The Word "Anathema" and
it's meaning
by Saint John Maximovitch - from "Orthodox Life",
Vol.27, Mar-April 1977, pp 18,19.
Source:
www.orthodox.net/articles/anathema-st-john.html
The Greek word "anathema"
consists of two words: "ana", which is a preposition
indicating movement upwards and "thema", which means a
separate part of something. In military terminology, "thema"
meant a detachment; in civil government "thema" meant a
province. We currently use the word "theme", derived
from "thema", to mean a specific topic of a written and
intellectual work.
"Anathema" literally means
the lifting up of something separate. In the Old
Testament this expression was used both in relation to
that which was alienated due to sinfulness and likewise
to that which was dedicated to God.
In the New Testament, in
the writing of the Apostle Paul it is used once in
conjunction with "maranatha", meaning the coming of the
Lord. The combination of these words means separation
until the coming of the Lord; in other words - being
handed over to Him (1
Cor.16:22).
The Apostle Paul uses
"anathema" in another place without the addition of
"maranatha" (Gal 1:8-9).
Here "anathema" is proclaimed against the distortion of
the Gospel of Christ as it was preached by the Apostle,
no matter by whom this might be committed, whether by
the Apostle himself or an angel from the heavens. In
this same expression there is also implied: "let the
Lord Himself pass judgment", for who else can pass
judgment on the angels?
St John the Theologian in
Revelation (22:3) says
that in the New Jerusalem there will not be any
anathema; this can be understood in two ways, giving the
word anathema both meanings: 1) there will not be any
lifting up to the judgment of God, for this judgment has
already been accomplished; 2) there will not be any
special dedication to God, for all things will be the
Holy things of God, just as the light of God enlightens
all (Rev 21:23).
In the acts of the
Councils and the further course of the New Testament
Church of Christ, the word "anathema" came to mean
complete separation from the Church. "The Catholic and
Apostolic Church anathematizes", "let him be anathema",
"let it be anathema", means a complete tearing away from
the church. While in cases of "separation from the
communion of the Church" and other "epitimia" or
penances laid on a person, the person remained a member
of the Church, even though his participation in her
grace filled life was limited, those given over to
anathema were thus completely torn away from her until
their repentance. Realizing that she is unable to do
anything for their salvation, in view of their
stubbornness and hardness of heart, the earthly church
lifts them up to the judgment of God. That judgment is
merciful unto repentant sinners, but fearsome for the
stubborn enemies of God. "It is a fearful thing to fall
into the hands of the living God ... for our God is a
consuming fire" (Heb 10:31
; 12:29).
Anathema is not final
damnation: until death repentance is possible.
"Anathema" is fearsome not because the Church wishes
anyone evil or God seeks their damnation. They desire
that all be saved. But it is fearsome to stand before
the presence of God in the state of hardened evil:
nothing is hidden from Him.
On The Synodikon Of Orthodoxy
by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos
Source:
www.preachersinstitute.com
The “Synodikon of
Orthodoxy” is a text contained in the “Triodion” and
read on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the first Sunday of
Lent.
It is well known that
through the ages various heresies have appeared which
deny the experience of revelation and in fact make use
of philosophy and conjecture, doubting the Church’s
truth on various dogmatic topics. The Fathers who formed
the Synods opposed these errors. The decisions of the
Synods on dogmatic topics are called “provisions”. More
generally speaking, each decision of the Synods is
called a “Synodikon”. Thus we have the synodical tome
and the synodical provision, and moreover, each synod
has its own synodikon.
The “Synodikon of
Orthodoxy” is the decisions of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council, which refer to the veneration of holy icons.
The reading of them on the Sunday of Orthodoxy gave the
title “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”. Of course it must be
said that later there was also added to the “Synodikon
of Orthodoxy” the definition of faith of the hesychastic
Councils of the fourteenth century. Thus the “Synodikon
of Orthodoxy” comprises the decisions of both the
Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Councils of the
fourteenth century, which, as will be said below, have
all the elements to characterise and regard as a Ninth
Ecumenical Council.
An analysis will be made
of the “Synod of Orthodoxy” in its central points. There
will not be a broader analysis of the whole Council, but
what I consider to be the main points will be
emphasised, because they express the ethos of the Church.
And this is necessary, because the mind of the Church is
linked to, and in harmony with the decisions of the
Fathers of the Church as it has been expressed with
conciliar authority.
l. Church and Synods
However, before proceeding
to analyse the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”, I think it well
to examine briefly the large subject of the relationship
of the Church with the Synod.
When some heresy springs
up, the holy Fathers confront it at the place where it
appears. Arios, who proclaimed that Christ is the first
creature of God and essentially denied the divinity of
Christ, was confronted by the Council of Alexandria. But
then, when his heretical opinions began to be
disseminated beyond the borders of Alexandria as well,
the subject was confronted by the First Ecumenical
Council. The holy Fathers were called together to make a
common decision about the formulation of the orthodox
teaching. In the Councils the holy Fathers did not seek
to find the truth, making conjectures by reasoning and
imagination, but in order to confront the heretics they
attempted to formulate in words the already existing
revealed Truth, of which they also had their own
personal experience.
St. Nikodemos the
Hagiorite divides the Councils into Ecumenical, Local
and Rural. This division is not according to subjects,
but according to the persons who brought them together,
for it is possible that the subjects of the Local
Councils can refer to serious dogmatic questions.
A Rural Council is a
meeting which is convoked by the Bishop, Metropolitan or
Patriarch alone with his own Clergy, without the
presence of other Bishops.
A Local Council is a
meeting in which the Metropolitan or Patriarch joins
with his own Bishops or Metropolitans. This takes place
when the Bishop of a district or the Bishops of two
districts come together to confront various burning
questions of the Church.
An Ecumenical Council is
the assembly of many Bishops from all districts in order
to discuss and decide about a question of the Church.
The Ecumenical Council has four distinguishing marks
according to St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite. The first is
that it is convened
“by
order, not of the Pope nor of such and such a
Patriarch, but by Royal orders”.
The second
is that there should be discussion of topics of faith
“and afterwards a
decision and a dogmatic definition should be
published in each one of the Patriarchates”.
The third is that the
dogmas must be correct in their orthodoxy and in
agreement with the divine Scriptures, or the previous
Ecumenical councils”. The words of Maximos the Confessor
are characteristic:
“The right faith
validates the meetings that have taken place,
and again, the correctness of the dogmas judges
the meetings”.
And the fourth is that it
must have universal recognition. All the orthodox
Patriarchs and Archbishops of the catholic Church must
“agree and accept
the decisions and canonisings by the Ecumenical
Councils, either through their personal presence
or through their own delegates, and in their
absence, through their letters”.
These characteristic marks
mentioned by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite are noteworthy.
But I must clarify two of them, the first and fourth,
which are those most characteristic of the Ecumenical
Councils and distinguish them from the other, Local
Councils.
One is that the Ecumenical
council was convened by the emperors, when Christianity
had become an official religion of the Empire, and the
emperor wanted to make the definition of the Ecumenical
Council a law of the Empire for the peace of the
Citizens. Fr. George Florovsky observes:
“In a certain
sense the General Councils as inaugurated at
Nicaea, may be described as “Imperial Councils”,
die Reichskonzile, and this was probably the
first and original meaning of the term ‘Ecumenical’,
as applied to the Councils”.
The other was that the
authenticity of the Ecumenical Councils as well as that
of the other Councils was given chiefly by the deified
and god-bearing Fathers. Fr. Georges Florovsky observes
also at this point:
“the ultimate
authority –and the ability to discern the truth
in faith– is vested in the Church which is
indeed a ‘Divine institution’ in the proper and
strict sense of the word, whereas no Council and
no ‘Conciliar institution’ is ‘de jure divino’,
except in so far as it happens to be a true
image or manifestation of the Church herself”.
Then he says:
“The claims of the
Councils were be accepted or rejected in the
Church not on formal or ‘canonical’ grounds. And
the verdict of the Church has been highly
selective. The Council is not above the Church,
this was the attitude of the ancient Church”.
In the foregoing chapters
we explained in brief who are the true members of the
Church, who are the living and who the dead members of
the Church. So we can say that the mind of the Church is
expressed by its deified saints. Therefore, finally, all
the Ecumenical Councils rest upon the teaching of the
saints of the past. The reader can find this view
developed in an earlier study of mine. Here I want only
to mention Georges Florovsky’s opinion that
“both a few and
solitary confessors of the faith were able to
express this experience, and this is enough… the
holy worthiness of the meeting does not depend
on the number of members who represent their
church. A great “general” synod would be able to
be proven a synod of thieves (latrocinium) or
even of apostates… But it is possible in a synod
for the minority to express the truth. And most
significant, the truth could be revealed even
without a synod. The opinions of the Fathers and
ecumenical Teachers of the Church often have
greater spiritual value and explicitness than
the definite decisions of synods. These opinions
are not necessary to confirm and to be
demonstrated by “ecumenical agreement”.
Likewise, I would also
like to mention the opinion of Fr. John Romanides, that
all the holy Fathers followed the same method and had
personal experience of the truths of the Faith. Their
meeting in an Ecumenical Council gave them the
opportunity to agree on the same terminology for the
same revealed experience. He writes characteristically:
“Neither
illumination nor glorification can be
institutionalised. The sameness of this
experience of illumination and glorification
among those having the gifts of grace, who have
these states, does not necessarily require
sameness of dogmatic expression, especially when
those gifted are geographically far apart over
long periods of time. In any case when they meet,
they easily agree about the same form of
dogmatic formulation of their identical
experiences. A great impetus towards identical
dogmatic expression was given at the time when
Christianity became an official religion of the
Roman Empire and satisfied the Empire’s need to
distinguish the genuine healers from the pseudo-physicians,
in the same way in which the governing officials
are responsible for distinguishing genuine
members of the medical profession from the
quacks and embezzlers of medical science, for
the protection of their citizens”.
With these basic
preconditions the Ecumenical Councils are unerring and
express the consciousness and the life of the Church.
And of course the terms of the Ecumenical Councils have
value, because, on the one hand, they assure the
possibility of salvation, and on the other hand they
indicate the true way for man’s cure, for attaining
deification. We can say that the terms of the Ecumenical
Councils are not philosophical nor do they serve
philosophy, but they are theological, that is to say
therapeutic, and they aim at the cure of man. Therefore
we owe great thanks to the Fathers who formed the
Ecumenical Councils and acted as ecclesiastic
personalities.
2. The two Ecumenical Councils
In the “Synodikon of
Orthodoxy” there is reference to all the Fathers who
formed the Ecumenical Councils, but mainly it was
limited to mentioning and referring to two Councils with
great authority and great authenticity. They are the
Seventh Ecumenical Council, which ruled about the
veneration of the holy icons, and the one taken to be
the Ninth Ecumenical Council, which ruled about the
uncreated essence and the uncreated energy of God, as
well as ruling in an inspired way about hesychasm, the
way which we should use in order to reach deification.
The Seventh Ecumenical
Council was convoked by the grace of God, and the
“decree of the devout and God-loving sovereigns
Constantine and Irene, his mother”, as it is said in the
definition of faith of this Council. Indeed it is said
that
“the Lord God in
His good will convoked us the leaders of the
priesthood everywhere, with the divine zeal and
consent of Constantine and Irene, our most
faithful sovereigns”.
They contrast themselves
with the heretics who, while said to be priests, in
reality are not”, for they have made accusation against
the true faith of the Church
“following impious
men of the same persuasions”.
Many things appear in this
text. First, that the Ecumenical Council is convened in
the name of the Imperial Sovereigns. Secondly, that the
heretics, while they are priests, are really not, since
the apostolic succession is not only the uninterrupted
priesthood, but also adherence to the apostolic
tradition and teaching. Thirdly, that the heretics
repudiate the catholic teaching of the Church and follow
philosophers, who have their own opinions and
conceptions.
Appearing in the
“definition of faith” of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
is the orthodox teaching about veneration of the holy
icons, because “honour paid to the image passes on to
the original” and “he who venerates the image is
venerating in it the person of him who is depicted
therein”.
In the “Synodikon of
Orthodoxy” the whole faith of the Church concerning the
veneration of the holy icons is conserved.
The possibility of
painting an icon of Christ is proclaimed precisely
because he became incarnate and assumed human nature in
fact, not in imagination. In the person of the Word the
divine nature was united with the human nature immutably,
unchangeably, inseparably and indivisibly. That is
confessed which is different in essences and was united
in this way in the one hypostasis of the Logos
“the created and
the uncreated, the visible and the invisible,
the passible and the impassible, the limited and
the unlimited”.
To the divine essence
belongs the uncreated, the invisible, the impassible and
the unlimited, while to the human essence belongs, apart
from the other things, also the circumscribed. For this
reason we can make icons of Christ, because He became
incarnate. Anyone who does not tolerate “icon painting
of the incarnate Word, and His sufferings on our behalf”
is anathematised.
Also, in the “Synodikon of
Orthodoxy” it is proclaimed that by bowing before the
holy icons and by looking at them, the eyes too are
sanctified and the nous is lifted up towards the
knowledge of God. It is written characteristically:
“the lips of those
sanctifying by the word, or the ears by the word
of those knowing and proclaiming, just as the
eyes of those who see are sanctified by the pure
Icons, the nous is lifted up by them towards
knowledge of God, just as also by the divine
temples and holy implements and other precious
vessels”.
Thus we have the
possibility to venerate the flesh of God and to be
sanctified by this veneration, naturally according to
the condition in which we are, since the flesh of Christ
is characterised as
“equal to God and
of equal worth”.
The Ninth Ecumenical
Council in the time of St. Gregory Palamas was concerned
with another doctrinal topic, which is a sequel to the
topics that concerned the early Church. In the fourth
century the holy Fathers confronted the heresy of Areios,
who taught that the Word of God is a creature. St.
Gregory Palamas in his time confronted the heresy of
Barlaam, who said that God’s energy is created.
Furthermore, as we said, the Council “justified”
hesychasm, which is the only method that leads man to
deification.
We must say that
everything in the Ninth Ecumenical Council has all the
elements and hallmarks which we cited above to qualify
it as an Ecumenical Council.
First, it is convoked by
emperors. In the synodical tome of 1341 A.D. it is said,
among other things:
“Then when the
meeting had gathered, also in the presence of
the eternal and blessed ruler… of the
convocation and not a few of the most worthy
archimandrites and abbots and assembled members
of the government…”.
All three Councils which
were convoked in this period on the doctrinal topic
which was concerning the Church at that time, were
convoked by order and in the presence of the emperors.
Then, as we said before,
the subject of the uncreated energy of God, as well as
what was called hesychasm were serious theological
questions. That is to say, they are not subjects that
refer to a few canonistic questions, but serious
dogmatic themes that refer to man’s salvation. For if
God’s energy is created, then we end either in
agnosticism or pantheism. We cannot attain communion
with God. And if hesychasm, the way of the orthodox
tradition by which we are cured and attain deification,
is replaced by philosophy, this too destroys the true
preconditions for man’s salvation. Therefore these
subjects are most serious.
Many contemporary
theologians believe that the Councils of St. Gregory
Palamas’s time should be considered to constitute and
compose the Ninth Ecumenical Council. And this is
because they were called together by the emperors, were
concerned with a doctrinal topic of great importance,
and St. Gregory Palamas, who has attained deification
and therefore had personal experience of deification,
was battling in them. I would like to refer to the
opinion of Father Athanasios Gievtits, who says:
“But we think that
the Council of Constantinople at the time of St.
Gregory Palamas in 1351, judging at least from
its great theological work, can be, and deserves
to be counted among the Ecumenical Councils of
the Orthodox Church, lacking in nothing as to
the soteriological significance of its theology.
This Council constitutes the proof of the
conciliarity of the Orthodox Church and of the
living experience and theology concerning
salvation in Christ”.
This is also the
conscience of the Church. That is why in the “Synodikon
of Orthodoxy” which existed already and was read in the
Churches, about the victory and triumph of the Orthodox,
they added also “the chapters against Barlaam and
Akindynos”, from what is called the Ninth Ecumenical
Council. Emperor Kantakuzinos, at the last Council which
was concerned with this topic, that is to say in the
Council of 1351 A.D., summarised the conclusions of the
meetings and decisions, while St. Philotheos Kokkinos,
then Metropolitan of Heraklia, assisted by George
Galisiotis and the wise Maximos put together the
synodical tome from the records. Finally, the
hesychastic teaching entered into the “Synodikon of
Orthodoxy” for the first time, on the Sunday of
Orthodoxy in 1352 A.D. in order for the heretics to be
anathematised and all who expressed the orthodox
teaching to be acclaimed. After the death of St. Gregory
Palamas acclaim for him was added.
3. Anathemas – Acclamations
Anyone who reads the
“Synodikon of Orthodoxy” will discover at once that, on
the one hand, the heretics are anathematised and on the
other hand the holy Fathers and confessors are acclaimed.
For the former those present proclaim “anathema” three
times, for the latter the people proclaim “eternal
memory” three times at each proposal.
Some people are
scandalised when they see and hear such action,
particularly when they hear “anathema”. They consider it
very harsh and say that the spirit of hatred of other
doctrines which the Orthodox Church has is being
expressed in this way.
But the facts are not
interpreted in this way. The anathemas cannot be
regarded as philosophical ideas and as states of hatred
for other doctrines, but as medical actions. First of
all the heretics by the choice which they have made have
ended in heresy and in their departing from the teaching
of the Church. By using philosophy they have opposed
themselves to theology and the Revelation. In this way
they demonstrate that they are ill and in reality are
cut off from the Church. Then excommunication has the
meaning of showing the separation of the heretic from
the Church. The holy Fathers by this action of theirs
confirm the already existing condition, and besides this,
they help the Christians to protect themselves from the
heresy-illness.
There is a characteristic
extract from the records of the Fourth congress of the
Seventh Ecumenical Council. It says there that the holy
Fathers fulfil the word of Christ, in order to set the
lamp of divine knowledge “on the lampstand” to shine on
all those in the house and not to hide it from them
“under a bushel”. In this way those who confess the Lord
are helped to travel unimpeded the path of salvation.
The holy Fathers
“push away every
error of heretics, and if the rotten limb is
incurable they cut it off; and possessing the
shovel, they cleanse the threshing-floor; and
the grain, or the nourishing word, that which
supports the heart of man, they store up in the
warehouse of the Catholic Church, but the chaff
of the heretical wrong teaching they throw out
and burn in unquenchable fire”.
Thus the heretics are
incurably rotten limbs of the Church and are therefore
cut off from the Body of the Church. The heretics must
be examined in this light. In this way one can see the
Church’s love for mankind. For, as we have emphasised
elsewhere as well, when someone employs erroneous
medical teaching, there are no therapeutic results, one
can never achieve the cure. The same is true with the
doctrines or the erroneous teaching. An erroneous
teaching which is based on a wrong methodology can never
lead man to deification.
It is in this light that
we must examine the fact that the anathemas as well as
the acclamations are referred to particular persons,
because these particular persons are the ones who shape
these teachings and as a result win adherents. And
indeed it is characteristic that dreadful epithets are
used for the heretics. We must add that the awful
epithets which are used must not be examined in a moral
sense, but in a theological sense, for many of the
leaders of heresies were “moral” men. In what follows I
would like to look at a few such epithets and some very
indicative characterisations.
The iconoclasts who
inveighed against the holy icons are called in the
“Synodikon of Orthodoxy” “damaging” to the glory of God,
“venturers against the
icon and insolent, cowardly and fleeing”.
Those who started the
heresy of iconoclasm, in the time of the Isaurians were
called
“sacrilegious and
leaders of perdition”.
The Gerontios is
anathematised for “the poison of its abominable heresy…
with its perverse dogmas”. Heresy is an illness and the
heretical dogmatic belief is perverse, because it twists
the truth of the revelation of the Church. Anathema is
given to
“the raging
gathering against the venerable Icons”.
As we said, all the
heretics are mentioned in the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”.
By this it seems, on the one hand, that all the heretics
used the same method and in essence coincide with one
another, and on the other hand, that both the Seventh
Ecumenical Council and what is taken to be the Ninth
Ecumenical Council regard themselves as expressing the
Church and as a continuation of the earlier Ecumenical
Councils. Arios is called a fighter against God and
ringleader of the heresies, Peter the Purifier is called
mad. The same characterisation “mad” is used of many
heretics. Of course they are called mad not in a
biological sense, but first and foremost in the
theological sense. Barlaam, Akindynos, leaders of the
anti-hesychastic teachings and all their followers are
called an evil gang. By contrast, for the defenders of
the orthodox teachings such adjectives as devout, most
holy, and unforgettable are used.
And again I must point out
that heresy reverses the true way of man’s cure for
reaching deification. If we think that purification of
the heart, illumination of the nous is therapy in order
for man to take the path to deification, then we
understand that heresy reverses this way and leaves man
permanently without a cure, without hope of cure and
salvation.
4. Some characteristic signs
Of course it is impossible
for us to analyse and interpret the whole wonderful and
significant of the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”. The reader
should go through it carefully and he will discover its
importance. But I would like to have us look at some
characteristic points which I think are the basis of all
that is said in the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy” but also
the basis of the Christian life, and which are the
things that show to what extent we possess the genuine
mind of the Church.
a) The condemnation of philosophy
In the whole text of the
“Synodikon of Orthodoxy” it is seen clearly that
philosophy is condemned. Both the way in which
philosophy refers to and presents God and the
conclusions to which it comes are condemned. And of
course, in speaking of philosophy, we mean metaphysics
as it was developed by Plato, Aristotle and other, later
philosophers. We shall see what kinds of heretical
teachings are cast out and rejected.
Those are rejected which
accept the impious dogmas of the Greeks, that is to say
the idolatrous ones, which refer to the creation of the
world and to human souls and mix them up with the
teaching of the Church. Characteristically it is said:
“To those who have promised to revere the Orthodox and
Catholic Church, and instead disgracefully introduce the
irreverent dogmas of the Greeks about men’s souls, and
heaven, and earth, and the other created things,
anathema”. It should be pointed out that those who
accept the dogmas of the Greeks but present themselves
as devout are anathematised. It seems that also at that
time there were men who, among other things, feigned
reverence and had fine manners but did not accept the
dogmatic teaching of the Church.
Yet it is not these works
of the philosophers that are anathematised, but the fact
that the teachings of the philosophers are preferred to
the Faith, and that philosophy is used to distort the
truth of the Church. It is not forbidden to study the
works of the ancient Greeks, that is, of the pagans, but
those Christians are reproached who follow and accept
their futile theories. Anathema is pronounced “on those
who accept the Greek teachings, not on those who only
cultivate them for culture, but on those who also follow
these futile doctrines of theirs”. And as we said before,
those are censured who prefer
“the foolish so-called
wisdom of the profane philosophers”
to the orthodox teaching.
The “Synodikon of
Orthodoxy” does not stay on a theoretical plane but also
proceeds to concrete topics which it condemns. And, as
will be discovered, it refers to basic teachings of
philosophy, of so-called metaphysics. Among these is
Plato’s teaching about ideas. According to this notion,
there are the ideas, and the whole world is either a
copy of these ideas or a fall from these ideas.
According to Plato, man’s salvation lies in the return
of his soul to the world of the ideas. In the “Synodikon
of Orthodoxy” the holy Fathers condemn this view and
those who accept “the Platonic ideas as true”.
The ancient philosophers
believed that matter has no beginning and all created
things are everlasting and without beginning, and indeed
matter is as old as the Creator of the world. Those who
accepted these things are condemned. Matter and the
world were created by God and do not remain unchangeable.
But also on the subject of
creation philosophy differs from theology. It is a basic
teaching of the Fathers of the Church that the world was
created out of nothing, “out of non-being”, out of
“non-existent matter”. This teaching shakes all the
foundations of philosophy. Philosophy believes, as we
said, that matter is everlasting. So those who accept
that “all things did not come into being from nonbeing”
are condemned by the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”.
Philosophy also differs on
the subject of the soul, and therefore all who accept
its views are condemned. The ancient philosophers
believed in the pre-existence of the soul, in
transmigrations and in the fact that the soul has an end,
that at some time the soul will die. Such teachings have
also entered into some theologians of the Church, and so
they too are condemned. All are anathematised who accept
“that souls have pre-existence” as well as all who
accept
“the
transmigration of human souls, or even that they
are destroyed by dumb animals, which are
received into nonbeing”, and therefore they deny
“resurrection, judgement, and the final reward
for the conduct of their lives”.
Likewise all those are
condemned who assert that men will be raised with other
bodies and will not be judged
“with them
according to how they conducted themselves in
the present life”.
Correspondingly, also
those are condemned who accept the belief of the
philosophers that there will be a restoration of all
things, that is to say, “that there is an end to hell or
a restoration again of creation, and of human affairs”.
As there are even today,
so there were then as well, men who considered the
philosophers to be superior to the Fathers of the Church
and therefore accepted their teachings. However, all are
anathematised who teach that the philosophers, who were
condemned by all the Ecumenical Councils, “are much
greater, both here and in the judgement to come, than
the holy Fathers, all who reject the teachings of the
holy Fathers and the acts of the Ecumenical Councils,
and all who do not take the teachings of the holy
Fathers to be correct and try to “misinterpret them and
turn them round” – all these are anathematised. For the
holy Fathers are bearers of the Tradition, they are
inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We mentioned before that
all the philosophers had a particular method which they
distinguished from the methodology of the holy Fathers.
The philosophers used logic and imagination to interpret
these things, while the holy Fathers attained
illumination of the nous and deification, and in this
way received the Revelation. The erroneous method of the
philosophers as well as those who use it are condemned
by the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”.
By contrast, there is
praise for pure faith and the simple and whole heart.
Concretely, it says:
” To those who do
not accept with a pure faith and a simple and
whole heart that which concerns our Saviour and
God and our pure Theotokos who gave birth to Him,
and who do not accept the remarkable miracles of
the other saints, but who, attempting by proofs
and sophisticated words, to defame them as
impossible or to misinterpret them according to
how it seems to them, giving advice according to
their own opinion, anathema”.
When someone relies only
on logic and imagination, he is on a wrong path. And if
we observe carefully, we shall discover that all the
heretics take this way. They try, through logic and
imagination and by the use of philosophy, to analyse and
understand all the doctrines of the Church. By contrast,
the holy Fathers use a different method, which is called
hesychasm, consisting of purification of the heart,
illumination of the nous and deification.
In saying all these things
we must again emphasise that the philosophers in their
time made a great attempt to interpret some problems
that they were trying to solve. But what we can observe
is that they employed a different method and therefore
fell wide of the mark. By the things said in the
“Synodikon of Orthodoxy”, we are urged not to cease
studying the writings of the philosophers and the
ancient Greeks, but not to use their method, which
consists of conjecture and the rule of logic, and not to
accept their notions, because they corrupt the orthodox
faith. The theories of ideas, of no beginning and of
everlasting matter, of the eternity of the world, of the
pre-existence of souls, of transmigration or
reincarnation, of the creation of the world out of
existent matter, of the restoration of all things, etc.
disturb the teachings of the Church and discredit the
Revelation.
b) The theology of the uncreated Light
We mentioned before that
the Fathers who wrote the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”
condemned philosophy and its method, as well as those
who follow the ancient philosophies and accept their
doctrines. But correspondingly they acclaim the holy
Fathers, who accepted the truth of the Church and
expressed it in their time through their teaching and
confession in the Council. I shall not refer to all
these topics, but I especially want to emphasise what
relates to the theology of the uncreated Light and the
distinction between God’s essence and energy, because
this was one of the most central and basic points in the
Councils of the fourteenth century (1341, 1347, 1351) A.
D.
Barlaam, a real scholastic
theologian of that time, who made use of philosophy at
the expense of the vision of God and gave central place
to his reasoning and conjecture, as is seen from the
tome of the year 1341, maintained that philosophy is
superior to theology and to the vision of God. He said
that the Light on Mt. Thabor was not unapproachable, nor
was it the true light of divinity, nor more holy and
divine than the angels,
“but even inferior
to and lower than this intellect of ours”.
He said that since that
Light falls through the air and strikes the sensory
power etc. , all the concepts and understandings “are
more holy than that light”. That light comes and goes,
because it is imagined, divided and finite. According to
Barlaam,
“we rise from such
a light (rational) to concepts and visions,
which are incomparably better than that light”.
Therefore he said that
anyone who maintains that the Light of the
Transfiguration is beyond conceiving and is true and
unapproachable
“is completely
mistaken. . . irreverent, and so is introducing
very pernicious doctrines into the Church”.
Barlaam said these things
because he had been saturated with the scholastic
theology of the West, since he certainly did not even
know the theology of the Orthodox Church.
At the same time Barlaam
was fighting against the distinction between essence and
energy in God, and especially against the teaching of
the holy Fathers that God’s energy is uncreated.
The orthodox teaching on
this subject is set out in the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”.
It is said that God has essence and energy and that this
distinction does not destroy the divine simplicity. We
confess and believe that
“uncreated and
natural grace and illumination and energy always
proceed inseparably from this divine essence”.
And since, according to
the saints,
“created energy
means created essence as well, but uncreated
energy characterises uncreated essence”,
therefore God’s energy is
uncreated. Indeed the name of divinity is placed not
only upon the divine essence, but
“also on the
divine energy no less”.
This means that in the
teaching of the holy Fathers,
“this (the essence)
is completely incapable of being shared, but
divine grace and energy can be shared”.
Likewise in the “Synodikon
of Orthodoxy” the truth is presented that the Light of
the Transfiguration is not a phantom and a creation, it
is not something which appears and then disappears, but
it is uncreated and a natural grace and illumination and
energy. That is to say, it is the natural glory of
divinity. And this Light, which is God’s uncreated
energy and comes forth indivisibly from the divine
essence, appears
“through God’s
benevolence towards those who have purified
their nous”.
So this uncreated light is
“light unapproachable. . . and boundless light and
incomprehensible nature of divine radiance, and
ineffable glory, and Divinity, supremely perfect glory
and beyond perfection, and timeless glory of the Son,
and kingdom of God, and true beauty, and lovely in its
divine and blessed nature, and natural glory of God, the
Father and Spirit flashing forth in the Only-begotten
Son, and divinity…”
The holy Fathers are
acclaimed who confess
“the divine energy
proceeding from the divine essence, proceeding
undividedly, and because of this proceeding, the
ineffable distinction of the things present, but
because of the `undividedly’, the marvellous
union of the things shown”.
And finally the heretics
who accept such erroneous views, opposed to the teaching
of the holy and god-bearing Fathers, are anathematised.
By contrast, the holy Fathers who express unerringly the
teaching of the Catholic Orthodox Church are acclaimed
and pronounced blessed. Specifically St. Gregory
Palamas, Bishop of Thessaloniki, is praised. He is
praised for two reasons. One because he successfully
confronted and defeated the heretics, who were teaching
erroneous ideas about these crucial theological subjects
and were attempting to introduce into the Church of
Christ
“the Platonic
ideas and those Greek myths”.
The other reason is
because he set forth the orthodox teaching on these
subjects, using all the holy Fathers from Athanasius the
Great to his time as interpreters. So here St. Gregory
Palamas is presented as a successor to the holy Fathers
and champion of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, and
for this reason his name is given special and particular
mention in the “Synodikon”.
The tome of the Synod of
1347 A. D. writes something very important about the
value and authority of St. Gregory Palamas and all those
monks who follow his teaching. It characterises him as
most worthy. And since it anathematises all who do not
accept his teaching and oppose him, it says
“at the same time
that if anyone else is ever caught either
thinking or speaking or writing against the
authority of the said very worthy priestmonk
Gregory Palamas and the monks with him, and
still more against the holy theologians and this
Church, we cast our vote against him, whether he
be a priest or a layman”. That is to say,
whoever speaks against St. Gregory Palamas and
his teaching receives excommunication by the
Synod. And indeed it is written that we hold St.
Gregory Palamas and the monks who agree with him
to be not only superior to those against him, or
still more, to those sophistries against the
Church of God. . . , but we state that they are
protectors of the Church and contenders for the
right faith and procurers and helpers of it”.
Since even today there are
some “theologians” who doubt the teaching of St. Gregory
Palamas and regard it as neo-Platonic, let us listen to
the excommunication and anathematisation of the Synod
which we have mentioned, and in general of the
“Synodikon of Orthodoxy”.
c) Hesychasm
The Church’s theology
which was expressed in the 14th century by St. Gregory
Palamas concerning God’s uncreated energy and the
uncreated Light is closely connected with what is called
the hesychastic movement. For a man to attain this
experience, vision of the uncreated Light, which is
identified with deification, it is not a matter of
developing his reasoning and loading his brain with
knowledge, but a fruit of his purity, of his nous
returning to the heart, and illumination of the nous.
From the acts of the
Synodal tome of the year 1341 A. D. it appears that
Barlaam was disputing the way of life of orthodox
monasticism, the so-called hesychastic way. Indeed, this
is also seen from the whole teaching of St. Gregory
Palamas, especially his refutation of Barlaam’s views in
his well known work “On behalf of the holy hesychasts“.
I would like, however, to mention one excerpt from the
acts of the Synod of 1341. Barlaam said among other
things,
“Of the many
things with which one would have the right to
charge the lecturer on such teaching, I regard
nothing worse than the fact that in undertaking
to upset the mysteries of the Christians by
inhalations he even slanders the Fathers as
having previously thought the things that he is
teaching now”.
In the writings of St.
Gregory Palamas we see a continual removal of the false
doctrine of this teaching of Barlaam, who was trying to
shake the foundations of traditional monasticism.
Barlaam had in view the
monasticism of the West, which had abandoned the
hesychastic method and was busy with a social activity.
In the Middle Ages, through the influence of scholastic
theology, action (praxis), which in patristic theology
is purification of the heart, is interpreted as mission,
and vision, which in the theology of the holy Fathers,
is noetic prayer and vision of the uncreated Light, is
interpreted as mental conjecture about God.
Indeed, inhaling and
exhaling, as well as other methods, are psychotechnical
methods by which the attempt is made to free the nous
from enslavement to the environment and reasoning, and
for it to enter the heart, where its real place is, its
natural state, and from there to rise to the vision of
God. The basic thing is to be able, through the grace of
God and one’s own effort, to concentrate the nous in the
heart. This is what is called hesychasm and the
hesychastic movement. It is the so-called noetic
hesychia, about which so many holy Fathers wrote. By
this method the nous is freed from logic and acquires
its natural and supranatural way. Then it is in its
natural state.
All the holy Fathers
followed the same method, and that is why they ended
with the same conclusions. Hesychasm is the only method
for man’s cure. So there are, on the one hand, the
hesychasts throughout the ages, who are the unalloyed
theologians, and on the other hand, the antihesychasts,
who theologise with their imagination and therefore end
in heresies.
In the Synodikon of 1341
A. D. there is a very meaningful and characteristic
paragraph. Barlaam is condemned, because he was accusing
the monks
“concerning the
holy prayer that occupied them and was often
offered by them”.
The monks practised prayer
and noetic hesychia because, as the whole Tradition also
bears witness, it is the appropriate method for
concentrating the nous in the heart. The Synod accepts
this method, which appears to have been accepted by all
the Fathers of the Church.
But at the same time the
Synod also condemns all those who accept the same views
as Barlaam and make accusation against the monks who try
to live in a hesychastic way, because the monks are
doing nothing else but adopting the method which the
Church has. It says characteristically:
“But also if any
other one of those under him, or any of those
who offend in such things, being subject to this
excommunication by our humbleness, is seen to be
either speaking or writing blasphemously and
with false beliefs against the monks, or still
more against this Church, let him be
excommunicated and cut off from the holy
catholic and apostolic Church of Christ and the
orthodox community of Christians”.
I consider this to be a
very important text and reply to those who not only
condemn contemporary hesychastic monasticism, but
consider it heretical and pursue every means for
liberating themselves from the whole hesychastic
tradition and assign it a place among the
anthropocentric communities or even general religious
conventions of life. The statement that they are cut off
from the Church of Christ is fearful.
d) The divinely inspired theologies of the saint and the
devout mind of the Church
Anyone who studies the
“Synodikon of Orthodoxy” will surely observe, when he
comes to the chapters that refer to the heresy of
Barlaam and Akindynos, that this phrase occurs six times:
“against the God-inspired
theology of the saints and the devout mind of
the Church”.
And indeed he will observe
that the Synod uses the same phrase in opposing all the
heretical views of Barlaam and Akindynos and in
referring to the teaching of the Church on this
particular subject. The heretics are condemned because
they do not believe and do not confess
“in accordance
with the God-inspired theologies of the saints
and the devout mind of the Church”.
We must notice that the
professions of the saints are characterised as God-inspired.
And of course divine inspiration is linked with
Revelation. The saints experienced God, they attained
experience of divine grace, they knew God personally,
they reached Pentecost, they received the Revelation and
therefore are characterised as divinely inspired and
unerring teachers of the Church.
We should underline
particularly the method which they used and the way they
lived in order to become divinely inspired by grace.
This way is hesychasm, which is made explicit in the
three stages of spiritual perfection: purification of
the heart, illumination of the nous and deification.
These deified and God-inspired saints are the Prophets
in the Old Testament, the Apostles and the holy Fathers.
Therefore the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy” says:
“As the Prophets
saw, as the Apostles taught, as the Church
received, as the Teachers laid down as doctrine,
as the World has agreed, as grace has shone”.
So there is identity of
what has been experienced by all the saints, precisely
because they followed the same method, they experienced
the whole mystery of the Cross, which is our flight from
sin, the flight of sin from within us and the ascent to
the vision of God.
Furthermore, the divinely
inspired teaching of the saints is closely connected
with the devout mind of the Church. The Church produces
the saints and the saints express the devout mind of the
Church. Saints cannot be thought of apart from the
Church and saints are unthinkable who have heretical and
erroneous views on serious theological questions.
In the Church, as St.
Gregory Palamas says, there are “those initiated by
experience” and those who follow and revere these tested
ones. Thus if we do not have our own experience on these
matters, we must nevertheless follow the teaching of
those who see God, the deified and experienced saints.
It is only in this way that we have the mind of the
Church and the consciousness of the Church. Otherwise we
open the path to self-destruction in various ways. We
must constantly believe and confess
“in accordance
with the divinely inspired theologies of the
saints and the devout mind of the Church”.
The “Synodikon of
Orthodoxy” is an excellent and very concise text which
is a summing up of the whole orthodox teaching of our
Church. This is why the Church has inserted it in its
worship, on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, and it is read in
an attitude of attention and prayer. It is a holy text.
And we must harmonise with it all our thinking, and
above all, our life.
We need to study it
closely in order to recognise what constitutes the
orthodox faith and orthodox life. And in fact the
orthodox way of life is free of scholasticism and
moralism. It is hesychastic and theological.
Our positive or negative
stand towards this text shows to what extent we are
animated by the orthodox mind of the Church or are
possessed by scholasticism. We are of the Church insofar
as we are of the holy Fathers.
