OOD,
The Grace of a those in communion with heresy leaves little by little as the people become aware and decide to remain with it. It is the responsibility of those who come to this realization to declare this. As we both have agreed, if Christ in His secret judgements protects certain people it is His to do so; but we are bound by the law and the faith passed on to us by the Holy Fathers.
This is where, I believe, much of the modern discussion of "grace" is just that - modern. It's a sort of "meme" that's been thrown out there, and which (undeservedly) has become a sort of coin that everyone dances around, forcing themselves to take either "heads" or "tails" rather than for a moment considering that the answer may be "neither."
"Grace" (Greek - charis) is the favour, loving kindness, joy of God - the word charis itself comes from the primary verb chairo, which at least in Koine Greek, was used as a salutation - as in "rejoice!" This is what "grace" means.
Thus, if we talk about God's grace leaving someone, we are talking about His favour leaving them. Such an abandonment, only comes because the person in question is leaving Him.
We also know, that all grace, ultimatly can be credited to our Lord Jesus Christ - whether in expectation of His coming (in the Old Testament), or more abundantly, as a result of it. In Christ also, we learn an important lesson - that this favour of God, is joined with truth.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (St.John 1:14)
Christ is the Truth, and He is the source of Grace. Thus, to approach Him, is the working of grace, and the invitation to receive "grace for grace" (St.John 1:16). This is why the Church speaks of "the grace before grace", the grace at work in a person before they actually approach the Church and receive Holy Baptism.
I agree with your assessment, that those who are abandoning the truth, as heretics do, are removing themselves from the favour/grace of God. The work of grace is unity, and unity in truth - all divisions (the meaning of the word "schism") in their varying levels of severity, are not the work of grace; nor are they a testament to the truth.
The word "heresy" itself, as used in the Holy Scriptures, is the Greek hairesis which means "to take" or more precisely "choosing/choice" or "that which is chosen". It's root is a verb, haireomai, which is the act of choosing - so the meaning of "heresy" is very clear. It denotes a choice.
Thus, what about a situation where someone holds a wrong view on the revelation of God? Well, while we can loosely call them "heretics", in the strict definition of that term it would apply if we were speaking of a knowledgable, willful choice - the exalting of one's private theology above that of the Church. OTOH, if this knowledge is lacking, it would be accurate to describe their view/views as heterodox - that is different (hetero) from the opinion of the Church (doxos), as opposed to being "orthodox."
While we can make accusations against men who should know better, or against those who we know have rejected correction, what about when this is not the case? People who are simply ignorant, for example? Certainly, even the most "strict confessors" would even find such "heterodoxy" amongst their own, if they dug deeply enough (and in many cases, perhaps not that deeply at all.)
And what about those people whose confession we do not have issue with? What if their offence is that they have kept communion with self exalting heretics through some ignorance, or more to the point that they have for some reason not yet expelled those men from their midst? Is the Church's warning to remove heretics, or to sever ties with them if a situation of lawlessness prevents them from being removed, an indication that there exists such a thing as ecclessiological cooties? Or do these canons act as a cry, a warning, and a preventative medicine - namely the reality that, if you do not disassociate falsehood from yourself, eventually it will claim you too - you and those with you will assimilate it, since you've done nothing to confront it - that which is aggressive taking hold of that which has remained passive.
And that falsehood, once accepted, will lead you astray; for heterodoxy is rooted in the wisdom of men, and not the saving revelation of God. You'll be taking an incorrect map to heart.
Christ's Church (ekklessia - literally those who are "called out", in the context of Christ, those who are called out of the world to God), as He established it, is characterized by truth. Those who are in the truth (orthodox faith), are in the Church. This is manifested in many ways, not the least of which is a pure, unambiguous confession. God's favour is upon such people, and they are receiving "grace for grace."
This is why the Church historically has looked at heterodox bodies in different ways - when there was malice and these persons sewed confusion, what truth they did have was viewed as being in vain; their coming over to the Church was radically in spite of their previous allegiance. In better times, they were received much more leniently - what truth/goods they did have, being built upon, whatever was lacking filled in, whatever done illicitly, given legitimacy. In this there is discernment.
If this is true then of the Church's historical attitude toward those whose errors (held to in an official, creedal manner even - as is the case of the Monophysites, or the Roman Catholics) were real and unambigous, and characterized their former "church", what then about those who have never adopted a false confession, but whose only "crime" is that they are affiliated with bad persons who do propose a novel, private theology, and who they ought to have expelled already? How can they be received as if they are heretics, or even heterodox for that matter? They cannot, for they are not.
I agree with you, that like grievous sinners, any heirarch who proposes a novel theology in spite of the Church (and the "yes men" who agree with the heresairchs) have made themselves dead members of the Church. But can we say such men are no longer Priests (the Priesthood never being for the benefit of it's holder, but for those about them), when they have not been defrocked, or otherwise expelled? While we may say that they celebrate unworthily, and receive the Holy Gifts to their condemnation (like other grievous sinners), can we just say those sacraments are absent? That they do not give grace to those who receive them blamelessly?
All of these considerations, have moved me to realize that the so called "strict" position on these matters, as voiced by some in our days, is a gross oversimplification. It is also a view which of itself has consequences - and they are rotten to the core. If heretics lawless, and the pastors who do not expell them, there is an opposite form of lawlessness to come from this "strict" but undiscerning view - the Church being reduced to a form of quasi-Protestantism, where every man becomes not simply an interpreter but also enforcer of the Holy Canons, and the Church ceases to be a visible reality - a light upon a hill. Instead, it becomes "sola Rudder" instead of "sola Scriptura". Give it enough time - those who hold such views and judge prematurely, will become as fractuous and divided as the Protestants. Actually, it's already happening - whether it be in the Greek, or Russian contexts.
IMHO, the wheat and the chaff are still being separated by the winowing fan of our Lord Jesus Christ. This used to be the view of the Florinites (even after the reported "waivering" of Metropolitan Chrysostmos toward the end of his life - the idea that the Greek Church Calendarists changed overnight in 1948 being manifestly untrue), and eating a big pile of crow, I must state the obvious - this has always been true of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad as well. I have never known of ROCA Chrismating people who came to Her from other local Churches, let alone treating them as if they were unbaptized - that includes within the reign of the blessed former First Heirarch Metropolitan Philaret.
If none of this is as simple and tidy as some would desire, I would say that life often is this way - filled with lots of ambiguity and grey zones which only time or a universal consciousness will heal. Also, while it can be true that sometimes simplicity is a sign of truthfulness, often simplicity can also merely be the refuge of simpletons.
Seraphim
