Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
“While you are right that no amount of prayer can change predestination, since it was already finished before there was the first man to pray, you are wrong about our activity being useless. It is very USEFUL because it is all according to God’s will. “
By itself, Reformed prayer is simply a mechanical act set according to God’s will but accomplishing nothing, right? If you cannot change God’s will, then supplication is useless, right?
I believe that we had a long discourse here some time ago that prayer is not supplication and we are not actually asking God for anything - it is merely worship.
So, I went to the Larger Confession on the usefulness of the Lord’s Prayer, tucked away neatly at the end of the Confession:
Q. 193. What do we pray for in the fourth petition?
A. In the fourth petition (which is, Give us this day our daily bread), acknowledging that in Adam, and by our own sin, we have forfeited our right to all the outward blessings of this life, and deserve to be wholly deprived of them by God, and to have them cursed to us in the use of them; and that neither they of themselves are able to sustain us, nor we to merit, or by our own industry to procure them; but prone to desire, get, and use them unlawfully: we pray for ourselves and others, that both they and we, waiting upon the providence of God from day to day in the use of lawful means, may, of his free gift, and as to his fatherly wisdom shall seem best, enjoy a competent portion of them; and have the same continued and blessed unto us in our holy and comfortable use of them, and contentment in them; and be kept from all things that are contrary to our temporal support and comfort.
Q. 194. What do we pray for in the fifth petition?
A. In the fifth petition (which is, Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors), acknowledging that we and all others are guilty both of original and actual sin, and thereby become debtors to the justice of God; and that neither we, nor any other creature, can make the least satisfaction for that debt: we pray for ourselves and others, that God of his free grace would, through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, apprehended and applied by faith, acquit us both from the guilt and punishment of sin, accept us in his Beloved; continue his favor and grace to us, pardon our daily failings, and fill us with peace and joy, in giving us daily more and more assurance of forgiveness; which we are the rather emboldened to ask, and encouraged to expect, when we have this testimony in ourselves, that we from the heart forgive others their offenses.
Q. 195. What do we pray for in the sixth petition?
A. In the sixth petition (which is, And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil), acknowledging that the most wise, righteous, and gracious God, for divers holy and just ends, may so order things, that we may be assaulted, foiled, and for a time led captive by temptations; that Satan, the world, and the flesh, are ready powerfully to draw us aside, and ensnare us; and that we, even after the pardon of our sins, by reason of our corruption, weakness, and want of watchfulness, are not only subject to be tempted, and forward to expose ourselves unto temptations, but also of ourselves unable and unwilling to resist them, to recover out of them, and to improve them; and worthy to be left under the power of them; we pray, that God would so overrule the world and all in it, subdue the flesh, and restrain Satan, order all things, bestow and bless all means of grace, and quicken us to watchfulness in the use of them, that we and all his people may by his providence be kept from being tempted to sin; or, if tempted, that by his Spirit we may be powerfully supported and enabled to stand in the hour of temptation; or when fallen, raised again and recovered out of it, and have a sanctified use and improvement thereof: that our sanctification and salvation may be perfected, Satan trodden under our feet, and we fully freed from sin, temptation, and all evil, forever.
Q. 196. What doth the conclusion of the Lord’s prayer teach us?
A. The conclusion of the Lord’s prayer (which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.) teacheth us to enforce our petitions with arguments, which are to be taken, not from any worthiness in ourselves, or in any other creature, but from God; and with our prayers to join praises, ascribing to God alone eternal sovereignty, omnipotency, and glorious excellency; in regard whereof, as he is able and willing to help us, so we by faith are emboldened to plead with him that he would, and quietly to rely upon him, that he will fulfill our requests. And, to testify this our desire and assurance, we say, Amen.
Sounds like the Reformed are to ask God for help.
Q. 178. What is prayer?
A. Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, in the name of Christ, by the help of his Spirit; with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgement of his mercies.
Sounds like the Reformed are not to pray to God for help.
Q. 180. What is it to pray in the name of Christ?
A. To pray in the name of Christ is, in obedience to his command, and in confidence on his promises, to ask mercy for his sake; not by bare mentioning of his name, but by drawing our encouragement to pray, and our boldness, strength, and hope of acceptance in prayer, from Christ and his mediation.
Sounds like the Reformed are to pray to God for help.
Q. 184. For what things are we to pray?
A. We are to pray for all things tending to the glory of God, the welfare of the church, our own or others’ good; but not for anything that is unlawful.
Sounds like the Reformed are to pray to God for help.
WCF
CHAPTER 3
Of God’s Eternal Decree
1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:
Sounds like nothing that we do matters, since all has been ordained.
Am I a little mixed up, or is the Reformed faith a tad schizophrenic?
Regards
Now you see why I often use the term "double-talk"? It is a slippery little worm, just when you think you got it figured out, it slips away and you're back to square one...
Now, I am being told that Calvinists believe they are "subjectively saved". Have you ever got that from their "absolute assurance of salvation" in past posts?
Regards
Ummm....Gal 1:8 for starters?
The LDS and JWs have the same thing in common as virtually all other cults: they appeal to an authority outside the Scriptures for their doctrine. The LDS have other scriptures written by their false prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. For the JWs, founder Charles Taze Russell claimed that only he could rightly interpret the Scriptures. Like other cults, they have fundamentally flawed Christology and soteriology, denying the true deity of Christ and relying upon works for salvation.
I realize you are attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument here, but lumping Protestants and LDS/JWs together is so inappropriate (and unfortunately, so frequent) that if it keeps up we just may need yet another corollary to Godwin's Law.
No, it means nothing of the sort. If you had even bothered to READ the verse I cited, you'd see it's clear that one can't just believe anything and be saved.
If you're going to continue making these assinine comparisons, please stop posting to me.
I have not accused you of heresy; I merely have made a statement that is eminently proveable regarding heresies and the descendants of the Reformers.
I think that I have shown that Calvin followed at least 3 of the major 1st millennium heresies without any dispute whatsoever from his followers. If you wish further discussion on that subject, we can do so.
1 John:
7
So there are three that testify,
8
the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.
9
If we accept human testimony, the testimony of God is surely greater. Now the testimony of God is this, that he has testified on behalf of his Son.
10
Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony within himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about his Son.
11
And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12
Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life.
13
3 I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.
14
And we have this confidence in him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.
15
And if we know that he hears us in regard to whatever we ask, we know that what we have asked him for is ours.
16
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
17
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.
18
We know that no one begotten by God sins; but the one begotten by God he protects, and the evil one cannot touch him.
19
We know that we belong to God, and the whole world is under the power of the evil one.
20
We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
The passage from 1 John says “that we may know”. Not “that we know”. Read your post back. There is no proof of your statement: “Scripture is pretty clear on the fact that men can KNOW that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13). I would assume that you believe as well that one can have assurance that they are at least presently in a state of salvation. “
If you would self identify as a heretic, then perhaps you might further examine your beliefs in order to find out why.
“Such belies a fundamental difference in ecclesiology. You believe the Body of Christ is institutionally defined by the affirmation of a succession of men, whereas we believe the Body of Christ is institutionally defined by the affirmation of Biblical teaching.”
F, it was just such “company men” who defined what you read as scripture. Christian Scripture, unlike the Koran, was not dictated by God and God did not dictate the canon. The Bible is a product of, was defined by, The Church, F, not the other way around. Now this theology of course cannot be acceptable to Protestants because it necessarily means that the one of the foundations of Protestantism, the “invisible church” cannot possibly exist. It doesn’t do much for the 16th century notion of sola scriptura either.
I have to disagree, K. To us protestants, Jesus defined what constituted scripture. The church simply collected the writings of the apostolic eyewitnessed and verified their authenticity.
Prior to that Jesus clearly placed His mark of approval on the message those apostles would bring. (For example: “I pray not for them alone, but also for ALL who will believe in me through their word.”)
In any case, the church had those authoritative writings, and when the church agreed to their authenticity, the church was bound to be in subjection to them.
Would it be great to learn of a church that has been faithful to the Bible AND has a lineage to prove their connection to the apostles. Sure. That would be nice.
But, check out the highlighted section of the article that leads this thread. It demonstrates tremendous historical problems with any claims to human lineage.
Many will say "Lord, Lord", and He will say "I never knew you". This is not going to be said to pagans, but to presumptive Christians!
Hi Jo kus,
Actually, rather than to ... presumptive Christians (whom Christ would have known at one time), ... it appears that this will be said to those that Christ never knew.
That would have to be persistent unbelievers.
"From the mailbox, of course God will chide His children to be good and stay in the yard, but when they run out into traffic He will just smile, shake His head, and STAND PERFECTLY STILL. "Is this what sin and God's grace and love are like to you? God is God no matter what we believe.
And which heresies would those be?
The passage from 1 John says “that we may know”. Not “that we know”. Read your post back. There is no proof of your statement: “Scripture is pretty clear on the fact that men can KNOW that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13). I would assume that you believe as well that one can have assurance that they are at least presently in a state of salvation.“
I said that Scripture is pretty clear on the fact that men CAN KNOW that they have eternal life. And what does the passage I cited say? "I write these things to you so that you MAY KNOW that you have eternal life." (The "may" is indicative of ability not probability)
If you would self identify as a heretic, then perhaps you might further examine your beliefs in order to find out why.
Let me get this straight...you want me to admit I'm a heretic in the hopes that I will then examine my beliefs and discover where my beliefs qualify me as a heretic?
So...you want me to identify myself as a heretic prior to actually believing that I am one...
(This after insisting you aren't accusing me of heresy)
I really don't know what to say....
Quester,
Why would a "persistent unbeliever" say "Lord, Lord" and perform miracles in the name of Jesus (and the other things mentioned in Mat 7)?
Regards
having trouble finding where Scripture clearly and explicitly states that individual apostolic succession is a primary and essential mark of the one true church....
Christian Scripture, unlike the Koran, was not dictated by God and God did not dictate the canon. The Bible is a product of, was defined by, The Church, F, not the other way around.
FALSE. Scripture was recognized as such LONG BEFORE it was formally canonized by the church. The church simply formally recognized and acknowledged what was already accepted.
Now this theology of course cannot be acceptable to Protestants because it necessarily means that the one of the foundations of Protestantism, the “invisible church” cannot possibly exist.
Oh, that's not a Protestant doctrine...not anymore anyway. The Roman Catholic Church affirms the very same...they just don't CALL it that. True believers outside the institutional Roman Catholic Church are considered in union (albeit imperfectly) with the One True Church. IOW, "they're in union with the Church....but not visibly....but there's no invisible body of believers!" :)
It doesn’t do much for the 16th century notion of sola scriptura either.
Every argument about the nature of the church and the nature of Scripture itself ultimately comes back around to Scripture. The debate stalls out once the issue reaches its true core: who or what do you put your trust in?
It is not only "we" who defines that, but the Scriptures. One CANNOT separate the cross of Christ from the Church, a VISIBLE body of believers. Christ became flesh, and so is His Church. The blood of Christ brought the Church into existence, the New Israel. This is clearly seen in Acts 20:28, Titus 2:14, Eph 2:14-16, Eph 5:25, and so forth...
Regards
Let's try to keep this straight. The elect will not be robotic in faith. The elect will not simply "go through the motions because God ordained it."
The elect, every member of God's family chosen from all nations and races who have been favored by God from before time to receive His grace through faith in His Son, will have at a time of God's choosing a true and living faith within them by the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit which will produce true belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, perseverance, confidence in His promise and whatever good fruit God has ordained. That's what Scripture tells us.
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself" -- Ephesians 1:4-9 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Calvin wrote many sermons on Ephesians 1...
But St. Paul, to exclude all merit on man's part and to show that all comes from God's pure goodness and grace, says that he has blessed us according to his election of us beforehand... Now if it is demanded why God pities the one part and forsakes and leaves and abandons the other, there is no other answer but that it so pleases him. Upon the preaching of the gospel in a place, some will be affected with lively faith in their hearts and others will go away as they came without benefiting at all, or else they harden themselves against God and betray the stubbornness that was hidden in them before. What is the reason for this difference? Even this, that God directs the one sort by his Holy Spirit and leaves the other sort in their natural corruption... St. Paul speaks here of the things we know by experience, namely, that we are God's children, that he governs us by his Holy Spirit, that he comforts us in our miseries and that he strengthens us through patience. We should not conceive any of all these things unless we were enlightened by his Holy Spirit. How then shall we understand that which is much higher, namely, that God elected us before the creation of the world? Since the matter stands thus, let us learn to put away all that we conceive in our own brain and put it under foot, and let us be ready to receive whatever God says to us, casting away our own judgment and assuring ourselves that we cannot bring anything from our side but utter stupidity. Thus you see what we have to bear in mind... In this matter, then, God shows a double grace. The one is when he raises up men to preach the gospel to us, for no man is meet and sufficient to do it of himself. It is therefore necessary that God should send those who call us to him and offer us the hope of salvation. But yet, for all that, let us note well that we cannot believe unless God reveals himself to us by his Holy Spirit and speaks to our hearts by the Holy Spirit, in addition to speaking to our ears by the mouth of man. And that is the reason why the prophet Isaiah says, 'Who hath believed our doctrine, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?' [Isa. 53:1]. He shows that there is no faith in the world till God has worked in men's minds and hearts by the power of his Holy Spirit. And for the very same reason also our Lord Jesus Christ says that no man comes to him except he be drawn by the Father; but whoever has learned of my Father (he says), the same submits himself to me [Jn. 6:44]. In a word, we see clearly that God shows himself merciful to us when he vouchsafes to enlighten us by his Holy Spirit in order that we might be drawn to the faith of his gospel..." "Although we are subject to much misery in this world, yet there is good reason for us to content ourselves with God's choosing of us after that fashion and with his calling of us to himself, for it is witnessed to us by the gospel that he is our Father [Matt. 6:9; Lk. 11:2] inasmuch as he has joined us to our Lord Jesus Christ as members to their Head. ...
What Is Heresy?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same” (CCC 2089).
To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.
A person must be baptized to commit heresy. Movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity but do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism) are not heresies but separate religions.
Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).
The first and most obvious heresy at the heart of the Reformation is Gnosticism, which really is at the heart of many other heresies. This is indwelling knowledge that something exists and that knowledge only rests in a selected or elite body. Many varieties of Gnosticism also hold that matter and the body are evil while only “spirit” is good. Some forms of Gnosticism even see human beings as trapped in our bodies. The theory thus denies the truth of the biblical teaching that “God saw that it was good” (Gen. 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25). For the true Gnostic, the Incarnation is a scandal — God would not contaminate his spirit by taking on a body.
Gnosticism existed before Christianity and attached itself to it as a convenient vehicle for its own very un-Christian ideas about reality and God’s creation. The surprising thing, perhaps, is that it ever attempted to use Christianity for its purposes. The historical fact of the matter, though, is that Gnosticism has been a persistent element in practically every major Christian heresy. Probably one of the reasons for this is that, in some ways, our bodiliness is a burden to us. As Paul remarked, “the whole creation has been groaning in travail” (Rom. 8:22) until we can realize the fullness of our salvation in Christ — thus the temptation to look for salvation in some kind of escape from our bodiliness and creatureliness as God has created us in this world.
The Gospel of Judas is an example. Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code was built upon Gnosticism, and we all know how popular that was, and continues to be, amongst the book buying and movie going crowd. According to the Gnostic Society Archives, “Gnosticism is the teaching based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions
Others which spring to mind:
Iconoclasm arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, “icon smashers”) appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the fact that in the Bible, God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14).
Donatism was a fourth- and fifth-century African heresy that held that the validity of the sacraments depended upon the moral character of the person administering the sacraments. Donatists also denied that serious sinners could be true members of the Church.
A recurring phenomenon in the history of the Church is that heresies often arose because of either moral rigorism or moral laxity. An example of the latter was the heresy of Pelagianism, championed by a monk from the British Isles named Pelagius (355-425). Pelagius denied that divine grace in the soul is necessary to do good; his doctrine included a number of heretical tenets such as that Adam would have died even if he had not sinned and that Adam’s fall injured only himself. Essentially, Pelagianism amounted to a denial of the doctrine of original sin, and it also entailed a denial of the supernatural order and of the necessity of divine grace for salvation. Augustine, who had discovered from bitter personal experience that he could not be chaste without the help of grace, strongly and persistently contested Pelagius and his teaching. Many of the current mainline Protestant denominations are shaking themselves to death because of increasing Pelagianism.
Marcionism. A second-century heresy of Marcion (ff. ca. 140) and his followers, who rejected the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, except for the Gospel of Luke and ten of the Letters of St. Paul. The Marcionists claimed to preach a purer gospel after the manner of St. Paul.
Montanism. A second-century heretical movement that professed belief in a new “Church of the Spirit”. The Montanists believed they enjoyed the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. An apocalyptic movement emphasizing revelation named after its leader Montanus. Called “the New Prophecy” by its followers, Montanism, which began about 170 A.D., emphasized prophecy, direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, and a strict moral code. Two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, were leaders who delivered messages while in states of ecstasy.
And there are many more. The Internet has hundreds of relevant sites that you may wish to read.
If you KNOW that you have everlasting life in Heaven with God, that is Gnosticism, by the definition of the early Church. The passage means what says. May, might, possible, etc. The only one who knows your everlasting future is God.
God is the Judge of your soul, not me. All I can do is to compare your confession to what the Church has already identified and defined as heresy. Self identification.
kosta50 took exception to the use of the word "may" in the English language translations. My purpose was to point out the necessity for kosta50 to give a "proper" translation for each usage rather than the one or two he took exception to.
The following are a few authorized English language Bibles:
NAB
JERUSALEM
RSV (IGNATIUS)
DOUAY-RHEIMS
Since there are slightly different translations in each of these "authorized" Bibles do you suggest all but one be thrown out?
I agree with the necessity of translating each and interpreting each, rather than a blanket statement about the word. My point is that without a good and accurate interpretation of each phrase or verse, then minor changes in words can lead to great differences in interpretation.
The Church does have a number of authorized translations, however the more recent ones are recommended over the older ones due to changes in the lingua franca and improved accuracy of the translation.
AMEN! The Bible is such an amazing gift. Every time I open it something further is revealed. This morning I read Psalm 19 and heard again the truth that God named His family for His glory. As you said, "He brings forth good fruits through us."
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof..." -- Psalm 19:1-6""The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
"In them hath He set a tabernacle for the sun...and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof..."
Who could write that?
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.