Posted on 03/21/2010 3:03:29 PM PDT by NYer
|
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).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Lest I forget D-fendr (somehow I get the feeling you, MarkBsnr, and annalex all know each other) ... who wrote:
“You. Augustine. Cognitive dissonance.”
OK.
Then you wrote:
“And, according to your theory of 2 Timothy, before most were even written.”
This must be an example of communicational dissonance.
Maybe this will help. Pretend I am Gomer Pyle. Use small words and complete thoughts. Refer to the point you are interpreting. It will help me understand what you are saying, and make you feel good about yourself for helping the less abled.
Ok. You said:
Timothy was made wise unto salvation by them [Scriptures] before he even had the authority of the Catholic Church to move him to faith.
I replied:
And, according to your theory of 2 Timothy, before most [NT Scriptures] were even written.
The simple point being that Timothy could hardly have been "made wise unto salvation" by the Scripture of the Gospels that were not yet written. And that, therefore, your proof text concerning the Church's deciding the canon fails to prove what you intended.
Thank you for explaining your assertion.
You use the phrase “the Scripture of the Gospels.” That is an unusual phrase. If you mean by it one or more of the NT gospel accounts, i.e., that of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, then I understand what you are saying. I will proceed on this assumption because of what you said thereafter: “... that were not yet written.” If you did not mean this, please rephrase your answer and correct me. However, if you did, I answer as follows:
So, when Paul spoke about genuine faith abiding in Timothy, his mother, and his grandmother, he didn’t mean saving faith? Is that what you are saying? Is there some other kind of faith that Paul would term “genuine”? The Holy Scriptures to which Paul refers in 2 Timothy 3:15 are without a doubt the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, since they would have been available to Timothy when he was a child and were also, presumably, the source of his mother’s and grandmother’s understanding and faith. Are you asserting that the Old Testament Holy Scriptures do not contain and did not teach the gospel, the good news, that is, faith in the promised Savior of Israel, whose saving office is designated by the term Messiah in Hebrew, Christ in Greek?
I just want to be clear about this. Is this what you are asserting?
No, I’m asserting that your proof text for the NT Scriptures and the canon determined by the Catholic Church - and sola scriptura for that matter - fails.
D-fendr wrote:
“No, I’m asserting that your proof text for the NT Scriptures and the canon determined by the Catholic Church - and sola scriptura for that matter - fails.”
That is not what I said. That is what you put in my mouth.
So, let’s try this again so that you can understand the import of what Paul was saying.
Answer my question, do you assert that the saving gospel of the Christ is not contained in and taught by the Old Testament Scriptures? Yes or no?
"Wait, stop! Behold! What wonderment! The Holy Scriptures were inspired before the Catholic Church deigned to canonize them. "
Which was following on to your reply concerning inspiration and authority in reply to my post of Augustine's "I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.”
First, this is changing the subject and context of the discussion - which was the Church's canon of the New Testament as referenced in the "authority" quote and sola scriptura. And it's not even a very skillful attempt to change the subject.
Second, by itself, no, else there is no need for the New Testament. Using scripture alone, the Old Testament scripture is only properly interpreted through the New Testament scripture.
Or are you asserting that the New Testament is unnecessary?
Yes, I did indeed write: “Wait, stop! Behold! What wonderment! The Holy Scriptures were inspired before the Catholic Church deigned to canonize them. “
You assumed that I meant the NT Scriptures. But I didn’t say that. In fact, if you follow the context, something very difficult for you I more and more realize, you will find that my whole point is bound up in their not being the NT Scriptures.
Now, are you going to stop evading and answer my simple question?
Do you assert that the Old Testament Scriptures do not contain and do not teach faith in the coming Savior, the Christ? Yes or no?
D-fendr wrote:
“First, this is changing the subject and context of the discussion - which was the Church’s canon of the New Testament as referenced in the “authority” quote and sola scriptura. And it’s not even a very skillful attempt to change the subject.”
LOL. We will let the readers of this thread decide who is changing the subject and evading.
He also wrote:
“Second, by itself, no, else there is no need for the New Testament. Using scripture alone, the Old Testament scripture is only properly interpreted through the New Testament scripture.”
Did you come up with this brilliant deduction on your own? You are wonderfully adept at putting forth false dichotomies. The only question in my mind is whether you do so wittingly or unwittingly. Let’s put this very simply, if God caused the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament to be written they are needed, important, and fully authoritative. Also, what God promised in the OT had to be fulfilled or He would be shown a liar. The OT presents the promise, the NT the fulfillment.
Then D-fendr wrote:
“Or are you asserting that the New Testament is unnecessary?”
Again, LOL. You must be a spellbinding debater.
D-fendr kind of answered:
“Second, by itself, no ...”
So, let us proceed to the second question: Do you then assert that faith in the coming Messiah was not taught to the people of Israel by Moses and the prophets, and that such faith was necessary for their salvation?
Yes, I even know who Paul said it to. He also said to him, “... from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:15-17) Wait, stop! Behold! What wonderment! The Holy Scriptures were inspired before the Catholic Church deigned to canonize them. Timothy was made wise unto salvation by them before he even had the authority of the Catholic Church to move him to faith.
Really? That’s not what St. Paul said: “... filled with joy, when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also.” (2 Timothy 1:4-5)
Ah, you wish to debate sola scriptura. Very well, I will hold you to that.
If you had actually read the NT and “kept all these things in [your] heart” instead of pasting some slapped together boilerplate from some Catholic (TM) approved website, you might have grasped that Timothy was already a believer in the Christ when Paul came upon him, as were his mother and grandmother. You might also have realized that the reason Timothy had from childhood “known the Holy Scriptures” (in this case, certainly the OT Holy Scriptures), that “make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus,” is because his mother and grandmother saw to it that he was taught them, that he was “trained in the way he should go.”
The Messiah that was prophesied was a great king and warrior leading Israel out of bondage. A super David. Read the OT and the NT together. The training was in the super man David, not in the divinity of Jesus Christ in the NT.
But then you’d have to admit that genuine faith, faith in the promised Messiah to come, resided in the hearts of many in Israel, because it was taught by Moses and all the faithful prophets who came after, and that therefore the limbus patrum, imagined by your Roman magisterium, could not be upheld as truth since it is in conflict with the Holy Scriptures.
The reason that Jesus was rejected by the Jew was precisely the fact that he was humble and not a great warrior king.
I wish you would at least cherry pick the Holy Scriptures. You might grab on to a few that way. But you will only go to your approved authorities, who do not know the Scriptures half as well as even the child Timothy. Cut and paste. Cut and paste. Cut and paste, and never grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I shall not even need waders in this debate. I find it amusing that you instruct me in the ways of Scripture. I shall answer your post with the words of Peter:
1 There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. 3 In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep. 4 2 3 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but condemned them to the chains of Tartarus and handed them over to be kept for judgment; 5 4 and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, together with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the godless world; 6 and if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (to destruction), reducing them to ashes, making them an example for the godless (people) of what is coming; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man oppressed by the licentious conduct of unprincipled people 8 (for day after day that righteous man living among them was tormented in his righteous soul at the lawless deeds that he saw and heard), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the devout from trial and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 5 and especially those who follow the flesh with its depraved desire and show contempt for lordship. 6 Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to revile glorious beings, 11 7 whereas angels, despite their superior strength and power, do not bring a reviling judgment against them from the Lord.
12 But these people, like irrational animals born by nature for capture and destruction, revile things that they do not understand, and in their destruction they will also be destroyed, 13 suffering wrong 8 as payment for wrongdoing. Thinking daytime revelry a delight, they are stains and defilements as they revel in their deceits while carousing with you. 14 Their eyes are full of adultery and insatiable for sin. They seduce unstable people, and their hearts are trained in greed. Accursed children!
15 Abandoning the straight road, they have gone astray, following the road of Balaam, the son of Bosor, 9 who loved payment for wrongdoing, 16 but he received a rebuke for his own crime: a mute beast spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet's madness. 17 These people are waterless springs and mists driven by a gale; for them the gloom of darkness has been reserved. 18 For, talking empty bombast, they seduce with licentious desires of the flesh those who have barely escaped 10 from people who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him. 20 For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down 11 to them. 22 12 What is expressed in the true proverb has happened to them, "The dog returns to its own vomit," and "A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire."
How are the sties of the Reformation these days? What is the state of the Episcopalian Church? How is ELCA doing? What percentage of Presbyterians, Methodists and the other mainstream denominations actually believe in God?
Only from the context of posting on the same threads. For example, Alex just moved from California to Kansas and I cannot stand people from either place. I have no idea where D-fendr hails from, but I'm sure that it turns out people with as little Scriptural knowledge as wherever it is that you hail from.
My 16 year old daughter knew and understood more of the Bible than you do when she was an 8 year old. It is more than evident that you do not know the OT at all ... the Messiah a warrior king. LOL. I would reply, but that might indicate that I take you seriously.
Mark Bsnr also wrote:
“How are the sties of the Reformation these days? What is the state of the Episcopalian Church? How is ELCA doing? What percentage of Presbyterians, Methodists and the other mainstream denominations actually believe in God?”
Since I belong to none of the aforementioned “sties,” I’ll have to decline commenting. Although I did notice that that Benedict XVI cordially received the head of the ELCA in Rome not long ago. Ask him.
You are not an apologist. You are just a basher ... and not a very well-versed one at that. I would complain to the religion moderator about your choice of epithets, but that might make him think I take you seriously.
Mark Bsnr wrote:
“Only from the context of posting on the same threads. For example, Alex just moved from California to Kansas and I cannot stand people from either place. I have no idea where D-fendr hails from, but I’m sure that it turns out people with as little Scriptural knowledge as wherever it is that you hail from.”
A little grammatically challenged, I see. And bigoted, intolerant, and judgmental to boot. Perhaps I unfairly compared you to my daughter. I had thought you were older than she.
Very well. I shall contact the moderator myself in the hopes of understanding which epithets I have had the choice of.
My 16 year old daughter knew and understood more of the Bible than you do when she was an 8 year old.
A rather precocious daughter. Is she of your bloodline?
Since I belong to none of the aforementioned “sties,” I’ll have to decline commenting.
May I ask which sty you belong to?
You are not an apologist.
You know me better than I know myself.
You are just a basher ... and not a very well-versed one at that.
Well, I've posted more verse than most here. Does that count?
D-fendr wrote:
“Is it your point that Timothy was saved by OT scripture? Is this what the point of the post in discussion.”
A little crudely phrased. Let me put it a little better. Timothy was saved by faith in the Christ of God, the knowledge of whom he gained from the OT Scriptures. Yes, that is the point.
You may wish to upgrade your prescription.
And bigoted, intolerant, and judgmental to boot.
Yes, I cannot stand those who call themselves Christians who demonstrably are not.
Perhaps I unfairly compared you to my daughter.
I'm sure that I'm taller than she is.
I had thought you were older than she.
I'm not even sure that you are.
“Yes, I cannot stand those who call themselves Christians who demonstrably are not.”
I see.
Goodbye Mark.
Have a nice day.
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.