The Great Heresies [Open]

From Christianity’s beginnings, the Church has been attacked by those introducing false teachings, or heresies.

The Bible warned us this would happen. Paul told his young protégé, Timothy, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

Heresy is an emotionally loaded term that is often misused. It is not the same thing as incredulity, schism, apostasy, or other sins against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (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. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.

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).

It is important to distinguish heresy from schism and apostasy. In schism, one separates from the Catholic Church without repudiating a defined doctrine. An example of a contemporary schism is the Society of St. Pius X—the "Lefebvrists" or followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—who separated from the Church in the late 1980s, but who have not denied Catholic doctrines. In apostasy, one totally repudiates the Christian faith and no longer even claims to be a Christian.

With this in mind, let’s look at some of the major heresies of Church history and when they began.

The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"

Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.

But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.

"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.

Montanus began his career innocently enough through preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia. There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit).

The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality.

Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.

Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.

After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system. This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God’s grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one’s efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.

This heresy 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).

Catharism was a complicated mix of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology. The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead.

The Albigensians formed one of the largest Cathar sects. They taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty.

Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"— the idea that we are justified by faith only).

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church "against" the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.

The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.

Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, France, initiated this heresy with a paper he wrote on Augustine, which redefined the doctrine of grace. Among other doctrines, his followers denied that Christ died for all men, but claimed that he died only for those who will be finally saved (the elect). This and other Jansenist errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.

Heresies have been with us from the Church’s beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul’s words, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

"So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face cloths or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them." [Acts 19]

Again, I'll reiterate the point that even Catholic apologists agree to...that unlike your Acts 19 reference where actual face cloths or aprons that touched Paul's skin were relished, no one can guarantee that the relics in question are indeed even qualifiable as such.

Interesting coffee table discussion pieces? (Yes)
Potential shelf-liners for museums? (Yes)
Integrated decor for historical churches? (Yes)
Tourist fodder to keep the turnstyles goin'? (Yes)
But perhaps nothing more but junk relics? (Even you & other Catholic apologists have to say "Yes" to that, too)

I don't see the jump you make to everyone being a miracle - Scripture speaks for itself here.

My point is healing--what we might call "re-creation" can be miraculous, right? Well, "creation" is likewise miraculous. So just as the Acts 19 items could be deemed "relics;" well, so could my dead body.

Or let's say I had a miraculous healing of my arm...does that mean that when I die, folks should cut it off & haul it around Catholic churches as a real God-touched "relic?"...You see there's no consistency...At least a doctor could provide a "Note of Authenticity" that I was indeed miraculously or unexplainably healed...unlike such "notes of authenticity" RE: most Catholic relics

I see only two posts when I check this link, a question regarding "Mary worship" and an answer. There are some issues in that post (which doesn't appear at the link), so if you could double-check where you got it from, I'd like to read the whole thread and make sense of it.

Sorry, wrong URL (but right Web site...it was a triplet of three Q&As) http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=187504

First, no one is required to believe in any particular Marian appearance. They are private revelations, and do not hold the same rank as Scripture or Tradition. However, I think if you look at the messages of any of the RECOGNIZED (cannot stress that enough) apparitions, you will find they all point to Christ. As such, I don't see a problem teaching or discussing them.

OK, this is what I was afraid would start happening in our dialogue--that the discussion would move into the general discussion arena of the point I was making instead of staying on the relevance of why I even went in this direction. Let's get back to my original point, which was, that some Catholics teach the doctrine of Marian apparitions, and some leaders don't.

With the way you answered above, you actually confirmed my original point! Look again at how you answered, and I'll comment this time point by point: First, no one is required to believe in any particular Marian appearance.

First of all, if this is a true authoritative Catholic teaching, ya wanna tell me how many other authoritative Catholic teachings can be embraced take-it-or-leave-it cafeteria style like this teaching?

If it's not a standard authoritative Catholic teaching--which seems to be what you say when you said: They are private revelations, and do not hold the same rank as Scripture or Tradition...As such, I don't see a problem teaching or discussing them. ... THEN my point is made! Then as I said, since this is not a Scriptural-based Catholic teaching or doctrine, nor is it a tradition-based Catholic teaching or doctrine, but as you say, some folks still teach it, then why would it surprise you that some Catholics hold to this Catholic teaching as doctrine?...(because they're taught it) and others don't? (because they don't see it as either Scriptural or tradition-based)

Finally, I said: Then what’s it doing in the Catholic catechism? "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." (footnote is Paul VI, MC 56) http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm#II

And you responded: Devotion is intrinsic to worship - they are not one and the same. Worship is for God alone. Also from Mirialis Cultus, "This devotion takes into account the part she played at decisive moments in the history of the salvation... (etc.)

Once again, you've moved away from my original point.

Let's say I am an adult or teen catecuman [spelling?] in the Catholic church. I come across the above reference, and I say, "Oh, my worship is 'intrinsified' [not sure if it's a word] via my devotion to the Blessed Virgin." I quickly scan the reference for some reference to God or Jesus Christ as the object of worship (as you switched gears to), but can't find it. Oh sure, upon further search, I find worshipping God and Christ elsewhere in the catechism...but seeing the concept "devoted...worship...to the Blessed Virgin" would clearly lift this mortal object into the worship category "hall of fame," I begin my genesis of worshipping Mary, being devoted to Mary, honoring Mary, and when folks compare this to how I treat Jesus...no real distinction can be made!

So...my point? Folks who read the references in the Catholic catechism and elsewhere believe they are being taught to worship Mary, and do so, and why wouldn't they if the word "worship" is attached to her in multiple places & she is prayed to all the time?

But do such Catholics represent Catholicism in its entirety? (No way). All you have to do is do a google search on "worshipping Mary" or Mariology or similar searches and it's crammed with Catholics doing cartwheels to explain, "We don't worship Mary. We honor her. We are devoted to her. She is our intercessor, etc. etc. etc." And some of these are prominent Catholic priests, leaders, authors & apologists! Now do I discount what they say? (No) If they say they don't worship Mary, I'll take their word for it.

But if I come back to them & say, "You know, Catholic teaching does teach about worshipping Mary...even if you and others interpret that differently, it's still there."

So don't you see? It's frankly at the very least unclear to Catholic grassroots & Catholic leaders. Based on the teachings they've heard/seen, worshipping & praying to Mary is A-OK. Based on the teachings other Catholics have heard/seen, well "worship" in the contemporary sense goes too far.

But my point is made. You've got two camps. And the reason behind the "two camps" can't be laid at the feet of the followers. (It's because the leaders & teachers haven't clarified it one way or the other...and both sides are elaborated).

Just to clear up a point, your original post claimed there were many different Catholic doctrines - that is what I have been arguing. There is only one Catholic doctrine (collection of teachings) - the Catechism. Now, the Catechism allows for differing practices under it in certain areas - maybe we have just been speaking past each other, with differing definitions of "doctrine."

Re: Relics

You're right - the relics may be junk. I never said they definitely were good. However, Acts 19 does demonstrate that REAL relics may be miraculous through faith in God. The Church teaches (here's the doctrine) that it is okay to do so - clearly, it isn't required. So, yes, you will find some people venerating relics, and some not, but the authoritative teaching of the Church is that okay to do so, within guidelines set by the local hierarchy (see CCC 1674-1676). Regarding the "creation as a miracle" reasoning - I agree life itself is a miracle and a gift from a loving God, but normally when we speak about "miracles" it is something that supercedes the law of nature. Jesus raising Lazarus was a miracle, the birth of John the Baptist wasn't.

Re: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=187504

If you double-check your source, it was a Catholic poster posting an Anti-Catholic email that you quoted - he was seeking help in refuting the lies present. Check Fr. Serpa's answer if you are curious.

Re: Marian Apparitions

Again, we're differing on what "doctrine" is, I think. The doctrine of the Church is that certain apparitions are okay to be believed - again, like relics, there is no requirement to do so. So, yes, different people will focus on different things.

If this post confirms your original point you were trying to make, awesome! We've come to agreement - however, do you recognize the difficulty I had when you were saying there were many different Catholic doctrines? Some doctrine (official teaching) is that you get to choose whether that is an aspect of your faith and worship (relics, Marian Apparitions) - others, you don't (transubstantiation, the Trinity). We're not as authoritarian as people make us out to be. If the law in the US is that you have to be 21 to drink, you aren't required to drink at 21 - you get the option!

Let's say I am an adult or teen catecuman [spelling?] in the Catholic church. I come across the above reference, and I say, "Oh, my worship is 'intrinsified' [not sure if it's a word] via my devotion to the Blessed Virgin." I quickly scan the reference for some reference to God or Jesus Christ as the object of worship (as you switched gears to), but can't find it. Oh sure, upon further search, I find worshipping God and Christ elsewhere in the catechism...but seeing the concept "devoted...worship...to the Blessed Virgin" would clearly lift this mortal object into the worship category "hall of fame," I begin my genesis of worshipping Mary, being devoted to Mary, honoring Mary, and when folks compare this to how I treat Jesus...no real distinction can be made!

Ok, you pulled the first line of CCC 971, and then expound upon it. Let's examine the next two sentences in the same paragraph. "The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."" Clearly, any catechumen reading the whole paragraph will see that the devotion is meant to DIFFER from the adoration. If the catechumen gets the idea that he is meant to worship Mary from reading the whole thing, not only is he twisting the words, but his catechist is doing a terrible job.

But if I come back to them & say, "You know, Catholic teaching does teach about worshipping Mary...even if you and others interpret that differently, it's still there."

I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find many Catholics who you sit down with and really discuss things who say they worship Mary in the same way they worship God. Now, they may use the word "worship" flippantly in passing, but I doubt that is what they truly believe. I know a lot of poorly catechised Catholics who at least know they don't worship Mary.

So don't you see? It's frankly at the very least unclear to Catholic grassroots & Catholic leaders. Based on the teachings they've heard/seen, worshipping & praying to Mary is A-OK. Based on the teachings other Catholics have heard/seen, well "worship" in the contemporary sense goes too far.

But my point is made. You've got two camps. And the reason behind the "two camps" can't be laid at the feet of the followers. (It's because the leaders & teachers haven't clarified it one way or the other...and both sides are elaborated).

Even assuming there are Catholics who truly worship Mary (again, I'd be shocked to hear an actual discussion (not just in passing) with a Catholic who admits they worship Mary), I lay the fault somewhat at the feet of the Church. However, just because the Church does a poor job teaching doesn't mean its teachings are wrong. If your son graduates from 8th grade thinking the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, his teacher did a poor job instructing him. However, the poor instruction has no bearing on the actual truth underlying the lesson - I'm pretty sure it was the Italians ;-)

Blue-duncan

I may have stated this before, but it seems to many (including me) that Protestants start with St. Paul and interpret Christ and the Gospels from that context. This, from the Catholic perspective, is incorrect. The Catechism of the Catholic Church correctly points out how the Sacred Scriptures should be interpreted and how the Bible was interpreted throughout Christian History. I have provided the link which describes Catholic principles for reading the Scripture and I have quoted in my post some of the important points.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.htm

CCC 124 “The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament” which hand on the ultimate truth of God’s Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church’s beginnings under the Spirit’s guidance.

Note above, the central object of the Scriptures is the person of Christ and thus everything in the OT points to Christ and all the NT epistles should be interpreted with Christ as the reference point. The Catechism continues,

CCC 125 The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior”.
CCC 126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up.”

2. The oral tradition. “For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed.”

3. The written Gospels. “The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.”

Paragraph 129 describes the principle of Typology, which is what the Church Fathers (e.g., St. Augustine) used when interpreting Sacred Scripture. The Catechism states:
CCC 129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

The CCC reiterates the point made earlier about “Christ being the reference point for the entire Sacred Scripture” as the Catechism states

CCC 134 All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, “because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ” (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8: PL 176, 642: cf. ibid. 2, 9: PL 176, 642-643).

CCC 139 The four Gospels occupies a central place because Christ Jesus is their center.

So, the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition must be interpreted in light of the person of Christ, who by his incarnation, revealed God. Christ, who is the “Son of God”, certainly commanded the Apostles to Baptize when he stated “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (c.f. Mt 28:19-20).

So while St. Paul stated he “thanked God that I Baptized none of you...” (c.f. 1 Cor 1:14-18), I don’t think that means he was against Baptism, as he would have been contradicting Christ’s command in Mt 28:19-20. In fact, in other places in Scripture, St. Paul clearly teaches a orthodox Baptismal theology as evidenced in Romans 6:3-4; Col 2: 11-12; Titus 3:5; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5.

So while St. Paul did not Baptize the Christians at the Church at Collossae (someone else obviously did), there is no way one can draw from the Biblical text that St. Paul was “anti-Baptisim” and since CHrist commanded the Apostles to “go and baptize” (c.f. Mt 28-19-20), I would think, given the other text where St. Paul did in fact teach a strong baptismal theology, that he 1) was authorized to go and Baptize and 2) had a view of Baptism consistent with the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox CHurch view, and not your negative view about Baptism.

Cheers

No, a sin is evidence that we are still human

That it is as well, except it is not evidence of our humanity but of our fallen state. Catholicism teaches that man was created immortal and perfect, in the Father's image: the true man is Christ. But still sin is a defect of faith as true faith moves mountains and gives us what we ask, and we want to be perfect as out Father in Heaven is perfect because Christ told us so (Mt 5:48). I am aware the Calvinism teaches otherwise; my purpose here is to explain from what perspective the Church says what is has to say about Protestantism. This is the foundational scripture on theosis:

2 Grace to you and peace be accomplished in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord: 3 As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. 5 And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge; 6 And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; 7 And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. 8 For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
(2 Peter 1)

Not that it is as bold as St. Athanasius' "God became man so that we may become God". Those were two popes who knew how to shock sensibilities. Faith, we find out is the start; perfect charity is the goal. If we don't walk that walk, we fall short, as Christ warned so many times.

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.