Abstract
This chapter seeks to show how changeable the notions of heresy and orthodoxy really are by analyzing the reputation of several theologians who were originally considered to be pillars of orthodoxy only to be condemned as heretics in the later phases of their life or after their deaths. The purpose of this analysis is to show how development of doctrine affected those who refused or were not anymore able to change their teachings. These insights could contribute to the reform of current Orthodox concepts of orthodoxy, heresy and sanctity, a process through which some other churches have already passed, and thus make it more receptive for certain changes that are long overdue but also provide new ecumenical openness and understanding for the other Christian churches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This is especially the case for the era of Late Antiquity, in which the East was dominant in theology and which is often considered the golden age of Christian theology.
- 2.
This in most cases did not help them increase the number of their faithful. The best example is the Anglican Communion, which is always in tune with the spirit of the age, but which has suffered a significant decrease in the number of its faithful in the past few decades. There is a famous quote from the diary of William Ralph Inge, also known as “The Gloomy Dean,” connected to his lecture at Sion College in 1911 titled “Co-operation of the Church with the Spirit of the Age”. He writes: “[…] if you marry the Spirit of your own generation you will be a widow in the next”. See: William Ralph Inge, Diary of a Dean: St. Paul’s 1911–1934 (London: Hutchinson, 1949), 12.
- 3.
Florovsky (borrowing from Luther) referred to this influence as to the “Babylonian” or the “Latin Captivity” of Russian theology. See: Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology (Belmont, MA: Nordland Pub. Co., 1979), 121, 181.
- 4.
I am referring to the so-called neo-patristic movement of the twentieth century led by Georges Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, Nicholas Afanasiev, Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorff, and ultimately John Zizioulas. For the emergence and motives of this theology see: Paul L. Gavrilyuk, Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance (Oxford: University Press, 2014). Of course, this is not an isolated phenomenon: there were similar movements in Western theology, such as “Nouvelle Théologie.”
- 5.
The best example for this is the Council of Chalcedon (451), which introduced a political (middle way) solution for the long-standing Alexandrian (miaphysite) and Antiochian (dyophysite) Christological disputes. While introducing this artificial theology the fathers of the council felt need to state in the Creed of the council that they were only “following the holy Fathers” (ἑπόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν), which of course was only partly true.
- 6.
Joseph Priestley et al., Memoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley: To the Year 1795, Volume 1 (London: J. Johnson, 1806), 372.
- 7.
Tertullian was the first western author to produce an entire corpus of theological writings in the Latin language.
- 8.
Geoffrey D. Dunn, Tertullian (London & New York: Routledge, 2004), 10.
- 9.
Besides his polemics against individual heretics such as Adversus Marcionem, Adversus Praxean and Adversus Hermogenem, Tertullian was one of the first Christian authors to write a kind of a manual on how to deal with heretics and heresies, the so-called “De praescriptione haereticorum”. For a long time, the compendium Adversus omnes haereses was attributed to him, but modern scholarship no longer considers this one of his writings. On Tertullian’s notion of heresy, see P. I. Kaufman, “Tertullian on Heresy, History, and the Reappropriation of Revelation.” Church History 60, no. 2 (1991): 167–79.
- 10.
See: Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones 5,1 and 5,4.
- 11.
See: Eusebius Hieronymus Stridonensis. De viris illustribus 53.
- 12.
Augustinus Hipponensis, De haeresibus ad Quodvultdeus 86.
- 13.
H. Leclerq, “Gelasien (Decret)”, in: Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, Vol. 6 (1924), 722–747.
- 14.
See: Tertullianus, Adversus Praxean 2–3.
- 15.
Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 99.
- 16.
John A. McGuckin, ed., The Westminster Handbook to Origen (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 25.
- 17.
See: Eusebius Pamphilus, Historia Ecclesiastica 6, 3, 1 and 6, 7–8, 1.
- 18.
The very existence of the Alexandrian and Antiochian catechetical schools is disputed. For a good overview of this question see: Elizabeth A. Clark, Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999), 72–78.
- 19.
This is true with the exception of a few episodes which had mainly to do with jealousy and which were not connected with his teachings but more with practical matters. There are some authors though, who think that Origen also had problems for his teachings. See e.g.: C. C. Richardson, “The Condemnation of Origen,” Church History 6, no. 1 (1937): 50–59.
- 20.
See: Eusebius Pamphilus, Historia Ecclesiastica 6, 33; 6, 37. Dialogue with Heraclides is actually an account of such an investigation.
- 21.
See: ibid. 6, 39.
- 22.
See: C. C. Richardson, ibid. 59–64.
- 23.
It is still not clear whether and to what extent this council has condemned Origen and his writings. See: Richard Price, transl., The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 (Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 51). (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2012) 17–23; E. M. Harding, “Origenist Crises”, in McGuckin, ibid. 166.
- 24.
Admittedly in a subordinationist and not in a Nicean way.
- 25.
See Theodor Mommsen, Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes (Berolini: Weidmann, 1954), 834.
- 26.
Iohannes Chrysostomos, Laus Diodori Episcopi 52, 3–4.
- 27.
Theodoretus Cyrrhensis, Historia ecclesiastica 4, 25, 3.
- 28.
He wrote numerous letters in which he tried to establish his heresy and he also wrote Three Books against Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus , which are today only available in fragments.
- 29.
Diodor’s condemnation does not appear anywhere in the acts of the council of 553. We know that there was one only from the report of Photius.
- 30.
I explain this process more thoroughly in my book: Christologie und Kommunion: Entstehung und Verbreitung der homoousianischen Christologie (Münster: Aschendorff, 2018), 73–117.
- 31.
Basilius Caesariensis, Epistula 361: Apollinario.
- 32.
See: Ekkehard Mühlenberg, Apollinaris von Laodicea (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 48.
- 33.
Apollinaris Laodicenus, Epistula ad Jovianum 1.
- 34.
Unless perhaps in some aristocratic circles and small group of his supporters including also some bishops (later called Pelagians).
- 35.
See: Bryn R. Rees, Pelagius: A Reluctant Heretic (Woodbridge and Rochester: Boydell, 1988).
- 36.
This is why Pelagius had a strong support base within the western Church and why Rome for a long time refused to condemn him. For the good explanation of his teachings see: Gisbert Greshake, Gnade als konkrete Freiheit. Eine Untersuchung zur Gnadenlehre des Pelagius (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag 1972).
- 37.
For an excellent study that shows that Pelagius did not propose any new teaching see: Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (Oxford: University Press, 2018).
- 38.
I have discussed this in: V. Latinovic, “Arius Conservativus? The Question of Arius’ Theological Belonging,” Studia Patristica 95 (2017): 27–42.
- 39.
See: Anthony Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford: University Press, 2010) 51–72.
- 40.
I am referring here to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) which was agreed to by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999. This declaration is very much in sync with Luther’s theology of justification.
- 41.
Something that Orthodox patristics still needs to learn. For example, see: Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought (London-New York, Routledge, 1998), which is an excellent book written by an extremely knowledgeable and talented scholar, but lacks a single critical word about Athanasius!
- 42.
In so doing, however, we need to be careful not to damage our ethos and to be at risk of losing some other valuable concepts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Latinovic, V. (2021). Who Do You Call a Heretic? Fluid Notions of Orthodoxy and Heresy in Late Antiquity. In: Chapman, M.D., Latinovic, V. (eds) Changing the Church. Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53425-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53425-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-53424-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-53425-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)