Heresy and Heretics
Defining what
"heresy" is proves to be as difficult as defining what "church
tradition" or what a dogma is. Heresy is that which is contrary to
tradition. As for church tradition, in its dogmatic (and not only) aspect, one
can point to it—based on the primacy of the teaching of salvation in
Christianity—by saying that it is the teaching about who saves (triadology and
Christology), whom He saves (ecclesiology and anthropology), and how He saves
(anthropology, Christology). Moreover, it is important to consider that all
these subfields of "theological sciences" mentioned here in
parentheses can only be separated conditionally, since each implies the others,
and variations in one area inevitably lead to changes in another. Therefore,
for example, the heresy of Pelagianism, i.e., the teaching about the
sufficiency of human nature’s capabilities for salvation, seemingly unrelated
to theology, is no less a heresy than any of the others.
The Christian religion
understands salvation as the deification and transformation of every component
of human nature. In this sense, a persistent false opinion regarding what
pertains to God and salvation, i.e., a wrong disposition of the mind, is not a
trivial matter but the consequence of an untransformed component [1] in a
person (their mind), which does not yield to transformation. Another question
arises when Christianity knows of many saints who shone, for example, through
ascetic feats and did not manifest themselves as experts or expressers of
dogmatic statements. However, it can be said that in such cases, the correct
dogma is testified to by the very life of these saints, and their mind contains
the true dogmatic positions, albeit in an unmanifested, non-formalized form. If
there had been a necessity for expressing those positions, that expression
would have been in agreement with tradition.
It is evident that even
for us, who have heard to a greater or lesser extent about Christian dogmas,
our minds are not illuminated by the light of dogmatic truth in a perfect, or
even in any substantial, way. Why, then, are we not necessarily heretics? The
great Russian church historian V. V. Bolotov distinguished between dogma, theologoumenon,
and private theological opinion; this chain, characterizing the degree of truth
and authority of beliefs about God and salvation, could be extended further,
with theological error placed last, followed by heresy. According to Bolotov, a
dogma is a theological assertion that has received the conciliar sanction of
the Church, and its truth is necessary. A theologoumenon is an assertion
shared by one or many Church Fathers, whose truth is only probable (depending
on the number of Fathers who held the position), but it carries a certain
authority. A private theological opinion is the opinion of a particular
individual, lacking authority, which can be taken into consideration. [2]
It must be said that this
distinction between dogmas and theologoumena is somewhat artificial,
since the dogmatic definitions formulated at Ecumenical and Local Councils were
responses to contentious issues of their time, and the scope of dogmatic
tradition is much broader than the sum of conciliar definitions [3] and
anathemas. [4] Therefore, if we keep Bolotov’s distinction in mind, in a narrow
sense, a heretic is a person who calls themselves a Christian but rejects
certain conciliar definitions or anathemas. In a broader sense, a heretic is
one who does not accept a position that constitutes a necessary part of
dogmatic tradition (such as the Gnostics, who denied the goodness of God the
Creator); and the term "heretic" applies no less to the latter than
to the former.
What lies behind this
rejection? Heresy is often defined as the choice of one thing, one line of
thought, instead of recognizing the existence of a whole picture. This
understanding partly follows from the etymology of the Greek word aíresis,
from which the corresponding Russian word also originates. Such a definition of
heresy is found, for instance, in Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, who, in his brilliant
work The Tragedy of Philosophy, considers the philosophical systems of
the modern era as philosophical heresies. Fr. Sergius believes that heresy, as
a narrowing of perspective, is the result of the rationalization of dogma. [5] However,
Fr. Sergius Bulgakov's position can now be refined in the sense that in
teachings recognized as heretical, the character of rationality is often simply
different from that of the Orthodox—taking into account V. M. Lurie's
observations, according to which Orthodox Christians and heretics (in this
case, the Monophysites) had differences in their understanding of what, in the
reflection on the Incarnation, appears paradoxical and what is rationally
justified. [6]
This understanding of
heresy as the choice of one perspective instead of the whole leads to the idea
that heresy is sometimes viewed as a part of the truth, [7] as seen in the case
of Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople (1886–1972), who understands
heresies as "partial truths, truncated, sometimes misplaced, and claiming
to capture and contain the inexhaustible mystery." [8] This interpretation
can be contested, since one cannot say, for example, that the Arian
heresy—according to which Christ is a created being of a completely different
nature from the Father, and "there was a time when He did not
exist"—represents a "part" of the truth about Christ. In this
case, "partiality" may be a characteristic not of the heresy itself
in relation to the truth, but often of the disposition of the heresiarch’s mind
(the leader of the heretical community), who frequently argues against some
opposite extreme. In the case of Arianism, Arius, insisting on his teaching,
was opposing the Gnostic understanding of the generation of the Son by the
Father as some kind of emanation, as well as Sabellius's understanding that the
Persons of the Trinity are merely different manifestations of the one God
(similarly with Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Pelagianism, and others). Thus,
the confusion arises from the fact that heresiarchs, while insisting on their
understanding of Christ, the Trinity, salvation, etc., were undoubtedly
motivated by good intentions. [9] Moreover, many heresiarchs were, on a human
level, very sympathetic individuals, living pious and ascetic lives, and it
would be absurd to doubt the purity of their intentions.
At the same time, this
understanding of heresy as preferring one line instead of the whole picture is
often linked to the characteristic of the phenomenon of heresy, according to
which a heretic is someone who stubbornly persists in their erroneous opinion
in the face of church tradition. [10] If we turn to church history, we see that
this is true only to a limited extent. Typically, when dogmatic disputes arose
over a particular issue, the Church’s final understanding of the contentious
question was not yet clearly articulated, and church figures who would later be
venerated as Orthodox Fathers of the Church called certain teachings heretical
and fought against them as heresies even before a formal church judgment, which
is necessary to definitively classify a teaching as heresy. Moreover,
heresiarchs and their followers often relied on quotes (sometimes, admittedly,
they were forgeries) from authoritative church writers recognized as saints by
the Church, as, for example, the Monophysites appealed to the formula
frequently used by St. Cyril of Alexandria and other Church Fathers: "one
nature of God the Word incarnate" (mía fýsis toú Theoú lógou
sesarkoméni) (which, however, was the result of forgeries by Apollinarian
heretics). Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that heresy is always some
novelty in opposition to the conservatism of the Orthodox. Often, it was
precisely those church figures who would later be revered as great Orthodox
Fathers who demonstrated a creative and innovative approach. Such innovation is
evident, for example, in the phrase in the Creed of the First Ecumenical
Council, according to which the Son is "of one essence" (omooúsios)
with the Father, even though the use of this concept in reference to the Son
had been condemned at the council of 268/269. Yet, it ultimately played a
crucial role in the polemic against Arianism and in the victory over this
doctrine (in fact, classic Orthodox triadology was developed in the process of
interpreting the concept of "consubstantiality" in relation to the
Persons of the Trinity). The Arians themselves, in speaking of the Son as
created, referred to authoritative earlier church writers—Origen and St.
Dionysius of Alexandria (although it is not certain that these writers meant
the same thing by the term "created" in reference to the Son as the
Arians did). Therefore, we can agree with A. I. Sidorov’s assertion that
"heretics... suffered from a narrow conservatism to a greater extent than
their Orthodox opponents." Thus, the participants in these disputes often
defined their positions on controversial issues more intuitively [11] than by
following a clear framework of previous church teachings.
This brings us to the
historical dimension of the phenomenon of heresy. Historically, the teaching of
the Church developed in two ways: conciliar—through the definitions of Local
and Ecumenical Councils of the Church, where each subsequent Ecumenical Council
definitively affirmed the previous one as Ecumenical (and sometimes rejected
the similar status of other councils, i.e., false councils, which claimed it);
and personally—through individual Church Fathers (who in many ways shaped the
decisions of the councils), who addressed the theological questions of their
time and determined the correct interpretation of theological formulas and
writings of earlier Fathers. Consequently, the development of doctrine through
conciliar definitions was more sporadic, while development in the writings of
the Fathers was more linear. The key points in the development of doctrine in
the writings of individual Fathers are the so-called theological (in fact,
theological-philosophical) syntheses carried out by certain Fathers of the
Church or small groups, in which previous teachings were accumulated and
interpreted. Roughly speaking, three major syntheses can be distinguished in
the history of Orthodox doctrine: the Cappadocian synthesis [12] (4th century),
the synthesis of St. Maximus the Confessor [13, 14] (7th century), and the
Palamite synthesis (14th century) (if we look more closely at the history of
doctrine, there will be more such syntheses). Each of these syntheses was
developed in parallel with and in the process of combating a similar theological
synthesis by heretics—namely, the Neo-Arians (i.e., Aetius and Eunomius), the
Monophysites, and the anti-Palamites. As a result of each subsequent synthesis,
both the heretical and Orthodox sides reinterpreted the previous syntheses.
Here it must be said that
the Orthodox and heretical interpretations of these earlier theological
syntheses appear equally convincing in terms of formal criteria. For example,
one cannot claim that the interpretation of Cappadocian theology or the teachings
of St. Maximus the Confessor by the anti-Palamites, who denied the Palamite
distinction in God between essence and uncreated energies, is less convincing
by any formal criteria than the Palamite interpretation. The argument in favor
of the Palamite teaching on the uncreated divine energies that deify
Christians, distinct from God's essence, is supported not so much by the
Cappadocian Fathers’ teachings on divine energies (the question of the status
of God's energies was not emphasized at that time) but rather by their teaching
on the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which is based on the understanding that
what deifies is divine. However, this parallel between the argumentation of the
Cappadocian Fathers and the Palamites cannot serve as a formal criterion to assert
that the Palamite position follows from the teaching of the Cappadocian
Fathers, but it does indicate a similarity in methodology between the two.
Thus, the question of
which interpretation of previous church tradition is heretical and which is
true is more likely to be resolved based on which one aligns with the personal
faith of the individual rather than through any formal criteria.
From what has been said,
it is clear that the historical factor is of fundamental importance in
determining a particular teaching as heresy. St. Gregory the Theologian (second
half of the 4th century) listed the following topics as open to free reasoning
and discussion: "Philosophize about the world or worlds, about matter,
about the soul, about intelligent—good and evil—natures, about the
resurrection, judgment, retribution, and the sufferings of Christ. Regarding
these, it is not useless to succeed in one's investigations, and it is not
dangerous not to succeed." [15] His companion, St. Gregory of Nyssa,
evidently referring to the same freedom of judgment on controversial issues
(which were such in his time), taught about apokatastasis, i.e., the eventual
restoration and salvation of all people, fallen spirits, and even the devil
himself. [16] However, in 543 and 553, in the context of the anathemas
pronounced on certain views of Origen (3rd century) popular among Origenist
monks (as well as on Origen himself), the teaching on apokatastasis was
anathematized. This was done in connection with the widespread influence in
monastic circles of the so-called Origenist myth, which significantly diverged
from Orthodox teaching. Thus, the expansion of the realm of written dogmatic
tradition is necessarily connected to the expansion of the sphere of what
should be called heretical—and vice versa; these are interconnected processes.
Let us note that Origen
was anathematized by the Church for his teaching on apokatastasis and other
views, while St. Gregory of Nyssa is justly venerated as a Father of the
Church. This is due to the fact that in Origen’s case, essential elements of
his dogmatic system were distorted in accordance with a pagan worldview,
whereas in St. Gregory of Nyssa’s case, there was only a certain bias in this
regard (which also manifests in some peculiarities of his anthropology).
Nonetheless, both of these church writers played a very important role in the
development of Christian theological-philosophical literature.
Generally speaking, the
question of the ecclesiastical anathematization of heresiarchs is not so
simple. What is it: excommunication from the Kingdom of Heaven and condemnation
to eternal perdition? A declaration of eternal perdition? Simply a statement that
a person is outside the Church, like the heathens (cf. Matt. 18:17), and the
question of his eternal life is a mystery of God, as is the question of the
eternal life of the heathens? The texts of the liturgy and some writings of the
Church Fathers tend rather to favor the opinion of eternal perdition. This is
testified to, for example, by the service to the fathers of the six Ecumenical
Councils, [17] as well as the story told in the 26th chapter of “The Spiritual
Meadow” by St. John Moschus (first half of the 7th century). [18] The question
of posthumous anathematization of heretics was also raised at the Fifth
Ecumenical Council, which decided in favor of such anathematization, so that
falsehood would not remain without reproach.
At the same time, in
ecclesiastical literature, there was an opinion that anathemas could be
pronounced only on certain teachings, but not on people. This position is
expressed with particular clarity in the work "On the Fact that One Should
Not Curse Either the Living or the Dead," whose author is probably St.
John Chrysostom. [19] This position was shared, in particular, by the Byzantine
canonist Theodore Balsamon; Blessed Augustine also did not believe that
anathema completely prevents the salvation of the one upon whom it is
pronounced. Nevertheless, the leaders of heretical movements were, of course,
always given special attention, and greater blame was attributed to them than
to their followers. [20]
Here it is appropriate to
speak of the social dimension of heresy, i.e., heretical ecclesiastical
organizations. The traditional view is that outside the Church—and thus in
ecclesiastical organizations with heretical, untrue faith—there are no
sacraments or salvation. It is also traditional to hold that the faith of the
Church is primarily determined by the officially expressed faith of its bishops
(literally: overseers). Ultimately, both the bishop and his flock are equally
responsible for preserving the faith. The bishop watches over the purity of the
faith of the flock; the flock is responsible for the Orthodox confession of
their bishop. Generally, the expression of the Church's faith is everything the
bishops do on behalf of the Church—official documents, sermons, conciliar
decisions, etc. (What the bishop thinks about faith but does not bring into the
public sphere should not concern the flock; this is a matter related to the
personal salvation of the bishop, but not to the salvation of the members of the
Church). By definition, any given member of the church body agrees with the
expression of the church’s faith (in its summarized essence) carried out by the
episcopate of their church; if they do not agree, then they leave for another
community that corresponds to them in terms of faith.
When does a particular
heretical organization cease to be the Church? It seems incorrect to hold the
opinion that some action or statement of a heretical nature automatically
places a particular organization outside the Church and deprives it of the grace
of the sacraments. A community ceases to be the Church not so much due to some
formal and external step, but rather due to the overall state of churchliness
in that organization, which finds its expression in a series of manifestations
that, in turn, fall under specific anathemas, canons, etc., and based on which
it is possible to speak of the unchurchliness of the community. However, this
overall state in an organization that once belonged to the Church does not come
about instantly but gradually (the opposite understanding has been called the
"switch theory"). Primarily, it is this overall state, and its
consequence is the situation where the specific heretical statements and
actions of the hierarchs do not meet sufficient opposing reaction from the
flock; then the organization can be considered outside the Church. It is also
important to keep in mind that within a community falling away from the Church,
each of its members has their own "relationship" with the efficacy of
the grace of the sacraments, depending on their orientation in relation to the
true Church (which depends on a multitude of different factors—ignorance of the
true situation, the general level of church culture, etc.). The fact that the
transitional period of falling away from the Church in a particular community
can last for quite a long time is evidenced by examples where certain people
are venerated by the Church as saints while they lived and reposed in a
particular heretical community (or rather, in a community in a transitional
state that ended with its falling away)—specifically, St. Constantine the
Great, St. Isaac the Syrian, and the Martyrs of Amorium.
The Church has developed
various mechanisms intended for distancing itself from heretics. Even the
Apostle Paul wrote about the necessity of rejecting a heretic (Titus 3:10).
According to the 13th canon of the First-Second Council (861), it is necessary to
break off relations with a bishop if he publicly teaches a heresy that has
already been condemned, without waiting for conciliar review of the case, since
this is a condemnation "not of bishops, but of false bishops and false
teachers, and they did not sever the unity of the Church by schism, but strove
to protect the Church from schisms and divisions." However, if the given
bishop publicly teaches a heresy that has not yet been condemned, then it is
necessary to seek a conciliar judgment. There is also a set of canons
prohibiting prayerful communion with heretics [21] (though some leniency is
granted to heretics who are not yet hardened, [22] which speaks against the
"switch theory").
Two paradigmatic
understandings of the issue of sacraments in communities that have fallen away
from the Church can be distinguished. Each of these understandings implies the
non-saving nature of the sacraments (or the forms of the sacraments) in such communities.
St. Cyprian of Carthage, in his dispute with Pope Stephen, who broke communion
with churches that practiced the re-baptism of heretics, emphasized that in
heretical and schismatic church organizations there is no grace of the
sacraments and cannot be. However, Blessed Augustine, in his polemic against
the Donatists, taught that heresy or schism does not deprive the sacraments of
their efficacy (though this applies only to baptism and priesthood, not to the
Eucharist); however, participation in the sacraments for those who remain in
such communities turns into condemnation for them (see primarily Augustine's
treatise "On Baptism"). This Augustinian understanding is sometimes
distorted in modern theological literature, as is the case with Fr. Georges Florovsky
(and, not least, following him, other modern authors), who, while first
asserting that the sacraments in heretical communities are non-saving, then
interprets Augustine’s understanding as if it allows for saving sacraments
among heretics. [23]
It is also necessary to
point out the distinction made by St. Basil the Great (4th century) between
heretics, schismatics, and those who belong to unauthorized assemblies (1st
canon of St. Basil the Great). The first are alienated from the Church by their
very faith in God; the second have separated from the Church over certain
ecclesiastical matters that admit of healing; the third have separated as a
result of disobedience to bishops or clerics—for example, if someone caught in
sin was prohibited from serving, but continues to serve. Accordingly, depending
on the degree of estrangement from the Church, St. Basil, referring to the
traditions of receiving various church communities into the Church before his
time, which were characteristic of various local churches, speaks of different
ways of reception into the Church. Three such forms of reception have become
established in church practice: through baptism, through chrismation, and
through repentance. This distinction in the ways of being joined to the Church,
from the most stringent to the most lenient, has allowed for the opinion that
in the fallen communities there is some kind of mechanical diminution in the
efficacy of saving sacraments, depending on the degree of separation of the
given community. However, in our view, the most convincing explanation of this
distinction should be recognized as the understanding that it exists in
accordance with considerations of ecclesiastical benefit at the given moment.
In fact, this understanding is confirmed by St. Basil himself, who speaks of
the necessity of receiving certain schismatics through baptism, and more
generally in the practice of the Orthodox Church, where, on the one hand, the
method of receiving fallen communities into the Church has changed over time
(in particular, the Latins), and on the other hand, for example, those from
communities recognized as heretical are received only through repentance
(Monophysites, Nestorians). Thus, the manner of reception into the Church does
not have an unambiguous connection with the nature of the community that has
fallen away from the Church.
NOTES
1. An example of this is,
for instance, the disputes about the incorruptibility of Christ's human nature
in the Monophysite environment, which also stem from certain anthropological
premises.
2. See: Bolotov V. V. On
the Question of the Filioque. St. Petersburg, 1914. Pp. 31–35.
3. The famous example of
the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is still recited by the faithful at
the Liturgy, where the Holy Spirit is neither called God nor
"consubstantial" with the Father and the Son, is relevant to this
matter.
4. It should be noted
that V. V. Bolotov's overly radical distinction between theologoumena
and dogma also affects his understanding of the Filioque (literally: "and
from the Son" – a formula indicating that the Holy Spirit proceeds not
only from God the Father but also from God the Son). Specifically, the idea
proposed by V. V. Bolotov in the aforementioned work, that the Filioque, which
is one of the factors contributing to the division between the Eastern and
Western Churches, is merely a theologoumenon (in the sense in which
Bolotov defined it), appears historically inaccurate.
5. The philosophical
characteristic of heresy in the history of Christian theology lies precisely in
the fact that a complex, multi-motivated, antinomic teaching for reason is
simplified, adapted to be comprehensible to reason, rationalized, and thus
distorted. All fundamental heresies represent a similar rationalism applied to
dogmas (Ibid., p. 317).
6. "The
Chalcedonians [i.e., the Christians who accepted the Council of Chalcedon,
where it was proclaimed that Christ has two natures – divine and human. – D.
B.] always insisted that God suffered not by the divine nature, but by the
human nature, while the Monophysites, for whom in Christ there was only 'one
nature of God the Word,' were forced to affirm the suffering of the divinity,
that is, the divine nature, which, according to the teaching shared by the
Monophysites, cannot suffer. The Monophysites saw in the suffering of the
divine nature the same logical paradox as the Incarnation of God and everything
else that happens for the salvation of the human race. The Orthodox did not
agree with them: they saw here not a logical paradox but a simple confusion of
concepts. Let's try to explain this in modern language. When asked how the Son
of God suffered, the Orthodox answered – in the flesh, not in divinity. When
asked who suffered, the Orthodox answered – God (the Son of God). The logical
paradox lies precisely in this: the Son of God, who cannot suffer, suffers.
Such a description of the sufferings of Christ, sustained in accordance with
the principle of complementarity of Niels Bohr, automatically follows from the
Orthodox understanding of the Incarnation, which also corresponds to the
principle of complementarity. The primordial logical paradox lies in the fact
of the union of the incompatible (divinity and humanity), and 'theopaschism'
[i.e., the suffering of God. – D. B.] is nothing more than one of its
particular manifestations" (Lurie V. M., with the participation of V. A.
Baranov, History of Byzantine Philosophy: Formative Period. St.
Petersburg, 2006. Pp. 147–148).
7. The logical paradox
lies precisely in this: the Son of God, who cannot suffer, suffers. Such a
description of the sufferings of Christ, sustained in accordance with the
principle of complementarity of Niels Bohr, automatically follows from the
Orthodox understanding of the Incarnation, which also corresponds to the
principle of complementarity. The primordial logical paradox lies in the fact
of the union of the incompatible (divinity and humanity), and
"theopaschism" [i.e., the suffering of God. – D. B.] is nothing more
than one of its particular manifestations" (Lurie V. M., with the
participation of V. A. Baranov, History of Byzantine Philosophy: Formative
Period. St. Petersburg, 2006. Pp. 147–148).
8. Clément O., Conversations
with Patriarch Athenagoras. Trans. from French by V. Zelensky. Brussels,
1993. Pp. 303–304.
9. Patriarch Photius (c.
820–891) wrote about this, in particular, in the 20th Amphilochius, answering
the question of why heretics are received into the Church in the same rank they
held in the heretical church organization, while a person who has fallen into
bodily defilement, according to church canons, cannot become a priest. Photius'
answer is as follows: "...Those who chose impiety (i.e., heresy – D. B.)
proceeded from an intention that did not prefer the bad, but sought the best,
but, deceived in the sacred love of the higher, they shielded themselves from
the worst, which they did not strive for. Therefore, in their original
aspiration, good flourished, and in their failure, one could refer to a stunted
and weak nature. And they, having departed from the worst, see forgiveness
looking upon them favorably; others, knowing from the beginning that what they
do is bad, but having tuned their minds to it, grant those who pass to piety
great superiority over themselves, because they (i.e., heretics – D. B.) held
to a good intention, but, unwillingly, were drawn in the opposite direction,
while the latter initially had a bad choice and destruction according to their
intention, and the former's opinion seemed so superior that they were proud of
their teachings, and sometimes preferred death to the renunciation of their
convictions, while the latter were so conscious of evil that they were ashamed
of their actions, even if no one else knew about them, and considered it their
dearest wish to hide themselves from everyone. Thus, since for some the goal
was originally good (for they strove for the best), and the change that
occurred through understanding was based on a solid foundation, established by
true discernment, they mostly keep the strength of conversion to godliness
unshaken, while in others, the striving was bad from the very first
movement..." (Photius, St. Patriarch, Selected Treatises from
"Amphilochius." Translation, compilation, article by D. E.
Afinogenov. Moscow, 2002, pp. 62–63).
10. Compare, for example:
"If other sins are committed due to the weakness of human nature, then
heresy is the result of the stubbornness of the will of the heretic, who has
opposed himself to God and thus has become like the adversary of God, the devil.
The breeding ground for heresy is not accidental mistakes made out of ignorance
in dogmatic matters due to insufficient theological knowledge, or due to weak
mental, spiritual, or cultural development, but rather the conscious and firm
position of the heretic, which he has taken in religious life and which opposes
the life of the Church" (Ivanov M. S., Heretic // Orthodox
Encyclopedia, Vol. 18, 2008, p. 608).
11. Sidorov L. I., Arianism
in the Light of Modern Research. Bulletin of Ancient History, 1982,
№ 2, p. 87.
12. Based primarily on
the polemics with the Arians of St. Athanasius of Alexandria.
13. Prepared by Sts.
Eulogius of Alexandria, Sophronius of Jerusalem, and Leontius of Jerusalem.
14. And also in the
process of struggling with other, more eclectic heretical teachings that did
not create integral theological syntheses.
15. Homily 27.10,
cited in the edition: The Works of Our Father Gregory the Theologian,
Archbishop of Constantinople. Vol. 3. Moscow, 1889, p. I.
16. On the
Constitution of Man 21:28; The Great Catechetical Discourse 8:26,35.
17. "Mad Arius and
Macedonius, the abomination appeared, in the fiery Gehenna they are equally
tormented with the Greeks..."
18. "An elder, great
before God, named Kyriakos, lived in the Kalamon Lavra near the holy Jordan.
Once, a foreign brother came to him from the land of Dora, named Theophanes,
and asked the elder about his impure thoughts. The elder began to instruct him
with speeches about chastity and purity. The brother, having greatly benefited
from these instructions, exclaimed: 'My father, in my country, I am in
communion with the Nestorians. If it were not for this, I would remain with you
forever!' Upon hearing the name of Nestorius, the elder was deeply grieved over
the brother's loss and began to persuade him and pray that he would abandon
this pernicious heresy and join the holy catholic and apostolic Church. 'It is
impossible to be saved if you do not have the right understanding and belief
that the Most Holy Virgin Mary is the true Theotokos.'
'Father,' the brother
objected, 'but all heresies say exactly the same thing: if you are not in
communion with us, you will not be saved. I don’t know, unfortunate as I am,
what to do. Pray to the Lord that He will clearly show me what the true faith
is.'
The elder joyfully
listened to the brother's words.
'Stay in my cell,' he
said. 'I have hope in God that He, in His mercy, will reveal the truth to you.'
Leaving the brother in
his cave, the elder went to the Dead Sea and began to pray for him. Indeed, the
next day, around the ninth hour, the brother saw someone appear to him,
terrifying in appearance, who said: 'Go and know the truth!' Taking him, he led
him to a dark, foul-smelling place emitting flames, and showed him in the
flames Nestorius and Theodore, Eutyches and Apollinarius, Evagrius and Didymus,
Dioscorus and Severus, Arius and Origen, and others. The one who appeared to
the brother said: 'This is the place prepared for heretics and for those who
impiously teach about the Most Holy Theotokos, as well as for those who follow
their teachings. If you like this place, stay true to your teachings. If you do
not want to taste such punishment, turn to the holy Catholic Church, to which
the elder who instructed you belongs. I say to you: even if a man is adorned
with all virtues, yet if he believes wrongly, he will go to this place.' Upon
hearing these words, the brother came to his senses. When the elder returned,
the brother told him everything he had seen, and soon joined the holy catholic
and apostolic Church. Remaining in Kalamon with the elder, he lived with him
for several years and died in peace" (Lug Dukhovny, The Creation
of the Blessed John Moschus / Trans. by I. Khitrovo. Sergiev Posad, 1915).
19. See: "Are we not
commanded to pray for our enemies, for those who hate and persecute us? So, we
perform this ministry and exhort you: ordination does not lead to the love of
power, does not incline one to arrogance, does not grant dominion; we have all
received the same Spirit, all have been recognized for adoption: those whom the
Father has chosen, He has granted the authority to serve their brethren.
Therefore, in fulfilling this ministry, we exhort you and implore you to
abandon such evil [i.e., the evil of anathematizing people. – D. B.]. For the
one whom you have decided to anathematize is either still alive and exists in
this mortal life, or has already died. If he is still alive, you act impiously
by excommunicating one who is still in an uncertain state and can turn from
evil to good; and if he is dead, even more so. Why? Because 'he stands or falls
before his Lord' (Rom. 14:4), no longer being under human power. Moreover, it
is dangerous to pass judgment on what is hidden in the Judge of the ages, who
alone knows the measure of knowledge and the degree of faith. <...>
Heretical teachings that do not agree with what we have accepted must be
cursed, and impious dogmas denounced, but people must be spared in every
possible way and prayed for their salvation" (The Works of Our Holy
Father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople: In 12 volumes. St.
Petersburg, 1895–1906. Vol. 1. Book 2). Above, the author of the treatise cites
the example of the Apostle Paul, who imposed anathema on unrighteous deeds, not
on specific individuals (1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8).
20. See, for example, the
words of St. Gregory the Theologian: "Some became champions and defenders
of impiety, others took secondary places and were either struck with fear, or
enslaved by necessity, or ensnared by flattery, or involved out of ignorance,
which constitutes a lesser fault, if this suffices as an excuse for those to
whom the care of the people was entrusted. For as the desires of lions and
other animals, as well as of men and women, of the old and the young, are not
alike, but on the contrary, there is much difference in each age and gender, so
too there is a difference between rulers and subordinates. Perhaps we might
excuse the common people if this happened to them; their lack of insight often
saves them; but how can we excuse the teacher, who, unless falsely named,
should help others in their ignorance?" (Homily 21, cited in the edition: The
Works of Our Father Gregory the Theologian... Vol. 2, pp. 160–161).
21. Cf. Apostolic Canons
45, 46, 65; Canons 6, 9, 33 of the Council of Laodicea; Canon 9 of Timothy of
Alexandria.
22. Cf. Canon 6 of the
Council of Laodicea and Canon 9 of Timothy of Alexandria.
23. See: Florovsky G., On
the Boundaries of the Church // In: Christianity and Civilization:
Selected Works on Theology and Philosophy. St. Petersburg, 2003. Pp.
320–321.
Source: Книга еретиков
[Book of Heretics], by D. S. Biryukova (St. Petersburg: RHGA, 2011), excerpt
from the Introduction.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.