Purely (PURELY) Hypothetical Question:

[Macarius]

At what point would you, as a layman (or reader, or subdeacon), be willing to go to a bishop and accuse an Orthodox priest of heresy?

What sort of thing would that priest have to say or do to reach that point?

I know this is a tricky question, because there are some extreme examples that make for easier answers, but I'm looking either for a principle OR a sufficient number of examples that live right at the border between what is tolerable and what is (literally) intolerable in your view.

 

[Qoorban85]

At what point would you, as a layman (or reader, or subdeacon), be willing to go to a bishop and accuse an Orthodox priest of heresy?

What sort of thing would that priest have to say or do to reach that point?

I know this is a tricky question, because there are some extreme examples that make for easier answers, but I'm looking either for a principle OR a sufficient number of examples that live right at the border between what is tolerable and what is (literally) intolerable in your view.

Interesting question. I'm still too new at this to give an answer beyond the extreme examples you mentioned.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would say, if they would say anything contrary to the Creed.

 

[choirfiend]

I know a priest who welcomed the Lutheran visitors and told them to come to communion. Bless them, they knew better, and I think even the laity or people holding the cloth would have nicely asked them to sit down instead, but that def got reported to the Bishop.

 

[Macarius]

I would say, if they would say anything contrary to the Creed.

Does it have to be direct contradiction of Creedal formula (e.g. saying "Christ is NOT true God from true God") or is saying something that, by implication, contradicts Creedal teaching enough?

 

[jckstraw72]

a visiting priest at my former parish talked about how our liturgical worship is only a stylistic choice and that its a shame that we invite people to the Liturgy but then don't feed them. at first i was thinking "hey, we have coffee hour" but then it became obvious that he was referring to the Eucharist. I think he also said something about how Buddhists and Hindus and all people have Christ in them. Several people from the parish wrote up accounts of what happened which were sent to the bishop.

 

[Kristos]

Are you taking Fr P.T.s class?

 

[Soderquj]

I would also add that the conduct of the Priest is an issue. We had Priest that conducted himself is a most unorthodox way (telling really dirty jokes and very crude language) to parishioners and Non orthodox people. This was reported to the Bishop.

Overall I would have to say anything that does agree meet Orthodox doctrine. As stated above the creed is a good staring place, (example if someone preached that there is more than one God, the trinity is not three but only one, Jesus was not fully god and fully man) and not what some call orthodox speculation (example: toll houses). However is these weer pushed as doctrine (you must believe this) and not just a view, I would report it

 

[Dorothea]

I'm really not sure.

 

[Macarius]

Are you taking Fr P.T.s class?

Haha - yes, I am (Hebrew Language; he no longer teaches OT intro), but that isn't what prompted this. I've just been kicking this around in my head having seen how quick the "systematic theologians" of the 20th c. were to call things "dogma" (esp. figures like Pomazansky) and wondering if that dogmatic confidence trickled down to the "pews" (so to speak).

For example, if a priest outright denied (or cast serious suspicion) on the enumerted ranks of angels (powers, principalities, dominions, thrones, etc.) as each identifying unique natures (like a human is distinct from an ape) rather than mere ranks (like a king is distinct from a serf) - would that get you up in arms?

Probably not.

Basically, to me, the stuff we're willing to "schism" over is the stuff we really think is DOGMATIC (that is, necessary to affirm in order to, by definition, remain an Orthodox Christian). This is NOT intended to form the basis for an Orthodox "minimalism" (that misses the point), but rather to help me see where Orthodox Christians really draw the boundary lines.

 

[Macarius]

Overall I would have to say anything that does agree meet Orthodox doctrine.

Right - I'm looking for where that line is. Different people would draw the "line" of doctrine / dogma vs. pious opinion in, at least as far I can tell, some wildly different places.

So the Creed is a definite line.

But what if the priest doesn't REALLY contradict the Creed's language, but only says something that (in your view) would IMPLY a view contradicting the Creed?

I would assume the major decisions of the ecumenical councils are also a "hard line" of dogma.

But what if a priest, while affirming the anathema's against "origenist" teachings at the 5th council, still refused to call Origen HIMSELF a heretic. He isn't, strictly speaking, contradicting the council - but he's getting close (and is contradicting the popular interpretation of the council). Is that enough?

What about non-ecumenical-council teachings that have, none-the-less, a strong conciliar tradition (like Palamas' "essence / energy" distinction)?

Or what about non-dogmatic stylistics that have, none-the-less, earned a firm place in the Orthodox mind - like the particular style of iconography, or vestments, or music? There are some (generally schismatics) who argue that the tonal system of music is itself part of holy tradition and inspired (I read this verbatim in a major edition of the Menaion).

Most of us probably wouldn't put musical style in the category of dogma. But if the priest wanted to introduce a rock band, we'd probably object.

I'm just fascinated by these questions. Not because I need a systematic and philosophically consistent answer, but because the ambiguity is vexing and therefore intriguing to me. I can, for myself, feel where that line is - but articulating it is quite problematic and difficult.

 

[jckstraw72]

ill just pick up on one thing you mentioned -- if the priest knowingly and consciously denies the essence/energies distinction then yes, he is most certainly a heretic. you can't deny that and still be Orthodox.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Does it have to be direct contradiction of Creedal formula (e.g. saying "Christ is NOT true God from true God") or is saying something that, by implication, contradicts Creedal teaching enough?

I would say that it would not just be what he said, but what he meant when he said it. certain things in Scripture, like Christ saying the Father is greater than He, on paper looks like it would support something like Arianism, but we know that it does not. I dunno, it's pretty gray, so unless it is a blatant denial of the Trinity, the Incarnation, or man's salvation I could not think of any specifics. it's probably like how a court defines profanity, which is you know it when you see it, even though they cannot define it on paper.

 

[MKJ]

Right - I'm looking for where that line is. Different people would draw the "line" of doctrine / dogma vs. pious opinion in, at least as far I can tell, some wildly different places.

So the Creed is a definite line.

But what if the priest doesn't REALLY contradict the Creed's language, but only says something that (in your view) would IMPLY a view contradicting the Creed?

I would assume the major decisions of the ecumenical councils are also a "hard line" of dogma.

But what if a priest, while affirming the anathema's against "origenist" teachings at the 5th council, still refused to call Origen HIMSELF a heretic. He isn't, strictly speaking, contradicting the council - but he's getting close (and is contradicting the popular interpretation of the council). Is that enough?

What about non-ecumenical-council teachings that have, none-the-less, a strong conciliar tradition (like Palamas' "essence / energy" distinction)?

Or what about non-dogmatic stylistics that have, none-the-less, earned a firm place in the Orthodox mind - like the particular style of iconography, or vestments, or music? There are some (generally schismatics) who argue that the tonal system of music is itself part of holy tradition and inspired (I read this verbatim in a major edition of the Menaion).

Most of us probably wouldn't put musical style in the category of dogma. But if the priest wanted to introduce a rock band, we'd probably object.

I'm just fascinated by these questions. Not because I need a systematic and philosophically consistent answer, but because the ambiguity is vexing and therefore intriguing to me. I can, for myself, feel where that line is - but articulating it is quite problematic and difficult.

I'm very interested in the answers people will give for this - it's something I've wondered about with regard to Orthodoxy.

If I were trying to think about this I would want to look closely at the range of theological expressions (or musical, liturgical, whatever) that have historically been considered acceptable. If someone wanted to say only a particular musical approach was acceptable, for example, the undisputed use of other approaches would tend to make that seem less plausible.

 

[choirfiend]

I doubt most priests are discussing most of these things regularly with parishioners to become problematic. I dont doubt that if something was discussed, then the parishioner would first ask the priest what they meant, then maybe contact the bishop. Contacting the Bishop doesnt always mean some kind of negative consequence but could lead to further instruction or clarification of the priest.

 

[Macarius]

I doubt most priests are discussing most of these things regularly with parishioners to become problematic. I dont doubt that if something was discussed, then the parishioner would first ask the priest what they meant, then maybe contact the bishop. Contacting the Bishop doesnt always mean some kind of negative consequence but could lead to further instruction or clarification of the priest.

I should hope that is the way it would proceed in real life. I recognize that I've rather contrived the question. Its really just a way of driving at a question about where we, as Orthodox, really draw the line.

 

[jckstraw72]

in my opinion, many people are far too minimalistic about what they consider truly the teachings of the Church -- if you look at everything the Church gives us there aren't nearly as many gray areas as people like to think.

 

[E.C.]

I'm a very peaceful person at heart (really), but I think if I were to ever encounter a priest who refused to baptize someone because they were not <insert race or ethnicity here> or did not speak <insert language, dialect, or cipher here> than they would get a punch to the face very quickly; followed by a strongly worded letter and email to their bishop.

In reality, I think that if a priest were to give someone else blatantly wrong theological information that I knew was blatantly wrong that I would approach the priest first. If he continued than I'd approach him again. By the third time I would probably seriously consider contacting the bishop because by that point someone's salvation could be at risk.