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).
There is no justification for the way you used that word. It and the conversation which followed has been pulled.
The Easter celebrations at my church celebrate the Resurrection of Christ.
231 posted on May 21, 2008 10:39:21 AM MDT by FourtySeven
But there is still a requirement to have the your heart circumcisedYou are right one no longer needs to be circumcised in the flesh.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
and the law written on your heart.
Truly I believe the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is the perspective of the observer - physical or spiritual.
The Gospel of John reveals Jesus as God. The Gospel of Luke reveals Jesus as Man. Both are Truth. It’s not an either/or.
Following the revelation that God is Light (I John 1:5) - I have often used the metaphor of a seven-faceted diamond (God’s revelation to us) to illustrate the difference in perspective between Catholics and Protestants as if two people are looking at the same seven-faceted diamond but from different facets.
The one sees images in the diamond - himself, his forebears, saints, etc. - and thus sees that to honor those images is to honor the Light which illuminates them. His emphasis is on the images, the physical. In this case, the physical Apostolic succession by laying on of hands.
The other looks into the diamond and is blinded by Light. He sees no images at all and thus, to him, seeing images in the diamond is to miss the revelation of God altogether. His emphasis is on the Light alone, the Spiritual. In this case, the Spiritual succession, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by the will of God alone.
It is the same diamond and the same Light. As long as the one is aware of analogical knowledge (the picture of a man is not the man, the statue of Christ on the cross is not Christ on the cross) - he will not fall into Spiritual error.
Protestants, for instance, focus on God accomplishing His will through men of His own choosing; Catholics, the submission of the saints to God’s will (e.g. Mary.)
Likewise, Catholic doctrine focuses on Jesus as Man and thus the involvement of Mary (the illuminated image in the diamond) whereas Protestants focus on Jesus as God (the Light itself.)
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. - John 1:1-5
I submit that it is a matter of perspective – not either/or. For one to be “right” the other doesn’t have to be “wrong.”
The bottom line is that no matter what one "sees" in the diamond, there is only one Great Commandment:
Scripture with Scripture
Mat 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
Now this was more than just the 12 Apostles...
Jesus goes into a long discourse and at verse:
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The commission to bind and loose was given to ALL the Apostles AND the disciples who were with him...The commission to bind and loose is for ALL Christians...It was NOT a commission for Peter alone NOR was it a commission of power for Peter to lead any church...
So, even death itself will be overcome by those people who are brought into communion with God through the Christ and his Church.
While that may be partially accurate, hell is not death...The netherworld is not death...Hell is the place where the unsaved dead go...The gates of Hell is not death...
The Easter celebrations at my church celebrate the Resurrection of Christ.
Yah'shua rose from the dead on YHvH's Feast of First Fruits Easter celebrations were created by the
b'SHEM Yah'shua
Pagan Emperor Constantine when he called and headed
the council of Nicea.
not the Pagan feast of Easter.
The power to bind and loose granted already to Peter is also granted to the other apostles and their successors in Matthew 18:18. These are the Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church promised by Christ in Matthew 16:18, a promise fulfilled at the Pentecost.
Well, "bishops" weren't always formalized titles like what later became to be developed in the first several hundred years of the NT church. Let's just say that there were "overseers" of the NT church from the get-go. According to 1 Peter 2:5,9 and Rev. 1:6, 5:9-10, "priests" were all who were redeemed by the blood of the lamb. (The Roman Catholic church came along & re-interpreted that)
The "catholic" church promised by Christ was the "small-c" universal church, not the formalized, visible Roman-only based "Big C" church.
No, Ann doesn’t post. She doesn’t like arguing.
Thanks, same here.
You're claiming St. Constantine was pagan in 325?
This idea of independent-authoritative Tradition (undefined) is an OPEN DOOR to innovation and additions to the teachings of the Apostles--contained in Holy Scripture. Many if not most Roman Catholic distinctives are based on Traditions that have no record before the 13th Century.
I must admit I fail to understand why Roman Catholics cannot see their's is an organization based on revisionist history without a solid foundation--as amorphous Tradition can be almost whatever the current Pope and Curia wants it to be.
Once you make a foundation God's Word AND the traditions of men--EXACTLY what the Pharisees of Jesus day did--one has an open door for the corruptions of men to undermine the solid foundation of the very words of God.
The whole concept of "private interpretation" too is a bogeyman. If an "every man for himself" teaching was a part of Protestantism there would be no Protestant Creeds--and yet almost immediately, both Luther and later Calvin developed creeds--that is detailed catechisms for their Church of what the Bible teaches. Calvinist and Lutheran creeds too are remarkable for all of what they have in common....probably over 95% overlap. Why is that? They trusted God's Word as the only sure foundation.
The reason we have thousands of denominations is that unlike the Middle Ages--with truly a Roman Catholic, government enforced religious monopoly, we have freedom of religion...
The only way one would not have breakaway denominations is to return to the days of the Inquisition--and I trust most Roman Catholics would not want that.
John 13:13 does not say "alone". Peter was renamed, promised to become the foundation of the Church and keeper of the gate to the Kingdom, and indeed was told to "feed the sheep". He is called "chief of the apostles" a number of times in the patristic literature. Everyone is aware of these scriptures, and no one is disputing that Christ is the Lord.
The apostles had no successors
Wrong, Timothy and Titus are successors to St. Paul. Acts 1:21-22 that you quote only refers to the apostels themselves and not the bishops they consecrate. You should really read the Bible every once in a while between posts, "doctor".
The Magisterium is not the authoritative teacher of the church [John 14:26, John 16:13-14, 1 John 2:27]
Sure it is, Matthew 18:18. No one is disputing that the Holy Ghost leads the Church, just like the verses you quote explain.
According to Scripture,...
According to what scripture? You did not quote anything remotely pertinent.
If you go to sacramental confession, yes. Otherwise, no.
Ann doesn’t post anything.
There is much in Protestantism that remains Catholic and therefore is quite correct. However, their ecclesiology is kindergarten on sugar syrup.
You are correct though that the typical defect of Protestant reasoning, that my credentialed opponent so amply illustrates, is looking at a scripture that says A, and saying "therefore, not B". For example, the fact that Jesus is the Lord doesn't mean the Church has no human figures of authority.
You're claiming St. Constantine was pagan in 325?
Constantine was a Pagan till he was on his death bedYes !
b'SHEM Yah'shua
and then he was baptized by a heretic.
Well, it's not just the focus being on man with physical Apostolic succession...
This also gets heavily imported into...
..."communication" attempts with saints and others not-so-saintly (I don't know who has 100% "proof" that a certain saint in is heaven)
..."communication" attempts with Mary, and supposed apparitional revelations coming the other way as well (Lady of Fatima)...
...relics that have touched apostles, etc. [when no one can guarantee these relics are authentic]
So, I think a better source-reflection analogy would be for folks who keep insisting upon the honor of the blessed, sacred, honorable, grace-filled, worshipful moonlight, with accompanying constant (and I mean CONSTANT!) emphasis on such moon luminaries-- even as they acknowledge that the moon has no light source in & of itself...it's a mere reflection of the Sun!
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
Well, I'd say that's the main rub of every Catholic-Protestant discussion, isn't it? Proddies want the glory to go directly to the Sun...the Son. Catholics think it suffice that time, energy, attention, prayer, $, resources that dilute attention, devotion, worship, focus, orientation, piety, prayer and the like away from Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit is A-OK because such attention on the moonlight at least yields indirect glory to the Sun.
I would suggest a re-reading of those NT verses that talk about good deeds that wind up glorying our God in heaven. The primary point of those good deeds as glorifying triggers is that they are to be done before folks who fail to acknowledge God. With such good deeds right in their faces, they have little choice other than to (finally) acknowledge God. So, yes, the tiny fireflies of light given off by us and even by Mary in her lifetime has brought and continues to bring glory to God.
To be frank, aside from the obvious inter-dependency of the Body Paul talks about, the real "dependency" upon mortal light-bearers is not Christians but non-Christians! The apostle John assumed this when he wrote:
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth...As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. (1 John 2:20-21,27)
[BTW, my reference "glory" given to the moon is defined as...
...massive attention to other entities in heaven besides Christ...
...massive honor attended to other entities in heaven besides Christ...
...a 9-pronged call to Mary in the "Hail, Mary" that outweighs every single call to Jesus in the Lord's Prayer, 9-1...
...worship of Mary...using Pope Paul phrase "Devotion to the Blessed Virgin in instrinsic in our Christian worship" in the Catholic Catechism as context for that phrase)
We as proddies say to those Catholics who only "honor" Mary and don't "worship" her, fine. But if that is the commitment, why stop with such a miniscule part of the Body of Christ?
The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. (1 Corinthians 12:21-23)
(The message we keep hearing from Catholics is, "Mary is indispensable to you, because she's indispensable to me." Well, the "error" of that according to 1 Cor. 12:21-23 is that the entire body--not just Mary--is "indispensable." The message we keep hearing from Catholics is, "Mary is the object of dulia worship, not lutria worship and we just 'honor' Mary." Well, if it's only "honor" why are ya stopping at Mary? According to the apostle Paul, "the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor.")
Your comparisons to the U.S. Constitution are excellent.
I really don’t see how a Roman Catholic can be a strict constructionist or even a textualist when it comes to the Constitution, but then revert to a Bible+Magisterium approach to Christianity.
The Bible+Magisterium approach is EXACTLY parallel to what liberal Judges say when they claim our real constitution is Constitution+Supreme Court decisions. When a text and arbitrary human decisions are mixed, as a dual final authority, the human decisions win every time....corrupting the text. The Supreme Court is supposed to be simply an interpreter of the final authority, the text, not a co-equal authority to it.
The same principle applies in the military. The reason for a hierarchy in military authority is that ultimately one can have only one authority in charge... two co-equal authorities just don’t work, as one will over-power and subvert the other. This is why the President is Commander-in-Chief, and not the President + Congress.
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.