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).
Nestorianism is the belief that Jesus the God only possessed Jesus following his birth, that during the gestation period only Jesus the Human existed in Mary’s womb.
I don’t know too many people who even think enough about that today to have that type of belief, and if I found someone I think it would be easy enough to dissuade them of that viewpoint using biblical passages.
On the other hand, there are some who attribute extra-biblical attributes to Mary because of her honor of being the Mother of God. It is unfortunate, because the phrase “Mother of God” is useful in it’s own right, but some become scared of using it because of how others take it too literally (which was another heresy).
Nestorianism has nothing to do with the argument over whether Mary was sinless, whether she ever had sex, or whether she died.
What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
ok.
>>You seem like a nice lady. Why do want to pick on protestants. Is today POP day? (pick on protestants day)<<
That is really nice of you to say! And that is not meant in a smarmy or smart way. I really appreciate it.
I don’t want to “pick on Protestants”. If I did, I could choose a few family members! LOL! And trust me, not because they are Protestant but because, well you know, all of us can be a bit funky from time to time.
But I don’t think it’s right to say that All Protestants think one thing or All Catholics think another. I don’t like when someone says Conservatives think....and mean all.
I
"Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths
Also you may want to read the following books, both written by Baptists, I believe, Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History and Baptist successionism;: A critical view.
Of note, Patterson, associate professor of church history at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary writes, "Although the belief was widespread among nineteenth-century Baptists and is still often cited today, the author demonstrates that it rests largely on the insecure footing of books written long ago by unscholarly, careless, or even biased historians."
It's also ironic that we would be talking about the "Trail of Blood" on a thread discussing ancient heresies, as the Trail seems to rely, at least in part, on the mere existence of heresies as proof that there existed a consistent "Baptist church" throughout the centuries. IOW, anything not Catholic, even if it's a heresy, schism, or whatever is regarded as "proof" of this trail. A strange claim for Carroll to make, but this is indeed central to his argument.
>>If you think your church or your religion or some time in the mythical place called purgatory will save you - STOP and consider your end now! Without the assurance of salvation in Christ Jesus your end will be terrible.<<
>>>Where did you read that Catholics believe Purgatory saves them?
1) are you a Roman Catholic?
2) If you are a RC, are you saying Purgatory is not necessary, that those who belong to Christ can go straight to heaven?
Read it and you’ll see!
“Read it and you’ll see!”
That is the usual answer when there is nothing. I read it, and then read it again giving it the benefit of the doubt. Then I looked for footnotes as that seems to be the place where these types of pronouncements redefine words used in the text. After all of that, I ask you again, What has the document to do with the subject at hand?
>>1) are you a Roman Catholic?
2) If you are a RC, are you saying Purgatory is not necessary, that those who belong to Christ can go straight to heaven?<<
Yes, I am Roman Catholic and yes, even our church says that if you belong to another church, you will not be denied salvation
Now, I’m I going to do some Purgatory time, I hope so. It means that I am saved but have to pay for the things I can’t repay,
Here’s what I tell my kids..
One day a father was trying to help his son overcome lying. He told the child to put one nail in a fence for every time he lies. The boy did it but soon saw how often it happened. He was sorry and repented. Soon the thought before he spoke and was lying no more.
He came to his dad and said, “Look! I haven’t put a nail there in days!”
The dad hugged him and said, “Now every time you avoid lying, take out one nail.”
The boy did and soon all the nails were gone. He stood before the fence and smiled at his father.
“How are you going to fix the holes, Son?”
That is what Purgatory is for. Not the sins, we’ve been forgiven of the sins, but for that which we can make up. The damage done.
I’m surprised to hear that. I don’t read the religion threads (I decided to wander in a bit just to see what it is like, and I think I’m going to stop soon).
Theotokos seems like an easily understood, precise, and biblical concept (literally, the one who gives birth to God). It clearly indicates that Mary is the woman in whom Jesus was conceived, grew, and was born. And it just as clearly limits her involvement to the physical birth of Jesus.
“Mother of God” is more imprecise, is translated from a different greek word as well, and is often misunderstood to suggest that Mary somehow has an eternal relationship. So when someone says “Mary, Mother of God”, you have to ask “do you mean just the physical birth mother, or do you mean some mystical eternal relationship — and some may go so far as to mistakenly think of Mary as the mother of God the trinity, meaning God the Father as well (I haven’t seen anyone make that mistake here).
I can see why someone might fall into the fallacy of believing only the human part of Jesus was in the womb. That would be the alternative error you would derive from an hypothesis of some limitation of God’s power and control, the OTHER error of which is the belief that Mary must have been sinless.
Meaning that there is a belief among some that God could not exist in the womb of a sinful human. Based on that false premise, some conclude Mary must have been sinless, while others conclude God must not have been in her womb.
They are in one sense two heresies based on the heretical premise that God is somehow limited as to where he can take physical form.
As a counter to that error, one must only look at the scriptures which teach that God the Holy Spirit (as much God as the Father and the Son) indwells the believers, who nonetheless are still sinful creatures, although sinless in the eyes of God through the sacrifice of his Son Jesus).
ROFLMAO
#1: Marianism.
Well it says that Non-Catholics can be saved.
Want me to lend you my Immaculate Metal decoder ring? (that’s a joke)
First of all, "church teachings" are not just some obscure popified dictation that's occurred in some remote room or remote portion of history. "Church teachings" are either circulated into the mainstream of the church by its leaders & hiearchy, or they are not. (And if they are not, then it's not just a "membership" issue of failing to follow that you try to pass it off on )
I would surmise that any doctrines in need of being "dusted off" due to no air circulation are really no vital teachings at all. So "clarity" isn't the only issue. Actuality of circulation by Catholic bishops, priests, teachers, authors, monks, and other hiarchical leaders also needs to be evident.
So, let's break these down to see if it's a non-sequitor.
So, you're telling me, then, that if I selected the half-dozen closest Catholic schools to where I live, that if I investigated the school curricula, I would find all of these things:
...teachings of the worship of Mary?
...teaching of prayer to deceased people?
...active veneration of holy relics?
Or if I was to review the Catholic church curricula & sermons for the past year of six Catholic churches closest to where I live, I would find evidence of:
...live, active teachings to married women NOT to use birth control?
...20th century Mary European revelations?
He named the monk several times but I was not in a position to write down the information. I'll probe deeper when I see him on Thursday. He claims this is all well documented.
What denomination are you/your pastor?
Catholic. I am Roman Catholic and he is Maronite Catholic. The Maronite Church has its See at Bkerke in Lebanon and is older than the Latin Church. This is the Church of Antioch and it's first Bishop was the Apostle Peter. You can read more about its history here.
Several years ago, a local Catholic college held an open forum and invited a Muslim to explain the Islamic faith to the attendees. My pastor, fluent in 8 languages including Arabic, decided to attend. At the conclusion of the presentation, there was a Q & A session. My pastor raised his hand. He posed a carefully worded question on the Qu'uran's call to persecute infidels. The presenter smiled graciously, read the Sura in English and suggested that he had misunderstood the teaching. With that, my pastor opened the Qu'uran, and read the same Sura in Arabic. He then challenged her in English to explain why Islam insisted in persecuting non-believers. Her face turned several shades of red and she moved on to the next question. Would that I could have been a fly on the wall that night.
I’m glad that Jesus died for my sins and that when I die, I don’t have to spend some time paying for what He in his Perfection already perfectly attoned for.
It is unfortunate that some believe Jesus was somehow able to wipe out the sins of all believers throughout history, but just didn’t have enough extra power to also close up those pesky holes.
On a more practical matter, after the kid took all the nails out, who picked up the fence pieces lying around and stacked them back up? :-)
Check out the last two verses (Num. 21:8–9 and John 3:14) in the article used to call iconoclasm a heresy. They both deal with the bronze serpent on a pole that Moses was commanded by God to make. There is a third mention in the Bible about this bronze serpent, but it is conspicuously missing:
You can imagine that this would not only upset those who worshiped it, but also all the other Jews. For they saw this as a relic of Moses, something that miraculously saved their people and had been designed by God.
So was Hezekiah right in destroying the bronze serpent? If we look at the preceding verse, it says "He did what was right in the LORD's sight" so yes, God approved.
This holds a great lesson for us today. Even though an image is made with good intentions or for a good purpose, it can become an idol even to the faithful.
These very same verses this article uses to argue against iconoclasm are the same ones our church uses to explain why we do not use statues or images in our church.
That is very clearly not the reasoning behind the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
>>It is unfortunate that some believe Jesus was somehow able to wipe out the sins of all believers throughout history, but just didn’t have enough extra power to also close up those pesky holes.<<
Yeah well, it’s a story for kids and I’m not bright enough to explain the Catechism the way others her can do. I did say it was a story for my kids, right?
>>On a more practical matter, after the kid took all the nails out, who picked up the fence pieces lying around and stacked them back up? :-)<<
Now that is funny! Are you a parent? You know the dad did, and probably cursed himself for not thinking of that firsta!
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.