Whatever happened to heresy? And what does a heretic look like?

Wires From The Bunker ^ | 8/10/2005 | Peter Glover

[sionnsar]

What does a heretic look like? Well here's one to be going on with.

                                  
                  Bishop Richard Chartres: a jolly, syncretistic, heretic?

Bishop Richard Chartres is that most elusive of Christian heretics. The kind that 'hides' in plain sight and is thus, apparently, the more difficult to spot. He might here have copped a lot of stick for being involved in worship with a 'disputed living Buddha' but his real sin is, in reality, far more serious than that. And neither would it do him any good not to be told it, either.

You might well wonder why it is that when the Bible itself, the Bible authors like Paul, the early church and church history found itself confronting heresy plainly and on a regular basis and in many places, not least at the heart of the visible church. Why is it then that the modern church barely ever recognises real heresy or heretics, or is refuses to call heresy what it is when it is plain?

For the record, it is clear from the Bible and the historic teaching of the church that heresy is the departure from core biblically ordained and orthodox doctrine either by word or practice. Worship, of course, (though it is no longer widely appreciated) is the pinnacle of all  intimate communion Christian have with their Father God. Put another way, worship is the frontline of all theology - the frontline of all we know, understand and believe practised

before and in the very presence of God. Get our knowledge of God wrong at this point leads us into presumption and profanity that nothing we do anywhere else can expunge, as the Bible makes clear.

Though God may want us to be more biblically orthodox in all our growing understanding as we learn doctrine not doubt he is more relxaed about some less central  matters.

But one which has always been no 1 on his list of 'no-no's' has been profane worship - that is worship he deems unauthorized and unnacceptable. Top of this particular list comes worshipping the wrong god (i.e. the god of all non-Judeo-Christian religions) or the right God in the wrong way (the sin of the Jews who made the golden calf as a representation of the true God while Moses was at the 'Doctor's' collecting his tablets).

This is what makes Richard Chartres highly public sin so plain as it is committed by one who has assumed a leading position in the visible church. Yet, just like that early leading 'church' Doctor of Divinity (John 3) Nicodemus, Chartres doesn't even understand the basics of worship and practice in the true faith.

His actions in taking part in wishing to take a full part in collective worship with those of non-Christian faiths, as the early church would have had the strength to have said, is pure heresy.

Our God is a jealous God. He doesn't like sharing his Crown with others. The world sees this sort of thing and is rightly confused as to why the church's central message speaks of Christ as the only Son of God born among men. Men like Chartres just make life difficult for men and women more faithful than him.

It really is time the church took up once again its God-ordained responsibility to deal with this sort of thing. But then perhaps you know the story of the little boy present at the installation of a new Bishop?

The small boy asks,  "Why does the man being made bishop have to kneel down?"

"So that the Archbishop can remove his spine," answers the father.

Put enough men without backbone into positions of authority and what do you get? Modern Anglicanism, for one. Cranmer would not be pleased.

[Bosco]

Jude's letter in the new testament talks a lot about these sorts.

[stuartcr]

Hopefully, heresy went away with witchburning and the inquisition...

[sionnsar]

Nope. Heresy is still around.

[Bosco]

Heresy is alive and well and being propagated in all sorts of places. Temporal punishment like burnings and inquisitions have gone by the wayside but there still exists the eternal consequences. These folks are called apostates, and their doctrine is heresy.

[stuartcr]

That's too bad.

[ladtx]

As long as there is hubris there will be heresy.

[TBP]

Why is it then that the modern church barely ever recognises real heresy or heretics, or is refuses to call heresy what it is when it is plain?

Maybe the church is coming to a new realization that God's people do not all do things the same way.

For the record, it is clear from the Bible and the historic teaching of the church that heresy is the departure from core biblically ordained and orthodox doctrine either by word or practice.

The Bible as we know it is a work of man -- selectively edited, translated so many times that it is a long game of telephone, and misused by many who profess to believe in it.

But one which has always been no 1 on his list of 'no-no's' has been profane worship - that is worship he deems unauthorized and unnacceptable.

So God needs to be worshipped and in a specific way? Strange for an infinite being, isn't it?

Top of this particular list comes worshipping the wrong god (i.e. the god of all non-Judeo-Christian religions)

If there is only one God, as esentially all religions teach, then "my god" and "your God" are one God. There can be no other,

Does this not seem petty? "You must worship ME and only ME or I will smite you." Is this attitude worthy of worhip?

Chartres doesn't even understand the basics of worship and practice in the true faith.

What evidence do you have that it is any more true than any other faith? Our God is a jealous God.

And jealousy and pride are sins, according to Christianity, right? Is a jealous God who needs to be worshipped and demands certain ways of doing so or you will burn for eternity a God you really want to worship? Where is the love? Where is the goodness? I certainly don't see it in this portrayal of God.

He doesn't like sharing his Crown with others.

You know, I don't think the One Power, One Presence, One Life, One Spirit worries about this. Ultimately, ther eis no Other.

The world sees this sort of thing and is rightly confused as to why the church's central message speaks of Christ as the only Son of God born among men. "You ar ethe light of the world."

"The thigns that I have done, ye also shall do, and greater than these shall ye do."

How can any of God's creation be anything BUT the son (or daughter) of God? And why would God want to condemn 4/5 of them?

[stuartcr]

I agree.

[stuartcr]

Well said.

[TBP]

Tahnk you.

[BulldogCatholic]

Well lets start with the following, which can either fall into heresy or apostasy:

How about the following contradictions on past church teachings for starters:

The Pre Vatical II Church Taught:

"It is almost impossible to happen that Catholics who mix themselves with heretics or schismatics in any act of worship might be worthy to be excused from this shameful crime."
Pope Benedict XIV, De Synodo Bk. VI, Chap. 5, Art. 2, 1748.
Vatican II taught:
"It is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren."
Decree on Ecumenism, #8.

Pre Vatican II it was taught:
[It is an error to say that] "in the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation."
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Error #16, Dec. 8, 1864.
Vatican II taught:
"The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion... these actions... can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation."
Decree on Ecumenism, #3.


On the "Modern World", Pre Vatican II taught:
"It is not fitting that the Church of God be changed according to the fluctuations of worldly necessity."
Pope Pius VI, Quod Aliquantum, Mar. 10, 1791.

Vatican II taught:

"the Church... can and ought to be enriched by the development of human social life... so that she may... adjust it [the Constitution of the Church] more successfully to our times."
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #44.
"
Pre Vatican II taught:
No man can serve two masters, for to please one amounts to contemning the other...It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men."
Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiæ Christianæ, #6&7, Jan. 10, 1890.
Vatican II taught:
"Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world."
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #93.

Pre Vatican II Popes taught:
"About the ‘Rights of Man’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God."
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi, #13, Nov. 1, 1900.

Vatican II taught:
"The Church proclaims the rights of man."
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #41.


On Religious Liberty, the Pre V2 church taught:
"They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls...namely that ‘liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society.’ "
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, #3, Dec. 8, 1864.

Vatican II taught:
"The human person has the right to religious freedom...this right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #2.

Pre V2 taught:
[It is an error to say that] "in this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever."
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Error #77, Dec. 8, 1864.

Vatican II taught:
"a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people...the profession or repudiation of any religion...government is not to act...in an unfair spirit of partisanship."
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #6&7.


Pre Vatican II it was taught:
"Men who really believe in God must... understand that differing modes of worship... cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God."
Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, #31, Nov. 1, 1885.


Vatican II taught:
"The right of all... religious bodies to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice."
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #4&6.
Collegiality


Pre Vatican II taught:

"The authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme ...the bishops... do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #14, June 29, 1896.

Vatican II taught:
"Together with its head, the Roman Pontiff... the episcopal order is the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church."
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, #22.


On Truth, the Pre Vatican II church taught:
"Christ has entrusted His Church with all truth."
Pope Pius XII, Mar. 9, 1956.

Vatican II taught:

"Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth."
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #16.

[kittymyrib]

The pathetic shell that we call the Church today doesn't know the Bible well enough to recognize heresy. The leaders certainly don't bring it up because they are usually the guiltiest. It's a cafeteria Christianity today, where everyone picks out the comfy parts of the faith and ignores its demands. Jesus was just a kill-joy when He spoke of "taking up the cross" and following Him. We'd rather go church shopping to find one that entertains us and doesn't ask anything of us but our money.

[Claud]

Does this not seem petty? "You must worship ME and only ME or I will smite you." Is this attitude worthy of worhip?

Sure, *seems* petty the way you characterize it. But you characterize it wrongly. That's a totally mistaken conception of what Christianity teaches about God, and it is miles away from the reality of the thing. Read St. Augustine or Dante or something, it may help. :)

In a certain sense, God doesn't give a fig whether you acknowledge Him/worship Him or not. You can not acknowledge the law of gravity either, but try to walk off a cliff with that attitude and see how far you get. God only cares that we worship him, because a) that's what wewere made to do, and b) that's the only thing that will fulfill us and make us happy. You can throw your happiness down the toilet if you want, you can refuse to acknowledge the infinite debt you owe to He-who-has-made-all (as the Hurons would say). In doing so, you change Him not one iota. But you change yourself. You deny the very purpose for which you were made, and as a result, you will never be truly happy.

God alone must be worshiped, because God is *the only thing worth worshiping*. Worship a human being, he dies. Worship a tree, it dies. Worship the earth, the sun, the universe--they are not only non-sentient and don't give a rat's rear about what happens to you, but they die too. Worship the higher spirits--call them gods, angels, manitowak, whatever--and you find that they are in one of two states: in allegiance to God, or separated from Him forever. No need to worship the first because they point you toward the Creator. Definitely silly to worship the second because they're even more miserable and hopeless than we are.

Here's the train of logic that leads to where orthodox Christianity sits. God is sovereign over all things. Christ is the son of God. Christ left a Church for us poor sinners to share in the divine life of God.

Heretics deform and despise the very instrument of our salvation that Christ left--that is why they are so injurious to the Body of Christ. It is as if we were drowning in the water, Christ throws us a life preserver, and then some other poor drowning soul starts ripping it and tearing chunks out of the thing. That is heresy, and that's why the people of God should avoid it.

Now folks can say that we "all have a right to worship as we wish." But the drowning man cannot claim some right to be saved in whatever way he wishes to be saved. He has no power to save himself, thus he will only be saved if he accepts Christ's way of saving him. If he does not, he will drown.

[TBP]

I agree with much of what you say here, but I think you've missed the boat on a copuiple of points. Sure, *seems* petty the way you characterize it. But you characterize it wrongly. That's a totally mistaken conception of what Christianity teaches about God, and it is miles away from the reality of the thing.

Well, you're the ones presenting a demanding God who insists that we follow and worship Him. I think that God is too small. A transcendent God would not care one way or the other. After all, God is God whether we recognize it or not.

God only cares that we worship him, because a) that's what wewere made to do,

So you worship a being that put you here solely for the purpose of being worshipped? That doesn't make sense.

and b) that's the only thing that will fulfill us and make us happy.

Ultimately, yes. And that is the point. God does not want us to be miserable; God's plan is for us to live in joy, peace, harmony, abundance.

God alone must be worshiped, because God is *the only thing worth worshiping*.

I experience God more than I worship God. It's a subtle difference, but a significant one.

God is all there is. There can't be anything else.

they are in one of two states: in allegiance to God, or separated from Him forever.

If God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, then it is not possible to be separated from God. The bigtgest sin is the illusion of separation.

Here's the train of logic that leads to where orthodox Christianity sits. God is sovereign over all things. Christ is the son of God.

And if God made us, so are we.

[Claud]

Well, you're the ones presenting a demanding God who insists that we follow and worship Him. I think that God is too small. A transcendent God would not care one way or the other. After all, God is God whether we recognize it or not.

Keep in mind that the "demanding" God seems so to outsiders, less so the deeper you get into the mystery of Christianity. I agree, for example, about God's transcendance, but he *does* care whether we worship Him or not, not so much for His own glory (God is perfectly humble, ironically!) but because He loves us with a passion that is deeper than any love even between a mother and child or husband and wife. But your last statement is dead on. My apologies that I thought you were arguing otherwise.

I experience God more than I worship God. It's a subtle difference, but a significant one.

Ok. But here's what I wonder. God is so full of life and love, so glorious, so great and terrible, so powerful, so infinite, that it would be unthinkable to experience Him and not worship Him. I suspect if we scratched beneath the surface level of how you "experience" God, you might well be closer to the worship camp than you expect. To me, even if God had done nothing else but form this stunningly gorgeous world, He would be worthy of us falling on our faces before Him.

If God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, then it is not possible to be separated from God. The bigtgest sin is the illusion of separation.

Of course in a sense you're 100% right. It *is* impossible ultimately, particularly since every instant we are being held in existence solely due to His Will. If He were to separate Himself from us absolutely, we vanish--because there is nothing we have that does not take its origin and source from Him. "Apart from Me, you are nothing"

But to tweak your last statement, that's indeed what sin is--it is a separation (and illusory in a certain very limited sense that we've touched on above), but it is willed nonetheless! Creatures like men retain free will, and thus they are free to will a "separation" which is both impossible and futile. They can ignore God, spit upon God, despise God, and proclaim their total independence from Him, but yet their very existence continues to depend on Him. That is the bitter irony of Hell: the damned know that what they seek is utterly impossible, but yet they will it anyway. If we couldn't choose to do that, silly as it is, we wouldn't really have any free will to speak of would we?

Christ is the Son of God. And if God made us, so are we.

I certainly understand what you're saying and believed that very thing myself up until a few years ago. But since then I've come to understand that Christianity is a great deal more specific about the nature of Christ than just a vague "sonship". When Christianity says "Son of God" it means more than just Christ taking His origin from God. We profess in the Creed that Christ was *begotten of the Father* and *of the same substance of God*--that he shared the fullness of the divine nature. The difference between God creating us and begetting Christ can be analogized as the difference between a man carving a statue and having a son. The statue and the son both came from the man--but only one of them shared his nature. We are the statues of God, formed from the slime of the earth--Christ is His only-begotten Son hypostatically joined to a human nature.

More later if I can. I'm enjoying this exchange (as you can tell by my longwindedness) :)

[TBP]

Jesus was able to teach St.Paul and some of His close discipiles how to take up the cross daily (or die daily - the man body with arms stretched resembles the cross)but Jesus is not able to teach any of us how to rise above body consciousness now.Why?

This is because Jesus is not the only Saviour sent by God to help mankind. If He were the only Saviour what are the fates of those born before Him. He told us He was not the only Saviour.He said:

As long as I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.(St.John 9:5)

St. Luke likewise echoed the above point when He said:

As He spoke by the mouth of His Holy Prophets which has been since the world began.(St.Luke 1:70)

[TBP]

Some of my favorite Bible verses:

Psalm 91:9, which is about CHOOSING to make the Most High your habitation...

Psalm 139:7-12, which is about there being no place where the Most High is not..

Acts 17:28, where Paul says that "This is God, in whom we live and move and have our being"...
and
Ephesians 4:6, where Paul says that there is "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all and in all."

[TBP]

The pathetic shell that we call the Church today doesn't know the Bible well enough to recognize heresy.

Or maybe they are finally coming to understand that there is more than one way, that the path of God is not exclusive.