(St. Nectarios Educational Series, Number 3)
In your periodical you reproach us, saying, “They shamelessly place the Bishop in the place of Christ.” We never thought that you could make such a blunder – one which is inexcusable on account of your education. Is not the bishop the living icon of Christ? Does not St. Ignatius of Antioch, the God-bearer, say that the Church is where the bishop is and that we are to obey him as Christ?[2] Why, in the Liturgy, do we first cense the bishop nine times and then the icon of Christ only three times? Is it not because the bishop is the living icon of Christ? Does not the bishop in the Liturgy take the position of Christ, and the priests that of the Apostles, and even as Christ gave communion to the Disciples so the bishop gives communion to the clergy? It is most clear from the teachings of the Fathers, the canons, the Liturgies, etc., that the bishop is the icon of Christ. Your error in equating us with the Roman Catholics in this respect, claiming that we even surpass them, is that whereas the Roman Catholics insist that one bishop alone (that of Rome) has the prerogative of representing Christ, the Orthodox correctly teach that all bishops share in this prerogative to the same degree. That is, while there are distinctions between Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, and Bishops from an administrative point of view, yet from the point of view of their ordination and so far as concerns the gifts of the Holy Spirit which are transmitted to them, all bishops are equal and all are living icons of Christ to their respective flocks. Therefore, how grave it is if a bishop be found to be a false icon of Christ—that is, a pseudo-bishop!
But of all your errors and slips, the one which astounded us most was your statement, “The neo-Donatists that have arisen in the Church would have us believe that the authority of a bishop rests on his spiritual status and degree of Orthodoxy.” In the end you reproach us for holding that “Holiness and Orthodoxy remain the only criteria of canonicity.” What else shall we hear! What, pray tell us, is the criterion by which we can determine if a bishop is Orthodox, if it is not his Orthodoxy and the correct celebration of the Divine Mysteries? Is it the length of his beard or the shine of his vestments, or the glitter of the rhinestones in his mitre, or empty titles such as Archbishop of North and South America (can you imagine, one ruling bishop for a whole hemisphere!) and Exarch of the Atlantic & Pacific (even the oceans and the fish have not escaped)? What makes a bishop? The mere laying-on of hands and a claim to a physical “Apostolic Succession?” Do not even the Latins have as much? And yet we do not recognize them as bishops, but hold them to be pseudo-bishops; and this is so only because they have departed from the Orthodox Faith and consequently have no grace in the Mysteries they claim to perform. A bishop is a bishop as long as he adheres to the Orthodox Faith. We do not believe in a magical operation of grace. Where heresy has entered, grace departs. Bishops who preach heresy “publicly with bared heads” are “not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers,” according to the XV Canon of the First and Second Council. This is why the Orthodox insist on the Orthodoxy of the bishop, because our unity with Christ (which is in the Mysteries) is broken if he is a heretic. The validity of the Mysteries celebrated, therefore, depends on the Orthodoxy of the bishop commemorated. The bishop is par excellence the “Canon of Faith.” A hundred pious priests cannot make one bishop; whereas one bishop, even though his private life may not be exemplary, as long as he adheres to the Orthodox Faith can make a hundred priests, and our unity with Christ in the Mysteries remains unbroken. A bishop’s or a priest’s sinfulness will not impede our union with Christ, but a bishop’s heresy immediately separates both himself and all who continue to have communion with him from the Church. For the Orthodox, the criterion par excellence of the canonicity of the bishop is his Orthodoxy. Only for heretics is this irrelevant.
We have never reproached bishops in the Greek Archdiocese or other jurisdictions for not working miracles or for not being paragons of virtue and holiness – nor even for immorality, as you do; nor do we make groundless remarks such as yours in the third issue of The Logos about Bishop Meletios, whom we respect. But we do censure them for spiritual unfaithfulness to their Bride and for breaking the canons. Especially we reproach them for being men of dishonor and perjurers in that they have not kept the oaths they took when they were consecrated bishops – that is, to uphold the dogmas, teachings, canons, and traditions of the Orthodox Church.
If we have imitated the Holy Mountain and have cut off all communion with Patriarch Athenagoras and Archbishop Iakovos it is because they teach heresy openly. And that they teach heresy there can be no doubt, for their statements and actions are clear on this point.
He who publicly claims to have “one and the same Gospel, the same Baptism, the same Faith in Christ, the same Holy Cup, the same Church”[3] as heretics, is totally a heretic also. No: we do not have the same Gospel, Baptism, Faith, Cup, and Church as heretics. If we did, why even bother to claim that we are Orthodox? He who publicly preaches that “In this movement towards union, there is no question of one Church going towards the other, but of all together coming towards the common Christ; nor is there any question of submitting to another, but together we shall re-found [let heaven hear and earth shudder!] the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church co-existent in East and West, as we existed until 1054, in spite of the then existing theological differences,”[4] is not only a heretic but a criminal, for he destroys countless souls with his soul-corrupting heresy. It is of such that Our Lord said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven: ye yourselves enter not, neither allow ye them that are coming in to enter.”[5]
Nor does one have to await a synodical censure of Patriarch Athanegoras, since his heresies do not concern theologoumena[6] so-called, but the very nature and essence of the Church – things clearly defined and dogmatized by the Church in combating heresies throughout the centuries. Thus, even as generations of Orthodox had no communion with the iconoclast bishops and the Uniate bishops after Florence, and did not wait for any synod to tell them to disavow them, since the issues were only too clearly matters of heresy—thus also the Fathers of the Holy Mountain and the true Orthodox Christians have disowned these new heretics. “But as for those who on account of some heresy condemned by the Holy Synods or Fathers sever themselves from communion with their president (bishop), that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before synodical clarification, but they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church’s unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church” (Canon XV of the First and Second Council).
In vain do these false shepherds demand blind papal obedience to themselves from the Orthodox. Obedience, yes! But to what? Obedience to personal egos and despotisms when the Faith is bartered and everything is trampled upon? Obedience to disobedience? Never! And this is exactly what it amounts to. They want blind obedience to their disobedience. But we say a thousand times no to such insanity. We shall be in total obedience to them as long as they are obedient to the Church. But when they cease to respect the Church and are disobedient to the canons and dogmas of the Fathers, then we also cease to respect them and are obedient to the Church rather than to blatant disobedience and heresy. In such instances we answer with the Apostles, “We must obey God rather than men.”[7] “There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”
After the false union at Florence, St. Mark of Ephesus was reproached and threatened by the Pope, who reminded him of the punishments appointed by the Ecumenical Councils for those who should dare to disobey their decrees, even as you now reproach us with so many quotations from the Fathers concerning those who create schisms and dissensions. St. Mark answered, “The Councils sentenced those who would not obey the Church, and held opinions contrary to her doctrine. I express not my own opinions, I introduce nothing new into the Church, neither do I defend any errors. But I steadfastly preserve the doctrine which the Church, having received from Christ our Saviour, has kept and keeps … And who can slander, or put down this doctrine? If I stand steadfast in this doctrine, and do not wish to reject it, who dares to judge me as a heretic? You must first judge the doctrine I defend; but if that is received unanimously as being holy and orthodox, how is it, then, that I merit judgment?”