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
And that's all, his sole source? Sola OT?
A great progression. From sola Scriptura to sola OT. Luther's every milkmaid would be proud.
Well, since we two more or less agreed that when Timothy was a child the Holy Scriptures of which Paul speaks would pretty much have to have been those of the OT, yes. And, of course, this would have to have been the case with all who died prior to the NT. Now, when you say, “Sola OT,” one would have to add that God had appointed 1) the kingship in Israel, which later continued only in Judah, 2) the priesthood of the temple, and 3) the prophets, all of whom had a role to play in helping the people understand the saving truth contained in God’s word, that is, His OT word.
Responding to what? You have a question?
annalex wrote:
“Responding to what? You have a question?”
Of you? No.
I believe this was news to you and certainly to all the others who use what you posted as proof text for sola scriptura - that's NT sola scriptura.
And, of course, this would have to have been the case with all who died prior to the NT.
So all the original apostles and all their disciples, the entire early church - all saved by sola OT.
No Christ, no preaching, not teaching, no Acts of the Apostles, no Church involved here?
D-fendr wrote:
“I believe this was news to you and certainly to all the others who use what you posted as proof text for sola scriptura - that’s NT sola scriptura.”
Sorry, I really don’t understand what you are saying here.
D-fendr also wrote:
“So all the original apostles and all their disciples, the entire early church - all saved by sola OT.”
I said no such thing. In fact, I don’t even know how you could get that which you just wrote.
D-fendr also wrote:
“No Christ, no preaching, not teaching, no Acts of the Apostles, no Church involved here?”
Again, I have no idea where you could have derived such an idea. I think, perhaps, that you are several steps advanced along the path you assume I am on.
Let’s try something a little less tangled. And then we can go back and talk about Timothy and Paul, if you want. Let’s try this question:
Did Abraham believe in the promised Savior who was to come, the One who later generations would come to know as the Messiah/Christ, and still later generations, say that of Peter, James, John etc., would know as Jesus the Christ? Is that putting it clearly enough. If it isn’t, I’ll try to rephrase it.
There all in your post that I replied to.
D-fendr wrote:
“There all in your post that I replied to.”
No, they aren’t. Sigh ... this is not going to go well. Are you going to let me say what I want to say or do I have to be responsible for the words you put in my mouth also? If so, there is no point in going on.
Let me know which it will be.
I fully understand why you feel this way
Are you going to let me say what I want to say or do I have to be responsible for the words you put in my mouth also?
I've only used what you have said. And, I confess, I have enjoyed the guilty pleasure of letting your words painting you into a corner.
You have supported the fathers, who lead you to the Church. You have referred to the Creeds- rejecting their original meaning - leading you to the Church. You have proof texted sola scriptura which has proved false, in spite of your misdirection. You have avoided oral tradition in Timothy, which leads you to the Church again.
And now you are reduced to dancing off to "Did Abraham believe" thousands of years before Christ, his Church, the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Creeds.
there is no point in going on.
Unless there is more you wish to confirm about the creed, the fathers, and the Church that Christ established.
Sincerely, I hope you will forget about me and this discussion, and see where what you thought about Holy Scripture, the Creeds and the Fathers really lead you.
This is the anonymous internet, don't let anything here stand in your way. May God bless you and keep you.
Why do I keep thinking “Stepford Wives” as I read what you’ve written? Stepford Wives with bad grammar and low cognition skills.
D-fendr wrote:
“I fully understand why you feel this way.”
Pompous is the first word that comes to my mind in reading your self-congratulatory words. No, you don’t have a clue.
D-fendr also wrote:
“I’ve only used what you have said.”
No, you haven’t, as you been told more than once. I question whether you’ve even read what I wrote. I even wonder about your reading cognition skills.
D-fendr also wrote:
“And, I confess, I have enjoyed the guilty pleasure of letting your words painting you into a corner.”
You must be delusional, there is no other explanation I can think of.
Finally, D-fendr wrote:
“Sincerely, I hope you will forget about me and this discussion.”
Your sincere hope is granted on both counts.
There are certain persons who have been posting recently on this thread who expressed horror and surprise that I would say that a person could come to faith in the Christ through the OT Scriptures, and that, in fact, this was regularly the case in the era before the incarnation and earthly ministry of our Lord. There is, of course, nothing new in this. And there should be no surprise on the part of anyone. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, who atoned for the sins of all mankind once and forever by His innocent suffering and death in our place for our sins. The people of the Old Testament were saved in anticipation of this, since it was a certainty, God having promised it. The people of the New Testament were saved in consequence of it. In either case, it was God reconciling the world to Himself in Jesus Christ.
What, to me, is passingly strange, is that various Roman Catholic apologists could get so exercised about this that they would have to resort to, well ... we will leave it to any parties interested to read back through the thread’s more recent posts.
One last thing. How about salvation without faith, with works alone?
Here it is:
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Imprimi Potest Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, page 224, paragraph 847) The quotation is actually taken from the document Lumen Gentium, the official doctrinal position approved by the second Vatican Council on a vote of 2151 to 5 of the bishops present, and made public on November 21, 1964 by Pope Paul VI.
Honorary heretic for Maundy Thursday 2010:
“Therefore we are righteous when we confess ourselves and when our righteousness consists not in our own merit but in the mercy of God.” (Jerome, Dialogus contra Pelagianos, Book 1)
Honorary heretic for Good Friday 2010:
“If there is some little righteousness that is ours, it is perhaps right, but it is not pure, unless perhaps we believe that we are better that our fathers, who affirmed no less truthfully than humbly: ‘All our righteousnesses are like the cloth of a menstruant woman.’ For how could there be a pure righteousness where guilt cannot yet be lacking.” (Bernard, Sermon 5 on the words of Isaiah)
Honorary heretic for Holy Saturday 2010:
“We are not justified by works but by faith, because the infirmity of our flesh is an impediment to works; the the brightness of faith overshadows the error of works and merits forgiveness of our faults.” (Ambrose, De Jacob et vita beata)
Honorary heretic for Easter, the Festival of the Resurrection of our Lord, 2010:
“Who are the blessed? Not those in whom God finds no sin. For he finds that in all, for ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ If therefore sins are found in all, it follows that they are not blessed, except those whose sins are forgiven. This the apostle has therefore recommended in these words: ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ Again, ‘If it is by grace, it is given freely.’ What does this mean, ‘it is given freely?’ It means it costs nothing. You have done nothing good, and forgiveness of sins is given you. Your works are considered, and they are found evil; if God should reward those works as they deserve, He would surely damn you. God does not pay you the just punishment, but gives you undeserved grace.” (Augustine, comment on Psalm 31)
Christ is risen!
He is risen indeed!
“And therefore ‘it was accounted to him (Abraham) for righteousness.’ Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.” (Romans 4:22-5:2)
Sola Gratia
Sola Fide
Sola Scriptura
Soli Deo Gloria.
Hardly honorary - the title is earned.
The Athenasian Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic* Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Matthew 22: 34 19 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them [a scholar of the law] 20 tested him by asking, 36 "Teacher, 21 which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, 22 "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The visible church is divided, the invisible church isn't.
There are certain persons who have been posting recently on this thread who expressed horror and surprise that I would say that a person could come to faith in the Christ through the OT Scriptures..
No, no horror or surprise. Just calling out your change in subject to avoid admission of your losing position on sola scriptura and the authority of the Church in deciding the NT canon.
Your non sequitur to OT salvation was just not very skillful.
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.