1. Historical conditions

Deviations of smaller or greater importance from the Orthodox dogma would often develop in the provinces of the Byzantine Empire, something which marked the difficulty to secure uniformity and an agreement with the capital. The local character of the various monastic communities encouraged the emergence of movements which could be characterized by the official ecclesiastic authority as heretic. Suitable conditions for the emergence of such movements, especially after the Iconoclasm, were usually established in the most isolated areas, such as Lykaonia and Pamphylia, where previously the Messalians had found refuge. Until approximately the mid-10^th century, the official church manifested a certain tolerance concerning deviations of some monastic communities, provided they did not spread. On the contrary, during the second half of the 10^th and in the 11^th century it assumes a more dynamic action against such movements.

Around the mid-10^th century, a group of believers was organized around the monk Eleutherios in central Asia Minor; they eventually formed a monastic community. According to the synodal act of the condemnation of Eleutherios’ teaching, he was accused of being a member of the heresy of the Messalians, which was formed around the 4^th century. It was a usual phenomenon to confuse the new movements which were characterized as heretical from the official church with older heresies, already documented, due to certain common points, since the official church faced with a simplistic, absolute and dogmatic manner any movement deviating from its established principles. Thus Eleutherios was accused as a Messalian, exactly as the Bogomils or the Paulicians previously. There are not, however, enough evidence to support the theory that his teaching was a neo-messalian movement and thus a revival and continuation of an older heresy. It was probably more of a reemergence of certain ideas of the Messalian dogma. Apparently his contemporaries on purpose reproached him with elements referring to Paulicianism and Messalianism, such as the breaking of oath and denial of the Cross worship, in order to achieve the most exemplary and effective condemnation of the movement and its followers.¹

2. Foundation of the monastery and dogma

Eleutherios came from Paphlagonia. Around the mid-10^th century he founded a monastery at Morokambos of Lykaonia, a region which is not mentioned in any other source.² The only information available (from the synodal act condemning the heresy) is that Morokambos belonged to the ecclesiastic province of Lystra, since the province’s bishop was assigned by the patriarch of Constantinople Alexios Stoudites (1025-1043) to ordain priest any of the former followers of Eleutherios who wanted it, after the soundness of their faith had been ascertained. According to Eleutherios’ teaching (as it is documented by the synodal act, thus by a non-objective reference from the beginning), each monk had the right to copulate with two wives, whereas every laic, after passing from an initiation stage which lasted a year and during which he was obliged in sexual abstinence and temperance, had full sexual freedom with no distinctions.³ It is rather strange that the moral looseness should be the main element of Eleutherios’ teaching. The emphasis laid by the official church on the immorality of his teaching suggests that obviously some of its other sides are concealed. Behind the typical freedom of sexual activity promoted by the heresy one must suppose the seeking of a different approach to apathy, according to which liberality was used as a mean towards discipline and perfection. The will to exercise the apathy was what led to excess, to extreme mystical experiences, and ended up being considered as undermining the prevailing ecclesiastic structures under the form of a heretic movement. Unfortunately the lack of sources prevents us from drawing more precise conclusions concerning the actual teaching of Eleutherios.

The patriarch Polyeuktos (956-970) was the first to condemn Eleutherios’ heresy in a synodal trial, from which we only have an epistle, since the actual patriarchal document has not survived.⁴ Eleutherios was not present at the trial. His followers pretended they repented and returned to Polyeuktos and Phokas, metropolitan of Ikonion, signed a denunciation of their creed and of their leader, but in reality remained unrepentant. Worse still, after Eleutherios’ death his worship was diffused amongst his followers. He was buried inside the katholikon of the monastery, his followers composed hymns to honour him and worshiped his images, practically making a saint of him; this was also based on the fact that his body did not decay. They also developed a monastic community of interspersed cells dependent on the central monastery.

3. Trial and persecution

The only source available on Eleutherios Paphlagon’s monastic community is the synodal act which prescribed the dissolution of the group of his followers, by decision of the patriarch Alexios Stoudites.⁵ It is actually a summary of the second part of the trial on heresy, as recorded by a certain notary. More specifically, around 1030 and as Eleutherios’ heresy and cult were still spreading, notwithstanding the previous condemnation by patriarch Polyeuktos, the metropolitan of Side Constantine sent his followers to the synodal court. Meanwhile, the protospathatios Sergios forced the abbot of the monastery Gregorios and the rest of the followers of the heresy to transport Eleutherios’ relic in an isolated area and to destroy his books and images. They obeyed, but, due to the previous perjuring renounce of Eleutherios’ teaching by his followers, the synod issued another decision according to which his monks-followers were dispersed in various orthodox monasteries, were obliged to a confession of faith, to renounce of Eleutherios and his teaching and to bury his body into the earth, according to the orthodox ecclesiastic rules. Also, it was determined that, if proved to have sincerely repented and changed, they would be gradually accepted in the church and they would again have the right to Holy Communion. They were only exempted from the service of the confessor, which would give them uncotrollable power. Furthermore, the bishop of Lystra was assigned to ordain but also to supervise any laic follower of Eleutherios who wanted to become a priest in the future.

4. Consequences