The True Nature of Heresy
by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna
The term "heresy" is probably misused by Orthodox
Christians—both zealots and so-called modernists
alike—more than any other word in their religious
vocabulary. Among the modernists, it has taken on the rôle of
exposing the "ecumenical love" of which they so often
talk for what it actually is. It is a term which these ecumenists
disallow in their encounters with those of other confessions,
since they reckon it outdated, old-fashioned, inappropriate, and
improper. Yet they do not for a moment hesitate to apply it to
us traditionalist Orthodox—who rightly point out the heresy
(a very denial of the primacy of Orthodoxy) implicit in the
religious syncretism that lies at the core of ecumenism—,
attacking us with an acrimony that belies the real nature of
ecumenism’s much-touted love and religious tolerance.
Among certain Orthodox traditionalists—our particular
concern here—the term is equally abused. It is frequently
used as a kind of epithet that presumably rises above the law of
love, above reason, and above theological precision itself. For
theological amateurs sporting that moot but nasty
"expertise" that all too often joins little thought to
too much zeal, "heresy" is a handy tool with which to
dispense with anything that seems amiss, according to their own
peculiar scheme of things. It also becomes, not infrequently, a
call to arms, inspiring virtual "witch hunts" in the
name of cleansing or protecting the Church from error.
A true understanding of the nature of heresy tells us how
foreign all that we have described is to a genuine Orthodox
mentality. St. Paul contrasts the heretic with those who are
"careful to keep good works" in the Church, noting that
the former is inevitably one who is preoccupied with
"foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and
strivings about the law." He also advises us that "a
man that is an heretick" we should "reject, after the
first and second admonition" (Titus 3:8-10). In his Epistle
to the Galatians, the Apostle of the Nations again associates
heresy with "wrath, strife," and "seditions,"
contrasting these things with the man of God, who is
characterized by "love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness," and "faith" (5:20-22). All
that St. Paul writes is contained within the consensus of the
Orthodox Fathers concerning heresy. They teach that it has its
roots, not in incorrect belief and teaching alone, but in a mean
spirit and in persistence in one’s error, even after
repeated entreaties that he repent. A devout believer can
innocently misunderstand the teachings of the Church; this does
not* make him a heretic. Indeed, one can be
a schismatic and still not be a heretic. (See St. Nikodemos’
commentary on Canon I of St. Basil, Pedalion [The
Rudder] [Thessaloniki, 1982], p. 589.) These individuals
become heretics when they succumb to stubborn self-opinion,
contentiousness, and absolute tenacity, and only then,
separated from the Church, are they "completely alienated
from the Faith," in the words of St. Basil the Great (Canon
I). Thus, St. Symeon of Thessaloniki, in his essay on heresy,
tells us that "pride and haughtiness" are the
"cause" of all heresies (Ta Apanta [Extant
Works] [Thessaloniki, 1882], p. 27).
Those who "hunt down" heretics, who create strife
and discord in the Church by unfounded and supercilious
accusations of heresy, and who act out of pride and wrath in
condemning those who may innocently hold wrong beliefs—these
very same individuals are acting within the spirit of heresy
itself. A true Christian seeks to correct those in error, to
lead them with love, and to avoid strife and discord. A true
Christian does not seek out errors in others, but examines first
his own shortcomings. And a true Christian, when he confronts a
miscreant—one who willingly embraces heresy, defies the
correction of the Church, and persists in his misbelief—,
separates from that individual only in the spirit of
self-preservation, so as to avoid the deadly bacterium of heresy.
He shows rage, not towards the hapless heretics, but towards the
heresy that has possessed them. He disassociates from the heretic
and avoids his table, not because he ceases to pray for him and
to grieve for his soul, but, once again, to avoid exposure to
spiritual disease and, by his example and out of concern for
them, to prompt others to do likewise. Any other spirit, even
in the face of real heresy, leads the would-be zealot to
something as bad as heresy itself, as St. Maximos the
Confessor tells us, that is, the betrayal of the prime
Christian commandment of love (Patrologia Graeca, Vol.
XCI, col. 465C).
It should also be noted that, while we have a canonical right,
if not responsibility, as Orthodox Christians to separate from
Hierarchs who teach heresy openly (with "bare heads,"
as the canons put it [see, for example, Canon XV of the
First-and-Second Synod]) and refuse to recant for their
misbelief, we have no personal right to dismiss those whom we
sincerely and honestly believe to be at fault with sweeping
condemnations and denunciations. We can clearly define their
heresies, separate from them, advise others to do likewise, and
maintain a resistant stance against their misbelief. But we
cannot, in so doing, make ourselves the Church, deposing and
anathematizing, simple individuals that we are, this-or-that
person at will. Even if a local Church or a group of Bishops
should do so, we must leave it to the Church to guide us, not our
personal opinions. Otherwise, once again we fall to exalting
our own opinions, which itself is one great step towards heresy.
Moreover, when the Church issues statements against a heresy,
it is readily cognizant of its responsibility to exercise
"economy" in the case of those who unknowingly fall to
misbelief, and it never issues its condemnations with the
intention of destroying souls, but of awakening those in the dark
sleep of error and bringing them to repentance. How distant
this is from individuals who coldly take it upon themselves
personally to seek out heretics, condemn them, and then delight
in the wholly demonic "victory" of being
"right" while others are "wrong."
We hear much today about who has and who does not
have Grace. This is not the question which we must
ask. It is simply ours to determine what is Orthodox,
follow it, and be obedient to our right-believing Bishops,
allowing them errors and human weaknesses. For, in fact, just as
heresy has its roots in strife, right belief ultimately has its
roots in obedience. This is simple to demonstrate. If those who
today fall to the pan-heresy of ecumenism were simply obedient to
the consensus of the Fathers—that is, that as Orthodox we
must pray for but not with the heterodox—,
then we would not be divided between ecumenists and
traditionalists, New Calendarists and Old Calendarists, betrayers
and the Faithful. Likewise, except when they preach or embrace
heresy and refuse to correct themselves, as the so-called
"official" Orthodox Hierarchy has for the most part
done, we have no right to be disobedient to our Bishops and
act as we think we should, fancying ourselves champions and
confessors of the Faith. Nor should we take it on ourselves
to decide with finality, as individuals, on the delicate question
of where Grace exists and where it does not. We cannot personally
and unilaterally declare this-or-that person or this-or-that
Church heretical. We must follow our Synods and the Holy
Spirit, Who acts through them, and let the Church speak for us.
Otherwise, we will make of our resistance a mockery, dividing
among ourselves and scandalizing the Faithful—a sad
phenomenon that the Evil One has already widely used to
compromise the contemporary resistance movement against ecumenism
and modernism.
If it is not for amateurs and self-made experts to
make pronouncements about complex matters of the Faith, it is
also not for them to misuse and misapply such terms as
"heresy" and "heretic." Since the Church acts
with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who is God, and since God
is Love, it alone can properly anathematize and denounce what is
wrong, since even in such rejection it acts out of love,
both protecting its faithful members and calling those whom it
repudiates to repentance. The Church alone, once more, can
exercise such love. As humans, even our best intentions
and actions are fallen, bereft of true love, and often vindictive.
Let us, then, separate from what we perceive to be wrong, turning
not to personal opinion and haughty dependence on the self, but
to the guidance of pious Bishops and to those Churches which
have, in the words of one Father (St. Basil the Great, Patrologia
Graeca, Vol. XXXI, col. 1540), entered into a "lawful
struggle" against the ills of our age, which ills will
undoubtedly lead to Antichrist.
The word "not" was missing from
the originally published article in Orthodox Tradition,
Vol. XIII, Nos. 3&4.
|