The term "heretic"

By Vasileios I. Touloumtzis,

Postgraduate Diploma in Systematic Theology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Specialization in Dogmatics

Source: Χειροτονίες τελεσθείσες υπό αιρετικών ως επιχειρήματα της ουκρανικής αυτοκεφαλίας, pp. 8-10.

 

The specific term, despite its modern univocal connotation, nonetheless in both the texts of the Fathers and in conciliar documents has a dual meaning, something which entails a clear distinction between heretics: those not condemned by a council, and those who have been judged or convicted by a council. [8] If the different connotation of this specific term is not clarified and correctly interpreted in reference to the process before and after conciliar judgment, then confusion and erroneous conclusions inevitably follow. A similar case of such confusion, so that even the simple-minded reader might understand this difference, is offered to us by the current issue of the coronavirus pandemic, wherein opinions and arguments were presented by specific teachers of the faith—bishops and priests (leaving aside for the sake of the example the sphere of academic theology)—regarding the mystery of the divine Eucharist, or concerning the holy spoon, etc., which surprisingly echoed the argumentation of the old heresiarchs. On the same basis are also classified the arguments that are presented and attempt to support “primacy-mania” and episcopocentrism, based on intra-Trinitarian observations concerning the supposed ontological priority of the Father over the Son, etc., wherein sometimes indirectly and other times directly, the Arian argumentation is taught in full. And this is mentioned, unfortunately, neither as an exaggeration nor vaguely, and certainly does not pertain to possible (as there should not be) misstatements. It pertains to the interpretive presuppositions that ground the specific arguments and are expressed through them. These specific cases of priests and bishops, under the general framework of conciliar and patristic self-awareness, would be characterized as heretics, insofar as they clearly diverge from the Tradition and the faith of the Church, and thus would be held accountable before a future ecclesiastical synod on these matters. To avoid misunderstandings, what has been said does not mean that theological misinterpretations are allowed—at least within the realm of Orthodox theology—regarding loss of grace, invalidity of sacraments, or de facto expulsion of such persons from the body of the Church.

In the period prior to conciliar examination, the term “heretic” highlights the clear deviation from the pious mind of the Church, as this is expressed throughout the centuries both patristically and synodally, and as it is experienced timelessly as a living tradition. Only and exclusively within this framework is the ecclesiastical council understood as a charismatic organ of the Church which is able to rescind a charism that it has, assuredly, itself transmitted, when it discerns a divergence in doctrine that distorts its very life. Before conciliar judgment, heretical bishops who think and teach novel doctrines, in the form of tares, remain in a certain way within the body of the Church and perform valid and existent sacraments, insofar as they are performing the rites of the Church. However, the unrepentant stance of heretical bishops before a specially convened ecclesiastical council entails conciliar condemnation, their definitive deposition, and their anathematization—events which signify the cessation of apostolic succession, their placement outside the Church, and, consequently, the invalidity of the sacraments performed by them, since the Church, whose mind they have rejected, no longer acts through them. It is noteworthy that even before conciliar condemnation and synodal anathematization, the deviation from the faith of the Church and the teaching of a different doctrine is not regarded merely as a different interpretive approach, but as a passionate attack against ecclesiastical unity, given that the Church is founded upon the cornerstone of right faith, through which the Triadic God is known in Christ. Thus, as shown in the proceedings of the councils as well as in relevant sources, heresy is not characterized solely as an already condemned heretical community which has been condemned by a council, and has therefore fallen from the communion of the faith and the gifts of the Church. In the case of a heresy not yet conciliarily condemned, what is meant is the appearance and existence of some new teaching, which clearly diverges from the faith and mind of the Catholic Church and exists—until it is addressed—as a problematic theological position within the body of the Church. It is the responsibility of the Orthodox bishops to convene in ecclesiastical synod, since they remain the ones chiefly (institutionally and charismatically) competent and responsible, as those who charismatically bear the foremost teaching office. The turmoil, the problems, and the divisions caused by this new teaching become the sole cause that compels the convocation of a synod, in order that these problems be answered and addressed theologically.

In conclusion, whenever we encounter the case of the economical acceptance of a heretic, this pertains to a bishop who is as yet not condemned by a council. But in the case of those who have been convicted and condemned as heretics, the authoritative Dorotheos Voulismas notes: “Utterly lacking in economy and in every way unacceptable to serve are those who have completely torn themselves away from the Head, such as the convicted heretics. Hence, the words of those who accept them are to be rejected as stray and baseless. But let this suffice concerning these matters.” [9] From this, it becomes clear that if each time the semantic content of the specific term (heretic, heresy) is not clarified—namely, whether it refers to heretics not yet condemned by a council or to those already judged—then, by necessity, it is not possible to speak of a theologically correct approach or interpretation of the texts, since under such conditions an indiscriminate unification of disparate cases is effected.

 

NOTES

8. For this specific distinction, see the study The Kollyvades and Dorotheos Voulismas, The Issue of the "Examination of" the Pedalion and the Canonical, publ. Ereisma, Holy Monastery of the Theotokos Chrysopodaritissa of Nezera, Chalandritsa, Achaia 2020, pp. 661–670, where there is a relevant subsection under the title: "Historical-Canonical Consideration of the Distinction Between Convicted and Uncondemned Heretics."

9. The Kollyvades and Dorotheos Voulismas, p. 699.

 

Online:  https://www.romfea.gr/images/article-images/2021/05/romfea2/xeirotonies_oukraniko.pdf