Saint Gregory was not always the most irenic fellow, but being a Saint of God, he knew when and when not to show anger, hostility, rigidity, humility, kindness, gentleness, and so forth. (cf Oration 2, 30-33 for a discussion of this from a pastoral point of view). One of the things that has always caught my attention was how Gregory the Theologian could take obviously wrong beliefs and actions, and if there was a chance for healing, talk in very irenic language. What's more, if the people were reconciled (or if they had always been pious people), then St. Gregory would sometimes go out of his way to "cover their nakedness" and emphasise instead their good deeds. One of the more striking terms one comes across is when Saint Gregory speaks of some being "semi-Orthodox" (Oration 32, 24) He used this term, I believe, to speak of those who did not outright deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit, but also did not wholly affirm it either. In other words, they were unsure. This isn't a small thing, mind you, but is a dogma dealing with the thrice-brilliant Lord himself. How does Gregory speak to these "semi-Orthodox"? Thusly:
"For I am persuaded that you are to some extent partakers of Him, so that I will go into the question with you as kindred souls... you are dissatisfied with the syllables, and you stumble at the word, and it is to you a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence;(b) for so is Christ to some minds. It is only human after all. Let us meet one another in a spiritual manner; let us be full rather of brotherly than of self love." (Oration 41, 7)
I am not saying that we should all be as irenic today, but it seems that when even one person is this irenic with ecumenists it causes a stir. Why? Can we not say today that the ecumenists are "to some extent partakers of Him"? St. Basil's 1st Canon also says that some recently seperated from the Church still have the "spiritual gift," though no grace in their sacraments, and St. Gregory seems to believe something not altogether different... is this a wrong belief that they held? This is not to say that we should recognize sacraments outside of the Church, but certainly grace works in different ways in different groups, is it so impossible to take a more irenic view at times with ecumenists and the like?
Gregory continues with a passage that I think is very much the opposite of our own age:
"Yet more clearly and concisely, let me say, do not you call us to account for our loftier word (for envy has nothing to do with this ascent), and we will not find fault with what you have been able to attain, until by another road you are brought up to the same resting place. For we are not seeking victory, but to gain brethren, by whose separation from us we are torn. This we concede to you in whom we do find something of vital truth, who are sound as to the Son. We admire your life, but we do not altogether approve your doctrine. Ye who have the things of the Spirit, receive Himself in addition, that ye may not only strive, but strive lawfully, which is the condition of your crown." - Oration 41, 8
How many of us are "torn" over these issues? Do not most of us instead seek a victory? Of course, we guise this seeking in language about "wanting to save souls" and so forth--and 95% of us probably believe our own rhetoric--but aren't we really just seeking a victory, which would be for the other side to concede and us to therefore be vidicated? When was the last time we cried over these issues? But if we really felt their destruction--the true destruction caused by a true pan-heresy--then we would weep almost constantly. If we really "felt" the preciousness and potential and image-of-God in the souls of those "on the other side" (regardless of how hateful their language, or even if they persecute and martyr us), then would we speak and act as we speak and act today? I honestly doubt it. I know I wouldn't act the same way, if only my heart wasn't so hard and I wasn't blinded by pride.
But this is not just an issue of who is wrong now, but how do we react those who are wrong are reconciled. Just like he went out of his way to reconcile certain groups, St. Gregory also sometimes went out of his way to "cover the nakedness" (ie. error or sin) of certain groups (after they had repented, of course: you can't "cover someone's nakedness" if that implies covering up unrepented heresy). For instance, Saint Gregory says of his Father, who had signed a heretical document:
When a tumult of the over-zealous part of the Church was raised against us, and we had been decoyed by a document and artful terms into association with evil, he alone was believed to have an unwounded mind, and a soul unstained by ink, even when he had been imposed upon in his simplicity, and failed from his guilelessness of soul to be on his guard against guile. He it was alone, or rather first of all, who by his zeal for piety reconciled to himself and the rest of the church the faction opposed to us, which was the last to leave us, the first to return, owing to both their reverence for the man and the purity of his doctrine, so that the serious storm in the churches was allayed, and the hurricane reduced to a breeze under the influence of his prayers and admonitions - Gregory the Theologian, Oration 18, 18
Gregory did a similar covering for his sister, Gorgonia, Oration 8, 18, though for a much less vital lapse. Are we to believe that Gregory merely did this out of "family loyalty" (or some such notion)? Or was it perhaps the same humility being displayed here that also allowed St. Gregory to paint (hagiographically) Athanasius as the Great Saint that he was, even though Gregory and Athanasius disagreed over some rather large issues? One wonders if today we let such "large issues" get made a little too large.
