Giorgio ✠

‘The anti-Catholic arguments of the Holy Fathers acknowledge that Catholics possess the Eucharist. St Mark of Ephesus addresses the Pope of Rome as a most beloved Patriarch, who has resolved to gather together the divided members of the Body of Christ. [...] Here we have a certain community which possesses baptism and the gift of the Spirit, yet lies outside the sphere of salvation because it has lost the faith. Its members are infected with a most grievous disease. As St. Theophan the Recluse aptly put it: “Catholicism is a body with tuberculous lungs.” It is decaying. But there has been no ecclesiastical trial of Catholicism. If such an ecclesiastical trial were to take place, the 9th Ecumenical Council would be convened (the eighth was the Photian Council, the great anti-Catholic Council which condemned the filioque [clause]). The Pope of Rome would be summoned before it, and three formal summonses would be issued. He would arrive, and they would say to him: “Here is the teaching of the Fathers. Are you prepared to agree with it?” He either agrees or he does not. If he agrees, then “thou hast gained thy brother.” If he refuses, what does the Council do? “...For uttering impious blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, let him be deprived of his sacred orders and of all the ranks pertaining thereto...” He has fallen away from the company of those being saved. Before our very eyes, an analogous case occurred with Denysenko.’ [...] ‘There was a decree permitting Orthodox Christians, in extreme circumstances, to enter a Catholic church and receive communion. But we must understand that, for us, receiving Catholic communion would constitute an endorsement of false doctrine. For by attending the Liturgy, we would necessarily be professing the filioque, that is, committing the mortal sin of heresy. The Council condemned the heresy, but not the Catholics. Within the Church there exists a presumption of innocence. Let us recall the Ecumenical Councils, guided by the Holy Spirit. Who participated, for example, in the Seventh Ecumenical Council? Bishops who had been ordained by iconoclasts. By that time, iconoclasm had already been condemned by a Local Council in Rome. Nevertheless, episcopal consecrations continued to be performed and were recognised. The 1st Session of the 7th Ecumenical Council is specifically devoted to heretical ordinations. The monks asked St. Tarasius: “How can someone who has himself blasphemed the Holy Spirit through heresy impart the Holy Spirit?” To this St. Tarasius replied that it is not man who performs the ordination, but God. And a son is not answerable for his father. Likewise, the 6th Ecumenical Council was composed of bishops who had received ordination from Monothelites (the Monothelite heresy had already been condemned by the great Lateran Council, attended by 149 Fathers). In particular, heretical Monothelite bishops were themselves present at the Council. But when the anathemas against heretics were proclaimed, only those who had made explicit professions of heresy were anathematised: Pyrrhus, Paul, Cyrus, Peter, Patriarch Sergius, and Pope Honorius of Rome. Those who had not opposed the heresy, but had not publicly addressed the question of how many wills there are in Christ, were regarded by the Council as Orthodox. 80% of the 2nd Ecumenical Council consisted of men who had been ordained by Arian bishops, although the Arians had already been condemned by the 1st Ecumenical Council. A bishop may himself be outside the company of those being saved, yet God acts through him. For him personally, heresy is perdition. But until a bishop has been excommunicated from the Church, grace operates through him. Otherwise, none of us would have any assurance of the validity of our baptism. Fortunately, however, it is not man who performs baptism, but God; and it is sufficient that the bishop should not be a man who has been deprived of his episcopal orders.’ [...] ‘Hilarion (Troitsky) maintains a position which is grounded neither in Scripture nor in the Fathers of the Church. He holds that, in the Mysteries of heretics, a graceless form is transmitted, which is subsequently filled with the content of grace upon entry into the Church. No such teaching is found among the Fathers of the Church.’ [...] ‘There are cases in which the Church may recognise as invalid an ordination canonically performed by canonical bishops. Maximus the Cynic is an example. That is to say, a particular liturgical act may be declared invalid by an ecclesiastical tribunal. The Church has the authority to take away the gift of God, but she cannot bestow it.’ –Fr. Daniel (Sysoev), Lecture Course on Dogmatic Theology: The Orthodox Church as the Sole Place of Salvation