Joasia,
Lately I have been studying some (for me) difficult questions concerning grace in the mysteries of heretics or schismatics. From beginning I had a moderate view, then I thought that the position of GOC made more sense, and then, after I read some more I am bac to the former position, not because I myself like it or not, but becuase I believe it is the teaching of the orthodox Church. The Holy Synod of Resitance in Greece who are in full communion with your church and which I with the help of God, soon will be in full communion with, have an interesting document concerning the delicate question of the status of the ecumenist churches and if there is grace in them or not. The document i refer to is called: "The status of uncondemned heretics" and is an official declaration of the Holy Synod. I quote:
“It has been argued that the ecumenists, and, more generally, the
ecumenist Churches, have already fallen away from the Body of the
Church entirely, that is, they are branches that are automatically cut
off from the Vine, and this, indeed, can be demonstrated from the fact
that we do not have Mysteriological (Sacramental) communion with
them.”
RESPONSE
A. Basic principles
- Those who commune with heretics: the Synodal proclamation
a. First and foremost, it is not correct, or even just, that a local
Church should be characterized and regarded as ecumenist in toto,
simply because a number of Her clergy—and sometimes a small number,
at that—are actually ecumenists: they are certainly not to be equated
with the local Church.
b. The local Orthodox Churches today are fundamentally anti-ecumenist;
the inertia of the silent majority does not in any way imply
agreement with, or endorsement of, ecumenist activities and teachings.
c. It should not be forgotten that no local Church has proclaimed
synodally that the primary dogma of the ecclesiological heresy of ecumenism
is a teaching of the Orthodox Church that must be believed
and that is necessary for salvation; and neither has this ever been proclaimed
in a pan-Orthodox manner.
d. The aforementioned views, concerning the need to avoid indiscriminate
generalizations, if one is to have a reliable understanding of
the true ecclesiological identity of our ecumenist brothers who are
caught up in innovation and heresy, but have not yet been brought to
trial, are grounded in the Fathers and are strongly upheld by St. Theodore
the Studite, as follows:
• St. Theodore, in his detailed analysis of the extremely intricate
question of “whether one should receive communion from the Presbyter
of a Bishop who is himself Orthodox,”1 but out of fear “commemorates
his own Metropolitan” [see note 1], who is a heretic, ultimately
makes the following declaration: “If the Metropolitan falls
into heresy, it is not the case that all of those who are in direct or indirect
communion with him are regarded automatically and without
distinction as heretics,” despite, of course, the fact that by this stand
of theirs “they bring upon themselves the fearful charge of remaining
silent.”2
• In explaining subsequently, and at length, that Moechianism [the
specific ill to which he addresses himself] is “a most grievous heresy,”
he invokes as his main argument the fact that this dogma was proclaimed
synodally and was confirmed by an anathema: the Moechians
“proclaimed [their transgressions] synodally,” “taught their transgressions
synodally as dogma,” “and placed those who opposed their
dogma under anathema....”3
End quote
Ok, let us now look how the Holy Synods regarded uncondemned heretics who had publicly teached a heresy, but till the synodal decision actually were treated as bishops with grace. I quote from the same document:
"• It should be noted that the Seventh Holy OEcumenical Synod,
after condemning the Iconoclasts, declared the following: “And we
cast the inventors of the innovating babble far away from the
precincts of the Church”;57 that is, their “rejection” was carried out
properly by the Holy Synod in the wake of a decisive judgment and,
indeed, after sixty entire years had elapsed since the manifestation of
the heresy.
• The same Holy Synod, referring, in its ÜOrow, to the Third Holy
OEcumenical Synod, affirms that “the Synod in Ephesus” “expelled
the impious Nestorios and his followers from the Church,”58 which
clearly demonstrates that the exclusion of a heretic is not accomplished
automatically, but constitutes an act of “expulsion” (a driving
out, a forcible casting out), requiring a competent body, that is, a Synod.
• Indeed, in this ÜOrow of the Seventh Holy OEcumenical Synod
there is a similar reference to the Fourth OEcumenical Synod, and in
this way the uniformity of the Synodal tradition is borne out: the
Synod in Chalcedon proclaimed the two perfect natures of the Savior,
“driving out of the divine fold” the “blasphemers Eutyches and Dioscoros.”
59
• Finally, the holy Patriarch Nicephoros of Constantinople, writing
to Pope Leo III of Rome, informs him that “we [the Fathers of the
Seventh OEcumenical Synod] have cast out of the Church” the Iconoclast
Bishops “who occupied their Episcopal thrones in defiance of
God,”60 which underscores very sharply, on the one hand, the ecclesiological
content of the act of “casting out” by a competent Synod,
and, on the other hand, the fact that, until the institutional “casting
out” and “expulsion” from the Church of the Hierarchs who taught
false doctrine, such Hierarchs were regarded as “occupying Episcopal
thrones.”
• Needless to say, we recall the very severe admonition of our
Savior, according to which if the ailing member of the Christian community
should “neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an
heathen man and a publican”:61 that is, not automatically or at the
same time as the transgression is committed, but after a specific procedure
has been followed; transgression is denounced by “the
Church,” that is, “the Leaders of the Church.”62 She looks into each
case judicially through a competent body, in line with the authority
given to Her;63 in the event that someone persists unrepentant, then—
according to Zigabenos—“let him be deprived of communion with
you, as one incurable.”64
• In particular, we note that the Lord, through the provision of
such authority (“ye shall bind” and “ye shall loose” are in the plural
[see note 63]) to the Holy Apostles and their successors, the Hierarchs,
assembling in a synodal tribunal, on the one hand excluded once
and for all partial, arbitrary opinions and individual verdicts of guilt
in the Church, exhorting the healthy member only to “tell it unto the
Church” [see note 61], and on the other hand confirmed the full, exclusive,
and sovereign spiritual jurisdiction of the synodal body, saying,
in essence, the following, according to Zigabenos: “Whatever
you decide on earth, God will validate it in Heaven, whether you cut
those who are incurable off from the Church or later receive back
those who repent.”65
d. Additionally, if the “diseased” but not “excised” part of the
Church is out of communion with the “healthy part” (the distinction
between “diseased” and “healthy” is made by St. Basil the Great and
St. Theodore the Studite66), which should certainly be “walled off”
from the former, this does not at all entail that the “diseased” part has
already fallen away from the Body, because in that case it would not
be characterized as “diseased,” but as “mortified”; mortification, however,
will come about through a “synodal decision,”67 that is, a “final
decision.”68
• Moreover, the need for a decisive judgment and “excision” of
unfruitful branches (St. Cyril of Alexandria writes: “awaiting the suitable
time for excisions”69) is suggested very clearly by the relevant
Parable: the Father, as “husbandman,” at a definite moment and after
a due process of inquiry, “taketh away every branch that beareth not
fruit” and “casteth it out.”70
End quote
This leads us to what we should do. And, according to the Holy Synods and Fathers we should 1) Wall of from the who preach heresy or are schismatic (according to the canons) and at the same time 2) Speak against their heresy but not JUDGE themm, simply because WE DO NOT HAVE THE SYNODAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. If we had such an authoruty, the synod who condemned, for example, Nestorius, did not have to have taken place, because Nestorius, being a heretic were already out of the Church and lost all grace when the Synod met. But the Synod called him a bishop and wanted him to be present at the Synod as a bishop and they did not say that he had not grace before the synodal decision. You see, heretics are always given a choice to repent before they are exluded from the body.
In XP
