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).
***Do not look to your own understanding***
Ah, as long as I believe yours.
***You can certainly THINK I’m trying to be my own pope - that certainly does not make it so.***
You present insurmountable evidence.
***Since you do not know me, and we merely cross swords over doctrinal issues (some of them worthy of being divided over), how COULD you see evidence of me being in Christ?***
I certainly don’t.
***The fruit of the Spirit is not visible to the natural eyes nor is it to be mistaken for agreeing with false teaching.***
I have adequate guidelines for the teachings of Christ, thank you. I find them significantly divergant from what little I’ve seen you post.
I pray that the evil in some Catholic haters will be healed.
Paging Rev. Gabriele Amorth.
Either they did not believe in Jesus as Christ or they were Christians.
Do you think they used this 20th century definition in the first century ?
Somebody recently (or was it only in my imagination) put up a nice list of the differences between us. Yeah, yours is the other view. WE would appeal to the wheat and tares (and make a kind of "likeness" between the Kingdom and the Church) and say that HERE and NOW the Church has both. YOU all would say (I think) the Church is the elect, and that we can hardly tell who the elect are (except the saved know they are) so we don't know "where" the Church on earth is.
As to the office of Pope and all, is it right to say that generally your side eschews ANY claim to infallibility of any kind, "Councils have erred," after all (that's from the Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church) and certainly any individual can err. So, theoretically, though not probably, even Sola Scriptura might be an erroneous doctrine.
The pretty part of that is the utter casting of the self on Christ and His grace. But it does seem to make theology tricky and provisional.
But in any event, if my understanding of the idea of error being possible in any human, then I agree that you are not trying to be anybody's Pope. You, in Christ, are taking your best shot.
Is that more or less correct in your view?
That is completely irrelevant.
Do you think first century people knew they had a carotid artery or a duodenum? If they knew of it, it was not by these names.
Yet certainly they did have them.
You are referring to what they called themselves. I am referring to what they were.
Aside from your comment on Sola Scriptura, I think your post is lined up with my view point. My perception of Sola Scriptura is NOT that we have no need of anything beyond Scripture, but that Scripture alone contains what is needed for salvation and godly living. Men with various ways of looking at and understanding Truth can help others comprehend it. This is why preachers, et al. are needed. But the Biblical doctrines are bed rock and I believe there’s no new Truth revealed by men, only revealed Truth being taught and ‘splained to folks - exposited so people comprehend it, know how it applies to life, and are convicted of sin and repent humbly before the Lord.
Oh, it’s just that the Eucharist is commanded by Jesus, but I realize that the understanding of the Protestant version(s) of Scripture supersede Jesus’ commandments. Call us sentimental, but we think that the instructions of Jesus trump anything that you men happen to come up with.
No .. you don't.
You simply choose your own select occasions to obey Christ's literal words.
For you don't do so consistently.
Else, you would never refer to your spiritual leaders ... as "Father".
What do/did you call your male parent?
One day standing before the throne you will need to explain why you spit and make jokes on Christ Crucified.
Just today in Morning Prayer we read 2 Cor. 12:10 "When I am weak, then I am strong." And just before that is"... my power is made perfect in weakness."
Christ crucified is God's power made perfect. The world sees weakness and shame. But what happened there was triumph and power.
Maybe I'm wrong, or we're wrong. But maybe those who do not see this need ministry and compassion.
I will still favor the Dominican custom of having the crucifix carried in before the priest, but turned so that the priest can see the image of the crucified Christ, so that the Friars Preachers will be all the more spurred to preach God's power made perfect, Christ and Him crucified.
May have been a triumph for you...
Just 12 hours prior to His death, He was asking His Father if He could get out of the Crucifixion...
Jesus didn't want to go thru with it...He was sinless and in 12 hours, the shame of the sin of the entire world would come crashing down on Him...
Apparently you guys don't get it...
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Heb 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
It was such a great shame for Jesus to take on our sins that we can't comprehend it...
Oh, it’s just that the Eucharist is commanded by Jesus, but I realize that the understanding of the Protestant version(s) of Scripture supersede Jesus’ commandments. Call us sentimental, but we think that the instructions of Jesus trump anything that you men happen to come up with.
No .. you don't.
You simply choose your own select occasions to obey Christ's literal words.
For you don't do so consistently.
Else, you would never refer to your spiritual leaders ... as "Father".
What do/did you call your male parent?
Ahh ... but it's not me who's making the claim that I consistently take Christ at His (literal) word.
Calling a parent “father” violates the literal meaning of the Gospel.
Meanwhile, the literal meaning of the Last Supper is often ignored. In fact, many make Christ a liar on this point.
αισχυνης καταφρονησας
having despised, thought little of, or scorned the shame
I'm guessing we could look at kata-phroneses and see "thinking down", "thinking away from", "considering down". The shame is great but He thinks little of it.
There was shame there, no question. That He thought little of it is part of His glory. The world saw and sees shame, just as the world sees death and an ending when it kills martyrs.
But in the disdain Christ shows for the shame, as in the seeming victimization of martyrs, there is life and honor.
Of course being crucified—being up on the cross—was shameful.
But the crucifixion of Christ, that He might take on the sins of the entire world, is not shameful, but rather heroic and triumphal.
Otherwise you must be ashamed of Christ for doing so. I’m not speaking of shame that it was necessary to save us that He do so, I’m talking about shame that he did it.
Are you ashamed that Christ saved the world?
*****************
Amen.
Neither are we. We make no secret that our interpretation is informed by His Word not restricted to letters.
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.