The term "heretic"

 

Despite its clarity today, the term nonetheless carries a dual meaning in both the writings of the Fathers and in conciliar documents, which necessitates a clear distinction between heretics who have not been condemned by a council and those who have been conciliar condemned or exposed [8]. If this distinction is not clarified and the different meanings of the term regarding procedures before and after a synodal definition are not properly interpreted, confusion will inevitably arise, leading to erroneous conclusions.

To help the average reader understand this distinction, a parallel example of such confusion can be found in the current reality brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Certain specific teachers of the faith—bishops and priests (we set aside the domain of academic theology to avoid multiplying examples)—have presented views and arguments regarding the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist, the use of the holy spoon, and similar topics, which strangely resemble the arguments of ancient heresiarchs. Similarly, arguments used to defend the "mania of primacy" and episcopocentrism often rely on comments about the relationships within the Holy Trinity, such as the supposed ontological priority of the Father over the Son, which, in its unaltered form, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly conveys Arian teachings. Regrettably, this is not a matter of extremes, ambiguity, or, certainly, merely unfortunate (though inappropriate) formulations. Rather, it concerns hermeneutical presuppositions that serve as the foundation for specific arguments and are expressed through them. In light of the overall conciliar and patristic self-awareness of the Church, certain priests and bishops could be labeled heretics, as their views clearly deviate from the Tradition and faith of the Church. They would then be subject to the judgment of a future ecclesiastical council regarding these issues. To avoid misunderstandings, it should be noted that this does not imply that all of the above necessarily allows for erroneous theological interpretations, at least in the field of Orthodox theology, concerning the loss of grace by the aforementioned individuals, the invalidity of their sacraments, or their de facto falling away from the body of the Church.

In the period prior to conciliar consideration, the term "heretic" signifies a clear deviation from the pious mindset of the Church, which over the centuries is expressed through the Holy Fathers and the councils and, as a living tradition, is continuously experienced in the life of the Church. Only in this sense and exclusively in this light should an ecclesiastical council be understood as the charismatic organ of the Church, which, if it determines a divergence in doctrine that distorts the very life of the Church, may revoke a gift that it had undoubtedly conferred. Before the issuance of a conciliar definition, heretical bishops who think in a modernist way and teach modernist doctrines remain, in a sense, within the ecclesial body as thorns and perform valid and real sacraments, provided they adhere to the Church's ordinances. However, the unrepentant stance of heretical bishops before a specially convened ecclesiastical council leads to conciliar condemnation, final deposition from rank, and anathematization. These actions signify the severance of apostolic succession, their expulsion from the Church, and, more broadly, the invalidity of the sacraments they perform, as the Church—whose mindset they have renounced—no longer acts through them.

It should be noted that even before conciliar condemnation and anathematization, deviation from the faith of the Church and the teaching of alternative opinions is not merely regarded as a different hermeneutical approach but as a passionate polemic against ecclesial unity. This is based on the fact that the Church relies, as on a foundation, on true faith, through which God in the Trinity is known in Christ. Thus, as evident from the Acts of the councils and related sources, heresy is defined not only and exclusively as an already condemned heretical community that, having been conciliar condemned, has fallen out of communion in the faith and been deprived of the gifts of the Church. In the case of heresy not yet condemned by a council, the term refers to the emergence and existence of a new teaching that clearly differentiates itself from the faith and mindset of the Catholic Church, continuing to exist within it until it is treated as a problematic theological position within the ecclesiastical body. Orthodox bishops, as those who officially and charismatically bear the teaching office of the Church, remain primarily responsible for addressing such matters. Their responsibility includes convening ecclesiastical councils. The confusion, problems, and divisions caused by such a newly emerged teaching constitute the primary reason for convening a council to provide a theological response to these issues.

Conclusion: Whenever we encounter a case of receiving a heretic through oikonomia, it concerns a bishop who has not yet been conciliar condemned. Regarding heretics who have been exposed and condemned, the authoritative interpreter Dorotheos Voulismas notes: "Those who have entirely and completely separated themselves from the Head are not subject to oikonomia and cannot be admitted to the priesthood; such are the heretics who have been exposed. But enough has been said about them" [9]. From these words, it becomes clear that if the semantic content of each specific term (heretic, heresy) is not clarified each time—whether it pertains to heretics who have not been conciliar condemned or those who have—then it is impossible to speak of a theologically correct approach and interpretation of the texts. Under such conditions, an unjustified conflation of distinct cases inevitably occurs.

 

8. For this specific distinction, see the study Οἱ Κολλυβάδες καί ὁ Δωρόθεος Βουλησμάς, Τό ζήτημα τῆς “ἀνακρίσεως τοῦ” Πηδαλίου καί τοῦ Κανονικοῦ [The Kollyvades and Dorotheos Voulismas, The Issue of the “Examination of” the Pedalion and the Canonikon], published by Έρεισμα, Holy Monastery of Panagia Chrysopodaritissa, Nezeron, Chalandritsa, Achaia, 2020, pp. 661–670, where there is a related subsection titled "Ἱστορικο-κανονική θεώρησις τῆς διακρίσεως ἐληλεγμένων καί ἀνεξελέγκτων αἱρετικῶν" [Historical-canonical consideration of the distinction between judged and unjudged heretics].

9. Οἱ Κολλυβάδες καί ὁ Δωρόθεος Βουλησμάς [The Kollyvades and Dorotheos Voulismas], p. 699.

Source: Vasileios I. Touloumtzis, "Χειροτονίες τελεσθείσες υπό αιρετικών ως επιχειρήματα της ουκρανικής αυτοκεφαλίας" [Ordinations performed by heretics as arguments for Ukrainian autocephaly], pp. 8-10.

 

Translated from the original Russian source: https://mospat.ru/ru/articles/87403/