognized nor rejected - everyone
believed as he pleased. In 511, outrage arose among the Orthodox when
the singers of the palace church began to sing the Trisagion song with the
addition, contrary to tradition, of the words "crucified for us," as
was customary among the Monophysites of Antioch. The intensity of the struggle
went so far that Anastasius in fear locked the doors of the palace and kept the
ships ready for flight. In 512, he persuaded two villains to accuse the
patriarch of Macedonia II (496–511), whom he had previously
publicly insulted, of sodomy and heresy. He then exiled the
patriarch without any trial, and sent many of his clergymen to prison. Due
to additions to the Trisagion in Constantinople, unrest began again. In
513, the federation leader Vitalian, declaring himself the defender of
Orthodoxy, besieged the capital. The emperor had to agree with the demands of
the rebels to convene a new Ecumenical Council, as well as to return all the
expelled Orthodox bishops. But Anastasius did not keep his word. The rebels
again approached Constantinople. Having made a truce, the emperor treacherously
violated it and, having attacked the fleet of Vitalian, defeated him.
Anastasius died at night during a terrible thunderstorm - according to the
chroniclers, he was killed by lightning.
[78] Euthyanism
is a branch of Monophysitism, which taught that Christ is not consubstantial
with us, that is, Christ's humanity was not recognized as being the same as
ours. Eutych (or Eutychius) was the Archimandrite of Constantinople, who
maintained close contact with Alexandria and Egypt, the head of a large group
of monks (412–444). In 448, at a local Council in Constantinople Eutyches was
excommunicated for his heretical views and deprived of his dignity. However,
the emperor Theodosius II (408–450) had one close associate, named Chrysaphius,
a creature of the Alexandrian patriarch Dioscoros (444–451) and a supporter of
Eutyches. Chrisaphius obtained from the emperor the convocation of a council in
Ephesus (449) under the chairmanship of Dioscorus, which restored Eutyches. For
the atmosphere of brutal pressure and outright terror on the part of Dioscorus,
this cathedral subsequently received the name of "robber." The Holy
Queen Pulcheria (398–453), a supporter of the deposed Orthodox patriarch, St.
Flavian of Constantinople (506–512), retired from the palace. Soon the
intrigues of Chrysaphius opened and the emperor removed him, and again brought
his sister Saint Pulcheria closer. Convened at the initiative of the new
emperor Marcian (450–457) and his wife Saint Pulcheria IV, the Ecumenical
Council in (451) condemned Eutyches as a heretic.
[79] Manichaeans
(aconites) were followers of religious syncretic teachings, founded in Persia
by the magician Mani (Manes; c. 216– c. 276). Manichaeism is the most
influential of dualistic cults, uniting elements of Christianity and
Chaldean-Babylonian, Persian beliefs (Zoroastrianism, Mazdeanism, Parsism) and
based on the Gnostic teachings preceding it. The basis of Manichaeanism is the
docetic doctrine of the ghostly body of Christ, a cumbersome tangled cosmogony
with the doctrine of the primordial nature of evil, a view of matter as evil,
and of man as the creation of the devil. The Manichaeans believed that the
human soul is a particle of light captured by matter, therefore the purpose of
life for them is the release of light (soul) from the captivity of matter
through self-denial and austerity. Cult practice and their way of life were
distinguished by severe asceticism: lack of public worship, absolute
abstinence, and a ban on the use of wine and meat and the destruction of plants
(farming was prohibited). Besides this, trade and all labor were not allowed,
since there is an element of the power of darkness (matter) in it; it was
impossible to have property. This heretical teaching spread widely from Rome to
China and lasted until the VIII – XlI centuries, having experienced maximum
flowering in the IV – V centuries. His ideas were repeatedly revived in
subsequent religions, movements and heresies. It was persecuted by
Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Islam. So, in 382, St. Theodosius I the
Great (379–395) issued a law against the Manichaeans, prescribing the death
penalty and confiscation of property. However, Manichaean ideas turned out to
be very tenacious - they were preserved in the folk sects of the Middle Ages:
among the Pavlikians and Mondraki in Armenia, among the Bogomils in
Bulgaria, and among the Albigensians in Western Europe. In the West,
Manichaeism lasted until the VI century, and in the East, reaching into the
Vll. It was finally banned in China in the XIV century. In the Uyghur kingdom
from 763–840 it was a state religion. In the East, it was especially spread
among the Sogdians and in their colonies in Xinjiang. (At one time Saint
Augustine was in the ranks of the Manichaeans (354–430)).
[80] Saint
Sava the Sanctified (439–532) was from a Cappadocian family. He
lived in a monastery under the guidance of the Monk Euthymius the Great
(377–473) from his eigth year. In 484 he founded the famous Lavra near
Jerusalem; thanks to him, Orthodox teaching triumphed in 517, despite the fact
that Emperor Anastasius patronized Monophysitism (491–518). The saint also drew
up a charter known as Jerusalem. The monk is called “Sanctified” because he was
a hieromonk (in those days, rarely were any of the monks and abbots ordained
to the priesthood). Saint Theodosius Kinoviarch (423 / 424–529) was also
from Cappadocia, founded kinovia in Palestine, which attracted many ascetics
(up to 700 monks, while the Monastery of St. Sava the Consecrated during its
heyday in the 5th – 6th centuries numbered no more than 150 monks). Kinovia of
St. Theodosius subsequently became a model of coenobitic monasteries. In the
XVI century it was ravaged by the Turks, but at the end of the XIX century it
was restored. The monastery is located west of the Monastery of St. Sava.
[81] It
is a question of defending two frankly promonophysitic dissertations at the
Faculty of FUA of the United States in 2002, in which
heresiarch-monophysites, Patriarchs Dioscorus (444–451) and
Severus (512–518) were whitewashed and declared Orthodox.
[82] Dioscorus
I of Alexandria (444–451), the successor of St. Cyril (412–444) to the
patriarchate, persecuted the relatives and employees of his predecessor and, on
this basis, quarreled with the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Flavian I
(446–449), who supported the persecuted. He was an ardent defender of the
heretic Eutyches (412–444) and a participant in the Monophysite turmoil.
Eutyches was convicted of heresy at the Constantinople "home" council
in 448 under the chairmanship of St. Flavian. Eutychianism was born from the
extremes of the Alexandrian view, and Dioscorus, as a representative of the
Alexandrian theological school, considered it necessary to take it under his
protection in the fight against Antiochian christology. In addition, there was
a struggle for hierarchical primacy - the bishops of Constantinople, as the
metropolitan bishops, due to their proximity to the imperial court, had a great
influence on church affairs and the primacy of honor among other bishops of the
East. The Alexandrian Church, as more ancient, was entitled to claim the same
primacy - this was manifested, for example, in the fact that the Bishop of
Alexandria, Theophilos (385–412), once condemned the Archbishop of
Constantinople, St. John Chrysostom (398–404), and St. Cyril (412 –444)
condemned Nestorian (428–431). Therefore, some Alexandrian bishops competed
with the bishops of Constantinople. The case of Eutyches for Dioscorus seemed a
convenient occasion for intrigue against St. Flavian. Therefore, the Second
Ephesian "robber" council was convened (449), at which Dioscorus was
the chairman. With the help of the military detachments of Emperor Theodosius
II (408–450) and fanatical monks, he began to committ violence against
bishops-diophysites and achieved the removal of the patriarch Saint Flavian;
Eutyches was also justified. However, St. Leo I (440–461) assembled a cathedral
in Rome, condemning Dioscorus and Eutyches and the “robber” council itself.
Meanwhile, the emperor died (450) and the throne was occupied by Marcian (450–457),
who married Saint Pulcheria (398–453), the sister of Theodosius. By order of
the new king, the Fourth Ecumenical Council was convened (451), at which the
"robber" cathedral was condemned, and Dioscorus was cast out of the
dignity. The motivation for his deposition was purely disciplinary - no charges
of heresy were brought against him, as the moral rule required him to be able
to justify himself, and he did not appear for trial, ignoring the three calls
to the council. But even canonical crimes were enough to deprive him of his
dignity - for the untruths and violence that he resorted to at the
"robber" council, Dioscorus was deposed and exiled; he died in exile
in 464.
[83] During
the reign of Emperor Anastasius (491–518), one of the most ardent opponents of
the Council of Chalcedon was Severus of Antioch (512–518), the founder of
the heresy of Severianism. Having founded his own monastery, he was ordained a
priest by the Monophysite bishop Epiphanius, who had been expelled by the
Orthodox from his diocese. During the years of the oppression of the Mayomite
monophysite monks by the Jerusalem patriarch Elijah II (494-517), Severus and
about two hundred of his monks moved to Constantinople, where they gathered
around the Monophysites in the capital. Recognizing the universal
significance of the "robber" council (449), considering its chairman
Dioscoros (444–451) to be the same sort of teacher of the Church as Saint
Cyril of Alexandria (412–444), Severus expressed other heretical opinions. The
teachings of Severus were generally monophysitic, although they avoided the
extreme judgments of Monophysitism. Patriarch of Jerusalem John III (517–524)
anathematized Severus; Emperor Justin I (518–527) deprived him of the episcopal
chair and sent him into exile. Despite this, thanks to the influence of the
Holy Queen Theodora (500-548), he was a member of the local Council of
Constantinople in 536, where he represented the Monophysites. At the council,
charges of heresy were brought against him and, despite the support of the
Monophysite opposition, Severus was convicted and anathematized with other
heretical Nonophysites. Soon, according to the imperial decree, he was again
sent into exile in Egypt, where he died (543).
[84] The
Venerable Simeon the New Theologian (949-1037), for twenty years, labored in
the Studios Monastery under the direction of an elder, the Venerable Simeon the
Reverent. Then he was chosen to be abbot of the monastery of St. Mamont in
Constantinople and ordained to the rank of presbyter. Due to the special
veneration of his late elder, he was removed from Constantinople and spent the
last thirteen years of his life in the monastery he founded. A special part of
his creative heritage is composed of hymns - spiritual verses that capture the
personal experience of mystical communication with God. The "Philosophy of
Love" includes his "Heads active and theological." Saint Simeon
is considered the founder of the doctrine of the heavenly illumination of the
souls of ascetics, which later became known as Hesychasm. The church
called the saint the New Theologian, finding in his writings similarities with
the writings of St. Gregory the Theologian (381). The life of St. Simeon was
described in detail by his disciple, the Monk Nikitas Stithatos
(1005-1090).
[85] Saint
Mark of Ephesus (1392 / 93–1444 / 45) was born, educated, lived most of his
life, and died in Constantinople. He became a monk in 1418. On the eve of his
departure to Ferrara, as part of the Orthodox delegation to participate in the
Ferraro-Florentine Cathedral, he was ordained against his will as Metropolitan
of Ephesus (1437). Initially believing in the possibility of restoring the
unity of the Church, he soon realized the failure of this enterprise and with
all his might tried to prevent the conclusion of the shameful union leading to
the betrayal of Orthodoxy. In Florence, he was the only hierarch who did not
sign the union. Upon his return to Constantinople, the saint continued to
struggle against the union. Refusing to accept the patriarchate, he secretly
left the capital and went to Ephesus, which was under the Ottomans, to support
his flock. Without permission from the Turkish authorities, he could not stay
here for a long time and therefore soon went to Mount Athos. However, on the
way there, on Lake Lemnos, by order of the emperor, the saint was arrested and
detained (1440-1442). After his second attempt to get to the Holy Mountain, he
returned to Constantinople, where he lived the last two years of his
life.
[86] The
Venerable John Climacus of Sinai (Sinaite) (525– c. 600) was a hermit
monk; and towards the end of his life he became abbot of the monastery on
Mount Sinai. He was the author of a wonderful spiritual work, the
ascetic-didactic treatise, “The Ladderof Divine Ascent,” for which he was
nicknamed Climacus. This is a practical guide for those seeking salvation - in
the form of a gradual climb of a ladder of thirty steps, the struggle with
vices and passions is described and the virtues that lead to God are described;
it experimentally shows that spiritual perfection requires, firstly, cleansing
from the sinful impurity of the old man; secondly, the restoration of the image
of God. The purpose of this work is to teach that the achievement of salvation
requires considerable selflessness and enhanced deeds from a person.
[87] The
Venerable Nikitas Stithatos, or Pectorate (c. 1005–1090), left for a monastery
at the age of fourteen. Then he was a hieromonk in the Studion monastery of
Constantinople, and later became the abbot of this monastery. He was the court
writer and supporter of Patriarch Mikhail Kerullarius (1043–1058), when he
broke with Rome in 1054. His treatise against the Latins (exposing unleavened
bread, fasting on Saturday and celibacy of priests) is of great historical
significance. He compiled commentaries on Pseudo-Dionysius.
[88] Kinoviya
(Greek for community) is a monastery built on the basis of communal principles.
It is one of the two main forms of monastic life, in which the monks are
united in a monastic community and led by a spiritual mentor (the abbot),
elected by the brethren in the form of an elder's council, and they observe a
certain charter that regulates the daily routine, worship, food, clothing and
activities of brothers. The first kinovii were established in Tavennis
(Upper Egypt) by the Monk Pachomius the Great (290 / 292–346), which marked the
beginning of the monastery, giving the monks the first charter which, according
to legend, an angel had given him. Together with the charter of St. Basil the
Great (330–378), he laid the foundation for the ceonobitic system of
Orthodox monasticism, being a model for all subsequent typicons. Another type
of monasticism is idiorhythmic, when each monk lives in a separate cell, and
takes care of his own food. There is no general obedience and there is no
uniformity in clothing. Inhabitants run their own households, own private
property and dispose of it at their discretion. The only things common in
idiorhythmic monasteries are the cemetery and the church where monks gather on
feast and Sundays. The abbot of idiorhythmic monasteries is elected by
voting, but only for one year; the power of the abbots extends only to the
arrangement of churches and the material support of the monks. In everything
else the abbot is considered to be the same as the other monks. Disagreements
in idiorhythmic monasteries are resolved by the advice of the elders. In
general, the way of life in idiorhythmic monasteries is less strict than in
ceonobitic monasteries
[89] The
Venerable Athanasius of Paris (1721 / 22–1813) hails from the island of
Paros. After graduating from the Athos Theological School (Athoniad), he stayed
in it as a teacher. Then he continued his teaching activities in several
educational institutions, until in 1771 the Patriarch of Constantinople
Theodosius II (1769–1773) appointed him rector of the Athonyada. Then he was
ordained a priest. On the Holy Mountain, the Venerable Athanasius took an
active part in the Kollivad movement for the renewal and revival of church
life: as heirs of the Hesychasts of the 14th century, their goal was to return
to the patristic tradition, and the tradition of clever work was their source.
For this, after some time he was expelled from Athos. However, thanks to his
authority on education, he was allowed to teach. Later, Patriarch Gabriel IV
(1780–1784) asked the saint to become the rector of the Patriarchal School of
Constantinople - the most authoritative Greek educational institution at that
time; then he was offered a bishopric. He refused both offers. The peak of his
writing belongs to this period. Rev. Athanasius ended his life in the monastery
of St. George Revston in his homeland. In 1994, he was counted among the saints
by the Church of Greece.
[90] The
Ferraro-Florentine Cathedral (1438–1439) was convened at the initiative of
Emperor John VII Paleologue (1425–1448) and Pope Eugene IV (1431–1447) as
an attempt to reunite the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in order to bring
Byzantium and the West closer together in the face of a common Turkish threat.
Meetings of the council to discuss the union were opened in Ferrara on April 9,
1438. The pope, cardinals, Latin bishops, as well as the emperor, Patriarch of
Constantinople Joseph II (1416–1439), authorized by the eastern patriarchs and
several Greek bishops, Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev attended the council (later
he converted to Catholicism and became a cardinal), Suzdal Bishop Abraham with
200 other clergy and secular persons. Of the Western sovereigns, no one came.
Due to the plague in 1439, the council was moved to Florence. Catholics
demanded that the Orthodox fully accept Latin teachings and administrative
subordination to the Vatican, allowing only some independence in the field of
worship and rituals. In return, the pope promised to organize a Crusade against
the Turks, which would pass through Constantinople, to take on the costs of
returning the Greek delegates, as well as provide military assistance to defend
Constantinople. After long discussions, under the pressure of the Catholics,
all the points presented by them as the conditions for signing the union were
accepted by the Orthodox side - the dogma of Filioque and the legality of its
addition to the Creed, the ability to celebrate the Eucharist on unleavened
bread, the doctrine of purgatory, and the primacy of the pope. On June 5, 1439,
a council ruling was signed, which only Saint Mark of Ephesus (1392 / 93–1444 /
45) did not sign, but for the pope this meant that they had achieved nothing.
Returning to Constantinople, the king in the person of the people and ordinary
clergy faced a strong opposition, united around St. Mark. The patriarchs of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were also against the union. Having not
received the promised help from the West, the emperor cooled towards it. In
Russia, supporters of the union were also not accepted.
[91] Saint
Photius I the Great (c. 820–891) was Patriarch of Constantinople (858–867 and
877–886), the largest figure of Byzantium of the 9th century. The children of
Basil I (867–886) studied with him: Constantine, heir to the throne, Leo
VI the Wise (886–912), Alexander, and Stefan. The future enlightener and
saint Cyril († 869) was also a disciple of the saint. The Bulgarian Tsar Boris
was believed to be baptized by the bishop Photius himself, who sent the
archbishop and priests there for the baptism of the Bulgarian people (c.
863/5). Becoming an archpastor, St. Photius contributed to the spread of the
influence of the Byzantine Church on the Slavic peoples in Bulgaria, Moravia
and Russia, which led in 867 to a conflict with the Roman throne and anathema to
Pope Nicholas (858–867). Under Saint Photius, the so-called “First Baptism of
Rus” occurred, possibly by the very saints Cyril and Methodius († 885), when
the princes Oskold (Askold) and Deer, with elders and part of the people, were
baptized (c. 860) in Kiev. Soon after this, the saint sent Metropolitan Michael
and six bishops to Russia. In 857, the co-ruler of Tsar Mikhail (856–867),
Ward, removed from the capital’s department the objectionable Patriarch
Ignatius (847–858 and 867–877). The universally recognized scholarship of St.
Photius, his kinship with St. Tarasius (784–806) and the royal house
contributed to the fact that he was elected patriarch, having gone through all
the degrees of the hierarchical ladder in six days (like the saints Tarasius and
Nikifor (806–815)). Soon the troubles started, kindled by the former patriarch.
To stop them in 861, a council was convened in Constantinople, at which St.
Photius was confirmed by the patriarch and the deposition of Ignatius was
confirmed. Pope Nicholas I (858–867), whose ambassadors were present at the
council, asserting Saint Photius as patriarch, hoped to subordinate him to his
authority, but, not receiving what was expected, at the council in Rome (863)
he anathematized him. St. Photius was convicted by the murderer Basil I of
Macedonia (867–886) of an illegealy ascending to the patriarchal throne.
He did not allow him to celebrate the Holy Mysteries and he
was removed from the pulpit and imprisoned in a monastery. Ignatius was again
put in his place. The Council of Constantinople (869), convened for the trial
of St. Photius, was held with the participation of papal legates. Having no
grounds for condemnation, the council nevertheless anathematized Saint Photius,
sending him to the monastery for seven years. After the death of Ignatius (†
877), shortly before reconciling with the saint, a new Council was convened in
Constantinople in 879 (called the VIII Ecumenical Council by many fathers of
the Church), which restored Patriarch Photius to the pulpit. Pope John VIII
(872–882), not recognizing this decision, again excommunicated him from the
Church (881). Under the successor of Emperor Basil, Leo VI (886–912), Saint
Photius was forced to leave the diocese in favor of the sixteen-year-old
brother of the emperor, Stephen I (886–893). Deposed a second time, he retired
to the monastery, where he died. He is known as a learned theologian who left
numerous and varied works devoted to exposing the errors of the Latins,
refuting various heresies, clarifying the Scriptures, and revealing various
objects of faith. On the initiative of St. Photius and with his direct
participation, the “Miriobiblion” (Library) was compiled — commentaries on the
manuscripts of 279 ancient authors in the capital’s library, with extensive extracts
from the originals of the monuments — later completely or partially lost. To
facilitate the reading of ancient, especially classical writers, as well as
Scripture, a Dictionary was compiled under the editorship of Photius.
[92] Consensus
patrum (Latin) is the Orthodox criterion for the truth of a doctrine, known as
the “consent of the fathers” and borrowed from Western theological science.
Itapplies to those aspects of Orthodox teaching that have not received their
dogmatic definitions at Ecumenical Councils. The Consensus patrum is no lower
in authority than these Councils, for the fathers present at them themselves
refer and verify their decisions on it, starting their dogmatic definitions
with the words: “Following the Holy Fathers”, expressing their conviction that
loyalty to them in spirit is the main sign Orthodox theology. According to the
expression of the Venerable Vincent of Lerins, († c. 450), consensus patrum is
“that which was believed everywhere, always and by all” (Commonitorium). Unlike
the theolgumen (the term was introduced by V.V. Bolotov (1853–1900) to
refer to the so-called private theological opinion, which the whole Church may
not agree with), such a coordinated opinion of the Holy Fathers is accepted by
the whole Church and is part of Holy Tradition.
[93] Lemnos
is a volcanic island in the northern Aegean.
[94] Mitrophan
II (1440–1443) was the first after the signing of the union with the Catholics
to be the 'Latin' patriarch of Constantinople. After the death of Patriarch
Joseph II (1416–1439), Emperor John VIII (1425–1448) first offered this place
to Anthony, Metropolitan of Irakli, then St. Mark of Ephesus (1392 / 93–1444 /
45), but both hierarchs refused, because the patriarchal ministry under the
circumstances, meant agreement with the union and its implementation. This
dignity was accepted by Metropolitan Kizichesky Mitrophan, who was already in
deep old age. Although he was one of the signatories of the union, at the
Cathedral in Florence Mitrophan never stood out as a supporter of the council.
However, under him there was a promulgation (solemn promulgation) of the union
(1440). He soon left the throne. In 1443, three patriarchs - Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem published a conciliar message in which Mitrophan was
condemned.
[95] Gregory
III Melissin (Mammy, or Mamma) as a protosingel of the patriarch participated
in the activities of the Ferraro-Florentine Cathedral, defending the need for
the adoption of the church union and, ultimately, facilitating its adoption. He
was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople (1443 / 5-1450). Under the last
Byzantine emperor Constantine XII (1448–1453) at the council in the church of
St. Sophia in 1450, in the presence of three eastern patriarchs, Gregory, as a
Uniate, was deposed. After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, he
became the "Latin" patriarch of Constantinople (since 1454). He died
in Rome (1459). In defense of the union, he wrote several essays: “Apology
against the confession of Mark of Ephesus” and “Reply to the district message
of the same Mark.”
[96] Schism
(from the Greek. Splitting, schism, strife) is a term denoting a split in the
Church.
[97] We
are talking about the Patriarch of Gregory III of Constantinople (1443 /
5–1450), who, being a protosingel, was present at the Ferraro-Florentine
Cathedral and, together with others, signed a union with the Catholics.
[Protosingel is an assistant to the patriarch or bishop, in most cases, their
successor to the pulpit.]
[98] That
is, with those who signed the union at some time.
[99] Equal-to-the-Apostles
Holy Martyr Cosmas of Aetola (1714–1779; Comm. 11/24 Aug.) was one of the
spiritual leaders of Greece during the Ottoman rule. He was originally from the
region of Aetolia (in central Greece, north of the Peloponnese). He graduated
from the Athos Theological School and was tonsured on Mount Athos in the
monastery of Philotheus. Being ordained a priest, he conducted active preaching
work, for which he received a martyr's death. On April 20, 1961, he was
canonized by the Church of Constantinople.
