Posted on 05/20/2008 7:45:05 AM PDT by NYer
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).
What Is Heresy?
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 Circumcisers (1st Century)
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.
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
"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.
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
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).
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
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.
Arianism (4th Century)
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.
Pelagianism (5th Century)
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.
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
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.
Nestorianism (5th Century)
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 (5th Century)
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.
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
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 (11th Century)
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.
Protestantism (16th Century)
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.
Jansenism (17th Century)
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).
I can't because I need a magisterium to interpret them for me, and to interpret even that link, and just exactly what you meant by it.
***Eventually most get sick of the same old sin and are then able to come to grips with it.***
Hello Mary; this does appear to be at odds with orthodox Christianity. Do you have Scriptural or other support for this?
It answers the question perfectly because it was offered by Christ when he was asked the same question.
But of course you have 1700 years of convoluted contradicting tradition that also contradicts Christ’s words and will give you a superior insight, depending on what day of the week it is...
Well, Mat 18:1, again, not sure it means what you say it means. For the passage goes on to say “He called a child over, placed it in their midst and said, Amen I say to you, unless you turn and become like childrent, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom....And whoever receives once child such as this in my name receives me” (c.f. MT 18:1-5).
So, not sure this passage has to do with Mt 18:18. In fact, while I don’t know what Church you belong too, many protestants are unclear as to what their theology is regarding Children. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Baptize children/infants, etc which is consistent with this passage.
Now back to Mat 18:18 I agree with you that all the Apostles were given authority, this is understood that way by the Catholic Church as all the Apostles received the same revelation from Christ. However, only 1 Apostle was given the keys, and that was St. Peter (c.f. Mt 16: 19). In the other Gospels, some key points about the role of Peter as First among the Apostles becomes clear. For example, Jesus states “but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back (i.e. after the denial of Christ), you must strengthen your brethren” (c.f. Luke 22:31-32). In St. John’s Gospel, we see Christ telling St. Peter to “Feed my lambs” (c.f. John 21:15) and “feed my sheep” (c.f. John 21: 17). Please note that Christ’s comments in Luke 22:31-32 and St. John 21: 15-17) were directed only at St. Peter, which is consistent with the special role Christ gave him with respect to the “keys” back in Mt 16:19. In addition, in every list of the Apostles, St. Peter is listed first. In fact, in the list in Mt 10: 2-4, the gospel states “The names of the twelve apostles are these: First, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew...”.
Again, and I will admit I am no Greek-language scholar, but having taken some classes in Greek-Mythology, the word used in Mt 16: 18 is “hades” which is the “abode of the dead” and not the “hell of the damned”. I think the biblical term used to refer to the “Hell of the damned” is actually “Sheol”
Finally, St. Peter closes his epistle with this greeting “The chosen one at Babylon sends you greetings, as does Mark, my son...” (c.f. 1 Peter 5:13). The Commentaries that I have read all state that the “chosen one at Babylon” is a code phrase for the Church of Rome. So, here, along with the other passages cited above we see the Sacred Scriptures pointing to the role of St. Peter as first among the Apostles and the Church of Rome thus being the standard bearer for the orthdox Apostolic Tradition.
This understanding would be clearly documented in the writings of St. Clement of Rome (AD 90-95), with his corrective letter to the Eastern Church at Corinth, St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 105-107) with the statement “The Church of Rome Presides in Charity” and the letter from St. Irenaeus of Lyon (170-175 AD) stating that the Church of Rome, because of ist premminent authority (based on its connections to both St. Peter and St. Paul, and that is how they were listed in the letter), all Churches should agree with it.
So in closing the weight of Apostolic Tradition, as expressed by Sacred Scripture and Tradition (Church Fathers, Councils, etc) demonstrate that St. Peter and the Church of Rome had the Primacy.
Regards
I believe the latter. Christians, I’m speaking here of those who are born again and serious about it, try NOT to sin, but because of our sin nature, it comes easily to us. We need to be more aware of the things that displease God. It’s not always apparent (as in sins of omission). Some things we know are wrong, others are more subtle.
I believe the latter. Christians, I’m speaking here of those who are born again and serious about it, try NOT to sin, but because of our sin nature, it comes easily to us. We need to be more aware of the things that displease God. It’s not always apparent (as in sins of omission). Some things we know are wrong, others are more subtle.
It makes you wonder how come Paul did not have access to that same code book when he wrote his epistle to the church in Rome.
No, it doesn't, but it IS the one I expect.
It’s real simple. 9 beads, one Hail Mary per bead: At each of the first nine beads in the set, say one Hail Mary “How to pray the Rosary” at http://members.aol.com/alicemariebeard/rosary.html
This is considered a “cycle”: To give the complete rosary, repeat the following cycle of affirmations four times (give the Hail Mary nine times for each cycle). http://www.mothermarysgarden.com/G_FOUNDROS/ROS1_Miracle.html
And then there is an extended 9-day cycle, called a “Novena”:
Religious devotion, public or private, for the duration of nine days to gain special graces, is called a Novena. Those who perform it with a lively hope of having their request granted, and with perfect faith and resignation if it be refused, may be assured that Christ will grant some grace or blessing. This requires an understanding that in His infinite wisdom and mercy, He may refuse the particular favor which is requested. Novenas originated in imitation of the Apostles who were gathered together in prayer for nine days from the time of Our Lord's Ascension (to Heaven) until Pentecost Sunday (the descent of the Holy Spirit). This practice of saying the Rosary nine times in the form of the Rosary Novena in petition or thanksgiving, is another way of heeding Our Lady's request to Pray the Rosary. http://www.catholicmedianetwork.org/home/Praying%20the%20Rosary.htm
I think the technical term for that is "anarchy".
I've written several times on FR about the misunderstanding of "Sola Scriptura" by both Roman Catholics AND the more radical Protestants.
When Luther and Calvin subscribed to the 5 Solas, there was a context to every one that must be understood.
Sola Scriptura never originally claimed there were NO other authorities in Christianity. Sola Scriptura says that Holy Scripture is the final and utterly infallible authority. That is an important distinction.
The Protestant Reformers in the Magisterial Reformation (Lutherans and Calvinists/Reformed) ALL wrote creeds, very early on. If they had meant "Sola Scriptura" implied NO OTHER authorities at all (i.e. every man for himself chaos) such creeds wouldn't make sense--as they would have no authority. The "bible alone" mentality, common today among many Protestants, especially evangelicals WAS NOT THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE REFORMERS.
Yes scripture alone is the final authority--after all it is the writings of the Apostles (and prophets too of the OT) and every word is definitely inspired of the Holy Spirit.
However, God does have order in His Church, and has instituted certain authorities to interpret scripture. This is why trained scholars, men of faith, recognized Church leaders, who knew the original Hebrew and Greek well, wrote out these early Protestant creeds.
The remarkable thing is that these creeds, based on this understanding of Sola Scriptura, agree...on over 95% of their teachings. The primary Lutheran/Reformed disagreement is over the Lord's Supper (is Jesus bodily present, or Spiritually present?) but beyond that, there isn't much important they disagree about. Point being, the Reformers saw the Church collectively as the interpreter of scripture--i.e. with that authority.... This authority though was never understood as infallible--as only God's Word never fails.
What has created a chaos of denominations is NOT (the Reformer's) Sola Scriptura, but rather a radicalization of it, into SOLO Scriptura--every man for himself with his bible alone...no Church authority greater than that. But even in that, churches form, and if you are a member say, of a Baptist Church, you will need to subscribe to their understanding of Baptism--so it really isn't every man for himself, even among the Bible alone crowd--church bodies do have authority--even if they lack a reliance on other older authorities.
What really created mass denominations is political religious freedom itself. Most of the cults today came out of America--usually in the early 1800s, when our own religious freedom was first fully expressed. If there is no direct alliance of Church and State, and you have freedom, well, people will separate from each other and form new religious groups--its just a fact of life.
The good old days of the Middle Ages really did have a monopoly on Christianity, backed up by the government, of the Roman Catholic Church. Like I stated above though, it would take an Inquisition to return to that...and is that what Roman Catholics want?
The Supreme Court is supposed to be simply an interpreter of the final authority, the text, not a co-equal authority to it.
The magisterium makes no such claim WRT Scripture, so this is a red herring.
Hardly! The Council of Trent and the current Roman Catechism explicitly make Tradition and Scripture equally authoritative, with the Magisterium having the functional and final authority over both. The whole idea of the infallible authority of the Roman Church is this exactly.
This is also exactly as if the Supreme Court of the USA said that whatever it decided was law...even over and above Amendments to the Constitution.
Then "most" don't know what it is to be a Christian.
Here is where Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine part ways with much of the Protestant theology on the “nature of humanity”. Again, in Gensis, God created man and woman in his image. So, humans were created in the Divine image (c.f. Gen 1:27). God looked at his creation, which included man and woman and found it “very good” (c.f. Gen 1: 31). Of course we see in Genesis chapter 3, the fall of man.
Now, it was not part of God’s plan that death and sin would enter the world. Thus, if you go back to Gen 1:27, God created us in “the Divine image”, one can see that death and sin are not part of our nature and not part of God’s plan. Because of original sin (Genesis Chapter 3), sin and death entered the world and those are attacks on our “true nature” that God originally created. So, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology does not use “sinful nature” for this is rooted in one of Calvin’s 5 Points called “Totally Depraved” or man is totally evil. Rather, Catholic’s see man as “wounded by original sin and fallen from the original stature he had in Genesis 1”, but not totally sinful and not Totally depraved.
So through the Incarnation, Christ takes on our full human nature, only without sin, and through his passion, death, and resurrection, Christ restores/tranforms us back into the original “Divine image” (c.f. Gen 1:27) that we were originally created. This is how Catholics and Eastern Orthodox understand Justification/Salvation, as oppose to the Legalist/forensic/imputed salvation/justification of the Calvinistic theology.
As you recall, there was a recent thread related to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 460) and what is referred to as “Theosis”, which is what I am referring to above that because of the person of Christ (i.e Incarnation, life, teachings and passion, death, resurrection and ascension into heaven), we are restored/transformed into a “holy person” and thus can “share/partake of the Divine nature” (c.f. 2 Peter 1:4)
Regards
(Pay no attention to that pope behind the scenes uttering "worship" in the same sentence as "the Blessed Virgin" with no reference to Christ or God--and that this "devotion to the Blessed Virgin" is "intrinsic to our Christian worship.")
(Pay no attention to the Vatican Information Service release of May 7, 1997: MAY 7, 1997 Original home page link no longer active: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/vis/englinde.htm#start -I found at: http://users.stargate.net/~ejt/wc23.htm VIS GENERAL AUDIENCE: MARY, MOTHER OF ALL THE REDEEMED VATICAN CITY, MAY 7, 1997 (VIS) - The Holy Father dedicated today's general audience to the Virgin Mary, and commented on the words that Jesus spoke from the Cross to St. John: "'Behold your mother', ... with which he reveals to the Blessed Virgin the pinnacle of her motherhood." John Paul II expressed his wish that all might discover in these words of Jesus "the invitation to accept Mary as their mother, responding as true children to her motherly love." At the moment that Jesus entrusts his mother to St. John, "it is possible to understand the authentic meaning of Marian worship in the ecclesial community ... which furthermore is based on the will of Christ.")
Uncle Chip (thanks for your post):
Because, perhaps Nero’s persecutions had not started and there was no “persecution” from the Roman state that had started. Thus, no need yet to write in code language to fellow Christians as Secular Rome had not yet come to view the Church and Christians as a threat. However, once Nero began the persecutions, the situation on the ground changed.
Again, serious scholarship shows a scholarly consensus that the Gospel of Mark, who was mentioned in 1 Peter, was written for the Church of Rome and other Christians during the time of Nero’s persecutions. So, 1 Peter could be reflecting the fact that Nero’s persecutions have started.
St. Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome was written while in Corinth sometime around 56-58 AD, which would be about 7 to 8 years before Emperor Nero’s persecutions of the Roman Church.
In closing, while you may not concur, I stand by both my original and current post.
Regards
Pay plenty of attention to that pope, but do not make of his words what they do not say. This does not say "worship Mary." or anything like that. When one says "devotion to the BVM is intrinsic to our Christian worship" it becomes necessary to look at what "our Christian worship" is. All of this is set forth in the Catechism, which does not call us to worship Mary and in fact condemns it.
As to the second quote, I will respond to it if I can authenticate it and read the entire quote.
I will merely ask for an explanation of your false claim that Martin Luther was the "founder of Sola Scriptura:
1. John Wycliffe. In 1428 his bones were dug up and burned at the order of Pope Martin V. His major heresy? Sola Scriptura.
2. Jan Hus. In 1428 he was burned at the stake. His major heresy? Sola Scriptura.
Explain away.
Well then it must be that the Catholics on this forum don't understand that authentic meaning because they have all said that they don't worship Mary.
Have either of you ever been to an evening worship service?
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.