Posted on 03/04/2007 2:15:29 PM PST by TradicalRC
Christian Heresies Through History
Who is a Heretic?
The greatest "shame" and "glory" of Christianity...Two Kinds of Christianity
The Greatest Love in the Bible
General Outlook of Christian Heresies, Century by Century
- Heresies of the First Century: Simonians of Acts 8, Cerintheians. Judaizers, Circumcisers of Acts 15:1, Nicolaitans of Rev.2:6, The "Synagogue of Satan" of Rev.2:9, The "Throne of Satan" of Rev. 2:13, The "doctrine of Balaam" of Rev.2:14, Nazareans or "Jewish-Christians", Docetism, Gnosticism, Neo-Gnosticism, Agnosticism
- Heresies of the Second Century: Marcionites, Ebionites, Montanism, Monarchians, Tritheism, Modalism, Basidilians, Carpocratians
- Third Century: Tertullianists, Origenists, Manicheans, Millenarians, Novatians
- Fourth Century: Donatists, Arians, Macedonians, Appollinarists, Jovinians, Vigilantians
- Fifth Century: Pelagians, Semipelagians, Nestorians, Predestinarians, Monophysites
- Seventh Century: Paulicians, Monothelites (like Monophysites of the Fifth Century)
- Eighth Century: Iconoclasts, Adoptionists
- Ninth Century: Greek Schism
- Eleven Century: The Great Schism: Orthodox-Roman Catholic.
- Twelfth Century: Petrobrosians, Henricians, Waldenses
- Thirteenth Century: Albiguenses, Fraticelli, Flagellants
- Fourteenth Century: Lollards of John Wycliffe
- Fifteenth Century: Hussites, Moravians, "Church of the Brotherhood", United Brethren
- Sixteenth Century: Protestant Reformation, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Church of England, Calvinism, Anabaptists, Episcopalians, Mennonites, Presbyterians, Puritans, Congregationalism, Huguenots, Reformed Dutch, Unitarians, Socinians
- Seventeenth Century: Baptists, Rosicrucians, Episcopalians, Quakers or Society of Friends, Universalists, Jansenists
- Eighteenth Century: Freemasonry, Shakers-Union Society, Methodists-"Holy Club", Moravians-Church of the Brotherhood-United Brethren, Unitarians, Universalism, Unitarian-Universalist Association
- Nineteenth Century: Mormons, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Spiritualistic Churches, Salvation Army, Ku-Klux-Klan, Christian Science Church, Old Catholics, Modernists, Reformed Churches, Holiness Churches, Church of God, Church of Christ, Church of God in Christ
- Twentieth Century: Pentecostal Movement, Charismatic Renewal, Snake Handlers, Worldwide Church of God, United Christian Evangelistic Association, Moonies-the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, National Association of Evangelicals, Wicca, Church of Satan, Church of Scientology, Way International, Church universal and Triumphal, United Unitarian Universalist Association, Fraternity of St. Pius X, Palmar de Troya, Churches for Homosexuals, Children of God, New Age, Peoples Temple of Jim Jones, Branch Davidians WACO
- Philosophies and Religion, the Pillars of Unbelief: Machiavelli, French Revolution, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Sartre
Ecumenical Councils, Dogmatic Condemnation of Heresies
From Wikipedia:
"Irenaeus (Greek: Ειρηναίος), (c. 130–202) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyon, France. His writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology, and he is recognized as a saint by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church; both consider him a Father of the Church. He was a notable early Christian apologist. He was also a disciple of Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of John the Evangelist."
No, he didn't follow the Roman State (pagan) religion.
Heresy assumes a common agreed upon orthodoxy taught by the bishops of the church. They had the authority in the local churches. He wouldn't have had to convince believers who were in the church. His authority was that he taught what had been pasdsed down from the apostles ( John --> Polycarp --> Irenaeus) but htat was true of all of the bishops. It is the role of the bishop to protecct the truth.
And wherever did you get the silly idea that Matthew was written in the 4th century? I know of no scholar at all who would agree with that!
You "supositions" are just uninformed guesses.
Sorry, I could not imagine a man making up acrostics.
So you chickened out, huh?
I see neither Luther nor Calvin in your latest creation.
Irenaeus refered to Matthew written in Hebrew. This may have been in Aramaic, which is written with Hebrew letters.
http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm
Reference above notes modifications to Matthew in the 4th Century.
No doubt there were earlier texts which informed the 4th Century author. All of Mark can be found in Matthew.
pPing me, too, as you post, please
The author is way off. "The Charismatic Revewal" is not, per se, a heresy (unless the sedevacantists are right). Prominent charismatics include Fr. Montelessori, the papal homilist of Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II, and by his own deliberate association and commendation, Pope John Paul II, himself.
This is not to say that there aren't heretical strains of the Charismatic Renewal: "the renewal in the Spirit" has often been called, "baptism in the Spirit," a term properly applied to confirmation, but used in sort of a "born again"/Pentecostalist manner. And although its description of a "new spirit of Pentecost" is a deliberate reference to Vatican II, many charismatics have falsely inferred that it refers to a seperate event which overturns Catholic tradition, rather than a popularization of seeking the very same gifts which the saints have received throughout history (spiritual ecstasy, miraculous healings, prophecy, etc.).
Despite the popularity of these false notions, particularly in the early phases of the Charismatic Renewal, the Renewal's leaders have joyfully accepted any and all correction given them by church leaders, and actively sought to purge these false notions from their midst. At present, the Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio) is central to the American renewal, and is a veritable factory of passionately orthodox priests and young church community leaders.
>> My point was, it wasn't a heresy until there was someone that (a) disagreed, and (b) had some authority to condemn. <<
But your premise -- that a Church-authority structure evolved only in the fourth century -- is faulty. Protestants who actually READ the church fathers (rather than mining the internet for quotes) are always in danger of becoming Catholics, precisely because the existence of a pre-Nicene authority is so obvious.
Fr. Cantelamessa, not Montelessori. Hee-hee.
But it took the post Nicene government authority to destroy the contrary writings.
Have you read the Coptic Gospels? The Gospel of Peter? The Gospel of Thomas?
>> Have you read the Coptic Gospels? The Gospel of Peter? The Gospel of Thomas? <<
Have YOU ever read the Gospel of Thomas? I have. It's an absurd joke.
>> But it took the post Nicene government authority to destroy the contrary writings. <<
They were the barbarians who burnt the libraries of Alexandria, and the Romans who the Essenes feared. And from their long-hidden treasures, what we have found are absurd (Gospel of Thomas) or vastly exculpitory of orthodox Christianity (Dead Sea Scrolls, Apostolic Constitutions, etc.). There was no "post-Nicene government authority" which destroyed the historical records; if anything, it was the pre-Nicene persecutions (which ended with Nicea) that are responsible for our meager historical record.
LOL. Matthew was written much closer to the 4th decade than the 4th century. I believe there are extant manuscripts of (portions of) Matthew older than the 4th Century. Eusebius quotes Papias on the composition of Matthew (Papias says it was written by Matthew the Apostle, for the Jews, in the Hebrew language, and in the city of Jerusalem) and Eusebius himself died in 339.
Kind of interesting. You assert that the authority which excommunicated Pelagius, had no authority to burn books.
What on Earth are you talking about? Pelagius was excommunicated in the 4th century. The Inquisition (which did even have temporal authority to execute and excommunicate, not just burn books, but not the eternal authority of infallibility) was only formed in the 12th century.
But one "ecclesiastical police officer's" authority is not infallible, and not even legally binding. A trial was also conducted to weigh the accusations, and Pope John Paul II did apologize for the misdeeds in the conduct of that trial.
None of which changes the fact that the trial's sentence included no punishment for "Copernicism," nor was it wrong and Gallileo correct on each key matter.
Did you know:
* Galileo was not criticized for his scientific work. The Catholic Ecclesiastical authority relevant, in the person of Cardinal Bellarmine and with the express support of Pope Urban VII, in fact, issued a letter, which was core to his defense, which stated that Galileo was free to promote speculation on the scientific matter of Copernicism (falsely called Heliocentrism).
* Galileo's principle charge, in fact, sprung from him making an argument which most of his Protestant admirers would blanche at: that he used science as a basis to support a theory of biblical interpretation; namely, that many portions of the bible (Genesis, Ecclesiastes, etc.) were not to be understood literally. (The bible states that the Sun moves across the sky, and elsewhere that the Earth remains fixed).
* Galileo's "punishment" was a life of state-sponsored luxury in the estate of the Archdiocese of Sienna.
* Galileo lived his entire life, and died, a faithful Catholic.
* In 1741, Pope Benedict XIV personally gave an imprimatur for the the Complete Works of Galileo to be published; In 1757, the Index of Forbidden Works explicitly pointed out that Copernican books were in no way objectionable. An Imprimatur is widely understood as an ecclesiastical endorsement, and is at least, a positive affirmation that the Church recognizes no moral difficulty presented in a work.
114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
Quoting the Satanic Gospel of Thomas at me? (Yes, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is Satanic; its authors held that YHWH was a lesser God, who screwed up Lucifer's plans.)
Buddha said "The things of G-d are unknown, and unknowable, so why argue."
Until YHWH calls me on the phone, I will remain agnostic on the burning issue of how IESU relates to YHWH.
I see references both ways. I also see lots of people who vote, but I don't see their letters from divine sources that would be sufficient to clarify the matter. If that makes me an Arian heritic, or a Nestorian, so be it.
Don't flatter yourself. The Arians and Nestorians were philosophically and theologically very advanced, very deep thinking people who just happened to be wrong on a single point.
YOu sound like a garden-variety New-age bubble-head in comparison.
And you do great violence to Buddha with your quote; the founders of the Catholic faith also said that the ways of God were mysterious and unknowable, but both found trying to grasp what little we could to be highly providential; and that there are a great many worthwhile, knowable things.
During WWII the Buddhist priests traveled at the request of the Japanese Imperial Government, teaching the "correct" way to behead captured US soldiers.
And you claim I do them violence!
That's what I meant: you used Buddha's quote to promote indifferenialism, when the truth is quite the opposite... but even still WWII Japanese hierarchs are Buddhists, not Buddha.
Go away, now.
you say the truth is the opposite....What source have you?
Don
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.