Ecumenism is the accepting of heretics as being the church. The Monophysites were already condemned in council, so the Antiochians going in communion with them makes themselves condemned by the councils. We do not need a new council to see that. ROCOR has already anathematized Ecumenism itself and each parts of ecumenism is condemned under various councils, not all Ecumenical.
What is Wrong With Cyprianism?
Moderator: Mark Templet
Nicholas, you need to re-read your history. Take for example the history of the Third Ecumenical Council. Is it not true that Nestorios was given a chance as an Orthodox heirarch to repent of his sin and deny his heresy BEFORE he was excommunicated? Now what sense would that have made if he were already excommunicated? The conditions were for continued membership in the church, not re-acceptance into the church. Now this historical fact leads to one of three conclusions:
- Nestorios was not a heretic before his formal excommunication, thus was still Orthodox
- Nestorios was a heretic, AND a member of the church threatened with expulsion if his views were not changed
- Nestorios was a heretic, and not a member of the church, but the Fathers apparently didnt know it.
Now, it is not impossible (but I higly doubt its probability) that the history and documents/letters that I have read from the Third Ecumenical Council were written with a revisionist pen. If so, please enlighten me. If not, please explain this seeming inconsistency.
Noah
Also, the fact that ROCOR anathematized Ecumenism is not the issue. ROCOR at the time was not acting as the whole church, nor did it claim to (Unless you want to make a case that at that time ROCOR was in fact the only Orthodox church in existance, which would seem to fit the trend around here!).
Noah
For what it is worth to this thread, I was taught that councils, whether local or universal, never declare anything new, they do not proclaim new dogmas or teachings. They only declare what the church as always beleived just in different ways for different times. I was also taught that the Church does not kick any one out, technically speaking. The church essentially states the obvious; saying So-n-so teaches this heresy and refuses to repent and therefore he has removed himself from the Church(maybe such 'official proclamation' is more for the benefit of those who might not be aware of Heretic-X and his false teaching, but that's just me speculating)
From what I have read of Cyprian's papers I can't help but get the feeling that he is impling that a heresy isn't such until the church says so. This seems to be at odds with what I have been taught. But maybe I'm just reading this into his writing.
As to the matter of ROCOR's '83 anathema. If ROCOR is orthodox, then the anathema is orthodox. Now, I would not expect the Church Abroad to hunt down and give the boot to those outside the Synod but are condemned by the anathema. Though it should guide them in their relations with those who may be inviolation of said anathema.
Just some thoughts.
Edited for spelling and such
Noah wrote:Now that's interesting. I have never read this or gotten this impression. Could you point me to some sources?
Thanks,
Noah
For which part? Maybe I can dig some up.
I think the impression I have sort of gotten from Cyprian springs from the use of the term 'potentially heretical/schismatic'.
-
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Is it not true that Nestorios was given a chance as an Orthodox heirarch to repent of his sin and deny his heresy BEFORE he was excommunicated? Now what sense would that have made if he were already excommunicated? The conditions were for continued membership in the church, not re-acceptance into the church. Now this historical fact leads to one of three conclusions:
- Nestorios was not a heretic before his formal excommunication, thus was still Orthodox
- Nestorios was a heretic, AND a member of the church threatened with expulsion if his views were not changed
- Nestorios was a heretic, and not a member of the church, but the Fathers apparently didnt know it.
- Nestorius was a heretic, was already judged so in heaven, having the anathema on earth a formality,
On behalf of Nicholas if I may:
When Nestorius was Patriarch, those simple priests and laymen who ceased to commemorate him, like today at Esphigmenou for example, were they not individuals acting with the Spirit of the Orthodox Church? How much time elapsed before the Church throughout the world became aware of what was happening in Constantinople and excommunicated Nestorius? In that interval, the priests and laymen who had ceased commemorating Nestorius were excommunicated by the “legal” Archbishop of Constantinople. Now these individuals, did they or did they not act well by ceasing to commemorate and commune with their Archbishop? Who indeed was guilty of creating schism, the individuals who remained faithful to the Church, or those priests and laymen who followed their heretical Archbishop in order to “prevent schism”?
This is EXACTLY why the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Council of AD 867 emphasizes: “…they have not fragmented the Church’s unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church.” Deliver the Church? In other words expulsion of heretics whether by a Synod or by individuals is an act to deliver the Church.
Woe to the believer who sits and waits for a synodal judgment. When, indeed, is the convocation of a council going to be possible? And should a council be convoked some day, what sort of council will it be? Will it be a true council, or will it be a “robber” council? When the Orthodox priests of Constantinople ceased to commemorate their bishop, Nestorius, did they await the judgment of a council? Fortunately, no. A council was indeed convoked in Constantinople. What, however, was its judgment? It justified Nestorius and anathematized the Orthodox! The Third Ecumenical Council had to be convoked in order to restore things to their proper place. In other instances, however, the Orthodox had to endure for a long long time under false “Synodal” censure. Fortunately, they were not of that mentality which attributes to councils of bishops, “Patriarchates”, and popular opinion that infallibility which belongs solely to the Church; and by Church I mean to include our Church today and all ages past.
So when Nestorius first taught heresy in Constantinople, the other Orthodox Churches, even though they kept the Orthodox Faith, continued to maintain unbroken canonical relations with the Church of Constantinople and with Nestorius. Why did the few priests and laymen of Constantinople act differently? Why did they cease commemorating their Archbishop, and why did they publicly denounce him? By this act did they not place themselves outside of the Orthodox Catholic Church? Especially since the excommunication issued by their Archbishop (with whom all the Patriarchs and Bishops of the world were in communion) had descended on their heads? Which local Church of those that maintained the Orthodox Faith unsullied had canonical relations with the true Orthodox Christians of Constantinople? The Church of Jerusalem? That of Antioch? That of Rome? That of Alexandria? Not one. All the Churches maintained relations only with the Official Church of Constantinople and Patriarch Nestorius. If, because of the heresy of her Archbishop, the Church of Constantinople became automatically heretical, (that is, without a declaration by the other Churches, which came later), then all the local Orthodox Churches became heretical, since they were in communion with a heretical
Church!
Behold where dry, unorthodox, and legalistic reasoning leads. In fact, neither the genuine and pure Orthodox Christians of Constantinople who had been excommunicated by Nestorius were ever outside the Church, nor did the other local Churches ever become heretical, since they had never agreed with Nestorius. However, Nestorius’ heresy had not yet become widely known. Rumors were circulating, but things had only been substantiated or clarified for the residents of Constantinople because they had personally heard Nestorius’ preaching. For them, to continue in communion with Nestorius would have been tantamount to true heresy. The others were justified in remaining in communion until they could ascertain the facts of the matter. In such instances, communion is broken with a heretic little by little by the surrounding Churches, according to their measure of awareness of their neighbor’s heresy. The cessation of commemoration and communion always begins within the very Church where the heresy has spawned. A space of time intervenes until the other Churches perceive the heresy and either condemn it or accept it too, and an even greater span of time lapses before councils convene and excommunications are pronounced.
When Saint Hypatius understood what opinions Nestorius held, immediately, in the Church of the Apostles, he erased his name from the diptychs, so that it was not pronounced at the Oblation. And this was before Nestorius’ condemnation by the Third Ecumenical Council.
Heresy is darkness. Darkness cannot exist together with the light of God’s grace. The heretic is a heretic because he has driven God far from himself; it means that he has willingly shut himself up inside a dark tower of ignorance where no ray of the divine light can penetrate. More than any other sin, heresy estranges men from God. Through heresy, a man severs himself from God whether a council excommunicates him or not. Heretics are ontologically, not legalistically, cut off from the Church. They are separated because they are in heresy, and not because the Church has decided to cut them off. The heretic, that is, he who preaches heresy and anyone who knowingly follows one who preaches heresy. is, in either case, in opposition to the Church. He who is in opposition to the Church cannot have the Blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sins. The presupposition for this cleansing to take place is that one should abide in the truth. “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all,” if we say we have communion with Him and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not act in truth. But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have communion one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” (I John 1:5—7). “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (II John 1:9).
The presupposition for people to have the grace of God is for them to have the truth, because, as Saint Symeon the New Theologian says: “Truth is nothing else than the grace of Christ.”
The separation of the heretic from the Church, therefore, has no relation with the decisions of a council of the hierarchy. The Orthodox Council is the surgeon which amputates the rotten member from the Body of the Church. It is not the Council, however, that put the member to death. The member was dead before the Council decided to excise it.
Truly, the hierarchs have authority to excommunicate, but to excommunicate only those who have already died spiritually. No matter how many excommunications, anathemas, depositions may be showered on an Orthodox and just man, even from Orthodox hierarchs, he remains alive and unshaken within the Church of Christ, reproving others, yet being reproved by no man. “If, contrary to the intention of God, a hierarch issues an excommunication, the judgment of God does not follow to fulfill this decree,” says Saint Maximus the Confessor, who knew something about such excommunications. Saint Dionysius the Areopagite writes: “Thus, the hierarchs, as expounders of the divine statutes, also have powers to excommunicate, not that the All-wise Divine Principal, so to speak, servilely obeys their irrational impulses, but being prophetically moved by the Supreme initiating Spirit, they excommunicate, as is due, those who have been judged by God.”