The Great Heresies [Open]

From Christianity’s beginnings, the Church has been attacked by those introducing false teachings, or heresies.

The Bible warned us this would happen. Paul told his young protégé, Timothy, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

Heresy is an emotionally loaded term that is often misused. It is not the same thing as incredulity, schism, apostasy, or other sins against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).

To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.

A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.

Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).

It is important to distinguish heresy from schism and apostasy. In schism, one separates from the Catholic Church without repudiating a defined doctrine. An example of a contemporary schism is the Society of St. Pius X—the "Lefebvrists" or followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—who separated from the Church in the late 1980s, but who have not denied Catholic doctrines. In apostasy, one totally repudiates the Christian faith and no longer even claims to be a Christian.

With this in mind, let’s look at some of the major heresies of Church history and when they began.

The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"

Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.

But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.

"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.

Montanus began his career innocently enough through preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia. There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit).

The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality.

Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.

Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.

After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system. This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God’s grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one’s efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.

This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, "icon smashers") appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the fact that in the Bible, God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14).

Catharism was a complicated mix of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology. The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead.

The Albigensians formed one of the largest Cathar sects. They taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty.

Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"— the idea that we are justified by faith only).

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church "against" the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.

The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.

Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, France, initiated this heresy with a paper he wrote on Augustine, which redefined the doctrine of grace. Among other doctrines, his followers denied that Christ died for all men, but claimed that he died only for those who will be finally saved (the elect). This and other Jansenist errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.

Heresies have been with us from the Church’s beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul’s words, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

Pope Honorius was guilty of Heresy.

In fact, what was going on was an attempt at the first steps toward a mutually agreeable catalogue of differences. "When I speak peace, they are for war."

I respect your learning and thoughtfulness. This was beneath you.

We keep on saying that, from Peter on, a great number of Popes ended up in hell and more of them were buffoons at least once in a while, and that infallibility does not inhere in the individual but in a particular exercise of his office.

Of course you had a gotcha up your sleeve. Looks like you had buck fever as well though. I gave you the answer your trap needed and you didn't even see it, so sure were you of my deviousness and evasion. I had to point out your target to you so that you could hunt it.

Of course, we filthy Papists are so diabolically wily, when we aren't busy being incredibly moronic, that I did in fact pack meaning upon meaning in layers of devious logical traps in my one word answer and I am just holding off on springing my trap.

But, futile as I know it is, since good arguments will be ignored and bad ones misunderstood, Popes can fail. Ben XVI as much as said so in Jesus of Nazareth. Before I even thought of converting I knew that. A pope's failure, even a spectacular one, and a subsequent council's anathematizing that failure impinge on neither the infallibility of Popes nor that of councils.

I just can't help thinking that the guys at Vat I had maybe heard of Honorius.

OLD REGGIE: Pope Honorius was guilty of Heresy.

MAD DAWG: Anyone can err.

So true. All men err. And none is infallible, not even a pope, as we've just learned.

then we just had another jerk for Pope...We keep on saying that, from Peter on, a great number of Popes ended up in hell

A "great number" of men who supposedly speak infallibly for God and Christ's church end up in hell???

That's astounding.

From the RCC catechism at Vatican.va...

891
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

Wow. So apparently in Ecumenic Councils not only is the pope infallible, but also the bishops and magisterium right along with him. And yet, although a particular pope presiding over a particular Ecumenic Council might still end up in hell, the doctrines he produces in the council are "infallible," just as he is "infallible" and the bishops and the magisterium are "infallible."

So many "infallibles" floating around it's difficult to tell who's human and who's some kind of superhero.

A pope's failure, even a spectacular one, and a subsequent council's anathematizing that failure impinge on neither the infallibility of Popes nor that of councils.

I guess it all depends on what is the meaning of "is a failure" and "is infallible."

I just can't help thinking that the guys at Vat I had maybe heard of Honorius.

Oh, I'm sure they've heard of him. He's one of the men who is supposedly "infallible" regarding the Christian faith, yet he may have been a "jerk" and "ended up in hell."

The truth is that no man is infallible. Infallibility belongs to the Triune God alone.

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" -- Numbers 23:19

Good post, however (isn’t there always a however :>) any ritual act that absolves would be an act that had been agreed upon, allowed, permitted by the governing authority.

Ultimately, there is nothing in any ritual act that logically dissolves a past act and makes it not to have happened.

Therefore, there is no absolution in any act. There can only be judicial recognition that God has permitted an imputed, judicial righteousness to prevail over an actual righteousness.

You, my friend, will not stop sinning. The sinful nature is yet within you, and it will break out at the oddest times and places, and it will spill out on you, or others, or on your relationship with God. Therefore, you can never be truly righteous through any act or ritual on your part.

You can only be righteous if God declares He will apply a different understanding of righteousness in your case.

Therefore, the only righteousness is the imputed righteousness that is ours in Jesus Christ our Lord, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, to whom be praise and glory from everlasting to everlasting.

Thank you all so very much for sharing your insights and especially, thank you Dr. Eckleburg, for those beautiful Scriptures!!!

Truly if even one man could have been "good enough" to get to heaven then Christ died for nothing.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. - Galatians 2:21

We are not righteous, Christ is. It is not possible for a man to say or think or do perfect things.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; - Romans 3:23

But because Christ is perfect it is possible for a man to "be" perfect by abiding in Christ and Christ in him. Indeed, on our own we can do nothing.

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. – Matthew 5:48

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:4-5

Moreover while we are yet "anchored" to the flesh, we will sin. But Jesus is our intercessor, He hears our confessions and His blood heals us. The Blood of the Lamb is never inadequate.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. - I John 1:5-10

And so the bottom line is always the One and Only Great Commandment, love God surpassingly above all else. Give Him the glory. The righteousness is His not ours. The fruits are His not ours.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. – Matthew 22:37-38

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. – Galatians 5:22-23

A man who seeks to achieve righteousness on his own efforts - who wishes to earn forgiveness for his sins - can always turn to the Law - but he will fail.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all. - James 2:10

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. There is no substitute. The Blood of the Lamb is always sufficient. There is no condemnation to those of us who live in Him and follow Him:

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.

Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:1-9

And that is our blessed assurance because when we keep the one and only Great Commandment, we do not need to "sweat the details."

To God be the glory!

Anyone can err. When the error is the foundation for snide chracterizations, then we have more than one thing to make note of. IS it required of me that I pretend to be expert in matters I know little about? In posing your question, I noted that you were changing the subject from what I had been discussing and then answered your question simply and professed my ignorance of the historical side of the topic. For this I get compared to a politician.

In fact, what was going on was an attempt at the first steps toward a mutually agreeable catalogue of differences. "When I speak peace, they are for war."

I respect your learning and thoughtfulness. This was beneath you.

Oh please! It is not becoming of you to continue to play the innocent victim. It was you who introduced the subject in post #886 to Manfred the Wonder Dawg. I merely persued the question posed by your statement: " As to the office of Pope and all, is it right to say that generally your side eschews ANY claim to infallibility of any kind, "Councils have erred," after all (that's from the Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church) and certainly any individual can err. So, theoretically, though not probably, even Sola Scriptura might be an erroneous doctrine."

One of our "catalogue of differences" is the RCC claim of Infallibility for the Pope under prescribed positions and for Ecumenical Councils, also under prescribed conditions.

Well---The 6th Ecumenical Council in 681 posthumously anathematized Pope Honorius for the heresy of Monotheletism .

There is no doubt neither Pope Honorius or the 6th Ecumenical Council had any idea of "infallibility" associated with their actions. Little did they know that the First Vatican Council in 1870 would retroactively define the Doctrine of Infallibility. By that doctrine the 6th Ecumenical Council "infallibly" declared Pope Honorius a heretic. They could not have misunderstood him. They "Infallibly" convicted Pope Honorius of heresy.

Did Honorius "declare and define". If not then we just had another jerk for Pope. (And my guess is that there isn't the data to show conclusively that he did or there'd already be some "hedge" in place.)

Are you introducing the magic words "declare and define" into the official definition of infallibility?

Can you provide any OFFICIAL Catholic publication which lists the "infallible" pronouncements of Popes over the years? I think not. Better to keep it one of the subjects that can be "explained around" as required.

But, futile as I know it is, since good arguments will be ignored and bad ones misunderstood, Popes can fail. Ben XVI as much as said so in Jesus of Nazareth. Before I even thought of converting I knew that. A pope's failure, even a spectacular one, and a subsequent council's anathematizing that failure impinge on neither the infallibility of Popes nor that of councils.

I'm afraid you know as little concerning "infallibility" as the typical Catholic. That is by design. Leave it vague enough that it may be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required.

It was you who introduced the subject in post #886 to Manfred the Wonder Dawg. I merely persued the question posed by your statement: " As to the office of Pope and all, is it right to say that generally your side eschews ANY claim to infallibility of any kind, "Councils have erred," after all (that's from the Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church) and certainly any individual can err. So, theoretically, though not probably, even Sola Scriptura might be an erroneous doctrine."

Yes, I brought it up, as part of a defense of Protestants against the charge of trying to be their own pope. That seems to me to be a silly charge.

There is no doubt neither Pope Honorius or the 6th Ecumenical Council had any idea of "infallibility" associated with their actions.

"No doubt ... neither." Could you rephrase? I get that being equivalent to "some doubt ... either," and then I get all mixed up.

I use "declare and define" as unofficial 'markers' for Popes speaking "ex cathedra". I do not think I am introducing them. I certainly did not come up with the idea. We do not say that every thing a Pope does is infallible. We say some things a Pope does are infallible. So the natural question is how to distinguish things which have the pretension from things which don't.

All the talk about the council infallibly declaring Honorious a heretic shows nothing to the point that I can see. There's a problem if we can show that Honorius was "declaring and defining". Then we'd have a Pope's act under color of ex cathedra teaching clashing with an act of a council.

I'm afraid you know as little concerning "infallibility" as the typical Catholic. That is by design. Leave it vague enough that it may be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required.

Well, that's one view, one you've stated a lot lately. It might even be true. I don't know what typical Catholics know. Suppose I know no more or even some less than the typical Catholic. Is the purpose here just to make accusations and read my mind about what I'm playing and what I intend? I think that makes a better game of solitaire than anything else.

But if the purpose is to examine the issue, then a blanket derogation of my knowledge, while it may be gratifying, doesn't reveal in what particular I am wrong.

I said Popes can fail. A conservative Pope, one often called an attack dog for tradition and orthodoxy, says he can fail. So however ignorant I may be I think I stand with the Vatican and and the current Pope in saying that a Pope can fail.

I'm assuming that the council and Honorius having this clash is not news, and that Vatican I knew about it, and nonetheless declared the dogma of Papal Infallibility. That suggests that somebody somewhere thinks as I do that the clash, as reported, does not conclusively show that the dogma is untenable.

I repeatedly mention the number of popes Dante puts in hell, and yet this news is greeted with hoots of astonishment as though something written more hundreds of years ago and on the curriculum of schools all over the place is a brand new idea.

I quite recognize some of the problems with the dogma and more than 15 years ago and before I converted, I enjoyed someone's article which presented a tour de force of parsing in showing how one of the more controversial ex cathedra statements of some Pope could still be adhered to.

Against this, all I am offered for consideration is a blanket charge of ignorance caused by, as I said, the people who alternate between devilish cunning and moronic imbecility, who are so incredibly wily as to play on the credulity of quite intelligent folks and too stupid to find their, ah, breviaries with both hands.

It fails to persuade.

One of our "catalogue of differences" is the RCC claim of Infallibility for the Pope under prescribed positions and for Ecumenical Councils, also under prescribed conditions.There are epistemological and other consequences, I think, if one says, say, the Westminster Confession but has to follow it with, "Of course, I could be wrong. No one and nothing save God is infallible." I think this would tend to lead to very different ways to do theology. I guess it also plays into the "invisible church" ecclesiology and into the notions of inefficacious sacraments. I think that RCs may not appreciate the consistency of this Protestant view. I think it makes a good showing for itself and ought to be taken seriously in all its parts.

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.

Vatican infallibly declares — TIMES are LATE

Prescribes Sacramental Meal and Resting in Christ

World Council of Churches complains about lack of social teaching