The reason I ask is because I find that there are elements of heresy or heretical thinking that we need to be aware of because we are all subject to them simply living in the world. It is incumbant upon us to know, as best we can, the official heresies and why they are anathmatised so that we can check ourselves.

Also when offical Church proclamations such as the 1848 Encyclical which called the office of the Papacy as practiced in the RCC heretical, or the 1872 meeting that declared phyletism as heretical. I look at those statements as being authoritative statements of the Faith, even though neither meeting was ‘Council’. Much as I do the 14th century Palamite synods. Am I wrong in that?

Right now, I’m engaged in a debate w/ the canon-28ists and others and your criticism regarding words meaning things is apropos. It seems to me that only by distorting words or eliding meanings or conflating ideas that illegitimate arguments gain any currency.

An example: in discussing canon 28, I noticed that the argument of universal jurisdiction could only be made if the meaning of certain prepositions (“in”) and nouns (“barbarians”) could be twisted to something that was not intended (i.e. “next to,” and “nations”). Because of this cavalier attitude with the English language, a sort of Byzantine papalism is in the offing and causing the present tumult. This happens all to often in the political world as well, where the plain meaning of the First Amendment –which guarantees freedom of religion–is used to suppress Christian piety.

So Father, it is virtually impossible for anyone to be a heretic these days, or for the Church to even identify heresy officially? Doesn’t that make it rather difficult to really know what we are supposed to believe?

So you have to call someone a heretic in order to know what you are supposed to believe? Or is it that until you know who the heretics are you won’t really know what you believe?

Come on guys. Think this through. You throw the term around with no real comprehension of what it means.

Know your own teaching. Know it well enough that you can defend it against all challengers. But understand your challenger is not a “heretic.” Everyone who disagrees with you is not a junior Arius. Arius was in the church. Your challenger is not.

Think of John Calvin. Would Calvin’s doctrine of double predestination be anathematized if, God forbid, it ever became a cause of division in the Church? You bet. Would John Calvin ever be condemned as a heretic? Of course not. He is not Orthodox.

Words mean things. Quit abusing them.

However, if it refers to named heresiarchs and their followers, then we cannot depend on a council to name each and every follower of a given heresy.

Arius could be called a heretic in that he was the author of heresy. That’s what the Church decided. You could correct and instruct a person who held to Arian ideas, but to call him a heretic? That’s an entirely different thing altogether. I’ve never seen any decree that condemns a group of people as heretics, although we see teachings anathematized. And remember, this was within the Church, not outside of it.

I do not see how it makes sense — what rationale lies behind — the restriction of the term heretic to your definition. It just strikes me as ecumenical double talk.

It called precision in language. If the Fathers and teachers don’t use the term as promiscuously as it is used here — especially towards groupings of lay people, then there is a reason for it.

Thus, the way non-Orthodox believers are grouped in these discussions is flawed. If the tradition reserves the term for hierachs and thereafter only anathematizes their teaching, it is because the responsibility for teaching rests, in the end, with the hierarchy — certainly not with non-teachers, and especially non-teachers in churches outside of Orthodoxy.

Labeling people as heretics then, really amounts to nothing more than a condemnation of those who think differently than you do. That is dangerous territory.

Lastly, aren’t the Protestant sects full of teachings that have been repeatedly condemned by the Church in councils? Modalism, iconoclasm, Arianism, adoptionism, gnosticism . . . indeed, every historical heresy lives on in their confessions.

All these sprang up in Orthodoxy. Do you think we are free of modern heresies (like secularism — which I believe is a heresy in the correct definition of the term)? I don’t. My point here is that we are responsible for our own house. We’ve got plenty of our own problems and sins, and branding someone else as a heretic, well, has that odor of triumphalism that, frankly, is not Orthodox.

So Father, it is virtually impossible for anyone to be a heretic these days, or for the Church to even identify heresy officially? Doesn’t that make it rather difficult to really know what we are supposed to believe?

I agree with you about the use of the word heretic, but I find it a little too easy an escape to essentitally void the abiltity to name heretical thought as such simply because the Church is such a mess.

I have seen the horrible damage such thought does to people.

The term heretic, then, would apply to very few persons if it only refers to people anathematized by name. However, if it refers to named heresiarchs and their followers, then we cannot depend on a council to name each and every follower of a given heresy.

At some point, we have to call a spade a spade if we are to affirm one tradition rather than another (say, the apostolic tradition in its continuity in the Church versus a wayward tradition). That, for me, is what heresy signifies . . . a tradition within Christianity that “chooses” what doctrine it wishes to hold. I am open to correction if I hear an argument that makes sense to me.

The designation “in the Church” is not very helpful, either, as it would only apply to first generation rejecters of the apostolic tradition. Are the fifth and sixth generation rejecters not heretics, then? Or, are they misled folks with heretical ideas? Are then heretics only a certain subset of people with heretical ideas — or, more precisely, of people who belong to a sect that embraces heretical ideas?

Fr., I appreciate the charity behind such word framing, but I don’t think that it makes sense. If the point to the distinction is to reserve the ugly name heretic for those in the Church who reject the way of the Church (similar to the word “apostate”), then there seems to be an assumption therein that such heretics do what they do maliciously. Yet, I don’t believe that to be true. Arius, Sabellius, Marcion . . . I don’t see why we should think that they taught and did what they did for any other reason than that they thought that it was right. The same would hold for their spiritual descendants.

I do not see how it makes sense — what rationale lies behind — the restriction of the term heretic to your definition. It just strikes me as ecumenical double talk.

Lastly, aren’t the Protestant sects full of teachings that have been repeatedly condemned by the Church in councils? Modalism, iconoclasm, Arianism, adoptionism, gnosticism . . . indeed, every historical heresy lives on in their confessions.

No offense taken, by the way, and none intended.

Joseph
(a fan of the “heretical” Origen and the “blessed” Augustine)

Like Joseph, I am in awe of many of recent popes and despair of the opposite lack in quality of many of our own patriarchs (+Alexei II, +Laurus stand out as wonderful exceptions to the rule. I choose only to name those who have reposed. Some living ones would include +Kirill and +Pavle of Serbia.)

Anyway, point taken.

I do, by the way, call Protestants heretics. If they do not merit the term, who does?

The only ones who merit the term “heretic” are those within the Church who distort her teaching. Further, and I mean this respectfully, it is not up to you to decide who is a heretic or not. Heresy, if the term is to retain any meaning at all, is decided by a council of Bishops.

The Arian teaching was officially declared a heresy at Nicea, not before. Arius was declared a heretic only when refusing to repent. Some of Origen’s teachings were anathamatized but Origen is not a heretical teacher. Augustine taught some doctrines repudiated by Othodoxy, but he is “Blessed.”

I am upset that so many of our bishops won’t be as strong. Then we could have some dialog that might result in working toward genuine communion. The Dhimmi communion of the middle east has its place but that does not mean we are really in communion. The consolation of the persecuted and beaten down is a better place to start than the position papers and study groups of the various commissions however.

In any case your response dosen’t really answer my question. How are we in communion when we have a radically different understanding of sacred things. When we are to each other schismatics, even heretics. To blythely dissmiss centuries of sincere disagreement with the wave of a hand or the turn of a phrase is arrogant. It is a dishonor to the Catholics and Orthodox both for the last 1000 years. It’s not that easy, nor should it be.

By saying “Orthodox Churches” but “Catholic Church” (instead of the Roman Church), he acknowledges that we are Churches (in the full sense of the word, according to post-Vatican II ecclesiology) but that we are not the Church, which is only rightly called the Catholic Church.

So, his words are significant, but they are not insulting. Of course, the Roman pope thinks that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church, while we think that the Orthodox Churches are the Catholic Church, i.e. the Body of Christ. If we thought differently, the current schism would not exist.

Perhaps Mr. Bauman’s annoyance is simply that the bishop of Rome would remind an Orthodox Patriarch of his opposing ecclesiological view while a guest. It is diplomatic bad taste. However, I prefer truth to niceties, and I am glad that J.R. Benedict states what he believes.

I think that the problems with Rome are significant and legion, and I do not think that it is outrageous to call them heretics. I do not do so, though I believe that several of their doctrines are wrong. Are false doctrines heretical? If so, is a body that clings and espouses false doctrines a body of heretics? I don’t know. Clearly, they are schismatics with many pernicious ideas.

(I do, by the way, call Protestants heretics. If they do not merit the term, who does? Many Arians were nice, pious, bible-believing Christians, as well. They did many good things. The same holds true of many heretical sects. Mormons have solid family lives. Heresy does not equate encompassing evil. Heresy has a meaning. It is an infection of the p.c. spirit to allow manipulative sappiness to corrupt our speech.)

Nonetheless, the Latins typically choose rather impressive top dogs. The Roman episcopate and even the College of Cardinals are full of unworthy men, but the pope himself is quite impressive. In light of our recent discussions about the Ecumenical Patriarchate, such a fact should shame us into some humility.

Joseph

He also talks about Eastern Catholic faithful as members of Eastern Churches. I think you are looking for something to be upset about.

As to how were are in communion there is a difference of opinion based on the particular ecclesiology of each Church. You might also be surprised at the communion practices of Catholics and Orthodox in Lebanon and Constantinople.

I pray that our gathering today will give new impetus to the work of theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, adding to the recent fruits of study documents and other joint initiatives.

Negative comments:

Orthodox Churches? HMMMM. Clearly coming from the point of view that the RCC is the arbitor of Church–they are one and we are many.

I have zero faith in study documents and joint initiatives.

More positive:
At least the Pope seems to give actual honor the the Patriarch and his throne at a time when either is given little.

Question: How are we in communion?