Orthodox priest calls Pope a heretic

[ArmyMatt]

I may have used it in reference to pastor Steven Anderson once or twice but it’s not a term I use lightly. I don’t think I’ve ever referred to anyone here in CF or anyone I’ve met in person as a heretic.

the Fathers also didn’t use the word lightly either.

 

[rusmeister]

there are a lot. if you hold to heretical theology, you are by definition a heretic even if you were never in the Church.

obviously, you should never use that when talking to others.

I don’t think we seriously disagree. My only insistence is that while technically true, the definition is useless in our time and place for purposes of making distinctions outside the Church, which is most of even what was Christendom. And it is difficult even within the Church. I think, for instance, those who justify divorce between two committed Orthodox Christians who both agree to continue repenting, taking up their cross and following Christ, but they just don't want to do it with their spouse, are holding to a heretical idea, for (a painful) example. But I think it merely destructive to call them heretics, so the “by definition”, though true, is more harmful than helpful. And they are in the Church, and communing, and no one says anything. (Then there are my own sins.) But the vital thing is that we admit that we are violating Church teaching and need to repent, and that refusal, that says, I don’t need to do that (whatever form the brokenness takes), and can still commune, etc, is heretical. The word winds up describing everything. So to maintain a distinction that makes the word worth anything in practical usage, it seems to me that despite the technical accuracy, it’s usage ought to be limited to those within the Church that promote or teach, by word or deed, falsehood, error, and sin.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don’t think we seriously disagree. My only insistence is that while technically true, the definition is useless in our time and place for purposes of making distinctions outside the Church, which is most of even what was Christendom. And it is difficult even within the Church. I think, for instance, those who justify divorce between two committed Orthodox Christians who both agree to continue repenting, taking up their cross and following Christ, but they just don't want to do it with their spouse, are holding to a heretical idea, for (a painful) example. But I think it merely destructive to call them heretics, so the “by definition”, though true, is more harmful than helpful. And they are in the Church, and communing, and no one says anything. (Then there are my own sins.) But the vital thing is that we admit that we are violating Church teaching and need to repent, and that refusal, that says, I don’t need to do that (whatever form the brokenness takes), and can still commune, etc, is heretical. The word winds up describing everything. So to maintain a distinction that makes the word worth anything in practical usage, it seems to me that despite the technical accuracy, it’s usage ought to be limited to those within the Church that promote or teach, by word or deed, falsehood, error, and sin.

except that wasn’t what was said. what was said was heresy applies to those within the Church, which isn’t true.

and your example with divorce only works if they justified divorce from a theological POV, because then that would be heresy. I have yet to meet a divorced couple who justified their divorce theologically.

 

[All4Christ]

except that wasn’t what was said. what was said was heresy applies to those within the Church, which isn’t true.

and your example with divorce only works if they justified divorce from a theological POV, because then that would be heresy. I have yet to meet a divorced couple who justified their divorce theologically.

Technically, what was said was that the term heretic as a label for a person is used for people who were inside the Church rather than those who have always been outside the Church. I think everyone agrees that heresies can be held anywhere.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Technically, what was said was that the term heretic as a label for a person is used for people who were inside the Church rather than those who have always been outside the Church. I think everyone agrees that heresies can be held anywhere.

you’re right, I sit corrected.

but my point is that a heretic can always be outside of the Church.

 

[All4Christ]

@ArmyMatt I vaguely remember this and can’t find the source. Would you agree that a belief or teaching can only be considered a heresy if it was condemned as such in a council - and anything else that is not Orthodox teaching would be heterodox teaching?

A follow on (if what I said above is true) - does it need to be an ecumenical council?

 

[ArmyMatt]

@ArmyMatt I vaguely remember this and can’t find the source. Would you agree that a belief or teaching can only be considered a heresy if it was condemned as such in a council - and anything else that is not Orthodox teaching would be heterodox teaching?

A follow on (if what I said above is true) - does it need to be an ecumenical council?

no, because that means Arianism would not have been heretical until after Nicaea.

 

[All4Christ]

no, because that means Arianism would not have been heretical until after Nicaea.

Ok. For some reason I thought that was one of the reason they had the council with the anethemas - to officially condemn them as heresies . My bad on that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ok. For some reason I thought that was one of the reason they had the council with the anethemas - to officially condemn them as heresies . My bad on that.

yes, but it was to affirm that Arianism was heretical from the beginning, not simply when it entered history

 

[All4Christ]

Perhaps I worded it wrong, as that was what I meant.

<snip> Please ignore my previous statements. I am not feeling well and my head is too foggy to be clear or to even think properly.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Perhaps I worded it wrong, as that was what I meant.

However, I also am saying that perhaps we shouldn’t as lay persons or individuals call someone a heretic for a belief which the Church hasn’t determined that it is heresy - or affirming the contradictory belief which inherently makes something heretical? That’s what the councils were supposed to do - determine was is or is not Orthodox - and if something is against what is Orthodox, it was confirmed then as heresy...

sorry for the confusing statements. Not feeling that well.

Are we wondering what Rome/Pope are? Heretics? Schismatics? Heterodox? When we say "within" the Church, do we consider them as "Catholic"?

 

[All4Christ]

Are we wondering what Rome/Pope are? Heretics? Schismatics? Heterodox? When we say "within" the Church, do we consider them as "Catholic"?

I wasn’t thinking about that situation specifically when mentioning this.

I’m pausing on discussing this myself this morning as my head is foggy and all my posts today haven’t been very clear or well thought out.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Are we wondering what Rome/Pope are? Heretics? Schismatics? Heterodox? When we say "within" the Church, do we consider them as "Catholic"?

they are not Catholic, no.

 

[rusmeister]

except that wasn’t what was said. what was said was heresy applies to those within the Church, which isnn’t true.

and your example with divorce only works if they justified divorce from a theological POV, because then that would be heresy. I have yet to meet a divorced couple who justified their divorce theologically.

What I am trying to say, however badly, is that, even if all errors in thinking are to be called heresy, it is itself an error to insist on calling everyone a heretic. If that's not clear, then I give up.

What you say about divorce sounds poorly expressed to me. I know a good deal of Orthodox folk around me who justify their divorce. They say it was good and right to do it, and out of all cases where the topic has been discussed, only a few have admitted that it would have been better if they had chosen to preserve their marriage and to love regardless. Most insist that they were right, that the marriage was “a mistake”, and some would even divorce again if the conditions repeated. They don't talk about theological viewpoints; they think that the divorce was justified in every respect. One is a close friend of my wife’s, who told me so to my face in direct confrontation over the issue.

And the huge thing that hardly anyone gets on that topic is that justifying divorce, theologically or otherwise, is, generally speaking, an attack on the marriage of all who remain faithful. But we can drag that to another thread.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What you say about divorce sounds poorly expressed to me. I know a good deal of Orthodox folk around me who justify their divorce. They say it was good and right to do it, and out of all cases where the topic has been discussed, only a few have admitted that it would have been better if they had chosen to preserve their marriage and to love regardless. Most insist that they were right, that the marriage was “a mistake”, and some would even divorce again if the conditions repeated. They don't talk about theological viewpoints; they think that the divorce was justified in every respect. One is a close friend of my wife’s, who told me so to my face in direct confrontation over the issue.

And the huge thing that hardly anyone gets on that topic is that justifying divorce, theologically or otherwise, is, generally speaking, an attack on the marriage of all who remain faithful. But we can drag that to another thread.

it’s because you tried to equate divorce with heresy. it would be heretical if it was justified from a theological POV, not just folks saying their marriage was a mistake.

What I am trying to say, however badly, is that, even if all errors in thinking are to be called heresy, it is itself an error to insist on calling everyone a heretic. If that's not clear, then I give up.

no one said to insist on calling everyone a heretic. I actually said the opposite earlier on. the issue was if it’s correct or wrong to call the Pope a heretic as he is outside of the Church. the answer is yes.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

All this arguing over the term heretic. . I showed the video to my priest and he said, “The Elder is tight! He IS a heretic!” LOL! Good enough for Gurney!

 

[buzuxi02]

Isn't this kind of tame for Greece? I mean I have heard of monks rioting because of a papal visit before, and this kind of saber rattling talk is not really new with the Greeks or the Russians as far as what they say sometimes in online articles and such.

If this was 40 years ago the streets would have been packed with protesters against this visitation. Unfortunately people have changed and gave gotten lukewarm and they really don't care anymore

 

[rusmeister]

no one said to insist on calling everyone a heretic. I actually said the opposite earlier on. the issue was if it’s correct or wrong to call the Pope a heretic as he is outside of the Church. the answer is yes.

Insofar as it means "outside the Church", obviously. We agree. I think that is a terrible definition, though, and useless for making any distinctions. To take a well-known trope, "If everybody is a heretic, then nobody is a heretic", by which I mean that if we must apply the term, even in theory, to nearly everybody, then the word loses any special value. So you agree that we shouldn't go around calling everyone outside the Church a heretic, but seem to think that that is the right word for (most people, who do in fact assert ideas that deny or contradict our teachings). On that last, I just don't agree.

OTOH... I do agree that insofar as the Pope claims to be the legitimate bishop of Rome, and upholds a host of teachings and practices that are in error, he is indeed promoting heresy, and in that sense, can be described as a heretic. But it remains useless as a description. I guess I would describe the attitude of the priest in the OP as essentially right, that we ought to declare when confronted like that that it is actually not OK to be Catholic, that it DOES matter what we believe, but in the context in which it was done, it didn't achieve anything helpful to the Church, in my opinion.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Insofar as it means "outside the Church", obviously. We agree. I think that is a terrible definition, though, and useless for making any distinctions. To take a well-known trope, "If everybody is a heretic, then nobody is a heretic", by which I mean that if we must apply the term, even in theory, to nearly everybody, then the word loses any special value. So you agree that we shouldn't go around calling everyone outside the Church a heretic, but seem to think that that is the right word for (most people, who do in fact assert ideas that deny or contradict our teachings). On that last, I just don't agree.

OTOH... I do agree that insofar as the Pope claims to be the legitimate bishop of Rome, and upholds a host of teachings and practices that are in error, he is indeed promoting heresy, and in that sense, can be described as a heretic. But it remains useless as a description. I guess I would describe the attitude of the priest in the OP as essentially right, that we ought to declare when confronted like that that it is actually not OK to be Catholic, that it DOES matter what we believe, but in the context in which it was done, it didn't achieve anything helpful to the Church, in my opinion.

we’re not talking about how helpful what the priest said was. we are talking about if it’s correct that someone outside of the Church can be called a heretic. he can.

and no one is saying everyone is a heretic. only those who promote heresy.

 

[J Michael]

they are not Catholic, no.

So, if Catholics aren't "Catholic", what are we? I guess, besides heretics and schismatics, that is . And, if the answer is "catholic", could you please explain? This is something that Fr. Cleenewerck discusses in his "This Broken Body" which I found it very difficult to grasp.

Thanks!

(By the way, my official affiliation is with the Byzantine Catholic Church. I also spent a number of very interesting years in the Orthodox Church and outside The Church altogether--a long, complicated story, that.)