ON THE CONDEMNATION OF HERETICS

Written by Vladimir Moss

ON THE CONDEMNATION OF HERETICS

Introduction The writers of the article On the Status of Uncondemned Heretics[1], published by the Synod in esistance, ta!e issue with two ecclesiolo"ical theses# 1$ %t has been ar"ued that the ecumenists, and, more "enerally, the ecumenist &hurches, ha'e already fallen away from the (ody of the &hurch entirely, that is, they are branches that are automatically cut off from the )ine, and this, indeed, can be demonstrated from the fact that we do not ha'e *ysteriolo"ical +Sacramental, communion with them$ -$ %t has also been asserted that the .ifteenth &anon of the .irst/Second Holy Synod in &onstantinople, under St$ 0hotios the 1reat +231,, in characteri4in" the (ishops who preached heresies that had pre'iously been condemned as 5pseudo/bishops6 and 5pseudo/teachers6, opened up a new era in a certain way, "i'in" us the ri"ht to consider such (ishops, henceforth, as automatically deposed, 5prior to a synodal decision6, and no lon"er as bein" (ishops$ %t is not made clear who is supposed to uphold these two theses, but this is perhaps not important$ *ore surprisin"ly and more importantly, the article contains only a 'ery brief discussion, with no names or dates, of the heresy of ecumenism, and the synodal 'erdicts a"ainst it# almost the whole of the article is ta!en up with a discussion of "eneral principles re"ardin" the

condemnation of heretics in the conte7t of the period of the Se'en 8cumenical &ouncils$ 9e shall discuss these "eneral principles in a moment$ (ut it is necessary to point out at the be"innin" that, by refusin" to discuss twentieth/century &hurch history in more than a 'ery superficial way, the article has pro'ed nothin" one way or the other with re"ard to the status of the ecumenist heretics$ .or how can we say whether the ecumenist heretics are already condemned or not, if we do not discuss the 'arious synodal 'erdicts that ha'e been considered, ri"htly or wron"ly, to be rele'ant to their status: Who Represents the Church? The only discussion of ecumenism in the article in ;uestion comes in the conte7t of the declaration of certain basic principles, such as# a$ .irst and foremost, it is not correct, or e'en <ust, that a local &hurch should be characteri4ed and re"arded as ecumenist in toto, simply because a number of Her cler"y = and sometimes a small number, at that = are actually ecumenists# they are certainly not to be e;uated with the local &hurch$ 9ho, then, is to be e;uated with the local &hurch: The first/hierarch: The Synod of (ishops: 9hat if the heads of the &hurches ha'e endorsed clearly ecumenist statements published <ointly withalready-condemned heretics, as has happened many times in the 9orld &ouncil of &hurches since the 1>3?s, and at &hambesy in 1>>? and (alamand in 1>>@: 9hat if <oint prayers with heretics continue at the hi"hest le'el +for e7ample, the 0ope and the 0atriarch of &onstantinople in the )atican itself or in the 0hanar, o'er a period ofdecades, if not generations? 9e see! in 'ain for answers to these ;uestions in this article$ %n fact, no answer is "i'en to the ;uestion it itself raises# who can be said to represent the Aocal &hurch: b$ The local Orthodo7 &hurches today are fundamentally anti/ecumenistB the inertia of the silent ma<ority does not in any way imply a"reement with, or endorsement of, ecumenist acti'ities and teachin"s$ Co e'idence is "i'en for this e7tremely surprisin" statement$ %n fact, all the e'idence points in the opposite direction$ .or e7ample, the 0hanar and the )atican appear to be as close as they ha'e e'er been$ D"ain, there has been a notable increase in the ecumenical acti'ity of the *oscow 0atriarchate since it en"ulfed O&O in *ay, -??E, includin" an increased representation at the 9orld &ouncil of &hurches$ D"ain, the Dntiochian 0atriarchate shows no si"ns of brea!in" its union with the *onophysites, and the Dle7andrian 0atriarchate appears to be followin" its e7ample$ The Aocal Orthodo7 &hurches ha'e been fallin" o'er themsel'es to tread the path to ome and other heretical centres$ Their main ;uarrel has been not with the

heretics, but with each other, as was recently demonstrated at the Orthodo7/ &atholic tal!s in a'enna$ Ds for the silent ma<ority, we cannot determine what they belie'e for the simple reason that they are silentF (ut if they are silent, this does not spea! in their fa'our, for, as St$ 1re"ory the Theolo"ian says, (y your silence you can betray 1od$ %ndeed, when the ma<ority is silent in the face of massi'e betrayal of the faith carried out o'er generations, there are only two possible conclusions# either they a"ree with their heretical hierarchs, or they are too indifferent to ;uestions of the faith to ma!e any protest = which Aaodicean indifference to the truth is itself the characteristic feature of the ecumenist heresy, as *etropolitan 0hilaret of Cew Gor! pointed out H %n any case, the Holy .athers of the 8cumenical &ouncils did not come to their decisions after ta!in" democratic opinion polls of the opinions of their floc!$ Cot only did they not ha'e the technolo"y to carry out polls# they were considered irrele'ant$ .or a true bishop, a successor of the apostles and therefore the representati'e of his diocese, does not need to consult his floc! in order to !now whether a certain teachin" is truth or heresy = he consults only his conscience and the Holy Tradition of the Orthodo7 &hurch$ c$ %t should not be for"otten that no local &hurch has proclaimedsynodally that the primary do"ma of the ecclesiolo"ical heresy of ecumenism is a teachin" of the Orthodo7 &hurch that must be belie'ed and that it is necessary for sal'ationB and neither has this e'en been proclaimed in a pan/Orthodo7 manner$ The &onstitution of the 9orld &ouncil of &hurches commits all its members to a 0rotestant theory of the &hurch = essentially the ecumenist branch theory$ %nsofar as each Aocal &hurch appro'ed its entry into the 9&& at a synodal le'el, it proclaims ecumenism synodally. *oreo'er, there are many ecumenist decisions of the 9orld &ouncil of &hurches that ha'e been accepted in an official manner by the Aocal &hurches$ .or e7ample, in 1>2-, at a conference in Aima, 0eru, the 0rotestant and Orthodo7 representati'es to the 9&& a"reed that the baptism, eucharist and ordinations of all denominations were 'alid and acceptable$ %n 1>2I the O&O &ouncil of (ishops specifically anathemati4ed not only the branch theory, but also this particular manifestation of the branch theory# to thoseH who do not distin"uish the priesthood and mysteries of the &hurch from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for sal'ationH Anathema. D particularly clear e7ample of the official acceptance by the Aocal &hurches of the ecumenist branch theory is the (alamand a"reement of 1>>@, in which the Orthodo7 and the &atholics were declared to be sister/

&hurches in the full sense, two lun"s of the same or"anism +with the *onophysites as a third lun":,$ The (alamand D"reement, which was si"ned on the Orthodo7 side by *oscow, &onstantinople, Dle7andria, Dntioch, omania, &yprus, 0oland and .inland, declared# &atholics and Orthodo7H are once a"ain disco'erin" each other as sister churches and reco"ni4in" each other as sister churches$ On each side it is ac!nowled"ed that what &hrist has entrusted to His &hurch = the profession of the apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, the apostolic succession of bishops, and, abo'e all, the one priesthood celebratin" the one Sacrifice of &hrist = cannot be considered to be the e7clusi'e property of one of our &hurches$ The baptism of penitent papists into the Orthodo7 &hurch was prohibited# Dll rebaptism +sic, is prohibited$ The Orthodo7 &hurch reco"ni4es the &atholic &hurch in her entirety as a sister &hurch, and indirectly reco"ni4es also the Oriental &atholic &hurches +the Uniates,$ Special attention should be "i'en on both sides to the preparation and education of future priests with re"ard to the new ecclesiolo"y, +that they may, be informed of the apostolic succession of the other &hurch and the authenticity of its sacramental life, +so that, the use of history in a polemical manner +may be a'oided,$ This was an official acceptance of the ecumenist branch theory$ Some ar"ue that these ecumenist decisions si"ned by representati'es of the Aocal &hurches are not bindin", because they were not ratified by later synods$ Howe'er, this is sophistry$ Since the time of the .irst 8cumenical &ouncil, it has been normal practice for the heads of Aocal &hurches to send representati'es to &ouncils, and the decisions si"ned by these representati'es ha'e been accepted as representin" the faith of the Aocal &hurches without the need for any further synodal ratifications$ Of course, it is possible for a Aocal &hurch to re<ect decisions si"ned by her representati'es, as the oman &hurch re<ected the decisions of the &ouncil in Trullo +3>-,, which were si"ned by her apocrisiarii$ (ut this is not the case with the ecumenist councils of recent decades = no Aocal &hurch has e7pressed any protest a"ainst the decisions si"ned by her representati'es$ When is a Schism not a Schism? The article we are e7aminin" proclaims the well/!nown teachin" of the Synod in esistance that the True &hurch contains both true belie'ers and heretics, both healthy and sic! membersB for the members of the (ody can be ailin", that is, they can be in error re"ardin" the Orthodo7 .aith, and in this way their spiritual communion with the 1od/*an can be rupturedB in spite of this, e'en as ailin" members, they are not deadB they continue to belon" institutionally to the (ody, which is precisely what happens with a

healthy human body, in which there can also e7ist unhealthy cells, or with a tree in bloom, which may also ha'e sic!ly branches$ 9e can a"ree with this if we are tal!in" about indi'idual lay members of the &hurch who do not represent the Aocal &hurch in the way that a bishop represents his diocese or a patriarch his patriarchate$ %t is an ob'ious fact that not e'ery member of the &hurch has the same understandin" of the faith, and some members ha'e a purer and deeper faith than others$ (ut when a hierarch proclaims heresy with bared head from the ambon, then, accordin" to the .ifteenth &anon, he is not <ust a sic! member of the &hurch but a pseudo/bishop and a spiritual wolf, from whom the other members of the &hurch must flee if they want to remain inside the &hurch$ Howe'er, the article "oes on to ar"ue that such pseudo/bishops or spiritual wol'es still remain members of the True &hurch, with all the pri'ile"es of their Sees +they presided o'er thrones and were heretics in the &hurch,$ They remain sic! members of the &hurch until they ha'e been e7communicated either +1, by their own actions in separatin" themsel'es from the &hurch into schismatic communities or +-, throu"h synodal 'erdicts$ Thus when the Holy 8cumenical Synods summoned Cestorios of &onstantinople +the Third Synod in 8phesus, and Jioscoros of Dle7andria +the .ourth Synod in &halcedon, three times to appear for <ud"ement, they ac!nowled"e that the heresiarchs in ;uestion still occupied their Sees, up to that time, from which they spo!e and acted in the name of, and on behalf of, the Orthodo7 &hurch$ Aet us consider these two criteria# +1, the creation of a schism, and +-, condemnation by a Synod$ 9e can a"ree with the first criterion, i$e$ that those who 'oluntarily depart from the &hurch into schism se'er, by themsel'es, their institutional connection with the healthy (ody of the &hurch, and such indi'iduals are, and should be considered to be, decisi'ely and 5entirely cut off6$ (ut does not this criterion apply precisely to the new calendarist ecumenists, who in 1>-@ separated themsel'es from the (ody of the &hurch by choosin" to celebrate the feasts and fasts of the &hurch at a different time: .or it is inaccurate to say that the Old &alendarists walled themsel'es off from the new calendarists, but the other way round# the new calendarists separated from the &hurch by refusin" to celebrate the feasts at the time appointed by the &hurch, while the &hurch = that is, the Old &alendarists / simply stood where she had always been$ Dnd then the new calendarists compounded their sin by synodically condemnin" the Old &alendaristsH

Can a Local Council Cast Out Heretics? %s a conciliar 'erdict necessary in order to e7pel a heretic, as the second criterion declares: Dt first si"ht it would seem that the answer to this ;uestion is# yes$ Howe'er, there are "rounds for thin!in" that Drius was in'isibly e7pelled from the &hurch lon" before the .irst 8cumenical &ouncil of I-K$ .or when the Aord Lesus &hrist appeared to Hieromartyr 0eter, Drchbishop of Dle7andria, in the form of a twel'e/year/old child in torn clothin", and was as!ed by St$ 0eter# O &reator, who has torn Gour tunic:, the Aord replied# The mindless DriusB he has separated from Me people whom I had obtained with My Blood. Dnd this too! place before St$ 0eter6s martyrdom in 311. So here we see an e7emplification of the Aord6s words to Cicodemus# He that belie'eth not is condemned already +Lohn I$12,, and the Dpostle 0aul6s words# D man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, re<ect, !nowin" that heH is self-condemned +Titus I$1?, 11,$ There is a distinction between the mystical organism of the &hurch and her 'isible, e7ternal organization. This distinction was wor!ed out in detail by Cew Hieromartyr *ar! +Co'oselo',, (ishop of Ser"ie'o and the leader of the &atacomb &hurch in *oscow, who was shot in 1>I2$[-]So we could say that Drius was cut off from the mystical organism of the &hurch by &hrist, but was cut off from the e7ternalorganization of the &hurch by the Holy .athers of the .irst 8cumenical &ouncil$ (ut this distinction does little to help the ar"ument of this article$ .or of what benefit is it to be a member of the &hurch6s e7ternal or"ani4ation while bein" cut off from her mystical or"anism by the Head of the &hurch Himself: *oreo'er, we must not thin!, as the writers of this article appear to thin!, that only an 8cumenical &ouncil can cut off a heretic from the e7ternal or"ani4ation of the &hurch$ Since this is an important point, let us e7amine se'eral e7amples from the history of the &hurch#/ a$ Drius$ He was first cut off from the &hurch, not by the Holy .athers of the .irst 8cumenical &ouncil in I-K, but by his own bishop, St$ Dle7ander, Drchbishop of Dle7andria, in local &ouncils in I-1 and I-I$ The 8cumenical &ouncil was con'ened because in some parts of the &hurch St$ Dle7ander6s decision was disputed, and there were e'en attempts to o'erthrow it in other local councils$ Howe'er, the .irst 8cumenical &ouncil settled the dispute once and for all by confirming the ori"inal decision of St$ Dle7ander = who, of course, had the complete ri"ht to defroc! one of his own priests, but needed the added authority of the "reat and holy Synod of Cicaea in order to confirm his decision$

b$ Cestorius$ He was first cut off from the &hurch by a local &ouncil in ome under St$ &elestine in Du"ust, @I?, and then by another local &ouncil in Dle7andria under St$ &yril$ .inally, in @I1 the Third 8cumenical &ouncil in 8phesus confirmed the decisions of these local &ouncils$ c$ *onothelitism$ This heresy was first condemned by a local &ouncil under St$ *artin the &onfessor in ome in 3@>$ %t was condemned a"ain in another local &ouncil under St$ Theodore, Drchbishop of &anterbury +a 1ree! from Tarsus,, in Hatfield, 8n"land on September 1E, 3E>$ The decision of the 8n"lish &hurch was then brou"ht by St$ 9ilfrid, (ishop of Gor!, to ome, where another local &ouncil under St$ D"atho condemned the heresy for the third time, on *arch -E, 32?$ .inally, in 321 the Si7th 8cumenical &ouncil anathemati4ed it a"ain, confirming the decisions of the three 9estern &ouncils$ %t should be noted that when the heretical bishop Theodosius in con'ersation with St$ *a7imus the &onfessor disputed the 'alidity of the first of these &ouncils, of 3@>, on the "rounds that it was not con'ened by an emperor li!e the 8cumenical &ouncils, St$ *a7imus replied that the 'alidity of a &ouncil depended on its reco"nisin" the true and immutable do"mas, not on who con'ened it or how "eneral it was$ D"ain, when the same saint was as!ed in the 8mperor6s palace why he was not in communion with the Throne of &onstantinople, he replied# H They ha'e been deposed and depri'ed of the priesthood at the local council which too! place recently in ome$ 9hat *ysteries, then, can they perform: Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them:[I]

d$ %conoclasm$ This heresy was first condemned by a local &ouncil in ome under 0ope 1re"ory %%% in EI1$ This decision was thenconfirmed by the Se'enth 8cumenical &ouncil under St$ Tarasius in E2E$ (ishop Theophan the ecluse points out that before the start of the Se'enth &ouncil, its president/to/be, St$ Tarasius, bewailed the fact that we +the iconoclastic &hurch of &onstantinople, are bein" anathematised by them +the other Aocal &hurches in Aocal &ouncils, e'ery day$[@]There is no su""estion that the saint considered these local decisions to be in'alid$ ather, he hastened to brin" his &hurch out from under the anathemas by confessin" the true faith$ *oreo'er, those heretics who were united to the &hurch durin" the &ouncil confessed that they had been outside the &hurch before this$ Thus we read in the Dcts of the Se'enth 8cumenical &ouncil$ These are the words of the unitin" iconoclasts$ Thus (asil, bishop of Dncyra, said# 5Ds far as % was able, % in'esti"ated the ;uestion of the icons and con'erted to the Holy &atholic &hurch with complete con'iction$6 Theodore, bishop of *yra, said# 5$$$ % beseech 1od and your holiness to unite me,

the sinful one, to the Holy &atholic &hurch$6 +pp$ @1, @I in the edition of the Ma4an Theolo"ical Dcademy,$ Dnd here are the witnesses of the holy .athers of the &ouncil# His Holiness 0atriarch Tarasius said# N9hat is now to be our relationship to this heresy that has a"ain arisen in our time:N Lohn, the most belo'ed of 1od, locum tenens of the apostolic throne in the east, said# NHeresy di'ides e'ery man from the &hurch$N The Holy &ouncil said# NThat is e'ident$N The Holy &ouncil said# NAet the bishops who are standin" before us read their renunciations, insofar as they are now converting to the Catholic Church.6 +p$ @2,$ %f local &ouncils did not ha'e the authority to e7pel heretics from the &hurch, we should ha'e to condemn many local &ouncils for e7ceedin" their competency and assumin" an authority that did not belon" to them$ These would include many local &ouncils of the 8arly &hurch, which e7pelled such heretics as *arcion and SabelliusB the local &ouncils of the 1reat &hurch of &onstantinopole between the ele'enth and fourteenth centuries that e7pelled the oman &atholicsB the local &ouncils of the ussian &hurch presided o'er by 0atriarch Ti!hon that anathemati4ed the communists and their co/wor!ers in 1>12 and the reno'ationist heretics in 1>-I$ Howe'er, the &hurch, which has the mind of &hrist, has accepted all of these acts as lawful and 'alid$ To thin! otherwise = that is, to thin! that the &hurch cannot e7pel heretics throu"h local &ouncils, but only throu"h 8cumenical ones / is to suppose that for the last 1-I1 years the &hurch has = 1od forbidF / lost her 1od/"i'en power to bind and to loose since the con'enin" of the last 8cumenical &ouncilF Who has the Right to Anathematize? That this is in fact the lo"ical conse;uence of the 'iews propounded in this article is shown by the %nformatory 8pistle of *etropolitan &yprian of .ili, 0resident of the Synod in esistance, which was published in 1>>2$ Ds is well/!nown, *etropolitan &yprian denies the ri"hts of Aocal &ouncils to e7pel the ecumenist heretics from the True &hurch$ Still more si"nificantly, he denies the ri"ht of any contemporary Synod to anathemati4e heretics$ Thus he writes# I +c,$ The ri"ht to issue an anathema does not belon" to ecclesiastical administrati'e bodies which ha'e a temporary synodal structure, but which do not possess all the canonical re;uisites to represent the &hurch fully, 'alidly, and suitably for the proclamation of an anathema = a ri"ht and di"nity which is "ranted only to the choir of the Dpostles and those who ha'e truly become their successors in the strictest sense, full of 1race and powerH K +a,$ The e7tremely serious implications of an anathema, coupled, first, with the absence, in our day, of a synodal body endowed with all of the

aforementioned canonical prere;uisites for proclaimin" an anathema and, secondly, with the immense confusion that pre'ails, on account of ecumenism, in the ran!s of the local Orthodo7 &hurches, constitute, today, a ma<or restraint on, and an insurmountable impediment to, such a momentous and, at the same time, historic action$[K] %n other words, the True &hurch today no lon"er has the power to anathemati4e hereticsF This implies that the anathema a"ainst ecumenism issued by the ussian &hurch Dbroad in 1>2I was in'alid because it e7ceeded the competence of that, or any other contemporary Synod$ %t also implies that if the Dntichrist were a member of one of the Aocal Orthodo7 &hurches, and were to proclaim himself as 1od today, the One, Holy, &atholic and Dpostolic &hurch would be powerless to e7pel or anathemati4e himF There is no doubt that the &hurch is in a disor"ani4ed and wea!ened state today$ Dnd yet the fullness of the power of 1od still li'es in Her, and will li'e in Her until the end of time, as the Aord promised$ She still has true bishops, and these bishops still ha'e the power to bind and to loose that was "i'en them by the Holy Spirit$ 9hen St$ *a7imus defended the ri"ht of the Aateran &ouncil in 3@> to e7pel the *onothelite heretics from the &hurch, he did not discuss a whole list of canonical prere;uisites for proclaimin" an anathema, but "a'e as the only canonical prere;uisite the possession of the true and immutable do"mas, i$e$ Orthodo7y$ Dnd so if our bishops are truly Orthodo7 they ha'e the ri"ht to anathemati4e any heretic anywhere = to thin! otherwise is to lose faith in the &hurch Herself$ he !i"teenth Canon The authors of the article we are e7aminin" declare that the .ifteenth &anon of the .irst/Second &ouncil of &onstantinople, which allows &hristians to separate from a bishop who proclaims heresy publicly e'en before a synodal trial, ne'ertheless does not "i'e anyone the ri"ht to declare a heretic automatically deposed$ Dnd in their support they cite St$ Cicodemus the Ha"iorite6s commentary on the I?th Dpostolic &anon# The &anons ordain that a synod of li'in" bishops should defroc! priests, or e7communicate or anathemati4e laymen, when they trans"ress the &anons$ Howe'er, if the synod does not put into practical effect the defroc!in" of the priests, or the e7communication or anathemati4ation of the laymen, these priests and laymen are neither defroc!ed nor e7communicated nor anathemati4ed in actuality [ ,$ Howe'er, they are sub<ect to defroc!in" and e7communication here, and to the wrath of 1od there$[3]

This sounds eminently reasonable$ Dfter all, in the secular world, a man is counted innocent of a crime until he is <ud"ed "uilty in a court of lawB if % e7ceed the speed limit in my car, % am not depri'ed of my licence to dri'e until % ha'e been <ud"ed by a competent ma"istrate$ %f such caution is e7ercised in secular <ud"ements, should not e'en more caution be e7ercised in the far more important sphere of ecclesiastical <urisprudence: Dnd yet the &anon calls those bishops who proclaim heresy openly as pseudo/bishops e'en before a synodal decision$ This is stron" lan"ua"e, and the authors of the article try to lessen the impact of this lan"ua"e as follows# he characterization of a Shepherd as a 5pseudo/bishop6 5prior to a synodal decision6 is heuristic or dia"nostic in nature +the doctor ascertains the disease, and not final and <uridical or condemnatory +the doctor dia"noses the incurability of the ailin" member and reaches a firm decision to amputate it,$ (ut this e7planation is uncon'incin"$ 9hy should the canon call the uncondemned heretic a pseudo/bishop if he is in fact still a true bishop, and praise those who brea! with him immediately if he is in fact not yet condemned: %t cannot be that the &anon is incitin" laymen to <ud"e their bishops without waitin" for the only competent <ud"ement = that of bishops meetin" in council$ *ore li!ely# heresy is such a serious matter that e'eryone, accordin" to the canon, must ha'e the ri"ht to flee from it immediately, without waitin" for confirmation by a hi"her authority, <ust as one would flee from a pla"ue 'ictim immediately, without waitin" for confirmation from a doctor$ Howe'er, if, as the writers of our article affirm, an uncondemned heretic is still an Orthodo7 hierarch in the full sense, then there is "reat dan"er in fleein" from him before synodal condemnation = the dan"er, first of all, of depri'in" oneself of the "race/filled sacraments he dispenses, and secondly, of becomin" a schismatic by separatin" oneself from the &hurch$ %n order to resol'e this problem, it will be useful to recall the words of St$ Theodore the Studite$ 9ritin" to (ishop 8uthymius of Sardis, he says# OGou !now, your e'erence, that by the common 'oice of the confessors who are still on the earth and those who ha'e departed to the Aord it has been decreed that cler"y who ha'e been once con'icted of communion with heretics should be banned from ser'in" until re'iew by 0ro'idence on hi"h$ How can we trans"ress this rule and by recei'in" one person e7tend the law to all those pre'iously banned and thereby act contrary to our di'ine and hi"hest superior$$$ and decei'e others from the confessors and produce discord amon" people who strictly follow the rules:O[E] Dnd a"ain# OGou !now, honoured of 1od, that by common a"reement of the confessors still ali'e on the earth and of those who ha'e recently

appeared before the Aord, it has been decided to ban from ser'in" those who ha'e been seduced e'en only once into communion with the heretics / it "oes without sayin", until the time of the 'isitation of 1odNs 0ro'idence, that is, until the con'enin" of a &ouncil that re/establishes Orthodo7y$O[2] So e'en #e"ore a &ouncil that loo!s into each case in detail, those in communion with heresy are banned from ser'in"$ *oreo'er, there is other e'idence from the period of the 8cumenical &ouncils that a bishop who preaches heresy publicly loses his authority e'en before he is deposed by a &ouncil$ Thus durin" the Third 8cumenical &ouncil St$ &elestine, 0ope of ome, wrote# The authority of our Dpostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric or simple &hristian who has been deposed or e7communicated by Cestorius or his followers, after the latter be"an to preach heresy, shall not be considered deposed or e7communicated$ .or he who had defected from the faith with such preachin"s cannot depose or remo'e anyone whatsoe'er.[>] D"ain, St$ Cicephorus of &onstantinople wrote about unrepentant iconoclasts# %nsofar as they ha'e depri'ed themsel'es of that teachin" of the faith in which they had been consecrated, they ha'e of necessity been depri'ed on their ordination and deposed as teachin" other thin"sH[1?]They must ha'e been depri'ed of the anointin" of the Spirit as soon as they renounced the confession, for it is impossible for them to trans"ress the faith with which they were anointed, and [at the same time] to carry out that which [is "i'en] by the anointin"$[11] %t it is clear, therefore, writes &hristopher 1orman, from the cited canonical, conciliar and 0atristic witness, that when a bishop publicly and pertinaciously embraces a heresy o'er an e7tended +albeit canonically undefined, period of time, a process of depri'ation be"ins to occur, which "radually strips him of his administrati'e, teachin" and sanctifyin" authority, which can lead, in certain cases, to de facto deposition and e7pulsion from the &hurch, e'en without an official pronouncement by a competent council$ Howe'er, it should be noted, whether or not this e7ceptional occurrence has ta!en place is for the &hurch to authoritati'ely determine throu"h the conciliar process, where a canonical proclamation or declaration of fact can be issued$ espect for the canonical process still needs to be maintained / as canon >3 of the &ouncil of &artha"e states, it cannot stri!e any &hristian as ri"ht for his episcopate to be ta!en away from him before the conclusion of his case$ 1K This is confirmed by canon 13 of the .irst/Second &ouncil of &onstantinople, which states# .or the cause of one who is "oin" to be ousted from the church must first be canonically e7amined and brou"ht to a

conclusion, and then thereafter when he has been duly deposed from office, another man may be prompted to the episcopacy in his stead$[1-] (ishop Theophan the ecluse +P12>@, said that there was no need for further conciliar anathemas to condemn the heretics of his day since they had all already been condemned by earlier decisions$ &ommentin" on St$ 0aul6s words, %f anyone preaches any other "ospel that that which we ha'e preached unto you, let him be anathema +1alatians 1$2,, he writes# The apostle laid only the be"innin" to anathemati4ation$ Since then all the opinions worthy of this punishment ha'e already been mar!ed out by the &hurch$ Dt the present time there is no point waitin" for a special ecclesiastical act to stri!e the e'ildoers with this <ud"ement$ They themsel'es are placin" their own heads under this sword immediately they ac;uire opinions contrary to the truth and stubbornly be"in to insist on them$[1I] Here (ishop Theophan appears to be endorsin" the strict, non/heuristic interpretation of the &anon$ The new heretics of his time did not need synodal condemnation because their teachin"s were not in fact new, but !nown and condemned lon" a"o by the &hurch$ Theoretically, a new heresy not already condemned by the &ouncils or the .athers would need a conciliar condemnation, but (ishop Theophan doubts that any such new heresy e7ists$ Dnd yet the &hurch in the twentieth century continued to condemn heretics and heresies$ Thus in 1>?1 the &hurch anathemati4ed Tolstoy$ Then came condemnations of the heresy of name/worshippin" +1>1I,, the (olshe'i!s +1>12,, the reno'ationists +1>-I,, the neo/reno'ationists or ser"ianists +1>-2, 1>IE,, the sophianists +1>IK,, the new calendarists +1>IK, 1>E@, 1>>1, and the ecumenists +1>2I, 1>>2,$ Dll of these heresies, with the possible e7ception of name/worshippin", were in fact old, and therefore already condemned$ .or is not Ser"ianism simply the sin of Ludas in a new "uise: Ds for ecumenism, the heresy of heresies, it is impossible not to reco"nise that it contains a multitude of old heresies [i$e$ all the old heresies that the ecumenists enter into communion with], from which e'ery one of the hierarch/ecumenists "a'e an underta!in" to defend Orthodo7y$[1@] 9hat, then, has been the purpose of these recent &ouncils: .irst of all, to warn the faithful who may not be well/'ersed in theolo"y that here is a heresy, and to e7plain its nature and its non/correspondence with the Holy Tradition of the Orthodo7 &hurch$ Secondly, in order to ma!e a clear separation between li"ht and dar!ness, between the &hurch of the faithful and the &hurch of the e'ildoers, lest the latter swallow up the former entirely$ Dnd thirdly, to re'erse the act that the &hurch carried out when she made the heresiarchs pastors and bishops$

Howe'er, the most important point is this# that there is 1od6s <ud"ement and there is man6s <ud"ement, and 1od6s <ud"ement precedes man6s <ud"ement, which consists essentially in discerning and declaring pu#licly that $od has already %udged the heretic . So the power of anathema held by the hierarchs of the &hurch is not held independently of 1od6s <ud"ement, but strictly in conse;uence of it and in obedience to it$ That is why heretics are pseudo/bishops e'en before a synod of bishops has condemned them = for 1od has already <ud"ed them$ Ds St$ Jionysius the Dreopa"ite writes# %nsofar as the [hierarch] ma!es !nown the <ud"ements of 1od, he has also the power of e7communication$ Cot indeed that the all/wise Ji'inity "i'es in to his e'ery unthin!in" impulse, if % may so spea! with all re'erence$ (ut the hierarch obeys the Spirit 9ho is the source of e'ery rite and 9ho spea!s by way of his words$ He e7communicates those unworthy people whom 1od has already <ud"ed$ %t says# 5 ecei'e the Holy Spirit$ %f you for"i'e the sins of any, they are for"i'enB if you retain the sins of any, they are retained$6 Dnd to the one enli"htened by the sacred re'elation of the Dll/Holy .ather it is said in Scripture# 59hate'er you bind on earth shall be bound in hea'en, and whate'er you loose on earth shall be loosed in hea'en$6 Thus [0eter] himself and all the hierarchs li!e him ha'e had the <ud"ement of the .ather re'ealed to them, and, bein" themsel'es men who pro'ide re'elation and e7planation, they ha'e the tas! of admittin" the friends of "od and of !eepin" away the un"odly$ That sacred ac!nowled"ement of 1od came to him, as Scripture shows, not on his own, not from a flesh/and/blood re'elation, but as somethin" from the understandin" and under the influence of the 1od 9ho initiated him into what he !new$ Similarly, 1od6s hierarchs must use their powers of e7communication, as well as all their other hieratic powers, to the e7tent that they are mo'ed by the Ji'inity which is the source of e'ery rite$ Dnd e'eryone else must obey the hierarchs when they act as such, for they are inspired by 1od Himself$ 5He who re<ects you,6 it says, 5re<ects *e6$[1K] Conclusions 1$ D heretical bishop is condemned immediately he utters his heresy publicly and unashamedly$ He is cut off from the mystical or"anism of the &hurch by the in'isible hand of Her Head and &hief 0riest, the Aord Lesus &hrist$ .or it is the Aord, and the Aord alone, 9ho has the !eys of hell and of death + e'elation 1$12, = that is, authority o'er the death of the body and the soulO +Drchbishop D'er!y[13],$ -$ 9hile in'isibly cut off from the mystical or"anism of the &hurch, the heretic may remain for a time a member of the 'isible or"ani4ation of

the &hurch$ Howe'er, the faithful ha'e the ri"ht to separate from him e'en while he remains within the 'isible or"ani4ation of the &hurchB and in this case they, and not the heretic, should be called Orthodo7$ .or, as St$ Sophronius of Lerusalem writes# %f any should separate themsel'es from someone, not on the prete7t of a [moral] offence, but on account of a heresy that has been condemned by a Synod or by the Holy .athers, they are worthy of honour and approbation, for they are the Orthodo7$[1E]Dnd, as St$ Cicephorus of &onstantinople writes# Gou !now, e'en if 'ery few remain in Orthodo7y and piety, then it is precisely these that are the &hurch, and the authority and leadership +concernin", the ecclesiastical institutions + , remains with them$[12] I$ Dny &ouncil of truly Orthodo7 (ishops, of whate'er composition or "enerality, has the power to bind and to loose = that is, to cut off the heretic from the 'isible or"ani4ation of the &hurch$ (ut this power consists in discernin" that 1od hasalready condemned the heretic in ;uestion$ .or, as St$ (ede the )enerable writes# The !eys of the Min"dom desi"nate the actual !nowled"e and power of discernin" who are worthy to be recei'ed into the Min"dom, and who should be e7cluded from it as unworthy[1>]= and this !nowled"e and power depends, not on numbers, but on "race$ @$ Dny man who, while not alienated in matters concernin" the .aith itself, ne'ertheless separates himself for certain ecclesiastical reasons and ;uestions capable of mutual solution, is a schismatic accordin" to the definition of St$ (asil the 1reat[-?], and has condemned himself +Titus I$11,$ .or, as the Aord says, He who is not with *e is a"ainst *e +*atthew1-$I,, and, as St$ &yprian of &artha"e says, there is no sal'ation outside the &hurch$[-1] K$ here"orethe ecumenists and new calendarists, ha'in" both uttered heresies condemned by the ancient &ouncils and .athers, and ha'in" been cut off by li'in" &ouncils of (ishops +i$e$ (ishops contemporary with them,, and ha'in" separated themsel'es into schismatic communities independent of the &hurch, belon" neither to the mystical or"anism of the &hurch nor to its 'isible or"ani4ation$ .or, as one of those &ouncils declared on Lune 2Q-1, 1>IK# 9e recommend to all those who follow the Orthodo7 &alendar that they ha'e no spiritual communion with the schismatic church of the schismatic ministers, from whom the "race of the Dll/Holy Spirit has fled, because they ha'e 'iolated the decisions of the .athers of the Se'enth 8cumenical &ouncil and the 0an/Orthodo7 &ouncils which condemned the 1re"orian calendar$ That the schismatic &hurch does not ha'e 1race and the Holy

Spirit is affirmed by St$ (asil the 1reat, who says the followin"# 58'en if the Schismatics ha'e erred about thin"s which are not Jo"mas, since the head of the &hurch is &hrist, accordin" to the di'ine Dpostle, from 9hom all the members li'e and recei'e spiritual increase, they ha'e torn themsel'es away from the harmony of the members of the (ody and no lon"er are members [of that (ody] or ha'e the "race of the Holy Spirit$$$6[--] !ladimir Moss. March "#1$% &''$( revised March )#1*% &''*.

[1] +rthodo, radition, 'ol$ R)%%%, Co$ - +-??1,, pp$ -/1K$ [-] Co'oselo', -is.ma / 0ruziam +Aetters to .riends,, *oscow, 1>>@$ [I] .r$ &hristopher (irchall, he 1ife of our 2oly 3ather Ma,imus the Confessor , (oston# Holy Transfi"uration *onastery, 1>2-, p$ I2$ [@] (ishop Theophan, &hto ta!oe 5anafema6: +9hat is 5anathema6:,, ;uoted by )ladisla' Jmitrie', 4eopravdannoe 5dinstvo +Un<ustified Unity,+*S, 1>>3, p$ 1>, +in ussian,$ [K] http#QQwww$synodinresistance$or"QTheolo"ySenQ8IaIa??28nhm1ramma$pdf$ [3] o -idalion% cited by Hieromon! Theodoretus, o Imerologia/on 6/hisma, 1>E1, p$ I +in 1ree!,$ [E] St$ Theodore, 1etters% part -, letter -1-, p$ 31E + ussian edition,$ [2] St$ Theodore, 1etters% part -, letter -2@, p$ 21E + ussian edition,$ [>] obert (ellarmine, 0e 7omano -ontifice, lib$ %%, cap$ I?$ [1?] St$ Cicephorus, -.8. 1??# 2@1(&$ [11] St$ Cicephorus, -.8. 1??# K@2(&$ [1-] 1orman, pri'ate communication$ [1I] (ishop Theophan, Commentary on the 5pistle of the 2oly 9postle -aul to the 8alatians , *oscow, 12>I, pp$ E?, E1 +in ussian,$ [1@] )$ Aourie, The .ifteenth &anon of the .irst/and/Second &ouncil, !ertogradInform% Jecember, 1>>>, p$ 12$ [1K] St$ Jionysius, +n the 5cclesiastical 2ierarchy% chapter E, K3@(/K3@J$ [13] Drchbishop D'er!y, Commentary on 7evelation. [1E] St$ Sophronius, -.8. 2E, II3>J/IIE-DB ;uoted in +rthodo, radition, op$ cit$ [12] St$ Cicephorus, 9pologeticus Minor, 2, -.8. 1??, 2@@ JB ;uoted in Aourie, op$ cit$ [1>] St$ (ede, 6ermon on the 3east of 6aints -eter and -aul% -.1. >@, col$ -1>, sermon 13$ [-?] St$ (asil the 1reat, 3irst Canonical 5pistle. [-1] St$ &yprian of &artha"e, +n the :nity of the Church. [--] This article does not discuss the status of those who out of fear or for some other reason remain in communion with a bishop who preaches heresy or has entered into schism, but do not a"ree with his error$ %n principle, economia or condescension can be applied to such people in accordance with the word of St$ Theodore the Studite# %f the *etropolitan falls into heresy, it is not the case that all of those who are in direct or indirect communion

with him are re"arded automatically and without distinction as heretics, althou"h by this stand of theirs they brin" upon themsel'es the fearful char"e of remainin" silent + -.8. >>, 1?E3&,$ .or a more detailed discussion of this tric!y ;uestion see Aourie, op$ cit$, and Two &hurches, !ertograd-Inform% Lune, 1>>>$