Heresy?

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Hey, it's me again.........Queen Ignoramous of planet Oxymoron.:P Rick corrected me on a faux pas concerning what the Church considers heresy. I'm wondering, how does the EOC determine what is heresy and what is just bad teaching? How do they make this distinction? In my mind (if you want to call the bowl of spaghetti on top of my shoulders a mind), I would think that the "just bad teaching" category would be given to things that are less significant issues. However, if I'm understanding this correctly, things like the immaculate conception and papal infallibility, which I would consider to be big issues, are not called heretical by the Church. Can anyone help me sort this out?

[Moros]

I find it really hard to believe that Papal Infalliblity is not considered heresy. But I'm open to fact that proves otherwise.

[Oblio]

Good thread GDE. (in another thread) I pretty much stated that any one individual who changed the canon of Scripture outside a Church council would be a heretic as such a change would fundamentally change our faith and would do so outside the conciliar goverment of the Church. Is that too harsh of a term in that case ??

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Good thread GDE. (in another thread) I pretty much stated that any one individual who changed the canon of Scripture outside a Church council would be a heretic as such a change would fundamentally change our faith and would do so outside the conciliar goverment of the Church. Is that too harsh of a term in that case ??
Don't know. I agree with that statement, but my question (and perhaps your question as well) is this: What does the Church officially call heresy? And how is heresy distinguished? If changing a canon outside of an Ecumenical Counsil is the criteria, then things like papal infallibility would be considered heresy. Again, I'm asking cuz I don't know.:scratch:

[Oblio]

My thought was in the case of the canon of Scripture a particular individual decides for instance that the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints, prayers for the dead, the importance of works in our faith are bunk. So said individual removes those Scriptures that support that part of Holy Tradition, fundamentally changing the faith, and potentially the salvation of all who follow his novel and erroneous teaching. Is that person a heretic ?

[Rilian]

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when attempting to formulate a definition of pornography said simply "I know it when I see it". I think heresy often gets defined via a similar mechanism.

[Cradle]

I guess there are russians who will call you a heretic if you do four prostrations when you should do three. :D :D :D

On a serious note, I'd think a teaching is herecy when a Synod declares so (and the body of the church accepts, as always). I'd call it "just bad teaching" before that. I don't think it's good for individuals to take the initiative and call other individuals heretics.

[Wisdom's Child]

What I find interesting is all the interest in Heresy now days in the Protestant world.
Yes, it has always been lurking in the shadows, but the last few years Heresy has been a hot topic.

[Rick of Wessex]

Hello everyone. :wave:

As far as I know, for a doctrine to be considered heresy it must be condemned by a Synod or Council. This is the case with some RC doctrines as the purgatory, papal supremacy and, of course, the filioque.

It was my faux pas, Duchess. Sorry! :sorry:

Other doctrines, as Immaculate Conception and substitutionary attonement are, as Cradle said, considered "just bad teaching".

However, it is interesting to note that although papal infallibility has been disapproved by The Church, it has never been oficially condemned as heresy.

Thomas Valentine's site has this great chart of the church's Synods and Councils (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/synodschart.html) that helps clarifying the issue.

There's also some important information about the Eighth and Ninth councils (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/8-9synods.html).

Hope this helps and sorry for the confusion. :o

In XC,
Rick

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Thanks, Rick! I haven't tried the 2nd link yet, but that first one is great! I find very interesting the fact that St. Cyprian condemned all baptisms outside the Orthodox Church in 300 a.d. because they were performed by "heretics", and made it a requirement for new converts to be re-baptised. Why didn't the Church hold onto that? Or was this later rejected? As we discussed on another thread, the EOC in general does acknowledge non-Orthodox baptisms if they are Trinitarian.

Also, it is interesting that this Elvira person (never heard of him before) tried to impose the rule of celebacy on clergy pretty early on but it was rejected.

[Rilian]

Thanks, Rick! I haven't tried the 2nd link yet, but that first one is great! I find very interesting the fact that St. Cyprian condemned all baptisms outside the Orthodox Church in 300 a.d. because they were performed by "heretics", and made it a requirement for new converts to be re-baptised. Why didn't the Church hold onto that? Or was this later rejected? As we discussed on another thread, the EOC in general does acknowledge non-Orthodox baptisms if they are Trinitarian.

Fr. Georges Florovsky wrote a very good article on this subject called The Limits of the Church (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/limits_church.htm) which talks about the ecclessiologies (the understanding of the church as visible entities) of both Cyprian and Augustine. A quote from the article which I think directly addresses your question is this one regarding Cyprian

But the practical conclusions drawn by Cyprian have not been accepted and supported by the consciousness of the Church. One may ask how this was possible, if his premisses have been neither disputed nor set aside.

I think if you look at different parts of the church at different times and in different places, you'll find for instance that how converts have been received has varied.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Thanks, Rilian. Good article!:)

[Matthias]

The infallibility of the Pope has no reason at all to be heresy, none at all.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

The infallibility of the Pope has no reason at all to be heresy, none at all.
Umm, if you have no problem with papal infallibility, why are you interested in the Orthodox Church?:scratch: I believe many people see papal infallibilty as heresy because only Christ is infallible, and to say that one man (the pope, or whoever else) is infallibile is to put him equal with Christ.

[Matthias]

Well, the Orthodox coucils claim to be infallible as well, from what I can gather. So they can be see as heresy as well then...

I love the Pope, I don't care what anyone says.

[Oblio]

Well, the Orthodox coucils claim to be infallible as well, from what I can gather. So they can be see as heresy as well then...


The Pope is a man acting outside the conciliar work of the Holy Spirit in His Church. That is the difference. Infallibility is given to the Church by the work of the Holy Spirit, not to her individual members.


I love the Pope, I don't care what anyone says.


No one person, or the Church herself is saying you cannot love him. In fact, we are to love our enemies, why would we not love the Pope who is greater than our enemies. Be we cannot submit to his authority, to his faith doctrines and dogma that he represents, or, even if the Catholics were to return to the Church, his Patriarchate.

[MariaRegina]

Dear Matthew,

I love the Pope, too.

Christ told us to love everyone, didn't He?

Lovingly and Prayerfully in Christ,

Elizabeth

[Matthias]

Too true.

[Akathist]

Sounds like the answer is that something is "heresy" when it goes directly against Canon and Holy Tradition (capital "t")

Other wise it is just "Is outrage"... (such as prostrating three times instead of 4, or not kissing the Priest's hand, etc.)

[Matthias]

Kissing the priests hand? Yikes; I can't say this is common in my area. What if he has poor hygiene? Or, he doesn't have a hand?

[MariaRegina]

We kiss the hand of a priest because his hands touch the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

One has to be careful, as some Orthodox Priests do not want you to kiss the back of their hands, especially those who are converts themselves. So, if you try to kiss a priest's hand and he moves it quickly away, don't force yourself on him. He'll probably get use to it. I know one priest who absolutely didn't want us kissing his hand, but two years later, it was no problem.

[Matrona]

We kiss the hand of a priest because his hands touch the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Exactly.

Francis of Assisi was once asked why he honored a priest no one else would honor because the priest was a very public sinner, and Francis said, "Because those are the hands that bring me Christ."

[Akathist]

I heard about that story with St. Assisi, the Priest was actively in sin and people were "outraged". He was asked to intervene with the Priest. He came and kissed the man's hand and they spoke briefly and St. Assisi left without discussing the sin. The Priest however, was so moved that he had a major change in his behavior and stopped the sin.

[Matthias]

Thank you for clearing that up for me, Aria. :)