What is a heretic?

[Scott Pierson]

I have to admit that the more I read about the Christological controversies the more confused I get. I once had very cut and dry black/white answers to the whole issue but now I'm lost in a sea of gray. I guess one of the areas of confusion is the nature of heresy and who is a heretic. It seems that so often we find people who have lived their life in the Church, lived holy lives, and were counted as friends or as authorities by a variety of Saints and Church Fathers later find themselves on the roll of heretics and arch-heretics. Why is this and how does it reflect on the spiritual discernment of the St's and Fathers's who associated with the said heretics?

Here is one example of what I'm talking about:

I really don't understand how Diodore of Tarsus who counted St Chrysostom as one of his disciples and was a strong supporter of Nicene Orthodoxy posthumously becomes recognized as a heretic ? Wouldn't a man of St Chrysostom spiritual character know that his own teacher was a "heretic" if he actually was one ? I've also read that St Chrysostom counted the anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia as a spiritual friend (both of them having been taught by Diodore).

This is another question I have. If the Church that held to Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology is in fact heretical then how did it produce such men of God as St Isaac the Syrian, John of Dalyatha, and Joseph the Visionary?

I have these same questions regarding Evagrius (Did St John Cassian know that his own teacher Evagrius was a "heretic"?) and Origen. If they were heretics they sure pulled the wool over the eyes of a VERY large number of Saints and Fathers of the Church.


Sorry for the rambling nature of this post. Thats just how I "organize" (or rather don't organize) my thoughts.

[Edward Henderson]

I think the first thing we must realize is that saints are not infallible. When we read the Church Fathers, we kind sometimes find theological errors in their very writings. This is why the Orthodox Church does not rely on the writings on one church father to articulate the mind of the Church.

Now when we attempt to define what a heretic is, I think we must look at it at several angles. The most basic definition would be one that holds theological opinions that are contrary to the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Now this can oversimplify matters because often ordinary believers have a simple understanding of the faith and can often hold ideas that are contradictory to the teachings of the Church. It is the responsibility of pastors to teach the faith correctly to prevent this. But I have never known laypeople who are mistaken in some of their ideas to be branded heretics.

Typically, the Church would declare someone a heretic who is influential over the faithful, typically clergy, whose teachings clearly contradict those of the Church, who has been corrected but still persists in their heresy. This is done to protect the faithful as Orthodox doctrines are ultimately therapeutic for the healing of the soul. Thus, heresy can harm the soul. So the Church does not seek out heretics and first tries to resolve heresies within the Church. When that would fail, then ecclesiastical courts, local synods, and Ecumenical Councils occurred to combat a certain heresy and articulate the Orthodox faith.

And so we do have examples of those who were condemned as heretics after their deaths. Usually it was because their heretical teachings became generally accepted by large amounts of faithful.

And this is important to understand because we cannot simply accuse ordinary people as heretics who are simply mistaken. Let God be the judge of those who personally held to heretical views despite being taught the Orthodox Faith. We must also realize that the Church operates on a conciliar level when declaring on a heretic. So even when a heresy arises, the said heretic is not outside the Church until the Church acts and declares them so.

We unfortunately find an unhealthy attitude among certain uncanonical Orthodox groups who point out heretic teachings in certain contemporary hierarchs and then conclude that we must break communion with them because they are automatically outside the Church.

[Antonios]

Dear Scott,

In addition to Edward's excellent post, I would like to add that the Church ex-communicates members as a visible display of fidelity to the orthodox teachings of the faith (which has been handed down from generation to generation). This is strictly the Church protecting the flock from possible lurking wolves.

The Church proclaims : 'Ανάθεμα!' ('anathema', which is from the Greek work meaning 'something lifted up in the air', or 'offered up to the Lord and Judge')

The Church does not condemn any child of God, whom He loves and has made in His image. This perversion of the understanding of ex-communication is a consequence of the middle ages I believe, though if anyone can comment on this or correct me, I would be very grateful.

Is Diodore of Tarsus a saint of the Church? I don't think anyone except God knows. I guess we will find out at the Final Judgment.

Thankfully, we know that God is merciful and loves us and that divine justice is not human justice. Rather than entangling our minds with Christological controversies and the weaknesses of man, let us work upon the more fundamentals, like humility, obedience, and charity.

When these are concentrated upon, then we will gain greater insight into the various controversies and see the will of God with more clarity and simplicity.

Until we gain such discernment, we struggle with our passions under the guidance of a spiritual father. And in our daily life and it's encounters, we commit ourselves in finding the face of God in each person's face we see. Then, every person becomes an encounter with God and another opportunity for us to share our love for Him.

Glory to God for all things!

In Christ,
Antonios

[Scott Pierson]

Thank you. I've found both these posts educational.


Now this can oversimplify matters because often ordinary believers have a simple understanding of the faith and can often hold ideas that are contradictory to the teachings of the Church.That's probably the case with me. Thats why I ask all these question so I can discern what the Church actually teaches. At times it seems hard to know what this is. I'm told that ecumenical councils are infailable authorities of Orthodox belief but at the same time a council isn't accepted as truly ecumenical if it isn't "accepted by the Church". The second part seems a little vague as it's been explained to me at least. Chalcedon for example seemed to have been accepted by certain local Churches and not others. The Christians outside the Roman Empire apparently didn't even have a voice in the Council of Ephesus and considered it a purely Roman affair (at least thats how Sebastian Brock explained it in a book of his I was reading a few days ago (http://books.google.com/books?id=Ey_FW7acTycC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=Nestorianism,+council+of+ephesus,+Sebastian+Bro ck&source=bl&ots=N9NFtqoKV0&sig=4laTn2PbtbdNgaFQ4vp0stbuHqI&hl=en&ei=6AjjSoy7HIOk8AbwoPj9AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false) on google book.*). How do we know when the Church accepts a council? Do we just go by what our local Church decides to accept?

*
"Another point that one needs to remember when dealing with the history of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth centuries is that at this period the term 'ecumenical council' meant, not a 'universal' council, but one which took place within the oikoumene of the Roman Empire. Thus the 'ecumenical councils' were of no direct concern to the Christian Church- the Church of the East - in the Persian Empire (approximately modern Iraq and Iran) unless that Church subsequently decided to recognize it (as indeed happened in the case of the council of Nicaea eighty five years after the Council had sat)"

[Scott Pierson]

The Church does not condemn any child of God, whom He loves and has made in His image. This perversion of the understanding of ex-communication is a consequence of the middle ages I believe, though if anyone can comment on this or correct me, I would be very grateful.


Thats good to know.