Heretics

[The Liturgist]

Ah, okay, but this seems rather tangential, as the topic that was being discussed was whether only the first three ecumenical councils are accepted. I would also point out that agreeing with a council and accepting a council are two different things (e.g. Nicea II).

Well, in my view agreeing with the seven councils is enough in the case of the Oriental Orthodox, since they had been alienated by the unwarranted anathema of Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria, which was largely, from the material I have read on the subject, the result of the machinations of Ibas, who was, unfortunately for everyone, a crypto-Nestorian who was actively seeking to undo the Third Ecumenical Council. And indeed Nestorius himself immediately embraced the project of subverting Chalcedon, and seeking to exploit it as a way to regain his lost influence, by stating that the Tome of Leo expressed what he had been trying to argue all along, which is a gross distortion on many levels, in that Nestorius initially was primarily concerned with suppressing the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos, and argued for a separation between the deity and humanity of our Lord in support of this (best expressed by a rather nauseating hymn by Mar Narsai in which the Nestorian rival to the Mor Jacob of Sarugh listed in alternation actions of our Lord which he asserted were done by Christ as a man or as God, which of course completely violates the Christological principle of communicatio idiomatum, and which I find useful in that it reading it expresses the true horror of the Nestorian heresy carried to its fullest extent).

As a result of this, and also of the volte-face by Emperor Justinian, the Oriental Orthodox were then subsequently falsely accused by many over the ensuing centuries of Monophysitism, despite having anathematized Eutyches and explicitly embraced the doctrine of Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria, which agrees with Chalcedonianism in every respect except its use of the word “from” rather than “in” in describing the Incarnation, but which importantly, as pointed out by Pope Benedict XVI, states that our Lord in His incarnation united in one hypostasis our created human nature with the uncreated Divine nature, without change, confusion, separation, or division.

It is these four words which are the essence of Christological Orthodoxy, and they have since been embraced by the Church of the East, happily enough - while the Church of the East had embraced a Syriac translation of the Chalcedonian formula as early as the sixth century under Mar Babai the Great, there were still Nestorianisms, including the aforementioned hymn by Mar Narsai, although things had improved in an Orthodox direction to such an extent that by the 12th century, the Syriac Orthodox church in Mesopotamia had become closely allied with the Assyrian Church of the East, particularly during the reign of Maphrian (vice-Patriarch) Mar Dionysius bar Hebraeus, who was so loved by the Assyrians that when he reposed in a predominantly Assyrian area while returning to the Monastery of St. Matthew in the hills above Mosul (which miraculously survived ISIS and is still in operation 800 years later) from the Syriac Orthodox stronghold of Tikrit, the Catholicos of the Church of the East organized his funeral, and 4,000 Assyrians attended.

However, the unfortunate result of the false accusation of Monophysitism was that the Oriental Orthodox were unable to participate in the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh synod, despite St. Severus of Antioch, the most important theologian who is not sadly universally venerated, having composed the hymn Ho Monogenes, which is the most definitive proof of Christological Orthodox (later, some Eastern Orthodox attempted to attribute this hymn to Justinian, but we know that not to be the case, since it is the hymn which opens the Syriac Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and is used by the Copts at the height of the liturgy of Great and Holy Friday, and it is inconceivable that these churches would use that hymn, especially in such a high profile way, had it been written by the same man who arrested and probably executed all of the Syriac Orthodox bishops except St. Jacob bar Addai.

However, a schism between the Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic church during which time the Armenians for a time regarded St. Severus as anathema (which I have confirmed @dzheremi is no longer the case as far as anyone in the US is able to confirm - I addressed that in another post earlier today) added further confusion, since it resulted in the idea being circulated that St. Athanasius composed the hymn in question, which is due to the very high respect the Armenians have always had, even during the schism with the Syriac Orthodox, for St. Athanasius*

At any rate, the net effect of this is that the Oriental Orthodox never had any bishops embrace Iconoclasm, and also officially rejected Monophysitism, Monergism, Universalism, Monothelitism, basically, the entire suite of heresies that were addressed by the seven Ecumenical Synods. So the fact they only embrace three of them is quite acceptable, particularly since the subsequent synods anathematized various Oriental Orthodox saints on the false assumption that they were Monophysite heretics. This is fine - the view of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and many others, as far as I can gather, is that these councils are ecumenical in terms of their dogmatic implication, but clearly, since ecumenical relations have been restored between the Oriental Orthodox and both the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, the anathemas are not. This is reasonable, considering that the canons of the ecumenical councils are ignored to different extents by nearly everyone (for example, Canon XX of Nicaea prohibits fasting and kneeling or prostration on any Sunday throughout the year, and during the entire Pentecost, not just Bright Week, and since Canons VI and VII of Nicaea declare Antioch and Alexandria in Canon VI and Jerusalem in Canon VII as having the same rights and authority as Rome, and Canon VII of Ephesus prohibits modifying the Nicene Creed, and thus it is certainly reasonable to set aside personal anathemas, particularly when it can be shown that the person in question is not guilty of the heresy for which they were anathematized, which is certainly the case with the Oriental Orthodox.

*Indeed, the only anaphora of the 13 they once used, which also included a pre-sanctified liturgy, is a rescension of the ancient Antiochene-Hagiopolitan Anaphora from the Divine Liturgy of St. James known as the Anaphora of St. Athanasius, but this is also psuedepigraphical - the Ethiopians also have an Anaphora of Athanasius, which as far as I can tell is unrelated, except insofar as following the Antiochene pattern - it is almost certain that St. Athanasius used the ancient Alexandrian anaphora still used by the Coptic Orthodox as the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril (because their recension of it was translated into Coptic by St. Cyril the Great, who was the first Pope of Alexandria to engage in a mass-translation of all liturgical material into the Coptic Orthodox language), and which is also known as the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, and which is also included in the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis (in which form it was celebrated by the Greek Orthodox bishop Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus.**

**I am not a fan of that particular bishop because he has not only made very hateful remarks about the Oriental Orthodox, but has also made anti-Semitic remarks and other very offensive remarks, and also he celebrated it with certain peculiar rubrics which are not indicated in the original text but which are associated with a deeply flawed late 19th century translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. James, which include setting up an addiitonal Holy Table in front of the Iconostasis, celebration versus populum, and other strange things, which are not called for by the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis and which are also absent from more recent and credible translations of the Divine Liturgy of St. James, but which were innovations, and which had the unpleasant side effect of reinforcing a baseless allegation from a medieval Eastern Orthodox canonist that the Divine Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark are heterodox. Indeed in the case of the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, there is an 1893 recension of it from the Patriarchate of Alexandria that features the same Liturgy of the Catechumens, or Liturgy of the Word, as people call it these days, as the main Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great, differing only in the text of the prayers said by the priest during the three Antiphons.

 

[eleos1954]

It’s not judgemental to declare someone a heretic for teaching doctrines contrary to the apostolic faith - that is to say, preaching another Gospel - indeed, St. Paul requires us to anathematize people who do that in Galatians 1:8-9, and such an anathema is more stigmatizing than merely calling someone a heretic.

Galatians 1:8-9

Amplified Bible
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we [originally] preached to you, let him be condemned to destruction!

Judgement by God ..... not us nor the church. Only God can condemn someone. Only God can judge righteously.

Paul wasn't saying we or the church are to anathematize anyone ... he was stating what would happen to heretics ... they will be condemned to destruction (by God).

 

[The Liturgist]

Galatians 1:8-9

Amplified Bible
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we [originally] preached to you, let him be condemned to destruction!

Judgement by God ..... not us nor the church. Only God can condemn someone. Only God can judge righteously.

Paul wasn't saying we or the church are to anathematize anyone ... he was stating what would happen to heretics ... they will be condemned to destruction (by God).

Firstly, I am not saying that the church can condemn someone - when someone is declared anathema, judgement of them is expressly reserved to God.

Secondly, the very loose translation you provided is a very good reason not to use the Amplified Bible, since the Greek text literally says “let him be anathema,” a Greek theological term, often used with the Aramaic term “Maranatha”, was understood by the Early Church in a very specific way, as explained by the great Eastern Orthodox St. John Maximovitch, and I believe my Oriental Orthodox friend @dzheremi and my traditional Roman Catholic friends @Michie and @chevyontheriver will agree with his explanation:

“The Greek word "anathema" consists of two words: "ana", which is a preposition indicating movement upwards and "thema", which means a separate part of something. In military terminology, "thema" meant a detachment; in civil government "thema" meant a province. We currently use the word "theme", derived from "thema", to mean a specific topic of a written and intellectual work.

"Anathema" literally means the lifting up of something separate. In the Old Testament this expression was used both in relation to that which was alienated due to sinfulness and likewise to that which was dedicated to God.

In the New Testament, in the writing of the Apostle Paul it is used once in conjunction with "maranatha", meaning the coming of the Lord. The combination of these words means separation until the coming of the Lord; in other words - being handed over to Him (1 Corinthians 16:22).

The Apostle Paul uses "anathema" in another place without the addition of "maranatha" (Galatians 1:8-9). Here "anathema" is proclaimed against the distortion of the Gospel of Christ as it was preached by the Apostle, no matter by whom this might be committed, whether by the Apostle himself or an angel from the heavens. In this same expression there is also implied: "let the Lord Himself pass judgment", for who else can pass judgment on the angels?

St John the Theologian in Revelation 22:3 says that in the New Jerusalem there will not be any anathema; this can be understood in two ways, giving the word anathema both meanings: 1) there will not be any lifting up to the judgment of God, for this judgment has already been accomplished; 2) there will not be any special dedication to God, for all things will be the Holy things of God, just as the light of God enlightens all. (Revelation 21:23)

In the acts of the Councils and the further course of the New Testament Church of Christ, the word "anathema" came to mean complete separation from the Church. "The Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes", "let him be anathema", "let it be anathema", means a complete tearing away from the church. While in cases of "separation from the communion of the Church" and other "epitimia" or penances laid on a person, the person remained a member of the Church, even though his participation in her grace filled life was limited, those given over to anathema were thus completely torn away from her until their repentance. Realizing that she is unable to do anything for their salvation, in view of their stubbornness and hardness of heart, the earthly church lifts them up to the judgment of God. That judgment is merciful unto repentant sinners, but fearsome for the stubborn enemies of God. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God ... for our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 10:31 and 12:29).”

Anathema is not final damnation: until death repentance is possible. "Anathema" is fearsome not because the Church wishes anyone evil or God seeks their damnation. They desire that all be saved. But it is fearsome to stand before the presence of God in the state of hardened evil: nothing is hidden from Him.”

 

[chevyontheriver]

Show me the proof.

Sorry, but the reason given for the excommunication of Vaughn Treco is schism. He was informally examined for heresy. I was sure it was for heresy that he was excommunicated as that was what he was informally examined on. It's the oddest case ever, as his informal examination listed supposed but never ever documented heretical statements only to be followed by excommunication for schism. It's a sort of double-secret-probation. No quotation of his sermon was ever made in support of heresy or schism. Of course then it's hard (impossible maybe) to be in 'accidental' schism and no deliberate choice for schism was ever voiced by Treco. Quite the opposite. The excommunication has been appealed to Rome and it will take a whole bunch of years for him to (probably) be cleared of it. He may die of old age first.

So the actions against him were for supposed violation of Church teaching but the end result is schism and the appeal is launched. He delivered a bit too hot homily that must have scalded some people he didn't know were standing too close.

I guess I owe you ten. I'll put it on my Raspberry Pi where it will be ready when you come to collect it. If you don't get it within a year maybe I will send it to the Treco assistance fund, a sort of cancelled priest thingie.

 

[zippy2006]

He was informally examined for heresy. I was sure it was for heresy that he was excommunicated as that was what he was informally examined on. It's the oddest case ever, as his informal examination listed supposed but never ever documented heretical statements only to be followed by excommunication for schism. It's a sort of double-secret-probation. No quotation of his sermon was ever made in support of heresy or schism. Of course then it's hard (impossible maybe) to be in 'accidental' schism and no deliberate choice for schism was ever voiced by Treco. Quite the opposite. The excommunication has been appealed to Rome and it will take a whole bunch of years for him to (probably) be cleared of it. He may die of old age first.

That sounds about right. The secretive proceedings sound similar to the odd case of Ned Reidy that I was reading about. When I looked at the recent list of excommunications they were all for schism, usually for criticizing or denouncing Pope Francis.

If you don't get it within a year maybe I will send it to the Treco assistance fund, a sort of cancelled priest thingie.

Ha - you can do that. One of the best preachers I've ever heard.

Under Francis we have seen a rise in formal charges of schism, which is interesting.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That sounds about right. The secretive proceedings sound similar to the odd case of Ned Reidy that I was reading about. When I looked at the recent list of excommunications they were all for schism, usually for criticizing or denouncing Pope Francis.


Ha - you can do that. One of the best preachers I've ever heard.

Under Francis we have seen a rise in formal charges of schism, which is interesting.

The Reidy case differs because Reidy actually left the Catholic Church for that other entity, or at least that's what it looks like. Schism with associated heretical views. I think he should have been removed for schism AND multiple heresies. Treco had no idea he was leaving the Catholic Church. It wasn't his plan. He had no intention to be in schism. He had no intention to be in heresy either. He offered to recant any specific item he was shown in his homily that was heretical. But he was hastily shown the door. It was a summary excommunication.

Pope Francis is friend to all, unless he doesn't like you. Then you are on the outside wondering what just happened. He's a divisive guy and to remain Catholic we have to somehow be in communion with him and those others who are in communion with him. It strains my limits to be in communion with some of the creeps and destroyers pope Francis considers to be the 'in' folks.

Treco was by most accounts a good Catholic who intended to remain a good Catholic, willing to deny any false teaching they could show him he had entertained and willing to submit to his bishop if only his bishop would document what was in theological error in his one particular homily. That was a reasonable thing. He was not given such a list of quotes from his homily.

Now I would have worded that homily a bit differently. He was naive to think it would not get him in trouble as it was delivered. It was a good and necessary homily but a bit too much. What he said about the 'Spirit of Vatican II' was dead on.