Gaudium et Spes draft implying universalism

In an older article I showed how the council fathers considered Lumen Gentium 49 to repudiate the idea of a merely hypothetical Hell like that of von Balthasar. Here we will revisit the topic of universalism at the council.

It is sometimes stated that Vatican II taught universalism or at least implied it, which is not true, in fact, edits were made to remove this idea, and Fathers agreeing it is heresy, though there is some suspicion about some section being deliberately ambiguous on this matter. Regardless, this article intends to show how a section of Gaudium et Spes was edited to remove potentially universalist language!

An early draft of Gaudium et Spes here page 223:

Per « mundum » hic intelligimus sive coelum et terram seu universitatem rerum a Deo creatarum, sive universam familiam humanam, cuius membra, quamvis peccatores sint, a Deo tamen personaliter diliguntur, pro quibus Christus seipsum tradidit et postea resurrexit! et qui omnes una gaudent vocatione divina, licet « mundus », sub signo Maligni positus; Deo in hoc tempore adversetur, donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur? Illum uno verbo dicimus mundum, quem sic dilexit Deus ut Filium suum Unigenitum daret,) Christum nempe qui lux est mundi.

 AI translation:

By the term “world” we understand here either heaven and earth, that is, the totality of things created by God, or the entire human family, whose members, though sinners, are nevertheless personally loved by God, for whom Christ gave Himself and thereafter rose again, and who all share in one divine calling, although the “world,” placed under the sign of the Evil One, opposes God in this time, until in the end it too is saved through faith. In a single word, we mean that world which God so loved that He gave His only-begotten Son, namely Christ, who is the light of the world.

The later draft of Gaudium et Spes at Vatican II read in its preface:

 «Nomine “mundi” hic intelligimus ex un parte caelum et terram seu universitatem rerum a Deo creatarum, ex altera parte universam familiam humanam, cuius membra, quamvis peccatores sint, a Deo tamen personaliter diliguntur, pro quibus Christus seipsum tradidit et postea resurrexit et qui omnes una eademque gaudent vocatione divina; licet “mundus” quatenus sub signo Maligni positus est, Deo hoc tempore adversetur, donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur»: n. 2. AS IV/1, 436.

 AI Translated:

By the term “world,” we understand here, on the one hand, heaven and earth, that is, the totality of things created by God; on the other hand, the entire human family, whose members, though sinners, are personally loved by God, for whom Christ gave Himself and thereafter rose again, and who all share in one and the same divine calling; although the “world,” insofar as it lies under the sign of the Evil One, opposes God in this time, until in the end it too is saved through faith: n. 2. AS IV/1, 436.

 The last line quoted state, "until in the end it too is saved through faith" can easily be read as implying universalism, this was so obvious that bishops objected.

First was a bishop from Chile, Cardinal Raúl Silva Henríquez, S.D.B., Archbishop of Santiago de Chile (1961–1983):

Ad n. 2. Pag. 5, linn. 21-29: Proponitur alia ordinatio huius paragraphi: « (incipiendo a lin. 26) Licet “ mundus ” quatenus sub signo Maligni positus intel- ligatur (quod verbum ponitur pro “ est ”, quia hic potissimum agitur de modo intelligendi) Deo in tempore (dicitur “ in ”, quia affirmatio valet tantummodo usque ad Diem Domini) adversetur (cf. 1 Io. 5, 19; Io. 12, 31; 14, 30; 15, 18. 19; 16, 8-11; 17, 9, etc.), tamen nomine “ mundi ” hic intelligimus (reditur ad lin. 21) ex una parte caelum et terram seu universitatem rerum a Deo creatarum, ex altera parte universam familiam humanam, cuius membra, quamvis peccatores sint, a Deo tamen personaliter diliguntur, pro quibus Christus seipsum tradidit et postea resurrexit, et qui omnes una eademque gaudent vocatione divina. Illum uno verbo dicimus mundum, quem sic dilexit Deus ut Filium suum Unigenitum daret: Christum nempe, lucem mundi ». Et nota bene quod omittitur phrasis « donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur » (lin. 27) quia non videtur hanc affir- mationem fieri posse de “ mundo ” sensu peiorativo sumpto. Ratio huius muta- tionis ordinis est desiderium servandi homogeneitatem textus. Sic etenim iam ab initio proponitur, quasi in obliquo, sensus peiorativus “ mundi ”, et deinde, usque ad finem, agitur de sensu positivo. In textu officiali phrasis « licet ... adversetur ... salvetur » rumpit cursus idearum.--https://archive.org/details/ASIV.1/page/n561/mode/2up?q=%22donec+in+fine+et%22&view=theater p 566-567

AI translation: 

To n. 2. Page 5, lines 21–29: It is proposed to reorder this paragraph as follows: "Although the 'world,' insofar as it is understood as placed under the sign of the Evil One (the word 'understood' is used instead of 'is,' because here it is primarily a matter of the mode of understanding), opposes God in this time (the preposition 'in' is used, because the statement holds only until the Day of the Lord) (cf. 1 John 5:19; John 12:31; 14:30; 15:18–19; 16:8–11; 17:9, etc.), nevertheless, by the term 'world' we understand here (returning to line 21) on the one hand heaven and earth, that is, the totality of things created by God, and on the other hand the entire human family, whose members, though sinners, are nevertheless personally loved by God, for whom Christ gave Himself and thereafter rose again, and who all share in one and the same divine calling. In a single word, we mean that world which God so loved that He gave His only-begotten Son: namely Christ, the light of the world." And note well that the phrase "until in the end it too is saved through faith" (line 27) is omitted, because it does not seem possible to make this affirmation about the 'world' taken in a pejorative sense. The reason for this change in order is the desire to maintain the homogeneity of the text. For thus, from the beginning, the pejorative sense of the 'world' is presented, as it were, indirectly, and then, until the end, the positive sense is treated. In the official text, the phrase "although… opposes… is saved" disrupts the flow of ideas.

Bishop Giocondo Maria Grotti, O.S.M. (1928–1971), Prelate of Acre e Purus, Brazil, and Titular Bishop of Thunigaba said:

Lin. 27: « donec in fine et ipse (mundus) per fidem salvetur ». Ut patet ex notula 2, appellatio seu allusio fit ad Io. 3, 17-18, ubi inspirate dicitur Christum missum fuisse ut salvetur mundus per Ipsum, certe tamen quoad ea familiae humanae membra quae creditura erunt; quae vero credere renuent, condemnabuntur, ut ex notissimis aliis evangelicis locis patet. Econtra e constitutionis textu ansa interpretationi praebetur iuxta quam « totus » mundus in fine per fidem salvabitur: quod aequivaleret negationi inferni seu duarum mundi categoriarum, quas Dominus iudicabit (cf. Mt. 25, 31-46).--https://archive.org/details/ASIV.2/page/n739/mode/2up?view=theater page 744 AI Translation 

AI translation: 

Line 27: "donec in fine et ipse (mundus) per fidem salvetur" ("until in the end it [the world] is saved through faith") refers, as noted in footnote 2, to John 3:17–18, where it is divinely stated that Christ was sent so that the world might be saved through Him, certainly with respect to those members of the human family who will believe; but those who refuse to believe will be condemned, as is clear from other well-known Gospel passages. On the contrary, the text of the constitution provides an opportunity for an interpretation according to which the "entire" world will be saved through faith in the end: this would be equivalent to denying hell or the two categories of the world that the Lord will judge (cf. Matthew 25:31–46).

 Archbishop Federico Melendro y Gutiérrez, S.J., a Spanish Jesuit who served as Archbishop of Anqing, China's comments are seen below:

Ad prooemium, pag. 5, n. 2, lin. 27. Sermo est de « mundo » quatenus  significat « universam familiam humanam », de quo mundo dicitur: « donec  in fine et ipse (hic “ mundus ”) per fidem salvetur » (cf. Io. 3, 17-18). Tale  assertum est obscurum et ambiguum, ideoque corrigendum.    

a) Est obscurum, quia videtur significare « universam familiam humanam in fine tandem, per fidem, salutem obtenturam esse »; quod sapere  videtur doctrinam de sola fide causa salutis.    

b) Est ambiguum, quia posset intelligi, sensu Origenis, de salute tandem in fine ab universo genere humano obtinenda, exclusa aeternitate inferni. In textu autem citato ex Io. 3, 17-18, contrarium prorsus eruitur.  Nam in contextu 3, 19, sermo est de causa amissionis salutis: « erant enim  eorum mala opera ». Et in eodem contextu (3, 15-16) bis repetitur alios  obtenturos « vitam aeternam », alios vero « perituros », i. e., in aeternum.-- https://archive.org/details/ASIV.2/page/n787/mode/2up?view=theater page 793

English AI translation: 

To the Proemium, Page 5, Number 2, Line 27: The discussion concerns the "world" insofar as it signifies the "entire human family," about which it is said: "until in the end it (this 'world') is saved through faith" (cf. John 3:17–18). This statement is obscure and ambiguous and therefore must be corrected. 

a) It is obscure because it seems to imply that "the entire human family will ultimately, through faith, attain salvation," which appears to suggest the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. 

b) It is ambiguous because it could be understood, in the sense of Origen, as implying salvation ultimately attained by the entire human race in the end, excluding the eternity of hell. However, the cited text from John 3:17–18 yields the exact opposite. For in the context of John 3:19, the cause of the loss of salvation is mentioned: "for their works were evil." And in the same context (John 3:15–16), it is twice repeated that some will attain "eternal life," while others will "perish," that is, eternally.

Michael Cardinal Browne said: 

2. Bis in schemate ponuntur verba ex quibus intelligi posset totum genus humanum tandem aliquando ad aeternam salutem perventurum esse. Ita (par. 2, pag. 5, linn, 2-27) habetur: « ... licet “ mundus ” quatenus sub signo Maligni positus est, Deo hoc tempore adversetur, donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur». 

Item (par. 36, pag. 28, linn. 9-12) habetur: « Omnes enim ad imaginem  Dei creati sunt, et ex uno principio orti, ad unum eumdemque finem vocantur, iam nunc vitam SS. Trinitatis participantes ab Eaque vires ad communem salutem accipientes». --https://archive.org/details/ASIV.2/page/n665/mode/2up?view=theater page 670

 AI translation:

2. Twice in the Schema, words are used from which it could be understood that the entire human race will ultimately attain eternal salvation. Thus, in paragraph 2, page 5, lines 2–27, it is stated: "...although the 'world,' insofar as it lies under the sign of the Evil One, opposes God in this time, until in the end it too is saved through faith." 

Likewise, in paragraph 36, page 28, lines 9–12, it is stated: "For all are created in the image of God and, arising from one origin, are called to one and the same end, already now participating in the life of the Most Holy Trinity and receiving from It the strength for common salvation."

Luigi Maria Carli (1914–1986) was Bishop of Segni (Signinus), Italy. He was one of the more conservative voices that made the most objections at Vatican II. He always sniff hints of universalism:

Pag. 5, lin. 27. Auferantur verba « donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur », quia nullibi in S. Scriptura legitur « mundus » malignus in fine saeculorum salvatum iri. Citatio Io. 3, 17-18 respicit salvationem mundi in actu primo (non in actu secundo), iam peractam per mortem Christi. --https://archive.org/details/ASIV.2/page/n683/mode/2up ASIV.2 p 689

AI translation:

Let the words "donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur" ("until in the end it too is saved through faith") be removed, because nowhere in Sacred Scripture is it stated that the "world," under the influence of the Evil One, will be saved at the end of the ages. The citation of John 3:17–18 refers to the salvation of the world in the first act (in actu primo), already accomplished through the death of Christ, not in the second act (in actu secundo).

then another from Augustine Cardinal Bea

Initio schematis (n. 2) optime exponuntur variae acceptiones  vocis « mundus » et additur: « Licet mundus, quatenus sub signo Maligni positus est, Deo hoc tempore adversetur, donec in fine et ipse per  fidem salvetur » ... 5 . Iamvero, ni fallor, hic agitur de conceptu ... 6 mundi,  qui Novo Testamento proprius est, quique denotat creaturas liberas proprie quatenus Deo adversantur. Sic v. g. in noto textu ad Galatas, cap. 6,  14: « Mihi mundus crucifixus est et ego mundo », ille mundus certe in  fine non se convertet ; 7 vel in 1 loannis, cap. 2, 15: « Si quis diligit  mundum, non est caritas Patris in eo »; et alia huiusmodi . 8 Agi in textu  de mundo hoc sensu innuunt etiam expressiones ipsae ... 9 adhibitae, quae  desumuntur ex 1 loannis , cap. 5, 19 ... 10 . Iamvero patet, hunc talem  « mundum » ex conceptu suo 11 nunquam salvari posse praecise quia Deo  adversatur. Nec valet hic provocare ad Ioannem, cap. 3, v. 17 s. ... 12 ;  nam ibi 13 non agitur de mundo quatenus sub signo maligni est, sed quatenus significat universitatem rerum a Deo creatarum ..."-- https://archive.org/details/ASIV.1/page/n571/mode/2up page 577

At the beginning of the schema (n. 2), the various meanings of the word "world" are excellently set forth, and it is added: "Although the world, insofar as it is placed under the sign of the Evil One, opposes God in this time, until in the end it too is saved through faith" ... Now, unless I am mistaken, here the discussion concerns the concept of the world proper to the New Testament, which denotes free creatures precisely insofar as they oppose God. For example, in the well-known text of Galatians, chapter 6, verse 14: "The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world," that world certainly will not be converted in the end; or in 1 John, chapter 2, verse 15: "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him"; and other similar passages. The expressions used in the text, which are drawn from 1 John, chapter 5, verse 19, also suggest that the discussion is about the world in this sense. Now, it is clear that such a "world," by its very concept, can never be saved precisely because it opposes God. Nor is it valid here to appeal to John, chapter 3, verses 17 and following; for there the discussion is not about the world insofar as it is under the sign of the Evil One, but insofar as it signifies the totality of things created by God ... 

During the actual editing it was stated:

« Populi Dei » scribatur « Regni Dei » vel « Corporis Christi » (5288). 

(C) Multis displicet incisum de « mundo ». Aliqui Patres integras novas formulas proponunt quibus conantur in uno textu comprehendere terminologiam biblicam (5288, 5489, 5583, 5551, 5414); nulla tamen plene satisfacit. Complures postulant ut omittantur verba « donec in fine ... salvetur » (5834, 5292, 5551, 5486, 5639, 5424, 5488); aliquibus dicta videntur esse incompleta (5606, 5747). 

Explicationem desiderant regni « Maligni » (5488); non placet formula « quamvis peccatores sint » (5292); nec « hoc tempore » (5488); nec defectus visionis historiae (5292); desideratur additio eschatologica (5292), allusio ad Mysterium Verbi incarnati, Christi crucifixi et resurgentis (5287). 

Hac de causa totum comma noviter redactum est, omittendo quaestionem terminologiae « de mundo » in Sacra Scriptura, quae, ut in notis addatur, suo loco in schemate respicienda est; adducendo dimensionem anthropologicam, cosmologicam, historicam « mundi » de quo sermo est; addendo interpretationem eam christianam quae schemati respondeat. 

[8] (D) Aspectus anthropologicus (simul socialis). 

(E) Aspectus cosmologicus. 

(F) Aspectus historicus. 

(G) Elementa proposita a variis Patribus (5606, 5478). 

(H) Phrasis sequens additur, ut appareat conceptio « christiana » mundi. 

(I) Ita iam dogma fundamentale creationis indicatur. 

(K) Ita visio hamartologica clare retinetur. 

(L) Additur « crucifixi et resurgentis », propter rationem oecumenicam et theologicam Orientalium. 

(M) Ulterior descriptio Maligni hic non conveniret. --

Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II: Periodus quarta, pars VI :  p423

AI translation:

 “Let ‘People of God’ be written as ‘Kingdom of God’ or ‘Body of Christ’ (5288).

(C) Many are displeased with the section on the ‘world.’ Some Fathers propose entirely new formulations, attempting to encompass biblical terminology in a single text (5288, 5489, 5583, 5551, 5414); however, none fully satisfy. Several request the omission of the words ‘until in the end ... it is saved’ (5834, 5292, 5551, 5486, 5639, 5424, 5488); to some, the statements seem incomplete (5606, 5747).

They desire an explanation of the kingdom of the ‘Evil One’ (5488); the phrase ‘though they are sinners’ is not pleasing (5292); nor is ‘in this time’ (5488); nor the lack of a historical vision (5292); an eschatological addition is desired (5292), as well as an allusion to the Mystery of the Incarnate Word, of Christ crucified and risen (5287).

For this reason, the entire section has been redrafted, omitting the question of the terminology of the ‘world’ in Sacred Scripture, which, as noted, should be addressed elsewhere in the schema; introducing the anthropological, cosmological, and historical dimensions of the ‘world’ in question; adding the Christian interpretation that corresponds to the schema.

[8] (D) Anthropological aspect (also social).

(E) Cosmological aspect.

(F) Historical aspect.

(G) Elements proposed by various Fathers (5606, 5478).

(H) The following phrase is added to highlight the ‘Christian’ conception of the world.

(I) Thus, the fundamental dogma of creation is indicated.

(K) Thus, the hamartiological vision is clearly retained.

(L) ‘Crucified and risen’ is added for ecumenical and theological reasons related to the Eastern Churches.

(M) A further description of the Evil One would not be suitable here.

Then we see the old repeated much later:

Per « mundum » hic intelligimus sive coelum et terram seu universitatem  rerum a Deo creatarum, sive universam familiam humanam, cuius membra, quam-  vis peccatores sint, a Deo tamen personaliter diliguntur, pro quibus Christus  seipsum tradidit et postea resurrexit! et qui omnes una gaudent vocatione divina,  licet « mundus », sub signo Maligni positus; Deo in hoc tempore adversetur,  donec in fine et ipse per fidem salvetur? Illum uno verbo dicimus mundum,  quem sic dilexit Deus ut Filium suum Unigenitum daret,) Christum nempe qui lux est mundi. --https://archive.org/details/ASV.3/page/222/mode/2up page 223

However, the final result omits it!:

Mundum igitur hominum prae oculis habet seu universam familiam humanam cum universitate rerum inter quas vivit; mundum, theatrum historiae generis humani, eiusque industria, cladibus ac victoriis signatum; mundum, quem christifideles credunt ex amore Creatoris conditum et conservatum, sub peccati quidem servitute positum, sed a Christo crucifixo et resurgente, fracta potestate Maligni, liberatum, ut secundum propositum Dei transformetur et ad consummationem perveniat.--Gaudium et Spes, Preface

Official translation: 

Therefore, the council focuses its attention on the world of men, the whole human family along with the sum of those realities in the midst of which it lives; that world which is the theater of man's history, and the heir of his energies, his tragedies and his triumphs; that world which the Christian sees as created and sustained by its Maker's love, fallen indeed into the bondage of sin, yet emancipated now by Christ, Who was crucified and rose again to break the strangle hold of personified evil, so that the world might be fashioned anew according to God's design and reach its fulfillment.

 

Inquisitions in the post schism Russian Orthodox Church and before Siberian Exploration

Execution of Heretics and Inquisitions in the Russian Church 

I was told by an Orthodox priest that St Thomas Aquinas is in Hell for advocating for the government capital punishment for heresy. This will be part of a broader topic addressing Orthodox criticism against Catholic, addressing claims that the Orthodox church didn't execute heretics, didn't have inquisitions, did not have crusades. See my former article on Emperor Justinian's code on treatment of heretics. I am also preparing another article on St Joseph Volotsky and his advocacy for life imprisonment and execution for heresy.

First. an account of a monk being punished for by Metropolitian Archbishop of Kievan Rus for heresy by imprisonment who eventually repents. Rather than exile or execution, this somewhat moderate step was taken.

6512 (1004). Война печенегов. Андриан еретик. Затмение солнца и луны. Печенеги, придя, снова Белгород обступили. И послал Владимир Александра Поповича да Яна Усмовича с войском. Печенеги же, услышав о том, оставив осаду, ушли в степи. В том же году митрополит Леонтий посадил в темницу чернеца Андриана Скопца. Ибо тот весьма изучен был писания, многие книги читал и впал в ересь, укоряя церковь и все уставы, епископов и пресвитеров, иконы и посты; но через малое время исправился, пришел в покаяние и познание истины и пребывал в великом благоговении, что многим кротости и смирению его дивиться.--История Российская. Части 2:7, Василий Татищев

 6512 (1004). Pecheneg War. Andrian the Heretic. Eclipse of Sun and Moon. The Pechenegs came and once again besieged Belgorod. And Vladimir sent Alexander Popovich and Yan Usmovich with an army. The Pechenegs, hearing of this, abandoned the siege and fled to the steppes. In the same year, Metropolitan Leonty imprisoned the monk Andrian the Eunuch (skopetsa). For he was deeply learned in scriptures, had read many books, and fell into heresy, reproaching the church and all its statutes, bishops and priests, icons and fasts; but after a short time, he reformed, came to repentance and recognition of the truth, and dwelt in great piety, so that many marveled at his meekness and humility. In that same summer, there was a sign in the sun and moon.--Vasily Tatishchev’s History of Russia (Istoriya Rossiyskaya): Volume 2:7  (AI translation)

Second, a man named Dmitro (Dmitryi?) was called a great heretic, but the Prince sent him into exile, another source I found claims he was sent to the dungeon, but I cannot confirm that. The source Tatishchev used for this seems to be lost, some doubt this story complete because of that, suggesting its conflated with the 15th century controversies.

6631 (1123)...

 Дмитро еретик. Синилец гр. В том же году восстал еретик тяжкий на церковь святую, именуемый Дмитро, опровергая уставы церковные. Но князь великий повелел его митрополиту испытать и обличить. Митрополит же, взяв его, послал в заточение во град Синелец (374).--История Российская. Части 2:7, Василий Татищев

Dmitro the Heretic. City of Sinilets.  In that same year, a grievous heretic rose against the holy church, named Dmitro, rejecting church statutes. But the grand prince ordered the metropolitan to examine and convict him. The metropolitan, taking him, sent him into exile to the city of Sinilets.--Vasily Tatishchev’s History of Russia (Istoriya Rossiyskaya): Volume 2:13  (AI translation)

The following is largely considered to be ahistorical and a forgery created by Orthodox polemicists against Old Believers as part of a debate from the early 18th Century where Peter the Great wanted to end the Raskol. The account I came across in a Seventh Day Adventist article (generally do not trust anything they have to say) which quotes an Atheist, Communist historian from shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. The account reads:

В 1123 г. по приговору Киевского церковного собора заточили в тюрьму, как «злого ере- тика», какого-то Дмитрия. В 1157 г. тот же цер- ковный собор осудил другого еретика, Мартина.

Учение Мартина, направленное против господствующей церкви, привлекло на его сторону, как рассказывает об этом летопись, много простого народа и вызвало широкое обществен- ное движение против православной церкви. По приговору собора Мартин был сожжён. 

Не только русские князья признавали за церковными иерархами право уничтожать про- тивников «злою казнью». Это же право призна- валось и монгольскими завоевателями. Так, по ярлыку хана Менгу Темира митро- политу Кириллу было предоставлено право на- казывать смертью за хулу на православную цер- ковь и за нарушение церковных привилегий. --Православная инквизиция в России, Ефим Грекулов

In 1123, by the verdict of the Kyiv church council, a certain Dmitry was imprisoned as a “wicked heretic.” In 1157, the same church council condemned another heretic, Martin.

Martin’s teaching, directed against the dominant church, attracted many common people to his side, as the chronicle recounts, and sparked a broad public movement against the Orthodox Church. By the council’s verdict, Martin was burned. 

Not only did Russian princes recognize the right of church hierarchs to destroy opponents with “cruel execution.” This right was also acknowledged by the Mongol conquerors.
Thus, by the decree of Khan Mengu-Temir, Metropolitan Kirill was granted the right to punish with death those who blasphemed against the Orthodox Church and violated church privileges.--Orthodox Inquisition in Russia by Yefim Grekulov (AI translation)

Grekulov did not invent this story, but he should have known it was fake history!  The story is believed to originate in the Old Believer controversy in the early 18th century where Peter the Great ordered Orthodox scholars to try to convert Old Believers to mainline Orthodoxy. The forgery likely was someone in the camp of Pitirim (archimandrite and founder of the Assumption Monastery on Kerzh and Belbash). Strange how a story Orthodox polemicists would be used later to demonize the Russian Church!

Another controversy without explanation to punishment, merely he was "cursed" or anathematized the synod:

6821 (1313). 

В тот же год явился в Новгороде еретик Вавила, протопоп новгородский, к нему же пристали многие от причта церковного и мирян, и епископ тверской Андрей помогал им, говоря: «Вот как рай на земли погиб»; и святой ангельский монашеский чин ругали безбожные и учением бесовским именовали. И многие, от иноков выйдя, женились. Преосвященный же митрополит Петр созвал на Переславль собор великий, были тут все епископы, игумены, попы, дьяконы и чернецы, и от патриарха Афанасия клир ученый. И многие прения были, и едва преосвященный Петр, митрополит киевский и всея Руси, от божественного Писания и помощию и заступлением князя Иоанна Даниловича преодолел и проклял того еретика; а сам пошел по градам, поучая право верить, и укротил молву, а смущение диаволово прогнал.----История Российская. Части 2:46, Василий Татищев

6821 (1313).

In that same year, a heretic named Vavila appeared in Novgorod, a protopope of Novgorod, to whom many from the church clergy and laypeople adhered, and Bishop Andrew of Tver supported them, saying: “Thus paradise on earth has perished”; and they reviled the holy angelic monastic order, godlessly calling it a teaching of demons. And many, leaving the monks, married. But the Most Holy Metropolitan Peter convened a great council in Pereslavl, attended by all bishops, abbots, priests, deacons, and monks, and learned clergy from Patriarch Athanasius. There were many disputes, and only with difficulty did the Most Holy Peter, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus’, through divine Scripture and with the help and support of Prince John Danilovich, overcome and curse that heretic. He then went through the cities, teaching to believe rightly, and quelled the rumor, driving out the devil’s confusion.--(AI translation)

Now an account in Novgorod around 1375 where heretics were drowned. Little is said about the event and the role of the Novgorod church in the matter.

The account written in older Russian font:

ПСРЛ, том XI. Издание 1-е. Летописный сборник, именуемый Патриаршею или Никоновскою летописью. СПб., 1897. 262 с., разд. паг. (VII c, 254 c.).

Polnoe sobranie rus letopisey 4, page 72

Тогда стригольников побиша, дьякона Микиту, дьякона Карпу, третее человека его, и свергоша их с мосту  Источник

Тогда стригольников побиша, дьякона Микиту, дьякона Карпу, третее человека его, и свергоша их с мосту

Источник: https://statehistory.ru/books/15/Olga-Kuzmina_Respublika-Svyatoy-Sofii/6

Побиша стриголников еретиков диакона Микиту и Карпа простца, и третьего человека с ними, свергоша их с мосту, развратников святыя веры

They killed the Strigolnik heretics, Deacon Nikita and Karp, a simple man, and a third person with them, casting them from the bridge, these corrupters of the holy faith--Polnoe sobranie rus letopisey 4 (Sofia Chronicle)

The same account rewritten for modern Russian:

6883 (1375)....

....В тот же год новгородцы ввергли в воду, в Волхов, стригольников еретиков, говоря: «Писано есть в Евангелие, если кто соблазнит одного из малых сих, тому лучше было бы, если бы повесили ему мельничный жернов на шею и потопили его во глубине морской».--История Российская. Части 2:54, Василий Татищев

That same year, the Novgorodians cast the Strigolnik heretics into the water, into the Volkhov, saying: ‘It is written in the Gospel, if anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.’"--Russian History 2:54 by Vasiliy Tatischev (AI translation) 

 The last account occurred before any Latin influence and translations on treatise on handling heretics. However, the next account there is evidence it was the Russian Church using Spanish writings on their inquisition against crypto-Jews.

Catholic heresy, Isidore tries to convince Russia to accept the Council of Florence to reunite with the Papacy, he is sent off to confinement in an Orthodox monastery presumably for the rest of his life for refuse to renounce the "Latin heresy":

(1441) 6949 

Исидор осужден. Тогда все епископы русские, которые были тогда в Москве и, слышав, прежде молчали, как спящие и не ведающие писания, ни силы, и ныне возбудились, и все с ними князи, и бояре, и множество людей вспомянули и уразумели законы прежние от апостолов и святых соборов, на которых стоит церковь греческая, начали говорить от святого писания и звать Исидора еретиком. И тогда князь великий Василий Васильевич возрадовался о согласии епископов своих, и князей, и бояр, и всех православных христиан, и повелел ему пребывать в монастыре, до тех пор пока не изыщет о нем по священным правилам святых апостолов и святых семи соборов святых отцев, чтобы так истинным судом правды пред архиепископами и епископами, пред всем священным собором обличить ересь его, что да усрамится и отложит латинские соединения и согласия ересные, и повинуется, и покается, и милость получит. Исидор же, злой ереси латинской насытившись, никак же не восхотел отлучиться от латинского согласия и соединения, нисколько повиноваться не восхотел и не послушал великого князя и всего священного собора. И приставил к нему князь великий приставов своих, и повелел его стеречь, да отлучится от латинского соединения и согласия, и обратится, и покается, и милость получит; так жил в монастыре у Чуда за стражей.-- История Российская. Части 2-4:56

Isidore Condemned. Then all the Russian bishops who were in Moscow at that time, who had previously remained silent as if asleep and unaware of scripture or its power, now awoke. Together with them, the princes, boyars, and a multitude of people recalled and understood the ancient laws from the apostles and holy councils upon which the Greek Church stands. They began to speak from holy scripture and call Isidore a heretic. And then Grand Prince Vasily Vasilyevich rejoiced at the agreement of his bishops, princes, boyars, and all Orthodox Christians, and ordered him to remain in a monastery until he could be judged according to the sacred canons of the holy apostles and the seven holy councils of the holy fathers, so that by a true judgment of justice before the archbishops, bishops, and the entire holy council, his heresy might be exposed. This was so that he might be ashamed, renounce the Latin unions and heretical agreements, submit, repent, and receive mercy. But Isidore, steeped in the wicked Latin heresy, refused entirely to abandon the Latin agreement and union, showed no willingness to submit, and did not heed the grand prince or the entire holy council. The grand prince appointed guards to watch him and ordered them to keep him under surveillance, so that he might renounce the Latin union and agreement, turn back, repent, and receive mercy. Thus, he lived in the Chudov Monastery under guard.--Russian History 2-4:56 (AI translation)

In 1490/1491, there are two separate versions for this apparently, one Moscow based (Nikon Chronicle) and the other Novgorad based (Novgorod Chronicle), one account might suggest the Archbishop rejected the synod's decision to spare from executing the heretics, and forced them to wear flaming helmets which may or may not have killed them.

 Then we see:

 Here is another record of the council, a 1491 redaction recording the heretics denying the Eucharist is Christ, denying Christ as being consubstantial to the Father, deny icons, Judazing, reject the traditional weekly fast days, the punishment is exile:

В лъто 6999 повелъниемъ благовърнаго и христолюбиваго великаго князя Ивана Васильевичя всея Руси сшедшимся в православныи град Москву боголюбивым архиепископом и епископом, благовърныи же и христо- любивыи князь великыи Иванъ Васильевичь възвъщаа2 имъ о избрании митрополичи, 3 и архиепископъ Тихон Ростовскыи и Нифонтъ Суздальскыи, Семионъ Рязанскыи, Васианъ Тверскыи, Прохор Сарьскыи, Филофеи Пермъскыи. А новгородцкыи архиепископъ Генадеи присла свою грамоту къ братии своеи архиепископу4 и епископомъ, глаголя: «Благословенъ богъ, его же въсхощет, // и пречистаа мати божиа и великые чюдотворци, тако же и государь нашъ князь великыи Иван Васильевич всея Руси и вы, братиа моя православные архиепископы и епископы и весь священныи събор рускиа митрополиа, тои всъмъ нам будеть отецъ и учитель, и аз с вами, всему5 православному христианству пастырь и учитель, и аз с вами, съ6 своею братию съ архиепископом и епископы, о том великомъ божественом дъле въ единои волъ и хотънии». И по благодати божии и по избранию Святого Духа, и изволениемъ благовърнаго и христолюбиваго великаго князя Ивана Васильевича всея Руси и всъхъ православных епископъ, и всего освящен- наго събора Руские митрополиа избраша архимандрита симоновского Зо- симу, яко достоина суща управляти богомъ порученное ему стадо. И възве- денъ же на двор митрополич месяца септября 19 день, а поставленъ митрополит всея Руси того месяца 26 в неделю. Того же месяца 28 прииде к великому князю посол из Чагадаи Урусь богатырь от Усеин салтана о любви и о дружбъ. Тое же осени октября 167 по повелънию благочестиваго и христолюбиваго, истиннаго православию поборника, великаго князя Ивана Васильевича государя всея Руси самодръжца съборовали господинъ пресвященныи митрополитъ Зосима всея Руси и съ всъми архиепископы и епископы, и с ыгумены, и с старцы духовными, и с протопо//пы, и с свя- щенници, и з диаконы, и съ всъм священным събором Рускиа митрополиа на развратников въры христианьстъи, на Захариа черньца и на его това- рыщев, на новгородцкого протопопа Гаврила и на Дениса попа архаггель- скаго, и на Максима попа иваньского, на Василия попа покровского 1–и на Макара диакона нико[ль]ского, –1 и на Гридю диака борисоглъбьского, на Васюка зятя Денисьева, на Самуху диака никольского и на их единомы- слениковъ, хотящих развратити честную и непорочную въру православ- ную, еже въ Христа бога нашего, в Троици славимаго, и погубити Христово стадо православное христианство, но не възмогоша, сами сътрошася, и вся мудрость их поглощена бысть. Глаголющимъ же имъ про господа нашего Исуса Христа сына божиа: «Како может богъ на землю снити и от девы родитися, яко человекъ, но ин есть тако, яко пророкъ бъ и подобен Моисъю, и не равен богу и Отцу». И не въроваху же, еже от пречистыа девы бого- родица рожеству еа, ни въскресению его, ни на иконах написанному образу по человечеству господа нашего Исуса Христа сына божиа не поклоняхуся, ни пречистыа образу, ни святым его угодником, но хуляще и ругающеся, глаголаху: «То суть дъла рукъ человеческых, уста имуть и не глаголють», и прочее, и подобни им да будут творящеи я, и вси надъющеся на ня. Тако же и божественую службу свершающе, ядше и пивше, и тъло Христово ни въ что же вмъняюще, яко простъ хлъбъ, и кровь Христову, яко просто вино. И иные // ереси многы творяще противно правилом святых апостолъ и святых отецъ, но болшее ветхаго закона держахуся: по июдеискы Пасху праздноваху, в среду и в пяток мясо и млеко ядяху. И иные дъла не- подобныя еретииская творяху, их же не мощно и писанию предати. И мно- гых простыхъ людеи прельстиша своими скверными ересми, и на соборъ перед великым князем и перед митрополитом, и пред архиепископомъ, и пред епископы, и пред всъмъ священнымъ събором тъх своих ересеи, скверных дълъ, запръшася и быша яко въ изступлении ума. 

Благовърныи же и христолюбивыи истинныи православию поборникъ, яко же вторыи царь Костянтин, князь великыи Иванъ Васильевич государь всея Руси самодръжец съ отцемъ своим святъишимъ митрополитомъ Зосимою и съ архиепископы, и епископы, и съ всъмъ священным събором Рускиа митрополиа, обыскавъ их скверные ереси и по архиепископлевым Генадиевым подлинникомъ, и по московскимъ свидътельством, тъхъ еретиков, Захарию черньца и сь его предреченными товарыщи и единомысленикы их по правилом святых апостолъ и святыхъ отецъ от святыа съборныа церквъ отлучиша, из сану извергоша и проклятию предаша, и в заточение ихъ послаша, а чистую и непорочную православную въру христианскую яснъ утвердиша и прославиша святую Троицу, въ едином божествъ нераз- дълну и несъзданну въ трех // съставех: Отца славяще, Сына въспъвающе и Духу Святому покланяющеся, Троицъ въ единици, единицы въ Троицы, сердцемъ и усты исповъдающе в въкы. Аминь.--СОКРАЩЕННЫЙ СВОД--РЕДАКЦИИ 1491 . (ГИМ, СИН. 963". "Abbreviated Compilation" of the 1491 Redaction (State Historical Museum, Synodal Manuscript 963)

"In the year 6999, by the command of the pious and Christ-loving Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, the God-loving archbishops and bishops gathered in the orthodox city of Moscow. The pious and Christ-loving Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich announced to them the selection of a metropolitan. And [present were] Archbishop Tikhon of Rostov, Nifont of Suzdal, Simeon of Ryazan, Vassian of Tver, Prokhor of Sarai, and Philotheus of Perm. But the Novgorod Archbishop Gennady sent his letter to his brethren, the archbishops and bishops, saying: 'Blessed be God, whom He wills, // and the most pure Mother of God and the great miracle-workers, as well as our sovereign Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia and you, my orthodox brethren, archbishops and bishops, and the entire sacred council of the Russian metropolitanate—he will be a father and teacher to us all; and I, with you, a shepherd and teacher to all orthodox Christianity; and I, with you, together with my brethren the archbishops and bishops, in this great divine matter, are of one will and desire.' And by the grace of God, by the election of the Holy Spirit, and by the choice of the pious and Christ-loving Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, and all the orthodox bishops, and the entire consecrated council of the Russian metropolitanate, they chose the Simonov Archimandrite Zosima as worthy to govern the flock entrusted to him by God. And he was elevated to the metropolitan court on the 19th day of September, and installed as Metropolitan of all Russia on the 26th of that month, a Sunday. On the 28th of that same month, an envoy from Chagatai, Urus Bogatyr, came to the Grand Prince from Sultan Usein concerning love and friendship. That same autumn, on October 17, by the command of the pious and Christ-loving true champion of Orthodoxy, Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich, sovereign and autocrat of all Russia, a council was held with the lord Most Holy Metropolitan Zosima of all Russia, together with all the archbishops and bishops, and with abbots, spiritual elders, protopopes, priests, deacons, and the entire sacred council of the Russian metropolitanate, against the perverters of the Christian faith: Zechariah the monk and his companions, the Novgorod protopope Gabriel, Denis the priest of the Archangel [Cathedral], Maxim the priest of Ivanovo, Vasily the priest of Pokrovskoe, Makar the deacon of St. Nicholas, Gridya the clerk of Borisoglebsk, Vasyuk the son-in-law of Denis, Samukha the clerk of St. Nicholas, and their like-minded followers, who sought to pervert the honorable and unblemished orthodox faith in Christ our God, glorified in the Trinity, and to destroy Christ’s flock of orthodox Christianity. But they could not prevail; they shattered themselves, and all their wisdom was swallowed up. They spoke of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, saying: 'How can God descend to earth and be born of a virgin as a man? Rather, He was another, like a prophet, similar to Moses, and not equal to God and the Father.' And they did not believe in His birth from the most pure Virgin Mother of God, nor in His resurrection, nor did they venerate the image of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, painted on icons according to His humanity, nor the most pure [Virgin’s] image, nor His holy saints, but blaspheming and mocking, they said: 'These are the works of human hands; they have mouths but do not speak,' and so forth, and let those who do likewise and all who trust in them be like them. Likewise, while performing the divine service, eating and drinking, they regarded the Body of Christ as nothing, as mere bread, and the Blood of Christ as mere wine. And they committed many other heresies contrary to the rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers, but most of all they adhered to the old law: they celebrated Passover in the Jewish manner, ate meat and dairy on Wednesdays and Fridays. And they performed other unseemly heretical deeds, which cannot even be committed to writing. And they seduced many simple people with their vile heresies, and at the council before the Grand Prince, the metropolitan, the archbishops, the bishops, and the entire sacred council, they denied those heresies and vile deeds, and were as if out of their minds."

"The pious and Christ-loving true champion of Orthodoxy, like a second Tsar Constantine, Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich, sovereign and autocrat of all Russia, together with his father, the most holy Metropolitan Zosima, and with the archbishops, bishops, and the entire sacred council of the Russian metropolitanate, having investigated their vile heresies according to the authentic documents of Archbishop Gennady and the testimonies of Moscow witnesses, excommunicated those heretics—Zechariah the monk, along with his aforementioned companions and like-minded followers—from the holy conciliar church according to the rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers, stripped them of their rank, condemned them to a curse, and sent them into exile; and they clearly affirmed and glorified the pure and unblemished Orthodox Christian faith, and praised the Holy Trinity, indivisible and uncreated in one divinity, in three [persons], proclaiming: glorifying the Father, extolling the Son, and bowing to the Holy Spirit, the Trinity in unity, the unity in the Trinity, confessing with heart and lips forever. Amen."--Translation of "Abbreviated Compilation" of the 1491 Redaction (State Historical Museum, Synodal Manuscript 963)

The following represents the "Nikon Chronicles" version of the event with birchbark helmets being lit on the heads of heretics by the Archbishop:

6999 (1491)....Той же осенью октября в 17 день повелением великого князя Иоанна Васильевича всея Руси был собор в Москве на богохульников, лжеучителей и ругателей святых икон и всем таинствам церковным противников, которых прислал из Великого Новгорода архиепископ Геннадий к митрополиту Геронтию, уличенных в богоотступничестве и лжеучительстве жидовского закона, извещая, что они ругали святые иконы и все святые тайны церковные. А ранее писал он, Геннадий, к великому князю, что в Новгороде великая крамола. И князь великий их, крамольников, велел вывести по иным городам, как прежде сказано, а сих еретиков привезли, когда умер уже Геронтий митрополит. Сия ересь началась, когда был в Новгороде князь Михаил Олелкович киевский. Тогда пришел с ним жидовин, именем Схарина, тот проклятый имел язык свой, словно уд, весьма сладкоречивый, и слова его все Библиею были преисполнены, образ жития его являлся целомудренным и кротким, но внутри полон смрада и нечистоты. Тот злоковарный многих тогда в Новгороде слабых смутил и жидовствовать прельстил. И хотя тот враг в Новгороде с иными казнен был от великого князя Иоанна Васильевича всея Руси, но еще не угас огонь тот ядовитый, ибо не все те богоотступники во время гнева погибли; и останки те начали множиться, поскольку вселился во многих сатана, и начали святое Евангелие отвергать, в басню его вменять. И сим не только мирских и неучей, но многих и от священства превратили, дошло даже то зло до Москвы, что слышав симоновский архимандрит Зосим от служащего дьякона прельстился, и внял безумию сему, и начал тайно жидовствовать. После Геронтия же митрополита сообщник его дьяк Истома сольстил великого князя сего Зосима возвести на митрополию русскую; и через малое время возведен был за неведение проклятого в нем богоотступства. И князь великий особенно поторопился из-за собора на привезенных тех богоотступников, думая, что без митрополита собору быть не пристойно, и вскоре повелел собору быть. На нем же архиепископ ростовский Тихон, епископ суздальский Нифонт, рязанский Симеон, тверской Вассиан, сарайский Прохор, пермский Филофей, сергиевский игумен Афанасий и прочие архимандриты, игумены, протопопы, дьяконы и чернецы, председательствовал же князь великий Иоанн Иоаннович. И было на соборе тому рассмотрение и многие расспросы, но Зосим никак не проявился, ибо скрылся волк лицемерством своим в одежду овчую; и когда все решили, что все сожечь по достоинству будет, когда же дошла очередь сказать до Зосимы митрополита, тот сказал: «По достоинству будет меня проклятию предать и сослать в Новгород на покаяние под стражу, так как мы от Бога не поставлены на смерть осуждать, но грешных обращать к покаянию». Были же те богоотступники осуждены проклятию: Захар чернец, Гаврила протопоп, Денис поп, Максим поп, Василий поп, Макар поп, Гридя дьяк, Васюк, зять Денисов, Самоха дьяк и некоторое количество от простых; и послали их в Новгород под стражею. Владыка же Геннадий, слышав то, ужаснулся и хотя не знал Зосимы богоотступника, но сказал: «Некто был на том соборе согласник сему злу». И послав, повелел их далеко за градом остановить, и поделал им шлемы берестяные, а платье их посмолил, и посажав на клячи бездельные лицом к хвосту, велел же им с обоих сторон мешки великие наложить и на мешках написал так: «Вот воин сатаны». И провезли их чрез град, а за градом повелел шлемы зажечь на них; и так все те хульники христианские изгибли. Но еще зол сосуд и головня содомская остался тот Зосим в Москве на митрополии, который потом за такое басурманство и богоотступление, как прах, исчез, и память его погибла с шумом. Архиеп. Тихон ростовский. Еп. Авраамий коломенский. Той же зимой декабря в 18 день в четверг произведен Ростову на архиепископство Тихон....--История Российская. Татищев Василий Никитич

"6999 (1491). ....That same autumn, on October 17, by order of Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, a council was held in Moscow against blasphemers, false teachers, and mockers of holy icons and all church sacraments—opponents whom Archbishop Gennady had sent from Great Novgorod to Metropolitan Geronty, having been convicted of apostasy and false teachings of the Jewish law. Gennady reported that they mocked holy icons and all church mysteries. Earlier, Gennady had written to the Grand Prince about a great sedition in Novgorod. The Grand Prince ordered those seditionists to be dispersed to other cities, as previously mentioned, and these heretics were brought after Metropolitan Geronty’s death. This heresy began when Prince Mikhail Olelkovich of Kyiv was in Novgorod. At that time, a Jew named Skharina arrived with him—a cursed man with a tongue like a serpent, exceedingly eloquent, his words steeped in Scripture, his manner of life appearing chaste and meek, though inwardly full of stench and impurity. That treacherous one swayed many weak souls in Novgorod and enticed them to Judaize. Although that enemy was executed in Novgorod along with others by order of Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, the poisonous fire did not fully die out, for not all those apostates perished during the time of wrath; their remnants began to multiply, as Satan had taken root in many. They started rejecting the Holy Gospel, deeming it a fable. This not only corrupted laypeople and the unlearned but also turned many from the priesthood, and the evil even reached Moscow. Hearing of this, Simonov Archimandrite Zosima was swayed by a serving deacon, succumbed to this madness, and began secretly Judaizing. After Metropolitan Geronty’s death, his accomplice, the clerk Istoma, persuaded the Grand Prince to elevate this Zosima to the Russian metropolitanate; shortly thereafter, he was installed, his cursed apostasy unknown. The Grand Prince hastened this especially because of the council against those brought apostates, believing it improper for a council to convene without a metropolitan, and soon ordered the council to take place. At it were Archbishop Tikhon of Rostov, Bishop Nifont of Suzdal, Simeon of Ryazan, Vassian of Tver, Prokhor of Sarai, Philotheus of Perm, Sergius Abbot Athanasius, and other archimandrites, abbots, protopopes, deacons, and monks, presided over by Grand Prince Ivan Ivanovich. There was much examination and interrogation at the council, but Zosima did not reveal himself, for the wolf hid his hypocrisy in sheep’s clothing. When all agreed that burning them would be just, it came to Metropolitan Zosima’s turn to speak, and he said: 'It would be fitting to subject me to a curse and send me to Novgorod for repentance under guard, for we are not appointed by God to condemn to death but to turn sinners to repentance.' Those apostates were condemned to a curse: Zechariah the monk, Gabriel the protopope, Denis the priest, Maxim the priest, Vasily the priest, Makar the priest, Gridya the clerk, Vasyuk (Denis’s son-in-law), Samokha the clerk, and some common folk; they were sent to Novgorod under guard. Hearing this, Archbishop Gennady was horrified and, though unaware of Zosima’s apostasy, said: 'Someone at that council was complicit in this evil.' He ordered them stopped far outside the city, made them birchbark helmets, smeared their clothes with pitch, seated them backward on worthless nags with large sacks on both sides inscribed: 'This is Satan’s warrior.' They were paraded through the city, and beyond it, their helmets were set ablaze on them; thus, those Christian blasphemers perished. Yet that vessel of evil and Sodomite ember, Zosima, remained in Moscow on the metropolitan throne, later vanishing like dust for such Muslim-like apostasy, his memory perishing with infamy. Archbishop Tikhon of Rostov. Bishop Avraamy of Kolomna. That same winter, on December 18, a Thursday, Tikhon was appointed Archbishop of Rostov....--AI translation of Russian History in All Its Fullness by Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev

The following is an excerpt from the Nikon Chronicles recounting the execution of heretics approved of by a 1504 Moscow Synod:

Here is a snippet taken from the old Russian text taken from the Russian Chronicles:

Nikon Chronicle (Letopisets Nikonovskii) Volume 12 in the Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisey (PSRL) or Том XII. Летописный сборник, именуемый Патриаршею или Никоновскою летописью

Here is a digitized modernized version of the text taken from Russia statehistory.ru by

Vasily Tatishchev’s History of Russia (Istoriya Rossiyskaya)

7013 (1505).... 

О казни еретиков. Той же зимой князь великий Иоанн Васильевич и сын его князь великий Василий Иоаннович всея Руси с Симоном, митрополитом всея Руси, и с епископами, и со всем собором выискали еретиков и повелели лихих смертною казнью казнить. И пожгли их в клетке: дьяка Волка Курицына, да Митю Коноплева, да Ивашку Максимова, декабря 24; а Некрасу Рукавову повелели язык урезать и в Новгороде Великом сожгли его. И той же зимой архимандрита Кассиана юрьевского сожгли, и его брата, и иных многих еретиков сожгли, а иных в заточение сослали, а иных по монастырям. --Vasily Tatishchev’s History of Russia (Istoriya Rossiyskaya) https://statehistory.ru/books/Vasiliy-Tatishchev_Istoriya-Rossiyskaya--CHasti-2-4/62

On the execution of heretics. That same winter, Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich and his son, Grand Prince Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia, together with Simon, Metropolitan of All Russia, and the bishops, and the entire council, investigated the heretics and ordered the wicked ones to be executed with death. And they burned them in a cage: the clerk Volk Kuritsyn, Mitya Konoplev, and Ivashka Maximov, on December 24; and Nekras Rukavov was ordered to have his tongue cut out and was burned in Great Novgorod. And that same winter, Archimandrite Kassian of Yuryev was burned, along with his brother and many other heretics, while some were sent into exile, and others were dispatched to monasteries.--Vasily Tatishchev’s History of Russia (Istoriya Rossiyskaya). Volume XII, year 

7013  (AI translation)

To be continued. 

Justinian Code on heresy

This article is in response to Fr. Ambrose M. an online hieromonk claiming Catholics saints we defended execution for heresy are in Hell. 

Far from being spot free from harsh treatment of heretic, the Eastern Church and Eastern Emperor did support capital punishment for certain heresies and religious crimes. Here are examples from Emperor Justinian alone.

The Orthodox Saint Emperor Justinian, his code states that Manichaeans are to be executed:

We permitted the heretics to assemble and have their own name for this reason: that, ashamed by Our forbearance, they may come to their senses and turn to the better of their. own accord. 1. But an unbearable audacity has possessed them, and, disregarding the sanction of the law, they have insinuated themselves into clerical posts which, as the very words of the imperial decrees manifestly declare, they may no longer hold. 2. We call heretics others, such as the execrable Manichaeans and their ilk, who ought not to be named here nor indeed anywhere and defile whatever they touch. 3. The Manichaeans, then, as We have said, shall accordingly be driven out, nor shall anyone suffer even their name (to remain) or do nothing if someone infected with this godlessness should live in the same place as the others; but any Manichaean found anywhere in the world shall be subjected to extreme punishments. 4. As for the other heretics, whatever their error or name (for We call everyone who does not adhere to the Catholic Church and our Orthodox and Holy Faith a heretic), and also as regards the pagans (Hellenes), who attempt to introduce the worship of many gods, and the Jews and Samaritans: We strive not only to revive the statutes of existing laws and to strengthen them by this law, but also to enact more, whereby the security, honor, and prestige of the adherents of the Holy Faith may be increased. 5. All can observe, We have said, how those who do not rightly worship God shall also be deprived of their earthly goods.--The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text Based on a Translation by Justice Fred H. Blume. First Book, 5.12, page 203. (2016). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

 Public lectures which can undermine the faith are prohibited, with different punishments including execution:

Emperor Marcian Augustus to Palladius, Praetorian Prefect. pr. No clergyman or member of the imperial service, or any person of any status, shall hereafter attempt to lecture on the Christian faith before crowds assembled to listen, thereby seeking to foment disorder and treachery 1. For whoever strives to revisit and publicly discuss questions already decided and correctly settled, insults the judgment of the Most Holy Synod. For it is recognized that the decisions concerning the Christian faith, made at Our behest by the bishops who convened at Chalcedon, are in accord with the teachings of the Apostles and the decrees of the 318 and 150 holy fathers. 2. Punishment shall not be lacking for those who disregard this law, for they not only act contrary to the rightly expounded faith, but also, by such strife, profane the venerable mysteries before the eyes of Jews and Pagans. 3. If a clergyman, therefore, dares to discuss religion in public, he shall be expelled from the community of the clergy; if he holds a position in the imperial service, he shall be stripped of his rank (cingulum), All others guilty of this crime shall, if they are free men, be banished from this Most Sacred City and shall be subjected to appropriate punishments in accordance with judicial vigor; if they are slaves, however, they shall be stricken with the severest punishments (death)--The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text Based on a Translation by Justice Fred H. Blume. 

First Book, 1.4. page 19. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

A general condemnation of all heretics that they cannot pray on Roman soil with a remained Manichaeans are not to be allowed to live. 

Emperor Theoposius Augustus and VALENTINIAN Caesar to Florentius, Praetorian Prefect. pr. The Arians and Macedonians, Pneumatomachians and Apollinarians and Novatians or Sabbatians, Eunomians, Tetradites or Tessarescaedecatites, Valentinians, Papianists, Montanists or Priscillianists or Phrygians or Pepuzites, Marcianists, Borborians, Messallians, Eutychites or Enthusiasts, Donatists, Audians, Hydroparastates, Tascodrogites, Batrachites, Hermeiecians, Photinians, Paulians, Marcellians, Ophites, Encratites, Apotactites, Saccorphors, and those who have descended to the basest criminal iniquity, the Manichaeans, shall have no right to gather and pray anywhere  on Roman soil.

1. The Manichaeans shall be expelled from the cities and delivered up to capital punishment"? for there must be no place left them in which they might do insult to the very elements....property...any way whatsoever...where they meet by the permission or connivance of the owner, which shall be confiscated for the venerable Catholic Church; or concerning a procurator who does this without the knowledge of the owner, which procurator shall suffer a fine....

2. So that they neither meet in public nor build themselves pseudo-churches...they must be checked by all... means, with the aid of the curias, defenders, and governors, under threat of a fine of 20 pounds of gold.

3. The laws, too, which have been promulgated concerning the imperial service, various punishments, and sundry heretics, shall remain in full force...--The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text Based on a Translation by Justice Fred H. Blume. First book, 5.5. Page 193 United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Execution is decreed for false converts or backsliders: 

(Emperor JUSTINIAN Augustus ...). pr. Since some have been found who, possessed by the error of the unholy and vile pagans...knowing that they abandoned the worship of the true and only God and, in their insane error, offered sacrifices to idols and celebrated feasts replete with every iniquity, We subjected those who had committed these sins after being deemed worthy of holy baptism - rather mercifully - to appropriate punishment according to the crimes proved against them; but henceforth...We declare before all that those who have become Christians and deemed worthy of holy and saving baptism, for whatever length of time, if they are found still to adhere to the error of the pagans, shall be subjected to the ultimate punishments....

For if such a person should be found here or in the provinces, and he does not hasten to Our most holy churches with his wives (sic) and children, as has been said, he shall undergo the penalties indicated above; the Treasury shall claim their property and they themselves shall be sent into exile. 4. If anyone hiding in Our Empire should be caught performing sinful sacrifices or idolatry, he shall be subjected to the ultimate punishments to which the Manichaeans - which is as much as to say the Borborites — are deservedly subject; for We judge the latter to be like the former.--The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text Based on a Translation by Justice Fred H. Blume. First Book, 11.10. Page 245. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

The Justinian repeats the punishment of execution multiple times for Manichaeans!

Against Isaac the Syrian

Isaac the Syrian, also know as Isaac of Nineveh, was a 7th Century bishop of Niveveh from Qatar who was almost certainly a member of the Church of the East, yet he is considered a saint by the Orthodox Church and some eastern Catholic Churches, though not recognized in the Roman church. 

Bishop Barron has cited Isaac the Syrian for his contention of the possibility of an empty Hell, however Isaac treated Hell more like a purgatory where many people went to for a time. Isaac's 'hope' was an expectation and not limited to human, but included Satan himself. In addition, several Orthodox memes quote Isaac on Hell, often omitting the fact he denied it's unending nature.

The following include excerpts of the Russian Orthodox bishop, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev's book, "The Spiritual World Of Isaac The Syrian" (2016)

Concerning Isaac's church--the Church of the East, Metropolitan Alfeyev writes:

"A local council in 585 confirmed the unshakeable authority of Theodore and forbad anyone 'in open or in secret to defame this Doctor of the Church or to refute his holy books" Subsequently two other Councils, in 596 and 605, condemned Henana's interpretations and repeated the anathemas against those who 'refute the commentaries, exegeses and teachings of the proven teacher, the blessed Theodore the Interpreter, and who attempt to introduce new and strange exegeses replete with folly and blasphemy'. The faith of the Church of Persia became 'the faith of Theodore', or 'of Theodore and Diodore', --The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian. Hilarion Alfeyev. 2016 

Notice the phrase "blessed Theodore the Interpreter"? Isaac used that exact phrase when quoting him on universal reconciliation! Diodore of Tarsus, though considered a saint in the early Church was a universalist in all likelihood.  Isaac's communion openly made Theodore of Mopsuestia their standard and doctor of the church. Nestorius got Nestorianism largely from Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodore rejected theotokos too, he believed Mary was anthropotokos and only indirectly theotokos.

Metropolitan Hilarion writes:

"By the mid-seventh century the names of 'the three teachers'--Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius--were inserted in the diptychs of the Church of the East and they were commemorated ever since."

"The Church of the East continued to commemorate Theodore and Diodore after they had been anathematized in Byzantium, and it included the name of Nestorius on the diptychs long after he had been condemned. All of this testifies that the Church of Persia, though not 'Nestorian' in a strict theological sense, adhered to the theological and Christological thought which was rather close to that of Nestorius."--The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian. Hilarion Alfeyev. 2016 

So, clearly the Church of Isaac the Syrian was fairly close theologically to Nestorius himself, and considered him a saint along with his teacher--Theodore of Mopsuestia. 

Isaac the Syrian,  held the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia in high regard, as indicated in the following:

"anyone who likes can turn to the writings of the blessed Interpreter, a man who had his sufficient fill of the gift of grace, who was entrusted with the hidden mysteries of the scriptures, (enabling him) to instruct on the path to truth the whole community of the Church; who, above all, has illumined us orientals with wisdom -- nor is our mind's vision capable enough (to bear) the brilliancy of his compositions, inspired by the divine Spirit.... From the blessed Theodore, the Interpreter. After other luminous statements he says...."--Homélies Ascétiques, Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian), The Second Part, Chapter IV-XLI. Translated by Sebastian Brock. (emphasis mine)

Some Orthodox apologists claim "The Second Part" is not Isaac the Syrian at all, but some other heretic, or possibly even another Isaac mistaken for their St Isaac the Syrian. However, even if we take Isaac's writings before the rediscovery of "The Second Part" it is evident Isaac was a heretic, some universalists suggested Isaac was one of them by Isaac's statements about Hell, though not as explicit as "The Second Part" we have now.  In the first part, Isaac still quoted Theodore of Mopsuestia calling him the "blessed Interpreter" there too:

"Concerning all these things one may be well instructed in particulars from the writings of the blessed bishop Theodore, the light of the whole world. For he speaks about the kind and the rank of revelations, especially in the three volumes on Genesis and in the two volumes on Job and in the last one about the Twelves Prophets, and in the commentaries on the Acts and the Gospel of Matthew."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, XIX, On the Revelations and Powers which Happens to the Saints in Images. Page 105-106

"...as the blessed commentator denotes in his commentary on the story in the Acts: And those who went on the way with Paul...."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, XIX, On the Revelations and Powers which Happens to the Saints in Images. Page 106

"The is clearly proved by the blessed commentator in the second volume on Job.--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, XIX, On the Revelations and Powers which Happens to the Saints in Images. Page 108

Concerning the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, whereas Isaac the Syrian stated he was "blessed", "illumined", etc. the ecumenical council stated strongly for the contrary:

First, we considered Theodore of Mopsuestia. When all the blasphemies in his works were exposed, we were astonished at God's patience, that the tongue and mind which had formed such blasphemies were not straightaway burned up by divine fire. We would not even have allowed the official reader of these blasphemies to continue, such was our fear of the anger of God at even a rehearsal of them (since each blasphemy was worse than the one before in the extent of its heresy and shook to their foundation the minds of their listeners), if it had not been the case that those who revelled in these blasphemies seemed to us to require the humiliation which their exposure would bring upon them. All of us, angered by the blasphemies against God, burst into attacks and anathemas against Theodore, during and after the reading, as if he had been living and present there. We said: Lord, be favourable to us; not even the demons themselves have dared to speak such things against you. --The Second Council of Constantinople, Sentence against the "Three Chapters" AD 553

The voluminous amount of contempt for Theodore of Mopsuestia is too much to quote! But the council stated he is anathema:

Consequently we anathematize the aforesaid three chapters, that is, the heretical Theodore of Mopsuestia along with his detestable writings,--The Second Council of Constantinople, Sentence against the "Three Chapters" AD 553

Initially, the Pope, while recognizing Theodore as having heretical theology, was hesitant to anathematize someone long after death, eventually he went along with it.

Bishop Alfeyev mentions Isaac depended on Evagrius:

"According to Brock, Isaac's style--phraseology and terminology--"owes a great debt to two writer in particular, John the Solitary and Evagrius'.....Isaac mentions Evagrius by name and many times quotes from him"--The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian. Hilarion Alfeyev. 2016

Issac calling Evagrius (Euagrius)"the sage among the saints", "blessed". A few instances include:

"And the following word has been said by the sage among the saints, Mar Euagrius, who did every thing which he did with a purpose: Prayer is a joy that gives place to thanksgivings."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, VIII: What it is that helps a man to come near etc. Page 72

"The blessed Euagrius has well said: A clear way is founded upon mercy."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, LXII: On True Knowledge and Temptations etc. Page 306

"And also the blessed Euagrius witnessing to this through real experience, has committed it to writing, for the sake of ampler confirmation, as it were lest any one should think that the blessed Macarius wrote this in his letter fortuitously without having examined his words carefully..."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatise, LXII: On True Knowledge and Temptations etc. Page 333

"As also the blessed Euagrius says: the mind which by the grace of God performs works of excellence and approaches unto knowledge, perceives little of the foolish part of the soul."--Isaac of Nineveh, Mystic Treatises. LXXIV: On the Discrimination of Virtues etc. Page 345 

Yet, according to the third Council of Constantinople in AD 680-681, the prior council Constantinople ecumenical council (AD 553) was in part to condemn Evagrius:

Wherefore this holy and universal synod of ours, driving afar the error of impiety which endured for some time even till the present, following without deviation in a straight path after the holy and accepted fathers, has piously accorded in all things with the five holy and universal synods: that is to say, with...... 5. the fifth holy synod, the latest of them, which was gathered here against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the twelve chapters of the renowned Cyril, and the letter said to have been written by Ibas to Mari the Persian.--Third Council of Constantinople. Exposition of Faith. A.D. 680-681 (emphasis mine)

The bishop explains how the Orthodox church came to recognize his as a saint---it happened hundreds of years later:

"by the eleventh century, the Greek translations of his writings made Isaac widely known in the Greek-speaking East; in the famous anthology of ascetical texts, the Evergetinon, passages from 'abba Isaac the Syrian' stand on the same footing as those of classics of early Byzantine spirituality. This is how a modest 'Nestorian' bishop from a remote province of Persia became a Holy Father of the Orthodox Church of Chalcedonian orientation...."--The Spiritual World Of Isaac The Syrian. Hilarion Alfeyev. 2016

How can you conclude from Metropolitan Hilarion's book, and from Isaac's veneration of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Evagrius that Isaac was orthodox?

The most perplexing thing about the canonization by some of Isaac the Syrian is his veneration of formerly condemned heretics and doctrine at a time after an ecumenical council ruled against the heretics and their heresies. Ironically, those condemned by Constantinople II were condemned after death as heretics though in life being presumed to die within the Church, while Isaac the Syrian was on the opposite end and venerated, being known only hundreds of years after death, despite his heresy and rejection of an ecumenical councils rulings. 

Isaac the Syrian taught even the restoration of the demons:

And it is clear that He does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their sins; rather, He is going to bring them to a single equal state of completion in relationship to His own Being in a state in which the holy angels are now, in perfection of love and a passionless mind--Isaac the Syrian, The Second Part, Chapter 40:4, translated by Sebastian Brock

This doctrine was anathematized explicitly in AD 543 by Pope Vigilius, Eastern Patriarchs and Emperor Justinian:

Can. 9. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.--Book against Origen of the Emperor Justinian, AD 543 (Denzinger 211)

How is such a blatant heretic a saint? How can bishops such as Robert Barron cite Isaac the Syrian as a legitimate source? The Second Council of Constantinople, contrary to what is commonly believed, seemed to suggest the heretics anathematized post humously by it, including Theodore of Mopsuestia and Evagrius died "separated from God" in other words.....damned to Hell.

Addedum: This link contains an Eastern Orthodox defense of Isaac, from a mystical albeit non-academia point of view.mystical albeit non-academic point of view.

Was God the Son separated from God the Father are Calvary?

Recently, a few people has told me and others on Paltalk that during the Cross Christ was "separated from the Father."  One person that said this was an antiCatholic who is a Calvinist, another was a young man that left the Church believing himself to be more Catholic than the pope (he stated Christ's separation was purely in His humanity, not Divinity), another was an anti/ex-Catholic who received education at a Protestant 'bible college.'.

People that promote this theory use many scriptures as proof texts.  They include the Scripture at Calvary where Christ says "why have you forsaken me," the passage in 1st Corinthians where St Paul declares Christ became sin for us, and other passages which state Christ "bore" our sins, and the verse in Isaiah 53 where it speaks of the suffering Servant as being "cut off"

As a note the verse about being forsaken is a quotation of Psalm 22 and Christ is expressing the words of sinners, perhaps the best explanation for this is found by St Augustine of Hippo:

"...the first verse of which the Lord Himself uttered on the Cross: "My God, My God, look upon Me; why have You forsaken Me?" For "transferring us in a figure" [1 Corinthians 4:6] to what He was saying, and to His own Body (for we are also "His Body," and He is our "Head"), He uttered from the Cross not His own cry, but ours. For God never "forsook" Him: nor did He Himself ever depart from the Father; but it was in behalf of us that He spoke this: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" For there follows, "Far from My health are the words of My offences:" and it shows in whose person He said this; for sin could not be found in Him.…"--Exposition on Psalm 44

I will deal with the other Scripture verses at a later time.

The main reason the view Christ was separated from the Father is not a viable view if for it's incompatiblity with Trinity theology and the hypostatic union.

For Christ to be separated from the Father would require either Arianism (even temporary) or some form of temporary polytheism.  For Christ being God to be separated from God the Father would mean there was some form of fracture in the Trinity.  The Trinity is a profession that God is one substance in the Persons that are united.  Many Protestants like to assert that Deuteronomy 6:4 (Hear of Israel....the Lord is One) word echad (one) refers to a compound unity.  Now if God is a compound unity, then how can God the Son be separated from God the Father and still be One God, that is a compound unity?  The answer is plain, it cannot be the case. God cannot be separated from Himself, it would be illogical in anyway.  One of the individuals told me it only seems illogical, like when God became a man.  However, God becoming a man is not illogical because God the Son did not lose His form as God by assuming a human nature, John 3:13 tells us He was in Heaven while being on Earth.  While the theory Christ was separted from the Father is absolutely illogical since it violates the profession of God being One, a 'compound unity.' 

Now for the belief that Jesus Christ was only separated from the Father in His human nature alone.  This view is less illogical and less blasphemous at the first, but it is still a great error to claim since it would split the Person of Christ into two and undue the incarnation.  If He is fully God and man united in one person, Jesus Christ, that is the hypostatic union, then the Atonement would require Him to be separated from Himself, requiring Him possibly to be present solely in His Human nature at the Cross. This person that pushed this theory (the sedevacantist) eventually seemed to admit he did not know much theology (which begs then "how are you a sedevacantist if you don't know much theology" since sedevacantists insist the Church has fallen into heresy, but perhaps he IS a sedevacantist BECAUSE he does not know much theology, but this is the subject of another article.)

In experience I have only met one person (a Protestant) that acknowledged the difficulty in believing Jesus was separated from God the Father at the Cross who accepted it. He said told me in rougly these words "Yes the Trinity was broken up at the Cross!"

To be Continued....