Every year, on the first Sunday of the Great Fast, the Synodicon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council is read in the Orthodox Church. The text of the Synodicon ennumerates and acclaims the names of those who contested for Orthodoxy; likewise, it lists and condemns those who have espoused deviations from the holy Orthodox Faith.
The Synodicon itself is a comprehensive document spanning some six centuries. The earliest part of the text deals with the iconoclast heresy of the eighth century, then it goes on to deal specifically with the heresies of John Italus (12th cent.), the Bogomils (13th cent.), and the errors of Barlaam and Akindynus (14th cent.).
What is especially noteworthy about the Synodicon is that it deals not only with various heresies that had already appeared, but also with heresies that would appear in the future. By the time this historic document was composed, the Church had learned by experience that, often enough, it was quite possible for a heresy to be promoted and supported by individuals “high in authority”. Hence, there would be a small opportunity—if any at all—of calling a Church council to combat the heresy. The Church knew that entire patriarchates, metropolies and archbishoprics might be carried away by the onrush of some new and deceitful doctrine; and who then would be left to call an ecumenical, or even local, council to proclaim and defend Orthodoxy?
Hence, the Church Fathers inserted several clauses into the Synodiconin order to provide for such circumstances. For example, one of the paragraphs of the Synodicon reads as follows:
"All that was innovated and enacted, or that in the future shall be enacted, outside of Church tradition and the teaching and institution of the holy and ever-memorable Fathers, Anathema (thrice)"
Church tradition represents an unbroken continuity. The Church of the first century taught what the Church of the twentieth century teaches, which, in turn, teaches what the Church of the twenty-fifth will be teaching, should the world last that long. Although the Church has responded to various heresies under differing circumstances at different times, yet her teaching remains the same, even as she received it in the beginning inviolate from the Divine Word of the Father.
Therefore, the Church of today cannot modify or alter in any way what our Saviour, and the Apostles and Church Fathers have set down. Any individual who does so automatically excludes himself from the Body of Christ, that is, the Church. This exclusion—signified by the word “anathema,” which means “separated”, “cut off”—is, in fact, a condition brought about by the erring individual himself. If the erring brother, despite the repeated entreaties on the part of the Church, persists in teaching a doctrine alien to the Church, then the Church declares him indeed separated, “anathema,” “cut off “ from herself.
It is precisely because of this unbroken continuity which exists in Holy Tradition, then, that the Synodicon, which was originally composed in the ninth century, can proceed to condemn a heresy which may appear anytime in the future and declare it “anathema”—broken off from this unbroken continuity, and therefore separated from the Church.
For example, a relevant clause of the Synodicon states:
"If anyone does not worship our Lord Jesus Christ depicted in icons according to His humanity, let him be, Anathema (thrice)"
And also:
"To those who knowingly have communion with those who insult and dishonor the venerable icons, Anathema (thrice)"
Here we see that the various Protestant denominations—which, as we know, do not venerate the holy icons—are declared separated from the Church’s unbroken tradition in this matter. But in addition, the Synodicon declares that this separation from the Body of Christ extends even to those who knowingly have communion or fellowship in prayer with those who are thus separated.
In other words, what we have here in the Synodicon—first written in the ninth century—is a rejection and indictment of twentieth century ecumenist practices.
The Synodicon goes on to reject the doctrines of those who do not believe that the Holy Communion is truly the very Body and the very Blood of Christ (this, again, is another Protestant teaching), and also the teachings of those who believe that grace is created, or is indistinguishable from God’s essence (a doctrine espoused by Roman Catholicism, and also by Apostolos Makrakis). Even such sects as, for example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (modern-day Arians) are dealt with.
In short, there is really no need for a “Great Synod” or “Pan-Orthodox Council” to gather today to condemn Ecumenism, Sergianism, and the many other errors and innovations that have appeared since the ninth century. The Synodicon has already provided for this, inasmuch as it has declared as “anathema” any doctrine which was, is, or shall be, at variance with the Church’s tradition.
It is meaningless, therefore, for one to say that such and such a Church council, or such and such a group of bishops, had no right to pronounce an anathema on, say, Ecumenism. Such a statement is meaningless, since even if no local council does pass any resolution against a given heresy, every false doctrine has already been authoritatively condemned from the ninth century! For the same reason, it is completely baseless for one to say that an anathema against an erroneous teaching is only meant for a specific group of Orthodox Christians. Since the Synodicon has already condemned—for all time and for all Orthodox Christians—any deviation from the Church’s tradition, no matter when or where it appears, such objections are completely without theological foundation.
To claim that a present-day anathema against a false teaching is only of a local character is like saying that many of the anathemas which are included in the Synodicon, but which were actually proclaimed centuries later by local councils, are also only of a local character, and therefore not binding on the whole Church. It is tantamount to saying that what is heresy for one group of Orthodox Christians is not necessarily heresy for another group of Orthodox Christians—or perhaps it is a heresy that some Orthodox Christians can dabble in and still mysteriously remain Orthodox.
When one is presented with such untenable arguments, one gets the feeling that they are promoted by people who prefer that words like “anathema” or “heresy” would just go away and disappear. Unfortunately, however, heresies exist, even as crime and tyranny exist. Crime and tyranny will not vanish is we simply stop talking about them or pretend that they don’t exist. Such bury-our-heads-in-the-sand tactics would only cause the aforementioned evils to increase enormously. The same is true with heresies. As a result—like crime and tyranny—they have to be dealt with resolutely. This is the purpose of the Synodicon.
As we have seen, the Synodicon teaches us that, in matters of the faith, truth is truth, and an error is an error, both in a local context and in a universal context, no matter where or when they are taught.
Today we see the Church buffeted by the syncretistic heresy of Ecumenism. Yet, even if this heresy had not been placed under anathema in 1983 by a local council, it, like every other deviation from Church tradition, has already been taken care of, for the sainted composers of theSynodicon have seen to this.
After placing under ban all those who taught any heresy which had arisen, or should arise, the Synodicon pronounces the all-inclusive words: "To all heretics, Anathema"
and thus it deals with all who knowingly and stubbornly change or reject the sacred teachings of the Church of Christ.
After this, the Synodicon concludes with an enumeration of all the holy confessors of the faith who defended and promoted Orthodoxy, and it acclaims them with the words: Eternal memory!
May we too be counted worthy of their lot and of this blessing. Amen.
Comments