Posted on 09/14/2008 10:21:07 PM PDT by Gamecock
Heresy
(Gk. hairesis, “choose”)
Describes a deviation or departure, doctrinally speaking, from the Christian faith, usually of a significant variety. This deviation must be from an established doctrine, dogma, or canon of truth that has been historically accepted as a defining characteristic of the faith. Arguably, the most common and serious heresies center on the person of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity.
TWOTD Ping
If you would like on or off of this list please FReepmail me
Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers.
In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.
Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. It he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guild nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)
That's interesting since I have been told that by definition no Catholic in good standing can be a heretic. IOW, Catholics OWN the word. :) Therefore, for example, I have been told that it would be improper for me to say that Catholics are heretics because they deny Sola Fide. To be clear, I mean this NOT for the disagreement, but simply because Catholics in good standing are immune from heresy BY DEFINITION. How do you see it as compared to the quote above, which allows for anyone to be a heretic with respect to anyone else's Christian beliefs?
Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. It he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guild nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)
I'm not sure if "material" should be "immaterial", but I'm guessing that "guild" should be "guilt". In any event, this would seem to mean that only Catholics would be capable of heresy. I can easily and in good faith defend my non-Catholic beliefs based "on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures". I also do not subjectively recognize any obligation on my part to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. Therefore, am I right to conclude that by this explanation there can be no implication of my guilt or sin against faith for the fact that I disagree with many parts of Catholicism?
Jesus never used the word heresy.. But in John ch 10 spoke of sheep in sheep pens.. and sheep outside the sheep pens.. in the pasture.. with himself.. Heretic is what some in some sheep pens call others in other sheep pens.. The walls of the sheep pens could be dogma, tradition and teachings..
Let’s not forget goats outside of the pen.
Goats are not specified.. but could be implied.. if you match the metaphor to modern reality..
“I’m not sure if “material” should be “immaterial”, but I’m guessing that “guild” should be “guilt”. In any event, this would seem to mean that only Catholics would be capable of heresy. I can easily and in good faith defend my non-Catholic beliefs based “on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures”. I also do not subjectively recognize any obligation on my part to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. Therefore, am I right to conclude that by this explanation there can be no implication of my guilt or sin against faith for the fact that I disagree with many parts of Catholicism?”
You won’t get that pass from Orthodoxy, FK. Heresy is heresy and a heretic is a heretic. We don’t care about material or immaterial or what anyone’s excuse is. On the other hand, we haven’t a history of inquisition and burning at the stake, etc. so being a heretic to the Orthodox isn’t quite so earth shattering and physically dangerous a status as it might be in the West. :)
"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." -- 1 Corinthians 11:19
GSN-139 ai[resij noun accusative feminine plural common [Fri] ai[resij, e,sewj, h` strictly choice or option; (1) of a separatist group NAsbU 1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
characterized by loyalty to a certain school of thought and practice
sect, party, school (AC 5.17); (2) of such separatist groups claiming
status within the Christian community heretical sect, party, division (1C 11.19);
(3) in a religious sense, of belief contrary to established doctrine heresy, false teaching (2P 2.1)
**Corinthians 11:19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. **
That was in our first reading today at Mass.
I would say it depends, and that is what I'm exploring, whether the proper use of "heretical" is relatively standard or more personal. As the article definition intimates, I would really only use it to describe something patently against common Christianity, such as "Jesus was a prophet, nothing more". Now, as a Baptist I do have an honest disagreement with most Reformers about infant baptism, but it doesn't occur to me to use the word "heretic" vis-a-vis the Baptist faith. It's just a disagreement.
OK, but my understanding of Orthodoxy is that the number of actual "MUST" beliefs is rather small, albeit they are all significant. This is compared with, for example, you and Kosta maybe having a disagreement about something like the relevance of the OT (or eschatology, or whatever), but neither one of you is going to call the other a heretic over it. So, if all that is true, then where's the line?
First, heresy really means separation by choice. That is an important thing to remember. It is a willing rejection of the Church.
The line is, FK, when one maintains that his or her own interpretation is the truth and rejects the teaching of the Church as false.
One is allowed to "hypothesize" and argue his or her point, as long as it is a hypothesis or a theologoumennon, and not presented as Church doctrine.
For instance, Blessed Augustine is a Saint in the Orthodox Church, but much of his teaching is rejected as false. How can then he be a saint and not a heretic? For one it was the way he died. But as far as heresy is concerned, he always deferred to the Church.
Another example is Galileo Galilei. Galileo was allowed to "hypothesize" about the celestial issues that were at odds with the established (old world) order, as long as he prefaced them with a standard disclaimer—basically that science cannot claim to know the truth as it really is.
It was only when he refused to admit that the heliocentric system was only a "hypothesis" but said it was a fact that he was condemned for "vehement suspicion of heresy" and thrown into house arrest until he died.
Heresy simply means teaching that which is not the teaching of the Church as truth.
However, there are "hypotheses" that fall outside of the pillars of the Christian faith, such as denial of the trinitarian nature of God, denial of Christ's resurrection, or Christ's divinity, or the denial of Theotokos as the mother of our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, or of her virginity, etc. These fall outside the "core" Christian faith and are not heresy but another religion.
Thus, by definition, Protestants are heretics (separated) in the strictest sense, but they are Christians—separated brethren. On the other hand, the LDS are not.
The Catholics and Orthodox teach one and the same "core" and have disputes within the confines of the Church doctrine, an "in-house" disagreement if you will. There is one Church, with valid clergy and valid apostolic succession (apostolic authority), valid sacraments, etc., but not entirely in agreement over some issues. The Church is divided but not separated.
Depending whose perspective you wish to side with, you could say that the Orthodox are "schismatics" or, conversely that the Catholics are. But the important fact is that neither left the Church as Luther did. He is a heretic but he is Christian. On the other hand, Origen and Tertullian embraced a different religion and are not even considered Christians.
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene
Americanism, Then and Now: Our Pet Heresy (encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)
Heresies then and now: ancient Christian heresies practiced in modern times
The Plain Truth About The Baptist Bride Heresy
Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy: An Exchange (is it compatable with the Catholic faith?)
Heresies then and now: ancient Christian heresies practiced in modern times
The Rev. John Piper: an interesting look at "heresy vs. schism"
Pietism as an Ecclesiological Heresy
Arian Heresy Still Tempts, Says Cardinal Bertone (Mentions Pelagianism As Well)
Catholic Discussion] Church group stays faithful (to heresy!)
An overview of modern anti-Trinitarian heresies
Christian mavericks find affirmation in ancient heresies
Where heresy and dissent abound [Minnesota]
Gnostic Gospels - the heresy entitled "Gnosticism."
The So-Called ‘Gospel’ of Judas: Unmasking an Ancient Heresy
Benedict XVI Heresies and Errors
Great! Thank you.
The phrase "separation by choice" means that at one point there was a joining, i.e. a willing adherence to the Apostolic Church. That's what I was exploring when I said "... only Catholics can be heretics". I never "separated" myself from the Apostolic Church since I have never been a part of it. I became a member of God's Church when I became a believer.
I know (I "think") the Orthodox Church considers me a heretic, but is there a distinction because I never was a "member" vs. having been a member and then leaving? On a related note, what is the Orthodox view of the Catholic doctrine of invincible ignorance?
One is allowed to "hypothesize" and argue his or her point, as long as it is a hypothesis or a theologoumennon, and not presented as Church doctrine. For instance, Blessed Augustine is a Saint in the Orthodox Church, but much of his teaching is rejected as false. How can then he be a saint and not a heretic? For one it was the way he died. But as far as heresy is concerned, he always deferred to the Church.
I have never understood "deferred to the Church". How can someone say: "I believe in 'A', but I defer to the Church which I know teaches 'B'??? That makes no sense to me. :) For example, in my SBC church the "holding" is that alcohol is "bad", even in moderation. But, I am not a teetotaler so my response is "I disagree with that", rather than "I believe it is OK to drink, but I defer to my church and so it is bad to ever drink". I DON'T defer to my church because I really do believe it is OK to drink in moderation as a basic principle. I believe what I believe.
In terms of BEHAVIOR it is easy to defer to the wishes of my church, such as not drinking at social events with other church members. No problem. But that is very different from BELIEF. I can't modify my belief without a persuasive reason. So, to make a short story long, I don't get it when you say that you believe something, but you defer to something else (the Church). Exactly what is it that you are deferring?
It was only when he [Galileo] refused to admit that the heliocentric system was only a "hypothesis" but said it was a fact that he was condemned for "vehement suspicion of heresy" and thrown into house arrest until he died.
Good example. When you post your views on FR that disagree with the Church, are you like Galileo? If not, why, generally, would you post them? :) I'm trying to understand the mindset. I don't see where there is actual "deference". :)
Heresy simply means teaching that which is not the teaching of the Church as truth.
But in your opinion does it go both ways in terms of the use of the word? So for example, I would say that I hold views that are heretical to the Apostolic faith. Would you also say that you hold views that are heretical to the Reformed faith?
On the other hand, Origen and Tertullian embraced a different religion and are not even considered Christians.
I sure didn't know that. :) Aren't they both considered Church Fathers?
You remain separated by choice. Before you were a Christian, this was not an issue. Now that you are, it is!
The Catholic Church has it's own way of putting it:
"They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse to enter it or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium, n. 14)
On a related note, what is the Orthodox view of the Catholic doctrine of invincible ignorance?
Zero. For those who are not familiar, the invincible ignorance is a Catholic doctrine about the possibility that even those who don't know Christ at no fault of their own can be saved.
"Those who through no fault of their own, do not know Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — these too may achieve eternal salvation." (Lumen Gentium, n. 16; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 847).
Christians outside of the Catholic and Apostolic Church canot claim invioncible ignorance. The Orthodox Church, would tell you that it would be better for your soul to be received into the Church because that's the onyl way the Church can care for your soul; everything else is in God's hands.
I have never understood "deferred to the Church". How can someone say: "I believe in 'A', but I defer to the Church which I know teaches 'B'??? That makes no sense to me
It simply means that one admits that even though his reason tells him otherwise, he believes in his heart that the Church is right and knows better than any single individual.
For example, in my SBC church the "holding" is that alcohol is "bad", even in moderation. But, I am not a teetotaler so my response is "I disagree with that", rather than "I believe it is OK to drink, but I defer to my church and so it is bad to ever drink". I DON'T defer to my church because I really do believe it is OK to drink in moderation as a basic principle. I believe what I believe.
You are mixing discipline with theology.
Let me ask you, what happens if someone says "I don't defer to mu church" when it comes to, say, polygamy! Where do you draw the line?
I can't modify my belief without a persuasive reason.
Welcome to the club, FK! :)
So, to make a short story long, I don't get it when you say that you believe something, but you defer to something else (the Church). Exactly what is it that you are deferring?
Your belief can be based on incomplete knowledge. By deferring to the Church you simply acknowledge that your belief may seem reasonable to you at this stage of your spiritual development, but it is not necessarily absolute truth. Deferring to the Church means that you believe that the Church safeguards the unchanged Truth of Christ as delivered to the Apostles, and that if your opinion is not in harmony with the Church it is because your belief is incomplete (imperfect). Otherwise you hold yourself above the Church.
Good example. When you post your views on FR that disagree with the Church, are you like Galileo?
The Inquisition that condemned Galileo confused physical facts with theological postulates. The Vatican officials were convinced that the images they saw through Galileo's 30-power telescope were "distorted" by the devil in order to deceive them into believing a lie. Come to think of it, I can think of some Christians who exhibit a similar line of thinking even today.
I'm trying to understand the mindset. I don't see where there is actual "deference".
That's the point Galileo used to defer to the Church by including disclaimers in his books (actually they were required). The problem started when he no longer deferred to the "Church"(i.e. to Vatican officials) official interpretation of observed astronomical phenomena. That's when e was found guilt of the "vehement suspicion of heresy."
But in your opinion does it go both ways in terms of the use of the word?
Technically speaking, yes, but objectively no. Christ left his church to his Apostles. There is only one universal (catholic) Church of Christ, and its faith is true (orthodox). Heresy refers to willfully staying out or willfully leaving the Church. :)
Aren't they both [Origen, Tertullian] considered Church Fathers?
No they are not. They were incredible Cristian theologians and they would have certainly been counted among the Church Fathers had they not left Christianity. Their work, while they were orthodox is still valid. It is at the point when they begin to introduce non-Christian teachings that the no longer qualify as Christian theologians.
Some non-Catholic/non-Orthodox sources list them erroneously as "Church" fathers but that is wholly inaccurate. Judas used to be a disciple but no one counts him among the Apostles, even though he was one of them.
I would be exempted from this since I have never "known" that the Apostolic Church was founded by God as necessary to salvation.
FK: On a related note, what is the Orthodox view of the Catholic doctrine of invincible ignorance?
Zero. ...... Christians outside of the Catholic and Apostolic Church cannot claim invincible ignorance. The Orthodox Church, would tell you that it would be better for your soul to be received into the Church because that's the only way the Church can care for your soul; everything else is in God's hands.
Well, I'm not sure if what you're saying is actually disagreeing with Catholicism or not. As I understand it, a Catholic would say that invincible ignorance is not really a "claim" that anyone would make, SINCE, he is ignorant. :) IOW, if I believed that invincible ignorance was a valid doctrine, and claimed it, then by definition I would "know too much" and not qualify for it. (I also welcome any Catholic comment.)
You are mixing discipline with theology. Let me ask you, what happens if someone says "I don't defer to my church" when it comes to, say, polygamy! Where do you draw the line?
That is the distinction between behavior and belief I was making with the underlying issue being "what does deference to one's church mean?". Let's say I was a polygamist but still really wanted to go to my SBC church. I would simply choose my favorite wife, or whichever was the best singer for choir purposes, to bring with me every Sunday. The outside behavior is adapted, but the belief is not. I would not call this "deferring to my church". :)
Your belief can be based on incomplete knowledge. By deferring to the Church you simply acknowledge that your belief may seem reasonable to you at this stage of your spiritual development, but it is not necessarily absolute truth. Deferring to the Church means that you believe that the Church safeguards the unchanged Truth of Christ as delivered to the Apostles, and that if your opinion is not in harmony with the Church it is because your belief is incomplete (imperfect). Otherwise you hold yourself above the Church.
OK, all of this sounds reasonable. But what I'm saying is, if you hold that the Church is correct on these matters, then why not just change your opinion or belief to be in conformity? We both know that Heb 11:1 says "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." So, why not be certain? :)
FK: But in your opinion does it go both ways in terms of the use of the word [heretic]?
Technically speaking, yes, but objectively no. Christ left his church to his Apostles. There is only one universal (catholic) Church of Christ, and its faith is true (orthodox). Heresy refers to willfully staying out or willfully leaving the Church. :)
I'm not sure what that means. :) I get what "willfully leaving" means, but what constitutes "willfully staying out"? If I knew in my heart that Apostolic Christianity was the way to go, then I would simply become Orthodox or Latin, etc. But I don't know that, and have never known it.
FK: Aren't they both [Origen, Tertullian] considered Church Fathers?
No they are not. They were incredible Cristian theologians and they would have certainly been counted among the Church Fathers had they not left Christianity. Their work, while they were orthodox is still valid. ...... Some non-Catholic/non-Orthodox sources list them erroneously as "Church" fathers but that is wholly inaccurate.
OK, thanks for the clarification. I will certainly take your word on this over the source of my comment, Wiki: Origen: "Origen (Greek: Ὠριγένης ÅŒrigénÄ“s, or Origen Adamantius, ca. 185–ca. 254) was an early Christian scholar, theologian, and one of the most distinguished of the early fathers of the Christian Church."
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.