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).

"It's my understanding that's exactly what the RCC teaches."

I think I found the translation.

2 Timothy 3:15-17, "And that from a child thou hast known (well not really since all the holy scriptures have not been completely interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church), which (when interpreted later) are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and , (as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church and only the Roman Catholic Church since there will be further interpretations hundreds of years from now), is profitable (but not sufficient) for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be (almost) perfect, thoroughly (but not completely) furnished unto all good works.

................. It was the Catholic clergy who wrote the New Testament,
explained the Old Testament,
and decided on canonicity. Historical fact.

800 posted on May 23, 2008 12:31:02 PM MDT by annalex

Twaddle !
New Testament Scriptures were written by Jews for Jews.
There was no Catholic clergy until centuries later.
It was not until Paul was called to be the Apostle to the Gentiles
that the good news was extended to the gentiles by YHvH.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

It was the Catholic clergy who wrote the New Testament, explained the Old Testament, and decided on canonicity. Historical fact.

Er, if I may, this is an excellent example of the point I raised earlier at post 265 that the difference in perspective between Catholicism and Protestantism is physical v. spiritual.

The Catholic or physical perspective emphasizes the physical history of Scripture and the Protestant or spiritual perspective emphasizes the Spiritual origin of Scripture.

Both consider it holy but neither can see what the other sees.

The difference is also apparent in textual criticism v. Biblical preservation. See Sovereign Word for more.

Concerning translation, many scholars take the critical or physical approach. For instance, they defer to the oldest available ancient manuscripts – often, the Chester Beatty papyri – even though they also recognize that papyri typically contain many transcription errors (P46 for example) and that both schools of Greek manuscripts (Alexandrian and Byzantine) are not necessarily fully represented in the archeological record. The NIV is this type of translation.

Scholarly critical translations are not considered conclusive because (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) more papyri may yet be uncovered.

The other two approaches to translation are majority text (consensus) and Textus Receptus. The majority text surveys the general population of ancient manuscripts and looks for a consensus.

As another example of the critical approach, scholars often date an ancient manuscript based on content. Thus, when the manuscript speaks of an actual historical event they date the manuscript after the date the event occurred – in other words, they exclude prophesy (indeed all things supernatural and most especially God Himself) on principle. More specifically, the principle of science is “methodological naturalism.” To their chagrin, carbon dating of certain fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls has belied that scholarly presupposition. LOLOL!

And, of course, the Biblical preservation doctrine - the spiritual perspective - trusts God to look after His own words and thus excludes the critical approach on faith.

Then said the LORD unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it. – Jeremiah 1:12

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. - Isaiah 55:10-11

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

To God be the glory!

“The two you offered, from the last chapter of John and from the letter to Timothy do not quite say it.”

That’s exactly what the passages say without qualification. Nowhere do the scriptures leave the interpretation of the scriptures up to an elite class of professionals or an institution. If that were the case then the Roman Catholic Church would take all of the bibles out of the hands of the lay people and substitute mechanical liturgies and commentaries, approved by the clergy, in their place. Why let the people read the scriptures for themselves if they are forbidden to interpret them for themselves? That work has already been done by the professionals; just cut out the middle man, the bible, and let them memorize the finished product.

When Paul wrote his last letter to Timothy all of his letters had been written along with most of the Gospels along with Peter’s letters, who called Paul’s writings, scripture (2Pe 3:15-16), “even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction”. There was more to the scriptures than the Old Testament.

“Are you saying that the authority of the scriptures is derived from the Catholic Church?”

“Yes, absolutely.”

So, the scriptures becomes the word of God when the Roman Catholic Church says so.

That’s exactly what the passages say without qualification.

They don't. One says "This is written so that you may believe", not that it is alone sufficient for belief; the other says "is inspired and profitable for a man of God", not that it is alone sufficient for clergy and laity alike.

Nowhere do the scriptures leave the interpretation of the scriptures up to an elite class of professionals or an institution.

That is debatable; In Acts 8 the eunuch complains that he cannot understand what he reads without Deacon Philip's help; St. Paul writes that one cannot teach unless he is sent; St. Peter warns that St. Paul's writing is easy to misinterpret.

There was more to the scriptures than the Old Testament.

I, in fact, agree that all of New Testament is likewise inpsired and profitable, but not because the Bible says so. The point remains that the text in 2 Timothy qualifies the scripture in question by "since infancy", and that is the Septuagint alone.

the scriptures becomes the word of God when the Roman Catholic Church says so

The scripture is word of God as soon as it was written, but we wouldn't know it without the Church canonizing it.

Thanks.

I think you overstate the dichotomy between the two strands of Xty and also in individuals. (I consult the critics, I consider what they offer. I do not burn incense at their altars. Lots of different people come to the Bible, bringing their own baggage with them. I am interested even in wht the Jehovah's Witnesses have to say.)

And from MY POV to say that the Catholic Church wrote the NT (which is not the way I would have put it, but I'll take it) is not material. The C/catholic Church, the assembly of the baptized (and in those days it wasn't normal or fashionable to be baptized so, leaving aside the question of the kiddies, I think we can guess that the vast majority got baptized because they believed fervently) included the writers of the books of the NT. The C/catholic Church included the poor guys (I assume, I don't imagine they hired it out) who made the copies. (Maybe the variants come from mercenaries?) The C/catholic Church included the folks who said, "Okay, Hermas OUT; Revelation IN (if we have to ...); Gospel of Thomas - HECK no; Romans, in youBETcha! Any of you guys like the one with the clay birds flying away? Me neither. It's out."

The Spirit is promised to all of us, one way or another. So I figure the spirit "drove" the C/catholic Church as the NT precipitated out of all the writings that were floating around the culture and through all the processes that ended up at Zondervans (or wherever).

We all know about Marcion, but I, taking note of the scripturally notorious power of widows of influence, imagine some poor bishop of the Asia Minor equivalent of the the East Overshoe & Bugtussle yoked congregations and how old Pulcheria comes up Sunday after Sunday and says "DEAR bishop, WHEN are you going to read that WONDerful letter I showed you from my nephew? SUCH a nice and pious boy! I REALLY think the whole congregation would benefit from hearing his words."

And the poor bishop, swallowing the words, "Is it you, you troubler of Bugtussle?" hastily dashes off a letter to the synod or whatever and PLEADS for someone to "for crying out loud PLEASE CLOSE the CANON so I don't have to disappoint Pulcheria any more!"

If the spirit can work with such as us, I'm sure even the, notable in her day but now swathed in black, Pulcheria could have had a hand in the closing of the canon.

As to Spearchool and Fizzickle: I don't think my miraculous medal is magic. I believe in the visions, that is that they happened, that it really was our Lady, and that she wanted the medals struck. I believe in at least some of the miracle stories. Mary means a lot to me. I wear the medal. I don't think it's like wonder Woman's magic belt buckle or whatever.

I don't have a rigorous theology of what it means to "bless" a "sacramental." I do trust God and I trust Him to work through the holy ones.

Say it another way. When my kid was sick, we went to a local Baptist pastor of great virtue and he prayed with us and over her. Some months later we took her to Hopkins and she was pretty much cured. The Doc and others didn't know and wouldn't have cared about the pastor. The final doc was a non-observant Hindu anyway.

But I say God worked through the prayers of the pastor to get us to Hopkins and all the rest. It's not Physical XOR Spiritual. It's God.

Are you saying that Christ was disobedient (dishonoring) to His parents, thus committing sin? I’ll assume you are not. Jesus, said to Mary, “Shouldn’t I be about my Father’s business?” In other words, the fault was Mary’s and Joseph’s for not understanding Jesus’ full nature/mission. Jesus did no sin, neither was there any guile in His mouth (so that even His answer to His mother was in no way shaded or tinged with sin.) He is the perfect Son (to His heavenly Father and to His earthly parents.)

The advancing in wisdom He did was in no way in terms of learning about wisdom, truth, knowledge, understanding—these were His before birth, at birth—in fact, He is the very definition of all these. The wisdom he was attaining to was in experiencing life as a human, dwelling in the presence of sin with all the noxious intimacy that His earthly life could experience, knowing what it was like to feel fatigue in His arms, hunger in His belly, etc. But there was never, at any time a moment in His life where He lacked for knowledge, understanding, wisdom when it came to God, Godliness, God-likeness—He is God come in the flesh, well-pleasing to the Father, in all points tempted (yet apart from sin.) He is Lord of all!

So, the scriptures becomes the word of God when the Roman Catholic Church says so.

IN all seriousness, (no really, heh heh) I'm having a good time working with the word "reliable". Imagine hanging around before books were bound in codices that a fellow could afford and when there were bunches of different writings floating around. So here I am, an educated, well-off gentleman of the empire in the 2nd or 3rd century and I'm devout. A little paranoid about another persecution, but devout and wanting to do and believe the right thing. And all these guys are saying, "Hey! Acts of Pilate! Great stuff. Inside skinny on what redemption really is like!"

To whom do I turn?

FWIW and I know ou don't think it's worth much -- I'm just tyring to present a thought here -- I'm suggesting that when the Church says, "These ones are the ones you should read," THEN, at last, I know which scrolls to spend my drachmas and my time on. I can rely on them.

IN other word, it might be the Bible (or part of it) or it might not. Who knows? But now we know. I have it right here in, uh, brown and light brown, on parchment from so-and-so who got it from that guy in Rome. I'm reading these books.

"St. Peter warns that St. Paul's writing is easy to misinterpret."

Peter's letter is a general to all the churches, not to just the professionals. He says "in which are some things hard to be understood", not all and to this day some still are. But the letter was written to common folk in the churches who were interpreting the scriptures as can be seen by their interpreting Peter's letters, the Gospels, and all of Paul's letters (with the exception, maybe, of those to Timothy and Titus) to them.

"The scripture is word of God as soon as it was written, but we wouldn't know it without the Church canonizing it."

Well the early churches recognized the authenticity of the scriptures and preserved them. What the councils did was to archive them. Their work added nothing to the inspiration or authority of the scriptures. There were lists of the authentic scriptures that are included in the canon at least 100 years before the councils.

“The scripture is word of God as soon as it was written, but we wouldn’t know it without the Church canonizing it.”

Actually, annalex, people in the church were being taught the Word by the oral tradition (mostly). The church (not yet the RCC - as it didn’t emerge until the 4th century) began to canonize (or document and organize) the Scriptures because false teachers were claiming to be Christ and spreading other deceptive doctrines (see letters from John, Paul, Peter - who was not pope - for examples).

So the Scripture was initially canonized so lost people would know what the Word of God was. And so saints would not easily be led astray. The church discovered what God had delivered to man.

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.