Forgive me, I just noticed on the “Monks” discussion where you mentioned that you were in the Antiochian Archdiocese so therefore you are under Metropolitan Philip.

Just ’cause the OCA has grave problems with its ecclesiology doesn’t mean I don’t like it when Metropolitan Jonah speaks in an Orthodox manner to heretics. Go Met. Jonah!

I just used the words of your own Metropolitan as example of what “heresy” means today. Perhaps you can direct your answers to him and post his answers here?

Calvinism was condemned as a heresy in 1638 at the Council of Constantinople.

Re: “A more nefarious scenario exists: because of our disunity, certain groups will take it upon themselves to infiltrate that jurisdiction which they believe is more sympathetic and eventually force the issue (whatever that issue is for them). At that point, their aberration from ecclesial norms will become normative and it will be up to the rest of Orthodoxy to condemn it and the jurisdiction which allows and/or promotes it. Hence, the breaking of communion.”

Sounds suspiciously like a warning against heretics infiltrating the Church!

George, check out the section of the Confession that begins with:

“The path is now open for the adoption, the shaping and the development within the sphere of the Orthodox Church, of the initially Protestant invention – and now with Papal acceptance – heresy of Ecumenism; this pan-heresy, which adopts and legalizes all heresies as ‘churches’ and insults the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now developed, taught and imposed by Patriarchs and bishops is the new dogma regarding the Church, a new ecclesiology. According to this, no Church is entitled to demand for itself exclusively the character of a catholic and true Church. Instead, each one of them is a piece, a part, and not the entire Church; they all together comprise the Church….

“All the boundaries that the Fathers had set have been torn down; there is no longer a dividing line between heresy and Church, between truth and fallacy.”

It looks like you might have more in common with these “ethnic bishops” than you realize or maybe it’s just another case of, “You can take the boy out of the country, but you can’t take the country out of the boy.”

What will it take to get you to sign the Confession today?

1. Jesus Christ is Lord, God and Savior
2. Jesus Christ is one of the Holy Trinity
3. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.
4. Mary is the Mother of God

Would you agree that anyone who holds these doctrines is Christologically sound?

Are they then heretics on the grounds of their eccelsiology? If they are, I return to my prior statements that the eccelsiolgy being propogated by many Orthodox hierarchs is hardly better. Should we not see to our own house first, the veritable forest of logs sprouting from our own eyes?

Are they perhaps heretics on the basis of their soteriology? If so, have they ever once been taught by the Church what is true? Have they consciously denied the teaching of the Church? You simply cannot know that about a whole group of people. Was Jesus lying when he spoke in John 3 of salvation as a matter of being baptized and accepting Him? Perhaps there is a secret teaching that only the Orthodox know?

The fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are not limited in their salvific work to the communion of the Orthodox Church.

BTW where and when was Calvinism condemned as a heresy? What exactly is the meaning of Calvinism(there are not many full-blooded Calvinists out there you know)?

There is an heretical even a blasphemous mind in which we all live. We are all under its sway to some degree. Just saying we’re right, your’re wrong does no good. Separating ourselves artifically from each other by criteria that make no difference to salvation is wrong.

George is quite right in his list of practices that have been approved ‘in the Church’. Worse yet, many ordinary folks who don’t have influence are but under the full strictness of the cannons.

“They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”
– 1 John 2:19

Does anyone see “hypocritical triumphalism” in the above?

Since the time beginning of the Church heresies (i.e. heretics) have arisen to peel off those who are not “approved” or do not “belong to us.” Why should we expect to be immune to this evil in modern times?

The reaction to the “Confession Against Ecumenism” in the body of the Orthodox Church is another manifestation of this battle with two sides beginning to form against each other, those who support the Confession and those against it. this battle, in this time has to be fought.

There is no “triumphalism” in this document. Underlying the strength and solidity of the confession is sadness and grief that such a statement even has to be made during these evil times in which we are living.

This ancient truth is just as true now as then:

“Believe me children, heresies and schisms have done nothing for the Holy Church except to make us love the Lord and each other less than before.” – Abba Palladios

Let’s look at another Orthodox versus heresy happening in the news.

Metropolitan Jonah recently told a group of Anglicans,”Calvinism is a condemned heresy,” knowing full well that many within that jurisidiction hold to this heresy. Holding to this “heresy” prevents them from being in communion with the Orthodox Church.

The Dictionary of Orthodox Terminology on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese defines: Heresy. (Gr. “new and personal belief or idea”). The denial or rejection of a revealed dogma or belief accepted and professed by the Church. An individual who begins a heresy is a heretic and is excommunicated.

Metropolitan Jonah challenged these Protestants to give up their heretical beliefs and to stop being heretics so that there could be a possibility of them becoming Orthodox Christians.

How are they heretics? They hold to heretical beliefs.

Ultimately this is all tied in with heresy in that Orthotriumphaslism + phyletism causes administrative disunity which inevitably lead to schism.

Why do I say this? Because there is no conciliar sanction against a particular jurisdiction that takes it upon itself to do goofy things. I can readily see a day in which in some jurisdictions 1) priests can remarry, 2) Freemasons are communed, 3) girls are allowed to serve in the Altar, 4) homosexuality is not condemned (thereby leading to liturgical sanction for civil unions), 5) cremation is allowed, 6) abortion is not condemned, etc.

All of the above (except for gay unions) have occurred (albeit in extreme cases) in certain jurisdictions. Precedents have been created.

Now I’m not saying these precedents are going to be reinforced by their continuance, but given the general drift of society, the pressures will certainly be brought to bear.

A more nefarious scenario exists: because of our disunity, certain groups will take it upon themselves to infiltrate that jurisdiction which they believe is more sympathetic and eventually force the issue (whatever that issue is for them). At that point, their aberration from ecclesial norms will become normative and it will be up to the rest of Orthodoxy to condemn it and the jurisdiction which allows and/or promotes it. Hence, the breaking of communion.

I know this is extreme but it’s certainly a viable scenario.

The distinction you bring, that they can only be applied when founded upon specific decisions of the Church to those in the Church is quite right IMO. Phylitism and chiliasm are two which have been specifically identified. There is a great deal of the current posture of many Orthodox hierarchs that seem to me to verge on such known heresies. Again, we have to do better ourselves before we can have any real authority.

The clear difference between a Christian/Pagan choice and a variety of Chrisitan understandings needs to be considered as well. To me it is yet another reason why we need to work for Orthodox unity in North America so we can address the theological issues together and not piece-meal.

Further, I think we have to preserve the distinction between false teachings and those who hold them. If conciliar decrees hold that some teachings are false (heretical), they do not brand or castigate those who hold them as heretics. To our mind one might flow logically into the other, but this is a conclusion they never made, at least in their official decrees, which indicates that perhaps important pastoral concerns guided them and thus should guide us as well.

Using this term promiscuously is irresponsible I think. Not all who hold ideas contrary to Orthodox teaching are heretics unless they specifically seek to undermine Church doctrine, that is, unless they hold positions of authority in the Church and claim to speak in the name of the tradition. Roman Catholics don’t do that. Neither do Protestants.They cannot simply because they are not Orthodox.

One more thing. Michael, I value what you write but “Orthotriumphalism” is not a teaching. It’s merely an arrogant posture and thus cannot really be considered a heresy. Granted, we have our share of triumphalism in Orthodoxy, but who really tolerates it? Usually the triumphalists misapply the canons against paganism to non-Orthodox Christians in our time thereby speaking for the tradition while not really understanding it. But arrogance is a tough nut to crack so most people tire of talking with the triumphalists after a while and just ignore them.

By and large, our bishops refuse to do that. That means that we must.

The Church’s definition of a heretic, as I understand it, is someone who persists in teaching untruth after they have been confronted with the error of their teaching and refused to repent. That is why I have more trouble with the RCC. Protestants don’t know any better. Orthotriumphalism is just as great, possibly a greater heresy than anything the Protestants believe precisely because it is contrary to Holy Tradition and the Apostolic faith coming from folks who are supposed to be ‘rightly dividing the word of truth’.

We are the Church only when we open the doors and invite everyone to share the Apostolic faith with which we have been intrusted without apology or arrogance.

I have much more trouble with the RCC than with many Protestants who are sincere in their faith, have an active communion with Jesus and have never been taught the full truth by anyone. We need to address specific heretical ideas and practices rather than condemning everyone out of hand.

I fail to see the love in such broad brush condemnation. I see hypocritical triumphalism–just another excuse to refuse to actually engage and preach the Gospel, especially to we barbarian Americans.

By the same token I have no patience with mealy-mouthed twisting of the truth to accomodate folks who are busy diving off the deep end theologically.

Christianity is personal in a way nothing else is because Jesus is Person. Christianity is communal as nothing else is because of the loving communion of the Holy Trinity extended to us by our Lord’s Incarnation, sacrifice on the Cross and subsequent Resurrection.

Or where the car skids off the track.