Objections I Have Heard

Objections I Have Heard

(To Leaving World Orthodoxy)

A Guest Article

by

Joseph Bragg

A Former Antiochian Orthodox Priest 

There is an abundance of material that is cited for support by those who have ceased to have communion with heresy and those in communion with heresy. Many writings in support of this action can be cited from Scripture, the Fathers and numerous Councils, Synods and Canons. A good summary of this reality was set forth by St. Mark of Ephesus when he said, “All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils, and all the Divine Scriptures, exhort us to flee those who uphold other doctrines and to separate from communion with them.”

But what material or what sources are cited by those who remain in communion with heresy? What arguments or defense do they set forth? They certainly cannot cite any teachings of Scripture, the Fathers, Councils or Canons that tell us to remain in communion with heresy. The arguments I have most often encountered are as follows:

1) "The heresy in World Orthodoxy is not official but merely the private opinions of various bishops."

First, where do we get the distinction between official heresy and unofficial heresy? Heresy is heresy, period. The only distinction made by the Church is the public proclamation of heresy vs. private and unexpressed opinions. Once a bishop publicly proclaims heretical teachings, separation is in order and, in fact, required and praised by the Fathers and Canons.

But the fact is that many of the heresies of World Orthodoxy have received an “official” status if such a thing is important. Heretical statements and position papers have been published in official journals, signed officially and even approved by synods. But whether such an “official” status is given to heresy is irrelevant as to separation according to the Fathers, and Canons.

2) "It is wrong to separate from the Church."

This statement and thinking shows how far World Orthodoxy has fallen from the Orthodox Faith. Such thinking reflects the Latin understanding of the Church as an organization or political entity that is defined primarily by what is “official” and by external associations. Since the Church is the Body of Christ that holds the Orthodox Faith under Orthodox bishops, those who separate from the heresy of officialdom are not leaving the Church but are, as one Canon puts it, preserving the Church, since they have not left bishops but false shepherds. In World Orthodoxy, the externals of officialdom are equated with the “Church”. This, of course, is not true. How can it be that those who hold the faith unchanged have left the Church while those who have changed it have preserved the Church? You see how perverted and deceived the thinking of World Orthodoxy has become! Those who have changed the faith (heresy) are the ones who have left. Those who have not changed the faith are the ones who have continued the Church. The perception of the Church as membership in “officialdom” stands in sharp contrast to the teachings of Holy Scriptures, the Canons, and the holy Fathers, including St. Gregory Palamas who wrote:

“They that are of the Church of Christ are they that are of the truth; and they that are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ...for we are reminded that we are to distinguish Christianity not by persons who have ecclesiastical titles, but by the truth and by the exactness of the Faith.

3) "Everything is not so black and white as to the teachings of the Fathers and the Canons on this issue. There is a lot of gray area."

At this point I want to ask, “What is it that is not black and white and what is it that is gray?

Is it the Truth of the Church that is not certain? Is it the teachings of the Fathers and the Canons that are not certain? Is it not possible to know heresy when you hear it? How did the Church throughout history know, identify and anathematize heresy if it is all so gray and uncertain? And why are the teachings of the Fathers uncertain and gray only when it comes to what they say about separation from heresy? Why aren’t their teachings unclear and uncertain when they teach about the Holy Trinity, the Nature of Christ, the Veneration of the Saints, the doctrine of the Church, the meaning of the Eucharist, the necessity of the Hierarchy, the Canon of Holy Scriptures, etc.? What is unclear or uncertain when the Scriptures tell us to have no association with those who do not continue in the Apostolic Tradition? Is it not possible to know the Apostolic Tradition? If not, then Orthodoxy is a joke and unworthy of serious consideration.

What is unclear or uncertain about the words that tell us to flee from heresy as from a plague? What is unclear or uncertain when Orthodox bishops do the things they have done and make the statements they have made? They are public knowledge and as clear as any news event. No, the argument that it is all gray and uncertain is contrary to the facts and dare not be applied to the teachings of the Church.

4) "We should not be judgmental."

This understanding reflects a confusion of what it means to be judgmental. The Scriptures and Fathers all urge us to discern and judge between right and wrong and truth and error and light and darkness. The Fathers made many such judgments. The Canons are judgments about what is good and proper and Orthodox and what is not. St. Paul taught that we are to judge a “different gospel” as false and under Divine Judgment. He also tells us to discern the sprits to determine if they are of God and to turn away from that which is false. If we are to make no judgments about the truth or error of beliefs then, again, Orthodoxy is a joke and there is no reason to be Orthodox.

The kind of judging that is condemned by Scripture and the Church is that which judges a person’s unknown heart or motives when we really don’t know what is in his heart. Thus we are not to make judgments about people’s unknown motives or eternal destiny but only about their false beliefs and teachings. The Church has always made judgments between truth and heresy and has always called on the faithful to do the same.

5) "Those who separate are guilty of violating the canons that condemn schisms."
 

It is interesting how the teachings of the Fathers and the Canons suddenly are clear and no longer gray when it comes to understanding schisms and how it is no longer judgmental to make such judgments. But the “schisms” canons do not apply to separation due to heresy. The canons tell us to separate from heresy but if we separate from our bishop for other reasons, then we are guilty of schism. The “schism” argument does not apply to the heresy issue and is used as a smoke screen since there are no canons that forbid separation due to heresy.

6) "We should stay and fight from within."

This is contrary to all the teachings of Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils and the Canons that tell us to flee. Beside, if you stay to fight from within, how do you do that? Do you stand up and speak out when you see the Faith being violated and betrayed? Do you bring these issues to the attention of your priest and others? Do you write to your bishop objecting to the heresies of World Orthodoxy? Or do you just learn to adapt, go along and ignore?

7) "Ecumenism has never been condemned by a Council."

The Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Council of Constantinople clearly tells us that we do not have to wait for an official council before we separate from heresy. But the fact is that all or most of the heresies present in Roman Catholicism, Monothelistism and Ecumenism have already been anathematized by numerous councils. This is why Ecumenism is called a “pan-heresy”. It contains all the heresies already condemned by the Church.

8) "What the bishops do or say doesn’t effect me. I don’t agree with them and neither does my priest so we will be Orthodox and ignore the bishops."

This is fine if you are a Protestant but it is not Orthodox. The Orthodox Faith teaches us that when we receive the Eucharist from the antimins of the bishop and commemorate his name at the Liturgy we are united in faith with him. The faith he holds is also the faith of the priest and the people. The bishop is the line of apostolic succession through which the Grace bearing Mysteries are passed on or lost. If we do not believe what the bishop believes why would we be under his omophorion and commemorate him as a right believing bishop?