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).
Christ’s yoke is light.
Your husband was aware of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, yes?
Well, that should pretty fill this thread’s quota of toxicity.
No it isn't...It is the 'old nature' which is always with us...The Apostle comfirms this in Romans 7...
As HarleyD points out, the context is the biblical authors’ “word of prophecy” and not interpretation of scripture. In short, those writers (Isaiah, Daniel, etc.) were not writing their opinions....they were writing under inspiration of God.
That text has nothing to do with any magisterium versus individual Christians reading and understanding the bible.
Even, though, if we used their faulty biblical eisegesis, our interpretation is not “private” BECAUSE the text is there for everyone to see.
It’s no different than having the US Constitution interpreted “privately.” Someone might claim there’s no right to keep and bear arms, but...WHAT DOES THE TEXT ACTUALLY SAY?
No different than the bible which is right there in front of everyone to look at and to interpret. If someone tries to pull a fast one, we’ll catch it. The text is there. If someone tries to make a debatable point into an absolute requirement, we’ll catch it. The text is there.
>>Well, that should pretty fill this thread’s quota of toxicity.<<
I would say!
And did you catch Post 152? It’s amazing how it is being ignored.
And what I've underlined sets us apart. Christ did not promise to leave us Scripture - He promised to leave the Church for us. Yes, I could not agree more that Scripture has authority over the Church (as the written teachings of Christ and the Apostles) but Tradition has equal weight with Scripture (as the oral teachings of Christ and the Apostles).
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)
I'm not saying the doctrines of the Church are adiaphora - you must accept all the doctrines as true in order to be a Catholic. However, some of the doctrines actually teaches things are adiaphora. Doctrine #1 says you have to believe in the Trinity. Okay, clear cut, I have to believe in the Trinity. Doctrine #2 says relics can be useful in getting closer to God. Okay, I just have to believe that they can be useful - I don't have to use them or teach others to do so. It is very much a distinction. The doctrine is correct in both cases - one requires action on my part, one only allows it.
Your relics and Marian apparition A, B, C examples are relatively right (minus the C for relics, I think). That is entirely consistant with what I've just said. With regard to social issues, no. The Pelosi brand of moral judgments is dissent from the faith. The Church is non-negotiable on its pro-life stance in all matters. Do you really think that there are many Catholics who truly believe the Church says its okay to have an abortion or commit euthanasia? Because certain members of the Faith turn their back on it does not mean the teachings of the Church aren't infallible.
Regarding the "mealy-mouth" leaders, I see the analogy you're trying to draw. However, like I said in my last post, I see it more as the 21 drinking age issue - just because you are 21, you aren't required to go drink. You are free to do so, but it is your option. It is the same with certain teachings of the Church - they authorize some apparitions or relics, and you're free to use them to help focus on God. Again, you aren't required to do so.
lead both leaders & followers to worship Mary
I think your other post talks about the Mary issue, so I'll leave that aside. The Church is very clear we are NOT to worship Mary.
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
Again, veneration and prayer to saints asking for their prayers is taught and encouraged, but not required. The canonization process exists solely so the dangers of asking those outside Heaven do not get prayed to. The particulars of that process is a whole other thread though, so I will leave it at that.
So, as already indicated, multiple-choice doctrines when it comes to reviewing the authorized teachings of the church!
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.
You know when you say “different people” focusing “on different things,” that’s exactly what I was referencing in post #29…’cause “different” = diversity!
That is fine, I'll stay away from the laity if you solely wish to focus on the orthodoxy of the teachings. However, like I said above, there is only once doctrine of the Church - the official teachings of the Church. Those are protected by the Holy Spirit. Again, look at the Trinity v. relics example I gave above. Both are doctrines of the Church - one requires action, one allows it. I'll agree with you that there is not orthopraxy in the Church in all things - I never would argue that point. But, the beliefs of the Church are orthodox and there is only ONE doctrine.
The Scripture says the opposite.
Let me use your language; Gimme a break...
Scripture says both...Problem is, you keep the one and ignore the other...And that's just like may Protestants who keep the other and ignore the one you like...
Salvation from faith and works is in there...Salvation with faith alone is in there...And that's really basic stuff...
Gee, thanks, "doctor".
We are asked not to sin, — or is that also bypassed in Protestantism?
That's right...After that, anything I says will be accepted as kind and loving...LOL...
The scripture doesn’t say both; it wouldn’t be infallible otherwise. It says that we are not saved by faith alone.
Exactly...It's a matter of belief, not interpretation...And then putting the texts together accurately...
Okay, you're talking about the Rosary here. First, lets look at the actual "Hail Mary".
Hail Mary, Full of Grace
The Lord is with thee
Blessed are thou amongst women, and
Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
Pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.
The first part of the prayer is the words of the Angel. The "Mother of God" title comes from the Council of Ephesus in 431, fighting the Nestorian heresy. The last part of the prayer is a request for her prayers. The other parts of the Rosary are focused on meditation of the various mysteries of Christ. If the catechumen somehow finds this to be worship of Mary, I'm at a loss.
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
I'm calling BS here. Yes, many Churches do have statutes or shrines to Mary. But a crucifix is literally front and center in every single Church. No way does Mary's statutes have more prominence than that. And the "graven images" issue is an attempt to compare us with the golden calf - again, we do not worship either the statute, nor the woman. Humans are physical as well as spiritual creatures, and physical things help us focus.
Regarding your VIS press release, do you have a link? I'd like to look the whole thing over before I respond.
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!
Where does the priest talk about a "new plan of salvation"? He talks about God using Mary in the plan of salvation, giving us Christ through her. And you notice that everything he says is about us being perfected through her Son. Mary points to Christ, always.
Regarding the Mark Twain quotes, I don't really know how to respond to the impressions of a humorist on his visit to Rome. It is not something I can argue against, as they are merely his impressions. Long and short of it, he's wrong. Christ is the head of the Church, and every Church, regardless of its name, is dedicated to Him.
You're giving all kind of opportunities for 'Gimme a break'...
We are not asked not to sin...We are TOLD not to sin...And we have an advocate in Heaven for when we do...
Please do not use potty language or references to potty language on the Religion Forum.
It certainly does...
it wouldn’t be infallible otherwise.
It certainly would...
There are two ways to look at Scripture...You pick some scripture and create a theology and try to get the rest of the scripture to line up with that theology, such as your church does...
The other is you take the entire scripture and make your theology line up with ALL the scripture...
Boron Sulfide?
Bologna Sandwich?
Broadway Show?
I was going for Beammeup Scottie, but the RM is a little tyrannical :-P
Oh please. Sola fide is argued by ignoring the context of Paul's letters to the Ephesians and Galatians, among others. Sola scriptura isn't in Scripture at all.
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.