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).

A few points of clarifications up front to “get out of the way”:

Now, the Catechism allows for differing practices under it in certain areas - maybe we have just been speaking past each other, with differing definitions of "doctrine."

Well, while I’m aware what you reference is always a possibility with these kinds of discussions, I don’t think it applies here (& I’ll return to this point). Yes, it’s true that I might be talking about orthopraxy whereas you are focusing more on orthodoxy, the surprising thing (as I say at the end below) is that I've been moving my discussion from orthopraxy more to orthodoxy while you've been doing the exact reverse on this thread!

My later points have been trying to fine-tune what I said in post #29…that I’m talking more about what leaders see as ”orthodox” teachings because frankly I am still quite skeptical about some of these “teachings” that you are now referencing as almost “multiple-choice” teachings.

…do you recognize the difficulty I had when you were saying there were many different Catholic doctrines? Some doctrine (official teaching) is that you get to choose whether that is an aspect of your faith and worship (relics, Marian Apparitions) - others, you don't (transubstantiation, the Trinity). We're not as authoritarian as people make us out to be.

OK, there’s 2 routes I can take in responding to what you said here. First of all, we can both agree that there’s what is called adiaphora--that which is neither taught nor forbidden in Scripture. While this would “justify” what you just said IF (a big "if") adiaphora applied to the doctrines/teachings in question, this is, frankly, not something that a true Catholic can claim & remain consistent. Why? Because the ultimate authority of true Catholic teachings is not the Bible to begin with—it’s what this thread originally states—it’s the church that authorizes & forbids. (Now I’m not saying the church doesn’t have any of this authority; obviously in forgiving/retaining sins, it does! Matthew 18)…I’m just saying that Scripture is foundational & authoritative over the Church…because God’s word is alive & it cuts thru flesh & blood & sinews (Heb. 4:12)…and since the church is primarily “people,” this two-edged sword cuts thru even the Church!

So, while it’s easy to acknowledge the reality of biblical adiaphora – the Bible neither teaches nor forbids certain practices—how in the world can you say that about the church? (I mean, the church either authorizes something or it doesn’t, & if it doesn’t authorize something—even if it doesn’t forbid it, then it’s not part of the teachings & doctrines of the church…it’s that simple)

The other route I can take with your above statement is to consider the implications of a faith & worship where some aspects are “choose-able” and others aren’t. On communion, you’ve clearly said there is no “multiple-choice doctrinal choice”; but on personal revelation from apparitions, I can choose either…
…Catholic doctrine A: (Belief in the Lady of Fatima & ensuing authorized disclosures of “secrets” of these European apparitions)…
…Catholic doctrine B: (A “free pass” from Catholic leadership if I decide to thumb my nose or criticize apparitional revelations)
…Catholic doctrine C: (A “combo” package of the above where I, buffet style, choose those “secret revelations” I personally like & discard the rest as nonsense)

Or when it comes to relics, I can choose…
...Catholic doctrine A: To embrace all authorized Catholic church relics.
…Catholic doctrine B: To embrace the idea of potential authorized church relics based upon the precedent of Acts 19; but to deny the actuality of any extant relics unless accompanied by a guaranteed note of authenticity.
…Catholic doctrine C: To disregard all notions of relics, rejecting Acts 19 as any precedent.

Or when it comes to social issues, I can choose…
...Catholic doctrine A: To fully embrace the sanctity of human life.
…Catholic doctrine B: To partially embrace the sanctity of life like Dukakis or Kennedy (our family wouldn’t have an abortion ourselves), but apply that sanctity to only within the confines of the family (but I wouldn’t stop someone else from getting an abortion).
…Catholic doctrine C: To embrace a consistent pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-physician-assisted suicide perspective.

Now what are these examples above anything other than distinct Catholic teachings & understandings on the same precise matters?

Don't you see? These aren't only matters of people's pride, sin, & disobedience to clear teachings kicking in! These are matters where the supposed "clarion call" to clear instruction has been voided out! I mean imagine the most loving, nice, gentle civil leaders possible. Imagine a great track record of them passing civil laws & acting in the best interest of the citizens most of the time. But imagine if they started being "mealy-mouth" on some key laws: "Well, it's OK if you adhere to this; but it's OK if you don't?" (What kind of authorized leadership would that be? if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? -1 Cor. 14:8)

your original post claimed there were many different Catholic doctrines - that is what I have been arguing. There is only one Catholic doctrine (collection of teachings) - the Catechism.

Well, my post #29 was to show that just as Protestantism has a “diversity of doctrines,” so does Catholicism. (I think I have proved that, which would mean that the author of the thread post would need to concede that even the so-called infallible authority of the (Catholic) Church is denied by this plurality.).

Based on your feedback, I am going to slightly alter post #29 & re-post, giving a few explanations (again incorporating your feedback) which shows why I think I have proved that.

So, my re-worked, re-stated post #29 is:

If there's no diversity or plurality of Catholic doctrines in the church, then why do some Catholic teachings…
…(1) lead both leaders & followers to worship Mary (and that’s “OK” with church authorities) while others believe that goes too far (and that’s “OK” with church authorities)
…(2) encourage communication with dead saints & veneration toward them, but fails to warn or admonish those Catholics who do not feel at ease talking with dead people (even if these people have “fallen asleep in Christ”and “are fully alive” – which BTW is not something easily determined by earthly saints! …therefore some earthly saints really have been talking with folks burning in hell!) [IOW, if there is a real benefit that accrues to folks to talk to the alive in Christ & the dead in hell—not knowing sometimes which is which—then don’t those who fail to practice this miss out on some great spiritual growth & thus are “stopped up” because they don’t engage in what channelers do in the occultic world?]
…(3) receive the “dusty doctrinal” treatment of being shelved at all too many Catholic churches (church curricula & church sermons & church homilies’) & Catholic schools (re: strictures of not using birth control) whereas other Catholic leadership venues highlight these strictures?
…(4) recognize Mary appearing to Portuguese teen-agers & present it as both “faith-building” & revelationally “privy” whereas other prominent Catholic venues of its teachings & doctrines totally ignore these revelations? [You said: The doctrine of the Church is that certain apparitions are okay to be believed - again, like relics, there is no requirement to do so. So, yes, different people will focus on different things. ]
…(5) venerate holy relics whereas other Catholic leaders, even if they recognize the possibility of such relics based upon Acts 19 & other considerations, totally ignore relics in their teachings of Catholic doctrine? [You said: So, yes, you will find some people venerating relics, and some not, but the authoritative teaching of the Church is that okay to do so, within guidelines set by the local hierarchy (see CCC 1674-1676). The doctrine of the Church is that…again, like relics, there is no requirement to do so. So, yes, different people will focus on different things.]

So, as already indicated, multiple-choice doctrines when it comes to reviewing the authorized teachings of the church!

Do you see what’s happened in our exchanges? You actually made a good point in your post #48: This post is a non-sequitur. The Church teachings on all of these things you list are clear - because members of the Faith don’t always follow the Church has no bearing on the infallibility of Its teachings.

It was a challenge to me that I couldn’t just define orthodoxy only by orthopraxy -- because we all are prideful & sinful & don’t live up to orthodox beliefs. So, I re-reviewed everything from a sheer doctrinal/teaching/leadership perspective & began to leave out the grassroots followers.

But what do you remain stuck on according to your latest post? You remain stuck on the latter—how followers adhere or don’t adhere to these beliefs:

Examples:: The doctrine of the Church is that certain apparitions - again, like relics, there is no requirement to do so. So, yes, different people will focus on different things.…Some doctrine (official teaching) is that you get to choose whether that is an aspect of your faith and worship.

You know when you say “different people” focusing “on different things,” that’s exactly what I was referencing in post #29…’cause “different” = diversity!

Ok, you pulled the first line of CCC 971, and then expound upon it. Let's examine the next two sentences in the same paragraph. "The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."" Clearly, any catechumen reading the whole paragraph will see that the devotion is meant to DIFFER from the adoration. If the catechumen gets the idea that he is meant to worship Mary from reading the whole thing, not only is he twisting the words, but his catechist is doing a terrible job.

OK, it’s not like you don’t know that for every time “The Lord’s Prayer” is uttered (one prayer to Christ) vs. “Hail Mary…” – that the ratio of direct calls to Mary outweigh Jesus 9 to 1!!! IOW, the catechist student’s understanding of phrases of “worship” next to “the blessed virgin” in the Catechism is going to be solidly reinforced by experience.

Note this quote where I took this realization from: Many weighty schools of thought and doctrine center on the person and function of Mary, and if one examines Roman Catholicism to any degree, the importance Catholics place on the mother of our Savior becomes readily apparent. These beliefs are not just intellectual. They have led to applications and manifestations that literally fill volumes. For example, when a Catholic prays the rosary, the "Hail Mary" is said nine times as often as the Lord's Prayer. Every Catholic church boasts a statue of Mary, if not an outright shrine, and the graven images of Mary often have more prominence than those of Christ. Source: http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/2704/Worship-of-Mary.htm

Even information released by the Vatican is going to reinforce this idea of “Marian worship”: VATICAN INFORMATION SERVICE, 7th year, N.82, May 7, 1997: GENERAL AUDIENCE: MARY, MOTHER OF ALL THE REDEEMED VATICAN CITY, MAY 7, 1997 (VIS) - The Holy Father dedicated today's general audience to the Virgin Mary, and commented on the words that Jesus spoke from the Cross to St. John: "'Behold your mother', ... with which he reveals to the Blessed Virgin the pinnacle of her motherhood."John Paul II expressed his wish that all might discover in these words of Jesus "the invitation to accept Mary as their mother, responding as true children to her motherly love." At the moment that Jesus entrusts his mother to St. John, "it is possible to understand the authentic meaning of Marian worship in the ecclesial community ... which furthermore is based on the will of Christ."

From your last post:: I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find many Catholics who you sit down with and really discuss things who say they worship Mary in the same way they worship God. Now, they may use the word "worship" flippantly in passing, but I doubt that is what they truly believe. I know a lot of poorly catechised Catholics who at least know they don't worship Mary. Even assuming there are Catholics who truly worship Mary (again, I'd be shocked to hear an actual discussion (not just in passing) with a Catholic who admits they worship Mary), I lay the fault somewhat at the feet of the Church.

OK, again, as I stressed on my last post, I’ve been increasingly moving away from the teaching recipient to the teacher (I know I was still focusing on a catechism student 2 posts ago). Let’s “listen in” on a description of a message by a priest from Oregon given in March of 2007:

Sermon title: “Honor Mary for Her Free ‘Yes’”
Who: Father John Cihak, Parochial vicar of Sacred Heart Catholic Church, Medford, OR.
Date: March 26, 2007

(I don’t agree with everything this narrator says, but here’s what he says as he “introduces” this excerpt):

…apparently sensitive to the argument that Roman Catholics worship Mary, Cihak…attempts a bit of a shell game with the words referring to worship. I will admit it is truly impressive verbal sleight of hand as it were as he points out “these two words in Greek that distinguish between worship and honor.” Cihak will also tell us that there’s “a common misunderstanding for some other Christians who think that we worship our Lady.”..I can’t help but wonder where in the world would we ever get the idea that Roman Catholics worship her? I mean it’s not like they say to her “Hail Mary, full of grace” or offer any kind of special prayers that are prayed to her while fondling beads or anything. Well, actually they do:

Consecration to the Virgin Mary: Hail Mary, etc. My Queen! my Mother! I give you all of myself, and, to show my devotion to you, I consecrate to you my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my entire self. Therefore, O loving Mother, as I am your own, keep me, defend me, as your property and possession...Remembering our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary with all the Saints, let us commend ourselves and one another, and our whole life to Christ our God. O gentle Protectress of Christians, unfailing Mediatrix before the Creator, do not despise the prayerful voices of sinners; but, in your goodness, hasten to assist us, who trustfully cry out to you: "Inspire us to prayer, and hasten to hear our supplication. Intercede always, Mother of God, in behalf of those who honor you."

It sure looks like Roman Catholics worship Mary to me, but O no says Cihak: “We don’t. We honor her. But in fact, because she is so important, we give her...[honor] taken up some notches. We give her hyper-honor, because of her importance. Because without her the Lord did not want to save us without her; without her free, ‘yes’... And because the Lord did not want to save the human race in general without her, He doesn’t want to save us in particular without her too. That we need her in our lives as Christians. We need a personal relationship with her just as we need a personal relationship with Jesus. In fact, it is her who is always bringing us closer to her Son... There’s no faster way to the Son than through His mother. And that is true in general, and that is true in particular, for each one of us. We need her in our life to reveal to us her Son to be born through her as Jesus was. So that our human nature can be perfected through the grace of her Son. We too can call her “mother” and she will help us come to eternal life in her Son (Tape excerpt time-wise: 05:28-07:11)

Sorry about that, but this is not “hyper-honor,” it is in fact idolatrous hyper-worship of the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:25). This is not Christianity…

Source: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/06/roman_catholici_3.html

I would have to agree at least with what I quoted from this excerpt, especially this “new plan of salvation” that this priest has which is utter blasphemy!

As the source of the above “Lord’s Prayer” vs. “Hail Mary” comparison ( http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/2704/Worship-of-Mary.htm ) cited:

This emphasis on Mary caused Mark Twain to observe in The Innocents Abroad, Volume II:

In all seriousness—without meaning to be frivolous—without meaning to be irreverent, and more than all, without meaning to be blasphemous,—I state as my simple deduction from the things I have seen and the things I have heard, that the Holy Personages rank thus in Rome:

First—"The Mother of God"—otherwise the Virgin Mary.
Second—The Deity.
Third—Peter.
Fourth—Some twelve or fifteen canonized Popes and martyrs.
Fifth—Jesus Christ the Saviour—(but always as an infant in arms).

[Twain continuing]: I may be wrong in this—my judgment errs often, just as is the case with other men's—but it is my judgment, be it good or bad. Just here I will mention something that seems curious to me. There are no "Christ's Churches" in Rome, and no "Churches of the Holy Ghost," that I can discover. There are some four hundred churches, but about a fourth of them seem to be named for the Madonna and St. Peter. There are so many named for Mary that they have to be distinguished by all sorts of affixes, if I understand the matter rightly.

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.