Scenario: Its several years after the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea. Arianism has completely and finally and definitely been condemned. There should be no wiggle room. Anathemas are passed, as well as regulatory canons. However, things dont go well. In Antioch. St. Eustathius is firmly attacking all forms of Arianism, crypto and open. He is forcibly deposed and removed form his see by Eusebius of Caesarea. Obviously, such a deposition is invalid, and the strict Confessing body refuses to recognize anyone as the true bishops but Eustathius. The Acacians and Semi-Arians attempt to put numerous people in the Chair of PAtriarch of Anioch. Eventually, after some machinations, St. Meletius is elected, and openly proclaims Orthodoxy, to the consternation of his consecrators and electors. However, the Eustathians state that St. Meletius is an heretic, schisamtic, and not a real bishop. They refuse to recognize his baptism even. Who was more right? We can argue that strictly the Eustathians were. After all, Rome and Alexandria maintained communion with the Eustathians, even after Luciferus of Cagliari single-handedly consecrated Paulinus bishop. However, we still recognize St. Meletius as did many then. So, why? Paulinus was more right in what he did, but, St. Meletius is whom we all know, despite his history. So, Church history tells us that both were right. So, why cant this happen again in Church history. I believe it did in the 30s and 40s in Greece. You can argue that Bp. Matthew was more right concerning the 35 Confession. Just like you can argue that Paulinus was certainly more than right in that he was the only one firmly upholding the anathemas and decrees of Nicea I, which held infinitely more value (since the 35 decree concerning the Old Calendar is predicated upon the Nicene decision of calculation). Even Paulinus was consecrated single-handedly, so, in a similar fashion, Bp. Matthew did single-hand consecrations. However, notice how St. Basil and other Fathers did not want to hold communion with Paulinus but with St. Meletius. St. Meletius is on the church calendar (Paulinus was anciently found in some calendar as well). So, if St. Meletius can have been a true Bishop despite the flip flopping and claims that he was a depose schisamtic heretic before he openly made a pure Confession of Orthodoxy Christianity, and thus was unambiguously for the Nicene Council (instead of all the actions and statement he took for 20 years or so that made him appear to sometimes affirm Nicea, but, others to be vaguer on it, saying the like substance formula was alright), why cant the same leniency be grant for Metropolitan Chrysosotmos of Florina? St. Meletius eventually made the firm Nicean Confession. It doesnt involve saying both were heretics and schismatics, does it? No more than it involves having to choose between Paulinus and Meletius. Why not simply affirmed both made mistakes and were wrong on various points, instead of trumpeting one over the other, when Church history tells us you can have cases in which the situation is far worse?
Posted on: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 21:07:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015