www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West To Augustine the Canadian

OrthodoxSWE,

Simply put, you may state that the position a person has taken on a particular issue is one that the Orthodox Church has judged to be heretical. But since only an Orthodox bishop (or synod of bishops) may declare a person to be a heretic you, as an Orthodox layman, may never declare a specific individual to be a heretic.

We should err on the side of Christian charity in that we should assume that people have incompletely or inaccurately presented their argument. Judge their argument and not their person.

Perhaps a better way to approach this is to look at this is to look at the example of how the Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical group conducts itself. Do these priests sit around a table constantly declaring people from the other side to be heretics? Or do they put aside the name-calling and with extraordinary amounts of Christian charity vigorously attempt to convince the other side of the rightness of their position.

Which is more important - calling someone a heretic or planting a few seeds of truth?

Administrator

Dear Friends,

Well, I think the Administrator is an excellent theologian in his own Rite!

"Heresy," both East and West agree, is a view that is JUDGED to be wrong by the Hierarchical Church.

In other words, I could be a heretic for personally coming up with a view that my bishop or my Patriarch, or an Ecumenical Council (if I've been really bad and gotten others to agree with me) tells me is not in keeping with the Apostolic tradition governing matters of faith and morals as defined by the Church.

St Augustine maintained that the children and descendants of heretics, i.e. those born in communities and churches that are separated from the One Holy Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church, are not heretics, even though they formally adhere to a church or view that is formally deemed and judged heretical.

To call someone "heterodox" because they are members of churches separated from the Catholic or Orthodox Church years ago is therefore not only silly, but is also morally wrong.

Heretics can be so judged today to be sure.

But it would involve someone who was formally a Catholic or Orthodox, and who developed a philosophical difference with the accepted Apostolic Faith and remained obstinate in it even when warned and condemned by his bishop or Patriarch.

As a matter of fact, by pointing this crucial point out, the Administrator has laid his finger on the primary role that all Churches agreed to in the early centuries for the Bishop of Rome.

For many people engaged in theological discussion and debate and many were condemned as heretics by their bishops.

These then went to their Patriarchs or regional bishops. When they believed they received no satisfaction there, they were then allowed to appeal to Rome, or the Bishop of Rome for a final decision, as Augustine said, "Roma locuta, causa finita."

To be a heretic then involves an act of the will, a denying of a truth proclaimed by the Church that one once held personally, and that one now obstinately rejects despite the warnings and requirements of the Church.

Ultimately, heresy is an act of disobedience to the Church.

Alex

But if one stil believes in something heretical, are they not still heretics technicaly? Or is a heretic someone who, while being Catholic, seperates themselves from the Church by deliberatly believing in a known theological error?

If the prodigy of heretics are not in heresy, then what are they (Technically)?

Robert K.

PS. One thing about theology, it can really make your head spin at times!

Dear Robert,

I think if someone believes in something heretical, they could be considered heretics, but...

Having said that, they have to know that what they're believing is heretical. If they believe it to be the truth, then they aren't "formal" heretics, but are "material" heretics; that is, they believe something that is heretical objectively, but because they don't know it is heretical, they are not guilty of heresy. I think those are the proper terms and meanings I learned per Latin theology...anyone's welcome to correct me on this one, though.

So the Protestant girl in my class who tried to tell me that X and Y doctrines that her denomination teaches are true, while they go against all that Catholicism/Orthodoxy have taught consistently for two thousand years...I could say that she holds heretical beliefs when compared to the Orthodox faith, but she herself isn't a heretic, because she doesn't know that what she believes in is heresy; she believes it's the truth. She would (if my definitions are right) be a material heretic, but not a formal heretic.

One thing's for sure...you're right, theology sure does make one's head spin...perhaps that's why Saint Severus apparently lost his head per your "Triumph of Orthodoxy" Sunday liturgical services. :p

As posted above by Robert: "But if one stil believes in something heretical, are they not still heretics technicaly? Or is a heretic someone who, while being Catholic, seperates themselves from the Church by deliberatly believing in a known theological error?
If the prodigy of heretics are not in heresy, then what are they (Technically)?"

Ouch. I suppose according to scholastic (Western) theology, there has to be some sort of framework within theology to determine who is in error and who is not.

The problem lies in the fact that the concept of 'heresy' has been totally divorced from its primal concept which is: divorcing one's self from the 'ekklesia' because of one's beliefs. On matters of faith, the prime analogue consists of the three Creeds that have been approved by the Church for public proclamation (but I would NOT include all the 'theologizing' that oftentimes accompanies the 'interpreting' of the Creeds. They are interpretative but not doctrinal. These competing theologies can be crazy-making, but constitute, as I see it, the vast majority of divisive issues that separate Christians into heretical groups. We just can't let people have some other interpretation -- i.e., purgatory vs. toll-booths -- so we just have to scream 'heresy' and go after them, just as Jesus wants us to do.)

It strikes me as really "high school in-crowd" mentality that demands that everybody fit the paradigm and "toe the line" at the risk of being ostracized and made a member of the "not in-crowd". But as one gets older and experiences more of the catastrophies of life, one realizes that this hyper-determinism is invalid in dealing with the spiritual/moral/theological challenges of life according to the Gospel of love. That is: NOTHING is cast in stone except God and His ever-forgiving love for us. Everything else is, by its nature, in flux -- that's the nature of creation; even Thomas Aquinas said so. (So, THERE! for the Thomists and Scholastics among us: "The human essence is made up of two distinct principles, namely potency and act." And both of them are dynamic not static.)

Therefore: heresy is a voluntary, considered act that divorces one's self from the defined credal statements of the CHURCH (= the collection of the baptized), who as a corporate body constitute the reality of God in the world.

Thus, I can be a good Catholic or Orthodox and truly believe that cats are the instruments of Satan. Since it's not defined in the creeds, I can believe what I want regardless of those theologians who are felineophiles and try to push their puddy-ness upon the rest of the Church. (Actually, I think cats are pretty cool; so please don't send mailbombs to me. I'm just making the point: unless it's defined in an official Creed, God's people have a lot of freedom to have their own beliefs and interpretations. Now, if we can just get Hallmark to get rid of those stupid angel lapel-pins that people are fond of talking to........ Creepy.)

Christ is Risen!!

Alex,

"To call someone "heterodox" because they are members of churches separated from the Catholic or Orthodox Church years ago is therefore not only silly, but is also morally wrong."

"Heterodox" simply means "Non-Orthodox".
An Orthodox Christian is one who adheres to the teachings of the Orthodox Church. If a person doesn't believe as the Orthodox Church believes, how can it be wrong to call that person non-Orthodox???

Christian

Dear OrthodoxSWE,

Well, no, "Orthodox" means "right-believing" and "right-worshipping" and "Heterodox" means "falsely believing" and therefore "falsely worshipping."

"Non-Orthodox" is, well, "Non-Orthodox."

But, as Dr. John the Theologian has said in such scholastically synergetic syllogisms , to be a heretic is an act of one's will to go against one's Church's teaching.

Therefore, the term "Heterodox" may apply to theories and to persons in that category, but certainly not to entire groups of people who have lived in those religious communities for centuries.

Alex

Since the dawn of Christianiity, the majority of the children of Mother Earth have--according to the Christian world view-- adhered to "heretical beliefs."

"As it was yesterday, is today, and ever shall be (?)," the majority of God's children have been called to a purpose and place within the divine plan separate from that of Christians and we have always comprised the majority of humanity.

What is God's purpose--according to the Christian scheme--for His non-Christian devotees?

Bear in mind, 99.9% of non-Christians living today, will go to their graves professing the non-Christian faith ( or lack of faith ) they were most likely born to.

Again, the vast majority of human beings who have been born into, lived their lives, and died as residents of God's earth, have died either ignorant of or have rejected the Church's interpretation of the life of Christ. That, folks, is a lot of people!

If all of us, who are non-Christians, are destined to an eternity in hell, then certainly God's salvation enterprise is extremely inefficient.

Staggering!

Salaam,

Abdur

Dear Abdur,

That is why this "heresy" topic is really only about those who consciously believe and make conscious decisions for or against the faith as handed down in the Church.

"Heresy" does not, cannot, apply to others.

As for ALL those others, as ST Thomas Aquinas said, "All truth, no matter who speaks it, comes from the Holy Spirit."

And Thomas Merton once said that the Christian missionary's job is not to bring Christ to people who don't know Him.

It is to give a more direct understanding of Him to those among whom He is already present.

Alex

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

"INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE"

I think Mor Ephrem's understanding of "heresy" as defined by the Catholic Church is jumbled up: it's the other way around.

The Catholic Church has always defined "heresy" as

"...the obstinate post-baptismal denial of
some truth which must be believed with divine
and catholic faith, or it is likewise an
obstinate doubt concerning the same."

However, the Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and [formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is objectively or materially a heretic. Such a person possesses "the matter" of heresy, theological error.

Prior to Vatican II it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines were, and still are, objectively contrary to Catholic teaching.

This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of Vatican II, today we use the term "heretic" only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy.

Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy, like the Protestant girl in the analogy, is now considered by the Church as merely formally guilty of heresy. However, that Protestant girl is not even formally guilty of heresy if:

(1) her ignorance of the truth is due to her
upbringing in a particular religious
tradition (to which she appears to be
scrupulously faithful); and

(2) she is not morally responsible for her
ignorance of the truth, which clearly
appears to be the case.

This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

Dear Amado,

Thanks for the clarification, but I must admit I'm a bit confused, since essentially, I agree with what you've stated as Latin Catholic doctrine regarding material and formal sin/heresy/what not. So where did I go wrong in my discussion?

Dear Catholicos and Amado,

I think we want to be careful not to make of this mystery an even greater mystery!

In today's Church, heretics are hardly ever named so.

The old ceremony of excommunication was quite remarkable and involved the blowing out of candles in the end.

After one was excommunicated, no one could have business dealings with you. Kings who were excommunicated were not to be obeyed by their subjects, a point that made Pope St Pius V excommunicate the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I - something designed to try and divert the loyal of her many Catholic subjects from her and so try and destabilize her reign.

The only thing worse than being excommunicated, or the same, was to have had Hansen's disease or leprosy.

King Robert the Bruce apparently had leprosy and in such a case the King would have been deposed and sent out. The matter was kept quiet by his advisers until the King's death.

In the Kyivan Church, a group of truly heretical Christians adopted Judaic practices, began circumcising, destroying icons, practicing Jewish rituals etc.

They were formally excommunicated by the Church of Kyiv as the "Judaizing sect" or "Sekta Zhidovstvuyuschikh."

As a result of their being excommunicated, the term "Zhid" meaning "Jew" in all Slavic languages is never used in Ukrainian, Russian or Belorussian as highly offensive to Jews as a result of the historic seventeenth century excommunication. Instead, "Yevrey" is the term used.

Excommunication for heresy is a serious business, all in all.

Alex

Dear Phil:

Let me put it this way:

The Catholic Church has not used, or has not found the occasion to use, objective or material heresy as a foil to non-Catholic beliefs since Vatican II.

Rather, she has used the theological principle of invincible ignorance as a measure against non-Catholic beliefs, which principle arises from the Church's view that other Christians are guilty only of formal heresy.

In its essence, formal heresy is now viewed by the Church as a "guilt of conscience before God," i.e., non-Catholic believers will (and should) account for this sin of heresy on their own.

The Catholic Church even goes further: if the two concurrent conditions as I adverted to in my previous post subsist, then she considers such formal heresy exculpable because of the principle of invincible ignorance.

Thus, the Protestant girl in your example IS NOT GUILTY of objective or material heresy, which was heretofore (pre-Vatican II) considered by the Catholic Church THE graver sin.

Although the girl is in formal heresy, she is not considered guilty of this sin because of the two concurrent conditions.

I hope the above is clearer.

Dear Amado,

Yes, but I think the "invincible heresy" thing has been done to death.

A priest told me that when faced with someone in the confessional who uses artificial contraception, he just chalks it up to "invincible ignorance" and gives them absolution.

Catholics who hold views that go against the Church's teaching on morality are "invincibly ignorant" and they may approach the sacraments since they are in a state of grace . . .

So it seems that the Church, in an effort to avoid the politically incorrect term "heresy," seems to be going the other way using this new term that says, "You're wrong, but that's O.K. since you don't know you're a stubborn idiot on this matter."

The Orthodox Church says similar things to people, but then asks them to go away and repent before they come back again.

Alex

Dear Amado,

First off, thanks for helping me understand this better. Without further adieu,

The Catholic Church has not used, or has not found the occasion to use, objective or material heresy as a foil to non-Catholic beliefs since Vatican II.


OK.

Rather, she has used the theological principle of invincible ignorance as a measure against non-Catholic beliefs, which principle arises from the Church's view that other Christians are guilty only of formal heresy.

I understand invincible ignorance...but not the assertion that the principle of invincible ignorance "arises from the Church's view that other Christians are guilty ONLY of FORMAL heresy" (emphasis mine).

I guess I need a succinct definition of formal heresy and material heresy. I was always under the impression that "formal heresy" was when someone willingly and knowingly denied a tenet of the faith.

Material heresy, according to what I've always thought, was the objective state of believing something that, taken at face value, is heretical, but when taking into account the state of the person who may have been brought up in a tradition that has taught this, and that they may not know the actual truth, but only what they have taught, it would not be right to call them formal heretics, since they have not been exposed to the actual truth; nevertheless, purely objectively speaking, they have taken up an objectively heretical position.

For instance, someone raised in the Unitarian faith might deny the Trinity. Objectively taken, the rejection of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a heretical position. Nevertheless, they have only been taught according to their Unitarian tradition, and so do not know the truth, and they aren't responsible for not knowing the truth, and therefore they aren't heretics, but they (again, objectively speaking) believe a heretical position. Hence, "material" as opposed to "formal" heresy.

Perhaps I'm wrong in my definitions, in which case please correct me again. But I've always thought this is the way it has been taught.

In its essence, formal heresy is now viewed by the Church as a "guilt of conscience before God," i.e., non-Catholic believers will (and should) account for this sin of heresy on their own.

I agree, if formal heresy is defined as I've defined it above.

The Catholic Church even goes further: if the two concurrent conditions as I adverted to in my previous post subsist, then she considers such formal heresy exculpable because of the principle of invincible ignorance.

Agreed. But is it even a matter of "such formal heresy" being exculpable? Because of invincible ignorance, it's not even formal heresy to begin with. Material, yes (according to what I've always thought was what was taught), but not formal.

Thus, the Protestant girl in your example IS NOT GUILTY of objective or material heresy, which was heretofore (pre-Vatican II) considered by the Catholic Church THE graver sin.

Although the girl is in formal heresy, she is not considered guilty of this sin because of the two concurrent conditions.

This is where I get all confused.

How is she not guilty of material heresy, but guilty of formal heresy? She wasn't raised in the Catholic/Orthodox faith, but in her brand of Protestantism, and sincerely believes it to be the truth...nevertheless, even though not responsible for heresy through invincible ignorance, she still does, objectively speaking, hold a heretical position.

I would've thought that formal heresy was the graver sin, since invincible ignorance almost always nixes culpability. Kinda like culpability for mortal sin being lessened if even one of the three requisite conditions aren't met.

Are my definitions of material and formal heresy backwards or something?