Some Orthodox epologists, who shall remain nameless (to protect the guilty), say that Protestants, or at least some of us, are heretics of one sort or another, viz. Nestorians, tritheists, &c.
One might ask how Orthodoxy arrives at this pejorative verdict. Here is how Metropolitan Ware explains the process:
“To the question how one can know whether a council is ecumenical, Khomiakov and his school gave an answer which at first sight appears clear and straightforward: a council cannot be considered ecumenical unless its decrees are accepted by the whole Church. Florence, Hieria, and the rest, while ecumenical in outward appearance, are not truly so, precisely because they failed to secure this acceptance by the Church at large. (One might object: What about Chalcedon? It was rejected by Syria and Egypt—can we say, then, that it was ‘accepted by the Church at large’?) The bishops, so Khomiakov argued, because they are the teachers of the faith, define and proclaim the truth in council; but these definitions must then be acclaimed by the whole people of God, including the laity, because it is the whole people of God that constitutes the guardian of Tradition…At a true Ecumenical council the bishops recognize what the truth is and proclaim it; this proclamation is then verified by the asset of the whole Christian people, an assent which is not, as a rule, expressed formally and explicitly, but lived,” T. Ware, The Orthodox Church (Penguin Books 1997), 252-53.
In order to see the logical structure of this explanation, let’s try to schematize it:
1A. Nestorians aren’t Christians.
Why aren’t Nestorians Christians?
2A. Nestorians are heretics.
Why are Nestorians heretics?
3A. An ecumenical council (Chalcedon) defined Nestorianism as heresy.
What makes a council ecumenical?
4A. It must be ratified by all Christians.
Why didn’t Nestorians ratify the Council of Chalcedon?
1B. Nestorians aren’t Christians…
HTML in a Steve Hays post?
ReplyDeleteOn Easter Sunday in 429, Cyril publicly denounced Nestorius for heresy. With fine disregard for anything Nestorius had actually said, he accused him of denying the deity of Christ. It was a direct and incendiary appeal to the emotions of the orthodox, rather than to precise theological definition or scriptual exegesis, and, as he expected, an ecclesiastical uproar followed. Cyril showered Nestorius with twelve bristling anathemas...As tempers mounted, a Third Ecumenical Council was summoned to meet in Ephesus in 431 ... [it was] the most violent and least equitable of all the great councils. It is an embarassment and blot on the history of the church. ... Nestorius ... arrived late and was asking the council to wait for him and his bishops. Cyril, who had brought fifty of his own bishops with him, arrogantly opened the council anyway, over the protests of the imperial commissioner and about seventy other bishops. Nestorius refused even to attend and later wrote this graphic, biased but accurate description of the proceedings:
ReplyDelete"They acted ... as if it was a war they were conducting, and the followers of [Cyril] ... went about in the city girt and armed with clubs ... with the yells of barbarians, snorting fiercely ... raging with extravagant arrogance against those whom they knew to be opposed to their doings, carrying bells about the city and lighting fires. They blocked up the streets so that everyone was obliged to fee and hide, while they acted as masters of the situation, lying about, drunk and besotted and shouting obsceneties..." (Samuel Moffet, "A History of Christianity in Asia", p. 174).
Why heretics are not Christians?
ReplyDeleteHTML in a Steve Hays post?
ReplyDeleteMy awesome mastery of the < i > tag is rubbing off...
"Why heretics are not Christians?"
ReplyDeleteWhy theists are not atheists?
Certain group identifiers have a broad range of inclusivity (i.e. Scotsmen).
Others have a very narrow range of inclusivity.
Who's a heretic?
ReplyDeleteYou, for instance. >:)