Regarding the Orthodox stance on Pelagianism, Celestius and his Pelagian doctrines were condemned (Celestius by name) in Canon 4 of Ephesus, together with Nestorius, in whom they apparently found an ally (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 14, The Seven Ecumencal Councils, 238). The text of the Fourth Canon of Ephesus reads thus:
If any clergy should fall away, and publicly or privately presume to maintain the doctrines of Nestorius or Celestius, it is declared just by the holy Synod that these also should be deposed. (ibid, 229)
Moreover, the Seventh Ecumenical Council ratified the Canons of Trullo, Trullo itself having received the Canons of the African Code which themselves include the Carthaginian conciliar condemnations of the Pelagian heresy (ibid, Excursus on Pelagianism, pgs 229-30, cf. 556).
Pelagianism, together with followers of Celestius, were also mentioned by name among the heretical Nestorians, allied together with a bishop of Antioch named John, by the Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine (pg 238). The Synodal Letter also mentions regarding “the most irreligious Pelagians and Celestines, of Celestius and Pelagius… and those inclined to like errors, we also deemed it right that the determinations of your holiness concerning them should stand strong and firm. And we all were of the same mind, holding them deposed.” (pg 239) This cannot but be an affirmation of the condemnations of Pelagianism as undertook in the African councils. At the very least, it affirms that Pelagianism is condemned.
As an aside, of especial interest to the Orthodox East, and considered similar in certain respects, both Pelagianism and Messalianism are mentioned by the Synod as condemned, referring as it does to the “Messalian or Enthusiastic heresy” (ibid, The Definition of the Holy and Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus Against the Impious Messalians Who are also Called Euchetae and Enthusiasts, pg 240). Distinct from the Pelagians, who affirm that man is born without a sinful human nature and requires no substitutionary atonement or regeneration but only a boost of grace to assist the human will in its personal efforts at salvation, John Meyendorff describes the Messalians as “the Pelagians of the East,” who maintain an adherence to a type of perfectionism or auto-soteriology in which salvation is accomplished through personal ascetical efforts, especially prayer (Bradley Nassif, Concerning Those Who Imagine That They Are Justified by Works: The Gospel According to St. Mark the Monk, in “The Philokalia: A Classic Text of Orthodox Spirituality,” pg 91-2).
According to St. John of Damascus, the Messalians believe, opposite the Pelagians, that man is born in a condition of hyper-depravity where salvation requires a sensual experience of the Holy Spirit, not unlike some of the more extreme Charismatics of today, hence the Messallians are called Enthusiasts (St. John of Damascus, On Heresies, Heresy 80). They, and their book of doctrine entitled the Asceticon, are alike with the Pelagians adjudged heretical and anathematized (See also the “Note on the Messalians or Massalians,” NPNF, Second Series, Vol. 14, pgs 240-42). Although the Pelagians and Messalians are obviously quite different in key ways, their heresies yet agree that the personal efforts of man accomplish salvation.
According to St. John of Damascus, the Messalians believe, opposite the Pelagians, that man is born in a condition of hyper-depravity where salvation requires a sensual experience of the Holy Spirit, not unlike some of the more extreme Charismatics of today, hence the Messallians are called Enthusiasts (St. John of Damascus, On Heresies, Heresy 80). They, and their book of doctrine entitled the Asceticon, are alike with the Pelagians adjudged heretical and anathematized (See also the “Note on the Messalians or Massalians,” NPNF, Second Series, Vol. 14, pgs 240-42). Although the Pelagians and Messalians are obviously quite different in key ways, their heresies yet agree that the personal efforts of man accomplish salvation.
In the African Code, Canons 108-116 (Greek 107-117) comprise a series of decisions from a Synod declaring against the teachings of Pelagius and Celestius, though not mentioning them by name (NPNF, Series 2, Vol. 14, pgs 496-499).
Canon 1 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council declares that it embraces “the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by the Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils [which at least includes Trullo], or by our holy Fathers” (NPNF, pg 555). By implication of a statement made by Tarasius, the Patriarch of Constantinople during the Seventh Ecumenical Council, these canons of Trullo are accepted as Ecumincal. From the Extracts of the Acts of Session 4 of the Council, Tarasius said:
There are certain affected with the sickness of ignorance who are scandalized by these canons [viz. of the Trullan Synod] and say, ‘And do you really think they were adopted at the Sixth Synod?’ Now let all such know that the holy great Sixth Synod was assembled at Constantinople… set forth the before-mentioned canons. (pg 540)The question as to their authenticity is raised due to the Trullan Synod’s having been convened after the Sixth Ecumenical Council without due representation of the Western bishops, which some took issue with, the pope having refused to sign off on it (pg 356). Interestingly enough, their authority is said to be more widely recognized in the East than in the West, and yet what concerns us here just happens to be the East’s acceptance of what was already in authority in the West, and here accepted by the Greeks within the Trullan Synod, i.e. the African Code of Canons from Carthage. Therefore, the question of the West’s ambivalence towards this Council by no means casts doubt on what was received as far as it relates to our inquiry into the East’s acceptance of the canons against Pelagianism.
Canon 2 of Trullo (Quinsext) states:
We set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is… In like manner... those of Carthage. (pg 361)
Thus we have closed the loop. The East’s affirmation of anti-Pelagianism is made clear on two counts, one being that of Trullo's acceptance of the Carthaginian Canons, which is to say the African Code of 419, otherwise known as the Canons of the Synod of Africa, with Trullo's acceptance being confirmed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Canon 1). The other was shown to be from the Third Ecumenical Council, held in Ephesus, which in its Fourth Canon condemned the doctrines of Celestius alongside those of Nestorius. In that same Council’s Letter to Pope Celestine, it likewise condemned “the most irreligious Pelagians and Celestines, of Celestius and Pelagius… and those inclined to like errors.” Therefore, the anti-Pelagian position of the Orthodox Church is clearly established.
The relevant nine (plus one) canons of the African Code, taken from here, follow below. The first number is the Latin numbering, the second, in parentheses, is the Greek. The line in italics is not strictly from the canon but is a helpfully brief description of the contents of the canon. They follow without comment.
Canon 108. (Greek cxii.)
Synod against the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius
In the consulate of the most glorious Emperors, Honorius for the XIIth time and Theodosius for the VIII th, Augusti most exalted, on the Calends of May, at Carthage in the secretarium of the Basilica of Faustus. When Aurelius the bishop presided over the whole council, the deacons standing by, it pleased all the bishops, whose names and subscriptions are indicated, met together in the holy synod of the Church of Carthage to define —
Canon 109. (Greek cxij. continued.)
That Adam was not created by God subject to death
That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body — that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.
Canon 110. (Greek cxii. bis)
That infants are baptized for the remission of sins
Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
Note: The following, says Surius, is found in this place in a very ancient codex. It does not occur in the Greek, nor in Dionysius. Bruns relegates it to a foot-note.
[Also it seemed good, that if anyone should say that the saying of the Lord, In my Father's house are many mansions is to be understood as meaning that in the kingdom of heaven there will be a certain middle place, or some place somewhere, in which infants live in happiness who have gone forth from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For after our Lord has said: Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven, what Catholic can doubt that he who has not merited to be coheir with Christ shall become a sharer with the devil: for he who fails of the right hand without doubt shall receive the left hand portion.]
Canon 111. (Greek cxiij.)
That the grace of God not only gives remission of sins, but also affords aid that we sin no more
Likewise it seemed good, that whoever should say that the grace of God, by which a man is justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for the remission of past sins, and not for assistance against committing sins in the future, let him be anathema.
Canon 112. (Greek cxiij. continued.)
That the grace of Christ gives not only the knowledge of our duty, but also inspires us with a desire that we may be able to accomplish what we know
Also, whoever shall say that the same grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord helps us only in not sinning by revealing to us and opening to our understanding the commandments, so that we may know what to seek, what we ought to avoid, and also that we should love to do so, but that through it we are not helped so that we are able to do what we know we should do, let him be anathema. For when the Apostle says: Wisdom puffs up, but charity edifies it were truly infamous were we to believe that we have the grace of Christ for that which puffs us up, but have it not for that which edifies, since in each case it is the gift of God, both to know what we ought to do, and to love to do it; so that wisdom cannot puff us up while charity is edifying us. For as of God it is written, Who teaches man knowledge, so also it is written, Love is of God.
Canon 113. (Greek cxiiii.)
That without the grace of God we can do no good thing
It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification was given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our free will; as if though grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spoke concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said: Without me you can do nothing, and not Without me you could do it but with difficulty.
Canon 114. (Greek cxv.)
That not only humble but also true is that voice of the Saints: If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves.
It also seemed good that as St. John the Apostle says, If we shall say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, whosoever thinks that this should be so understood as to mean that out of humility, we ought to say that we have sin, and not because it is really so, let him be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to add, But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity, where it is sufficiently clear that this is said not only of humility but also truly. For the Apostle might have said, If we shall say we have no sins we shall extoll ourselves, and humility shall have no place in us; but when he says, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us he sufficiently intimates that he who affirmed that he had no sin would speak not that which is true but that which is false.
Canon 115. (Greek cxvi.)
That in the Lord's Prayer the Saints say for themselves: Forgive us our trespasses
It has seemed good that whoever should say that when in the Lord's prayer, the saints say, forgive us our trespasses, they say this not for themselves, because they have no need of this petition, but for the rest who are sinners of the people; and that therefore no one of the saints can say, Forgive me my trespasses, but Forgive us our trespasses; so that the just is understood to seek this for others rather than for himself; let him be anathema. For holy and just was the Apostle James, when he said, For in many things we offend all. For why was it added all, unless that this sentence might agree also with the psalm, where we read, Enter not into judgment with your servant, O Lord, for in your sight shall no man living be justified; and in the prayer of the most wise Solomon: There is no man that sins not; and in the book of the holy Job: He seals in the hand of every man, that every man may know his own infirmity; wherefore even the holy and just Daniel when in prayer said several times: We have sinned, we have done iniquity, and other things which there truly and humbly he confessed; nor let it be thought (as some have thought) that this was said not of his own but rather of the people's sins, for he said further on: When I shall pray and confess my sins and the sins of my people to the Lord my God; he did not wish to say our sins, but he said the sins of his people and his own sins, since he as a prophet foresaw that those who were to come would thus misunderstand his words.
Canon 116. (Greek cxvii.)
That the Saints say with accuracy, Forgive us our trespasses
Likewise also it seemed good, that whoever wished that these words of the Lord's prayer, when we say, Forgive us our trespasses are said by the saints out of humility and not in truth let them be anathema. For who would make a lying prayer, not to men but to God? Who would say with his lips that he wished his sins forgiven him, but in his heart that he had no sins to be forgiven.
-Fr. Joshua Schooping
