Breaking communion with the uncondemned

[Christophoros]

I know there are many Patristic excerpts condemning communion with heretics and examples of saints severing communion with accused heretics before they were canonically judged, but I have yet to come across a historical account of any bishop or clergyman being deposed/defrocked for not breaking communion with an accused heretic prior to the heretic's formal condemnation by the Church, whether at the Pan-Orthodox or regional level. They may have been accused of "remaining silent," but I haven't seen any citations from synods formally judging and sentencing anyone in these circumstances. Has anyone come across any examples?

[Christophoros]

The sacred Dositheos of Jerusalem, interpreting Orthodox Ecclesiology very beautifully, presents the way in which the Church faces those who preach within Her heretical dogmas: "Heresy which springs up, if it spreads, an Oecumenical Synod judges and condemns". While after the Synod the unrepentant heretics were completely cut off from ecclesiastical communion.

In some cases the ecclesiastical communion with these innovators was cut off even before a Synodical judgement. The 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod allows this action, as long as it is done with the goal of freeing the Church from the schism and heresy of erring bishops. Because ecclesiastical schism is not something simple, however, the final judgment and cutting off of heretics from the Church, as we previously mentioned, was entrusted to Oecumenical Synods.

The reason for the aforesaid is that heresies are not easily and immediately realized by the faithful pleroma of the Church. Some people communed with bishops who preached heretical beliefs out of ignorance, others for reasons of economy or some other potentially justifiable cause. As such, it wasn't right for them to be considered heretics before the final decision of an Oecumenical Synod. Hence, no sacred Canon or holy Father ever imposed on the Orthodox pleroma the cutting off of ecclesiastical communion with the heretics before a Synodical condemnation, nor was any clergyman punished for maintaining communion prior to said condemnation. This is, of course, not the case with those who continued to maintain communion [with heretics] after the Synodical condemnation.

• Fr. Basil of Grigoriou, "Anti-Patristic: The Stance of the Zealot Old Calendarists"

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anti- ... x?print=ok

[Michael]

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.

[Грешник]

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.

The mindset that says, "We have the right to do this, and we ARE right to do this because you are wrong and because you are wrong and we are right then it must be said that one is a heretic and the other is not.

[Anastasios]

A thorough rebuttal of Fr Basil's unfortunate piece is coming soon. I'll keep you posted.

[Christophoros]

I didn't post the excerpt from Fr. Basil's article because I found the article convincing; he simply mentioned something relevant to the question I asked. I would be interested to read any "rebuttal," but, nonetheless, if no one can show a pattern - or even a single instance - of bishops and clergy being canonically disciplined (and not merely criticized) for not breaking communion with an accused but formally uncondemned heretic, then the right of "walling off" mentioned so often in these discussions, it seems to me, cannot be seen as obligatory.

[Pravoslavnik]

"...not breaking communion with an accused but formally uncondemned heretic..."

Christophoros,

Code: Select all

     Can you please specify which "accused but formally uncondemned heretics" you are referring to in our own times?  I assume that you are not referring to the Sergianist state church administration of the Soviet Union, which was repeatedly, formally condemned by the Higher Church authority of the ROCOR, from 1927 until the time of Metropolitan Laurus Skurla, for violating Church canons regarding secular state intervention in the appointment of hierarchs, and for ecumenical activity supervised by the state for the purpose of concealing the persecution of the Church in the U.S.S.R.