Excommunicated and Heretical Saints

[Standing Up]

St Polycarp the Hieromartyr lived his life in communion with the Church and was never excommunicated. He lived before the Church expressed it's teaching on the issue in Ecumenical Council. The anathema falls on the people who are obstinate in their belief after having been shown the error of their way by the Church. St Polycarp was a loyal member of the Church and I have no reason to believe that he would have held to his own opinion over that of the Church in Council if he were around when it took place.

We have Icons of him and venerate him so obviously we don't hold him to be a heretic despite his understanding of the issue of Pascha.

Thanks for the input.

So, the idea that he held to a different teaching that was later condemned doesn't impact his status, but those who held to the teachings of the apostles John and Philip would be? We do see that with Saint? Chrysostom.

Maybe it's like Arianism. Are there any Saints who held to that concept that was later declared false?

 

[bbbbbbb]

This seems to be a type of OSAS - Once a Saint always a Saint, no?

 

[Christos Anesti]

So, the idea that he held to a different teaching that was later condemned doesn't impact his status, but those who held to the teachings of the apostles John and Philip would be? We do see that with Saint? Chrysostom.

The fact that it was difference in opinion on Church discipline rather then theology could be important too. The Church COULD have celebrated Pascha on any date it chose to do so. They had (at least) two ancient yet differing traditions regarding what day the feast should be celebrated. They wanted to unify the practice so that all Christian celebrated it on the same day. In order for the decree to celebrate it on the same day to have any "teeth" so to speak they anathematized those who rejected it. If they are not going to listen to the church and it's decisions then they are anathematized. Believe me people can get really worked up over calenders and dates and if it didn't have teeth the Church never would have had a unified day of celebration.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Maybe it's like Arianism. Are there any Saints who held to that concept that was later declared false?

Some of the pre-Nicene Fathers made statements that would appear "woolly" or ambigous given the precision of later Trinitarian and Christological language(that came about through intense struggle against heresy) but none of the people recognized as Saints by the Church ever rejected the divinity of Christ.

 

[Rick Otto]

Even St Constantine?

 

[Rick Otto]

I'd say Saint Polycarp is an example. That it did happen.

He also learned his practice from apostles John and Phillip, according to Irenaeus. Does that mean the Church excommunicated and declared heretical those apostles?

I think it means there is a problem in our concept of apostolic tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

The fact that it was difference in opinion on Church discipline rather then theology could be important too. The Church COULD have celebrated Pascha on any date it chose to do so.

Why do you think that?

They had (at least) two ancient yet differing traditions regarding what day the feast should be celebrated. They wanted to unify the practice so that all Christian celebrated it on the same day. In order for the decree to celebrate it on the same day to have any "teeth" so to speak they anathematized those who rejected it. If they are not going to listen to the church and it's decisions then they are anathematized. Believe me people can get really worked up over calenders and dates and if it didn't have teeth the Church never would have had a unified day of celebration.

I think it means there is a problem in our concept of apostolic tradition.

Apparently so. I mean one can't simply assume that St. Polycarp and those apostles weren't part of the Church. They'd probably say that the others didn't listen to them.

Incidentally, the Church still does not and never has had a unified day of celebration, unless one excludes the RC or the EO with their two different calendars as part of the Church.

Anyway, so Polycarp is considered a Saint, yet Nicea anathematized him. So does that anathema apply retroactively?

 

[Standing Up]

This seems to be a type of OSAS - Once a Saint always a Saint, no?

Perfect

 

[Rick Otto]

Imagine the embarassment. One day you're harp in hand sittin' pretty on cloud 9, you, God & everybody there thinkin' everythings' fine...

Kinda reminds me of one of those dreams where you're in High School & suddenly you realize you're stark naked.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Even St Constantine?

He was the one who called the Council of Nicea and he gave his support to the findings of the council. Obviously he believed in the Deity of Christ.

 

[Rick Otto]

He was the one who called the Council of Nicea and he gave his support to the findings of the council. Obviously he believed in the Deity of Christ.

Not so obvious to me because he was under plenty of pressure to get Christianity organized just to keep the sectarian violence from costing him manpower & money. Add to that his waiting till his deathbed for baptism & we get a less saintly picture of the man.
The brochure version always involves some airbrushing.
He believed in the power of councils and in endorsing the conclusions he paid for.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Regarding Posthumous Anathmatization

I can only think of a few examples of this. The deceased person anathematized is always mentioned by name.

Origen, Evagrius of Pontus, and Didymous the Blind

All three of these people were anathematized after their death by the Church. They were men of great personal piety, who I have no doubt truly loved the lord. Origens writings were well loved by many of the Fathers and his biblical commentaries were very well regarded. Evagrius of Pontus was probably one of the most brilliant students of human psychology and and was also a teacher to St John Cassian. Unfortunately all three allowed errors to creep into their Christology and they also taught the pre-existence of souls. They probably would have never been anathematized had there not later grown up a whole school of thought surrounding their name really emphasized these false beliefs. In order to protect to the purity of the Churches doctrine they had to be anathematized along with those who continued to teach those doctrines.


Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Diodore of Tarsus and Thedore of Mopsuestia are the other example that I'm aware of. They also were men of great person alpiety. Diodore of Tarsus was even an instructor to one of the most venerable of our Saints (St Chrysostom) but unfortunately they both (and especially Didore** ) wrote things about Christology that were really dangerous. When Nestorius took what they wrote and made it into a systematic Christology it was necessary for the Church to anathematize them along with Nestorius.

In both cases it was sad that they had to do it but I think it was necessary and their hand was forced.

I'm not aware of blanket anathemahetizations of dead people though.

** Interestingly even Theodore of Mopsuesta (who was Diodores disciple) recognized some of the problems with Diodores expressions and tried to fix them. He didn't go far enough however and many of the same problems still existed in his writings.

 

[Christos Anesti]

He believed in the power of councils and in endorsing the conclusions he paid for.

Do you really think the Fathers of the council would allow themselves to be paid off by the emperor? Many of these people were confessors who came to the council missing eyes and limbs that were taken from them when they refused to renounce their faith. Many of them saw their own friends and relatives martyred for the faith.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Never mind. I see what you are saying. Not that he paid for a certain outcome but that he paid for the council and was willing to support whatever decision it came too. Who knows if thats true? It is possible seeing as how he wasn't a theologian and he may have had trust that the truth would win out and he would loyally obey. Can't really interview him now to find out though.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Regarding some of his unchristian acts. Some people are recognized as saints despite certain negative conduct. People like (sts) King David and Solomon for example.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Even St Constantine?

He was the one who called the Council of Nicea and he gave his support to the findings of the council. Obviously he believed in the Deity of Christ.

Is that when the Pope and Vatican came to be about?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7330134-25/#post50139169
The RCC born in 313 AD?

http://clf.uua.org/betweensundays/mi...nHeritage.html

.......But the simple, humble Christian church was soon to undergo radical change.

In 313 AD the Emperor of Rome, Constantine, declared himself to be a Christian. Although Constantine originally called for religious freedom, power corrupted that ideal, and soon Christianity became an absolute spiritual monarchy, with the pope as spiritual leader.

The Roman Catholic Church was born. Church organization and government became hierarchical and complex with strict laws and creedal statements which church members were required to believe..................

 

[Standing Up]

Never mind. I see what you are saying. Not that he paid for a certain outcome but that he paid for the council and was willing to support whatever decision it came too. Who knows if thats true? It is possible seeing as how he wasn't a theologian and he may have had trust that the truth would win out and he would loyally obey. Can't really interview him now to find out though.

He did seem keen on unity, as opposed to truth. (which is not to imply whether truth or falsehood came out of the council)

 

[Standing Up]

Regarding Posthumous Anathmatization

I can only think of a few examples of this. The deceased person anathematized is always mentioned by name.

Origen, Evagrius of Pontus, and Didymous the Blind

All three of these people were anathematized after their death by the Church. They were men of great personal piety, who I have no doubt truly loved the lord. Origens writings were well loved by many of the Fathers and his biblical commentaries were very well regarded. Evagrius of Pontus was probably one of the most brilliant students of human psychology and and was also a teacher to St John Cassian. Unfortunately all three allowed errors to creep into their Christology and they also taught the pre-existence of souls. They probably would have never been anathematized had there not later grown up a whole school of thought surrounding their name really emphasized these false beliefs. In order to protect to the purity of the Churches doctrine they had to be anathematized along with those who continued to teach those doctrines.


Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Diodore of Tarsus and Thedore of Mopsuestia are the other example that I'm aware of. They also were men of great person alpiety. Diodore of Tarsus was even an instructor to one of the most venerable of our Saints (St Chrysostom) but unfortunately they both (and especially Didore** ) wrote things about Christology that were really dangerous. When Nestorius took what they wrote and made it into a systematic Christology it was necessary for the Church to anathematize them along with Nestorius.

In both cases it was sad that they had to do it but I think it was necessary and their hand was forced.

I'm not aware of blanket anathemahetizations of dead people though.

** Interestingly even Theodore of Mopsuesta (who was Diodores disciple) recognized some of the problems with Diodores expressions and tried to fix them. He didn't go far enough however and many of the same problems still existed in his writings.

Another question is where were the bounds of dogma? I doubt anyone would suggest that any ECF got it all right, right? Early Origin seems accurate or not problematic.

Chrysostom enforced Nicea, deposing Christians from their churches who wouldn't follow Nicea's ruling on Easter. Brother against brother as prophesied.

So, why would Polycarp be a Saint, yet his teaching be anathematized or heretical?

 

[Standing Up]

Is that when the Pope and Vatican came to be about?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7330134-25/#post50139169
The RCC born in 313 AD?

http://clf.uua.org/betweensundays/mi...nHeritage.html

.......But the simple, humble Christian church was soon to undergo radical change.

In 313 AD the Emperor of Rome, Constantine, declared himself to be a Christian. Although Constantine originally called for religious freedom, power corrupted that ideal, and soon Christianity became an absolute spiritual monarchy, with the pope as spiritual leader.

The Roman Catholic Church was born. Church organization and government became hierarchical and complex with strict laws and creedal statements which church members were required to believe..................

It was a later Emperor (around 380?) who said one must convert or suffer the consequences.

 

[silence_dogood]

Is it possible for the Church to excommunicate and declare heretical a Saint?

Do we know of any examples?

How would that scenario impact the idea of praying to the Saints?

How would that scenario impact the idea of the unity of the Body of Christ?

The Chruch doesn't declare people saints. Only God declares people saints.

Likewise, Christians do not pray to the dead. That's a pagan practice.