The Saint Euphrosynos Cafe

I have read that one of the saints, (St. Gregory?) who did teach some heretical ideas, but is still called a saint. Perhaps it is the same with Augustine. He is still in the Church and was a saint (though a lesser one than St Gregory) even though he had some incorrect notions. I wonder on what basis is one set of heresies not grounds for anathema and expulsion from the saints (St Gregory), but with another it is (Origen)?

Icxypion wrote:

I have read that one of the saints, (St. Gregory?) who did teach some heretical ideas, but is still called a saint. Perhaps it is the same with Augustine. He is still in the Church and was a saint (though a lesser one than St Gregory) even though he had some incorrect notions. I wonder on what basis is one set of heresies not grounds for anathema and expulsion from the saints (St Gregory), but with another it is (Origen)?

Icxypion, a saint of the Orthodox Church does not teach heresy. How can he be a saint if he teaches heresy?? Think about it. You keep focusing on St. Gregory. Which one? And the ones that we know, in the Orthodox Church, ARE saints. They never taught any heresies.

Augustine and Origen expressed beliefs that did not agree with the Apostles. Their teachings can be refuted by Holy Scripture. They tried to argue about certain views in order to combat the heresies that were being spread which made them fall into greater theological error.

Forgive me if I am wrong about this, it is just that I had been taught by one of my past priests that St Gregory (not sure which one, Nyssa, Nazianzus or the Great, or is it St. Gregory the Dialogist, or the Theologian? I get them all muddled up. Sorry!) had taught some errors (the words "error" and "heretical idea" were both used) but was still in the Church. I often assumed that my priest knew what he was talking about but perhaps this was incorrect. I will have to research this to make sure about it. Thank you, Joanna, for countering this notion, especially if it is wrong. I don't want to have any errors in my own thinking or knowledge about things. A small mistake can have a powerfully bad effect upon us, so we must be very careful and always open to correction.

OK I think I have a lead on this notion that was passed on to me by a priest:

it seems he was referring to St Gregory of Nyssa:

http://logismoitouaaron.blogspot.kr/201 ... ry-of.html

The above link is an article by a ROCOR (MP?) blogger deacon who asks if St Mark of Ephesus believed St Gregory of Nyssa was in Error on the issue of "Origenistic apokatastasis" and it seems many Orthodox theologians are now saying that he was guilty of that error. The linking of St. Gregory to Origen seems to ring a bell. It is just that I had heard that so long ago that I have not got all the details in mind any more.

Anyways, the article says this in one place:

"...in Fr Seraphim’s The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church...In the context of his study of St Augustine, Fr Seraphim is concerned to show that, according to the Orthodox Tradition, it is possible for a Saint and Father of the Church to err."

Also, there is this shortish quote from St. Mark of Ephesus who examined the teaching of St Gregory of Nyssa's teaching on the Fire and hell and "purgatory" or a cleansing fire:

"With regard to the words which are quoted of the blessed Gregory of Nyssa [by the Latins arguing for their doctrine of Purgatory], it would be better to give them over to silence, and not at all compel us, for the sake of our own defense, to bring them out into the open. For this Teacher is seen to be clearly in agreement with the dogmas of the Origenists and to introduce an end to torments.’ According to St Gregory (St Mark continues), ‘there will come a final restoration of all, and of the demons themselves, “that God”, he says, “may be all in all”, as the Apostle says. Inasmuch as these words have also been quoted, among others, at first we shall reply regarding them as we have received it from our Fathers. It is possible that these are alterations and insertions by certain heretics and Origenists. . . . But if the Saint was actually of such an opinion, this was when this teaching was a subject of dispute and had not been definitely condemned and rejected by the opposite opinion, which was brought forward at the Fifth Ecumenical Council; so that there is nothing surprising in the fact that he, being human, erred in precision (of truth), when the same thing happened also with many before him, such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Dionysius of Alexandria and others. . . . Thus, these utterances, if they were actually said by the marvellous Gregory concerning that fire, do not indicate a special cleansing [such as purgatory would be—ed. note], but introduce a final cleansing and a final restoration of all; but in no way are they convincing for us, who behold the common judgment of the Church and are guided by the Divine Scriptures, but not beholding what each of the Teachers has written as his personal opinion. And if anyone else has written otherwise about a cleansing fire, we have no need to accept it’ (‘First Homily on Purgatorial Fire", ch. 11; Pogodin, pp. 68-9). [4]

Anyways, the blog article compares this interpretation of St Gregory of Nyssa's words on the topic with Hierotheos Vlachos' book that seeks to clear St Gregory of that charge. Quotes from that point of view are also included, but I will not quote it here for then we would be copying practically the entire article.

Icxypion,

I'm glad you found this source that clarifies it for you. There's no way that St. Gregory of Nyssa ever taught heresy. The priest didn't know what he was talking about. St. Gregory's writings are deeply spiritual. He wasn't writing about opinions or even reflecting on writings that he read. He was writing about his own experiences, just as all the other saints did. He experienced the mystical union with God which is why he was able to explain such amazing spiritual views. I have his book, From Glory to Glory. It's wonderful. I can't say that I understand all the explanations, from his writings, because I am far from being a saint, but my soul picked up some points which were truly awe-inspiring.

The problem is that people can misunderstand his explanations because they are not in a place that elevates their souls to that view. If you read Western comments, they will certainly be interpreting St. Gregory's explanations in their own way. Just as they misinterpret some of St. John Chrysostom's homilies. And that's not surprising since they even misunderstand the Holy Scriptures. This is a battle that has been going on since Jesus Christ's Resurrection.

and it seems many Orthodox theologians are now saying that he was guilty of that error.

I don't know who these "Orthodox theologians" are, but they are certainly not theologians. A true theologian lives by their faith and therefore knows Christ's teachings and recognizes truth in the faith. And they don't denounce greats like St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Basil the Great or St. Gregory the Theologian..etc.

Maria wrote:

Here is another article on morality that might interest you as it "proves" that our first instinct is selfless and good.

It debunks Augustinism.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... S_20121124

This study doesn't prove anything. There are too many variables. What would be helpful in understanding their reactions is if they were interviewed and asked why they reacted the way they did. I think the participants in these experiments just wanted to make a good impression. I think a better example of understanding how people react is in a competition. Or a survival situation. Or a chat room. There, you will see true motives and personal characteristics.

Yes, Joanna, they are not really Orthodox or Theologians in the true sense. They follow more the Western notion of Theologians which is that they attain this by cleverness of mind and the juggling of words and ideas, rather than the cleansing of the heart and depth of prayerful communion with God.