www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Bulgaria's Youngest Bishop: The Pope is a Heretic

This isn't anything new. Traditionalist minded Orthodox Christians oppose ecumenical movements, no matter who they are with. Those groups will usually insist for instance that all converts are baptized when entering the church for this reason (that isn't anything new either).

After Archbishop Christodoulos visited the Vatican recently, all twenty representatives of the Athos monasteries signed a letter of protest sent to him.

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/218557/page/2/fpart/1

The one monastery which has stopped commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch is Esphigmenou. As I mentioned in the thread, they raised black flags to protest the meeting of Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI.

The bishop in question will be seen in a good light by those who agree with the Monasteries.

Also, the comments by Mr. Matanov were rather overblown, and it is worth noting he is a government figure and not a cleric.

Thank you, AMM, for the above (including the correction about Archbishop Christodoulos' ecumenical efforts under the Ecumenical Patriarch being the catalyst). I agree with AMM's post.

I feel very much as if we are "living history" and will look back for that shot heard 'round the world and point to our times, to the patriarchs' meeting, to now. This is the movement I speak of, not as a noun, a group, but as a verb, an action. I have no idea where it will go, but I pray that all involved will follow the will of God.

I'm honestly not trying to point fingers, but Fr. Dcn. Robert and LanceG: How did this thread so quickly change from a young Bulgarian Orthodox bishop calling the Pope a heretic to bashing "traditionalist" Catholics on how they treat the Orthodox as heretics.

There can and should be another thread opened if we want to trash TradLats on how awfully they talk about those who are not part of their ranks, but right now we're talking about this Bulgarian bishop....

And in my opinion, from an Orthodox point of view the Bulgarian bishop is right on the money, though perhaps there was a different time and place that would've made the comment more appropriate.

Logos - Alexis

Logos- Alexis:

I do not feel I was bashing Traditional Catholics. I was merely pointing out, in response to another post, that there are SOME Traditional Catholics who are mistaken in their view about the Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, in magisterial teaching, in documents for example, such as Dominus Iesus, are viewed as true churches, and they have valid sacaraments and apostolic succession.

That's all I wanted to say.

Whoa, lets look at this from an impersonal perspective. Vladika Nikolay has not said anything that is incorrect.

"If he professes a different belief than the Orthodox than the church canons make him a heretic,"

Let's change names and Churches here for a second. Suppose A Cardinal of the Roman Church stated:

"If he professes a different belief than the Catholic than the church canons make him a heretic,"

in regards to Bishop Nikolay, would the Cardinal be incorrect? No, he would not, at least according to Catholic belief.

People, seeking unity in the Church is NOT going to consist of huggy huggy, kissy kissy, feel good dialougue that accomplishes nothing other than making everybody all warm and fuzzy. Neither will it consist of the 2 Churches sitting down together "Oh hi, how are you?" "I really like that riassa!" "How's Marge and the kids" type deal. Cold hard facts that will make many uncomfortable will have to be addressed and dealt with. It seems that every time the "cold hard facts" are presenterd, an outcry arises that this person or that person is being "uncharitable". As an Orthodox Christian, looking at the differences that seperate me from my Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to realize that there exists a gulf that cannot be bridged by "mutual good feelings". I can look at Pope Benedict and in all truthfullness say the following:

"I believe him to be a good and charitable man, a man of prayer and of strong moral conviction. I respect him for the stand that he takes on moral and socuial issues. Do I agree with his theology? No, I do not. Do I recognize him as the infallable Vicar of Christ on Earth? No, I do not. This leaves us with 2 choices, either I bring my beliefs into accordance with Pope Benedict, which in effect would make me a Roman Catholic, which I do not see happening, or Pope Benedict brings his beliefs into accordance with me, in effect becoming Orthodox. A conundrum, to be sure. Cultural differences between East and West are easy compared to Dogma. And despite all the wishful thinking that many might have, the Orthodox will not accept innovation to Dogma. So where do we begin? We begin by being honest with each other, speaking truthfully, even if we might hurt each other's feelings. I would be much more grateful to someone who yelled out "your fly is open" as I walked up to the podium than I would be to someone who was aware, but let me appear on National Television with my fly undone because he didn't want to "hurt my feelings" or to embarrass me.

Alexandr

LanceG,

Ok! Understood. The segue (sp?) into traditional Catholicism just confused me...

Alexadr,

I agree. The bishop didn't say anything wrong, from an Orthodox perspective, it seems to me. Of course what he said is not "politically correct" nor necessarily "ecumenical" and certainly irritates those who wish the Orthodox Churches held a different view. Fortunately those people don't make the rules.

Logos - Alexis

I agree, the Bishop said nothing wrong. He is going by the Canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

While I like the new Pope and I think He is a good man, many Roman claims can be interpreted as heretical going by strict Orthodx dogma....

Now.... is what He said really constructive?

I do not know....

I probobly would not make the same public statement, but than again I am not a Bishop am I?

The classic definition of "truth" is not "the articulation of what one believes oneself to be thinking". Truth is, rather, "the adequation of thought to reality." By that objective standard, the proper response is to invite those who say that Pope Benedict is a heretic (or that any Pope of Rome must be a heretic) to produce evidence and then join in a rational discussion.

To put it even more bluntly: a man who asserts himself to be "god" may very well be saying, quite honestly, what he thinks on the subject. But he does not thereby become divine! Sincerity alone is not sufficient (with apologies to Lucy van Pelt). People who "sincerely believe in themselves" are apt to inhabit the nearest Home for the Bewildered.

Fr. Serge

Alexandr,

Very well said. This is the kind of honesty that is required for a true and worthwhile ecumenism. God bless.


Joe

Sometimes they can and have been expressed uncharitably (think of Athens), and that is wrong. In this case, I think it's a tempest in a teapot, and what the bishop said was not uncharitable. The worst I guess you could say is that it was impolitic, but as you rightly pointed out real dialog won't happen by ignoring the elephants in the room.

Good overall post btw.

I have some challenges to share with all of us. I want to be clear my thoughts are not to criticize the Bulgarian Bishop, or guess at his motives, or question his saintliness- I assume best intentions on his part. But I do not think it is the most helpful thing to say.

I want to share some thoughts and challenges for all of us to think about the words we use.

There can be a problem with using the word heretic in the 21st Century. It is not because the term is never appropriate to use. BUt I think it a can be a very alienating word to use.

The bishop in our discussion has no power to do anything about the pope's heresy, as he would if the heretic were in his own communion. So what is the point? To those on the outside, the non-believers, is it just more evidence of the fratricidal mindset of Christians? Can using that term be indicative of plain old human rivalry? Again, I am not saying this is the case, but how do those outside perceive it?- sometimes it does not matter what those on the outside think, but sometimes it does. And St. Paul certainly think it does in his pastoral letters. I am putting myself in the shoes of an unbeliever for a moment. How does this help the cause of Christ, or the Orthodox Church?

We Catholics could look upon our Protestant brothers and sisters as heretics- does not saint Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans call those who do not believe that the Eucharist is the "self-same body of Christ, which suffered for us, and which the father in his goodness raised up" heretics?

But would that be helpful? Would that aid and facilitate dialogue, discussion? Would I have the best opportunity, after calling a non-catholic or non-Orthodox a heretic, to try and win him or her to the Church? Probably not.

I trust this is none of this is the case for our bishop in this discussion.

But I wonder if for some of us, using the word heretic for a believer of another faith tradition can be an expression of our prejudice?

When we label someone a heretic, we don't have to listen to what they say anymore.

I am not saying we should have warm fuzzy, discussions. I LOL at Alexandr's analogy of having one's fly open.

We should be frank that there are huge differences still between Catholic and Orthodox; much more so than just the filioque, or the Immaculate Conception, or Papal Infallibility. the whole understanding of church is different; even the understanding of grace is very different, in my understanding, anyway (quite a challenge for those of us, like myself, who style themselves "Orthoox in union with Rome").

But personally, I do not think it is helpful, even if doctrinally correct, to call another believer in another communion a heretic.

I agree.

Clearly there are differences between different Christians churches, and clearly those differences cannot be papered-over with a smile. Clearly, Christians must candidly admit and discusss our differences.

But it is also clear that the differences among us can easily cause anger and hatred among different groups of Christians. This has happened in the past, with bloodshed, to the complete mockery of the life and commandments of Christ.

So, we have to be careful in how we deal with each other. That includes the language that we use to express the fact that we have differences.

The "h" word is a bomb. It carries a hugely insulting and angering payload with it, like the "n" word does among African Americans. It doesn't just communicate theological differences. It also (and mostly) communicates and stimulates prejudice, anger and hate.

And for that reason, I don't think it should be used, and I am upset that a bishop did use it.

Instead, we should simply, candidly and respectfully express our differences. That doesn't mean being wimpy. It means avoiding laguage that will offend and insult instead of communicate.

And we should do so in the hope, in Christ, that we can love each other in Him despite our differences. In many things, we're not going to change each other's minds. But, He can change our hearts. The result will be loving each other despite our differences.

-- John

Might I suggest that a young bishop in a country like Bugaria, which is mostly Orthodox, might not expect his words to really go all over the world like this, and thus would also not see that his words might be seen as a challenge of insult, not to mention a scandal to non-Christians?

Yes, he's Orthodox, so to him, the Pope is indeed a heretic, as is everyone who is not Orthodox. In a nation that is that strongly Orthodox, I cannot imagine that these words would strike the people as they do us, who are steeped in culticultural ettiquette. To them, the idea is simply normal.

Ok - what ecumenical council ever declared Pope Benedict XVI a heretic?

Waiting...waiting...silence.

So, by what authority does the young bishop make such declarations?

Waiting...waiting...silence.

So much for huggy huggy, kissy kissy.

Ebed, can we agree that the Unitarian Church is heretical?

Well, than please tell me which Ecumenical Council ever declared the Unitarian Church heretical?

Just trying to say that there are and probobly will be new heresies that will not be condemned by an Ecumenical Council....

I am not trying to say that the Pope is in fact a Heretic. Just saying that one needs to use the Canoncs of the Councils to figure out what is Heretical and what is not, and sometime it is not easy to do.