Orthodoxy and Tradition

[John Charmley]

Peter and I are, in another forum, discussing the question of 'labels' and authority. The Church condemns 'Nestorianism' and yet almost every time one reads a book on the subject one trips over statements such as 'Nestorius was not a Nestorian'. By the same measure, Arius was not an Arian, and it would appear unlikely that Origen was an Origenist.

We had both thought that the obvious answer to this was that the Church is right to condemn heresy but is not always fully aware of what particular people believe and may therefore have to revise who is condemned as a heretic even if the heresy is always worthy of condemnation.

Somewhat to our surprise, the Eastern Orthodox posters have come back saying that it is up to the Church to decide what the possible implications of what someone says they believe are, and that this is more important than what they actually believe, and, moreover, that 'modern standards of fairness' do not apply.

My, no doubt, inadequate response was to say that I was not sure what they meant by 'modern standards', and that I based myself on the 10 commandments, which, among other things, forbid us to bear false witness, which it surely would be to present someone as saying something they did not say.

The EO seem hung up on an idea of the Church as being infallibly able to pronounce on what someone 'really' meant. This seems a trifle dangerous to me, but then what do I know?

I wonder if this prompts any thoughts from members of the Fellowship?


In Christ,

John