Breaking communion with the uncondemned

[Christophoros]

I am not referring to any particular contemporary "accused yet uncondemned heretics." By naming a specific group, the topic will be diverted to the various opinions concerning whether or not said group is actually condemned or not. What I am interested in is simple: Has anyone - anytime, anywhere - been canonically disciplined for not severing communion with an accused heretic who has yet to be brought to trial, either by a major regional or Pan-Orthodox synod?

[Pravoslavnik]

Christophoros,

Code: Select all

    What relevance can your question possibly have if it does not reference actual, real circumstances within the Church?  It is like speculating about how many angels can dance on the head of a theoretical pin.  Furthermore, who within the [i]true Church[/i] would "depose" someone for communing with one who has not been declared a heretic by the [i]true Church[/i]?  A more relevant question for all of us today would be, "[i]Where is the true Church in the 21st century?[/i]"  Would you care to respond to an existentially relevant question like that?

[Christophoros]

"What relevance can your question possibly have if it does not reference actual, real circumstances within the Church?"

You are either being facetious or are ignorant (I believe the former!)

The real circumstances that have previously existed in the Church are almost too numerous to measure: Look at the history of Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, Papism, any of the multitudinous heresies which have existed in the past. There was a time between when these heresies arose and spread, and when they were formally condemned by a synod , either regional or Pan-Orthodox / Oecumenical. The time frame always amounted to at least a few years to many decades.

Was anyone canonically disciplined - that is, deposed or defrocked, not merely criticized - for remaining in communion with the Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Iconoclasts, etc., prior to their condemnation by a regional or Pan-Orthodox synod?

"It is like speculating about how many angels can dance on the head of a theoretical pin."

Once again, either you are ignorant or being facetious.

"A more relevant question for all of us today would be, Where is the true Church in the 21st century? Would you care to respond to an existentially relevant question like that?"

Not really, because your question diverts the topic of the thread. Feel free to start another thread.

[Sean]

Christophoros,

Your's is an excellent question, and one to which I would like to know the answer myself. However, this hypothetical question does not apply to our own time, as the heresies of ecumenism and sergianism have BOTH been anathematized by regional councils.

[Christophoros]

Given the fact that the canons (31st Apostolic and 15th of the 1st-2nd Synod) permit the severing of communion from bishops openly preaching previously condemned heresies in church (and the example given in the lives of many Fathers), and the observation that no one has ever been disciplined by the Church for not doing so, logically leads to the conclusion that "walling off" is not required but ultimately optional up until the accused is officially judged by the Church.

On the issue of whether severing communion is optional or not, I came across the opinion of renowned Serbian canonist Bishop Nikodim (Milash) of Zara on this matter, who wrote in his book, The Canons of the Orthodox Church, with a Commentary, on page pp. 290-291:

"But if a Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch begins to preach publicly in Church some heretical teaching opposed to Orthodoxy, then the aforementioned individuals have the right and, at the same time, the duty to separate themselves forthwith from that Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch, for they will not only be subject to no canonical penalty, but will even be praised, since they have, thereby, not condemned or risen up against legitimate bishops, but against pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they have not, in doing so, inaugurated a schism in the Church, but, on the contrary, have, as far as they were able, delivered the Church from schism and division." (emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, the value of Bishop Nikodim's authority is somewhat compromised since, in the same book, he writes that baptisms performed outside the Church are valid if they are done in the name of the Trinity: "But if there are other Christian groups who are outside the Orthodox Church and who have conscientious intention to bring a newly-baptized person into the Church of Christ (that is, they intend to impart divine grace to him through baptism, that by the power of the Holy Spirit he will become a true member of the Body of Christ and a reborn child of God), then the baptism received in such a group will be considered valid insofar as it has been performed on the basis of a faith in the Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; for when baptism is given and received with faith, it must be effective to impart grace and Christ's help will not fail to be made manifest. Any group with a distorted teaching on God which does not recognize the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, cannot perform a valid baptism, and any baptism which is performed by them is not a baptism because it is outside Christianity. On this account, the Orthodox Church recognizes as valid and salvific the baptism of any Christian group which is outside her confines, whether heretical or schismatic, but whose baptism is truly performed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (page 283)

[drewmeister2]

The book defending against Fr. Basil's writings is out:

The Church of Patristic Tradition
A Response to the Orthodox Christian
Information Center Website

by Hieromonk Patapios, Archbishop Chrysostomos,
and Bishop Auxentios

$5.00 — 54 pp.

(staple-bound with laminated cover)

A bril­li­ant state­ment sup­port­ing the Patris­tic nature of our eccle­si­ol­ogy of resis­tance in response to a com­men­tary by Web­mas­ter Pat­rick Barnes on an arti­cle by Monk Basil of Greg­oriou Mon­as­tery, posted on the Ortho­dox Chris­tian Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter website. www.ctosonline.org

[GOCTheophan]

I can agree from the above stated Canons that "walling off" is optional, but what I have a big problem with is the condemnations from the "walled off" towards the rest of the Church.

My life would be so much easier if I could reconcile my conscience with believing World Orthodoxy was the Church. "Walling off" was an option I did not under any circumstances want to take. Though neither have the mandate of Heaven I would be much happier for someone to be World Orthodox than a Kyprianite.

Theophan.