Choose Heresy

[rr1213]

Bishop Peter J. Lee, of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, made a big stir several years ago when he suggested that, if forced to choose, we should always “choose heresy” over schism. He said: “If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy…as a heretic, you are only guilty of a wrong opinion… [but as] a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time.”

washtimes.com/national/20040131-120323-2290r.htm

Conservative Protestants were astonished --absolutely astonished-- to hear Bishop Lee contend that we should ever “choose heresy” over schism. From a traditional Protestant standpoint, we almost always have chosen schism over heresy (or, at least, what we believe to be heresy). To us, it is important to stand for what Scripture teaches and, if necessary, to leave a church that preaches heresy. As Catholics are keen to point out, we have done so numerous times, again and again, leading to numerous Protestant Churches.

Yet, after participating in Catholic Answers Forums for a number of months now, it has struck me that perhaps Bishop Lee’s statement is very Catholic at heart. Not that Catholics would “choose heresy” of course (although, as Protestants, we believe that to be the case at times and, as Catholics, you return the favor). But, instead, that it seems that Catholics are always preaching the value of unity…that the Body of Christ cannot be divided. So, from a Catholic viewpoint, what is the greater value here? If you were to ever see the Catholic Church teach heresy (humor me here) what would be your spiritual obligation assuming that you could not prevail upon the Church to correct itself? Do you remain yoked to unbelievers, or believers of another gospel, or do you enter into schism, having nothing further to do with your wayward brothers? Any thoughts?

 

[Verita]

That’s really an impossible question for a Catholic to answer. If the Church were to start teaching (officially) heresy, then as the verse goes the gates of Hell would have prevailed against her. Yet this is impossible. It cannot happen because Jesus said it would not. One should never support heresy and one should never support schism. To choose is impossible. Fortunately, Catholics don’t have to.

 

[rr1213]

That’s really an impossible question for a Catholic to answer. If the Church were to start teaching (officially) heresy, then as the verse goes the gates of Hell would have prevailed against her. Yet this is impossible. It cannot happen because Jesus said it would not. One should never support heresy and one should never support schism. To choose is impossible. Fortunately, Catholics don’t have to.

I was afraid that Catholic responses would be along these lines which, of course, really does not address the issue of the thread. Ok, what about during the Arian controversy when most of the Bishops of the Church, including the Pope, were in heresy? For a long time there, a devout Catholic would be faced with his spiritual leaders as heretics and teaching heresy, if not dogmatially. Admittedly, the Church corrected itself eventually, but to the average non-heretical Catholic at the time it may have seemed that he was between a rock and a hard place…forced to choose between heresy and schism.

 

[quasimodo]

I agree, it does seem to be a very Catholic idea - one wonders how he views his own position. If I thought that the church was teaching heresy (just to humor you, mind you) I would first study the issues hard. Then I would try to look at it with the mind of the church. I would try to remember Christ’s promises to the church that the Spirit would guide us into all truth. In the end, knowing myself, I would most likely assume my understanding of the issue must be wrong and remain faithful to the Church Christ established.

It takes a lot of pride and ego to do other wise. My ego is not that big and I hope I have the required humility.

 

[quasimodo]

I was afraid that Catholic responses would be along these lines which, of course, really does not address the issue of the thread. Ok, what about during the Arian controversy when most of the Bishops of the Church, including the Pope, were in heresy? For a long time there, a devout Catholic would be faced with his spiritual leaders as heretics and teaching heresy, if not dogmatially. Admittedly, the Church corrected itself eventually, but to the average non-heretical Catholic at the time it may have seemed that he was between a rock and a hard place…forced to choose between heresy and schism.

It does happen just as you proposed in your first post. They are known as the SSPX, which is essentially (IMHO) a neo-protestant group and true to form, the SSPX is fissioning too.

The price of disunity is ever increasing disunity. Sometimes to punish us God gives us what we ask for.

 

[Ahimsa]

I was afraid that Catholic responses would be along these lines which, of course, really does not address the issue of the thread. Ok, what about during the Arian controversy when most of the Bishops of the Church, including the Pope, were in heresy? For a long time there, a devout Catholic would be faced with his spiritual leaders as heretics and teaching heresy, if not dogmatially. Admittedly, the Church corrected itself eventually, but to the average non-heretical Catholic at the time it may have seemed that he was between a rock and a hard place…forced to choose between heresy and schism.

You’re assuming that the Pope in question taught heresy.

 

[Atreyu]

Bishop Peter J. Lee, of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, made a big stir several years ago when he suggested that, if forced to choose, we should always “choose heresy” over schism. He said: “If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy…as a heretic, you are only guilty of a wrong opinion… [but as] a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time.”

washtimes.com/national/20040131-120323-2290r.htm

Conservative Protestants were astonished --absolutely astonished-- to hear Bishop Lee contend that we should ever “choose heresy” over schism. From a traditional Protestant standpoint, we almost always have chosen schism over heresy (or, at least, what we believe to be heresy). To us, it is important to stand for what Scripture teaches and, if necessary, to leave a church that preaches heresy. As Catholics are keen to point out, we have done so numerous times, again and again, leading to numerous Protestant Churches.

Yet, after participating in Catholic Answers Forums for a number of months now, it has struck me that perhaps Bishop Lee’s statement is very Catholic at heart. Not that Catholics would “choose heresy” of course (although, as Protestants, we believe that to be the case at times and, as Catholics, you return the favor). But, instead, that it seems that Catholics are always preaching the value of unity…that the Body of Christ cannot be divided. So, from a Catholic viewpoint, what is the greater value here? If you were to ever see the Catholic Church teach heresy (humor me here) what would be your spiritual obligation assuming that you could not prevail upon the Church to correct itself? Do you remain yoked to unbelievers, or believers of another gospel, or do you enter into schism, having nothing further to do with your wayward brothers? Any thoughts?

I suppose I would “choose” heresy over schism. I would always assume that it was my own understanding that was at fault, rather than the Church. But if I was absolutely 100% convinced that the Church was wrong, I’m not sure that choosing schism would be my answer. I would probably consider rejecting Christianity altogether. Catholicism and Christianity go hand in hand; if I have to reject the one, then I have to reject the other.

By the way, I don’t know of any popes that were Arian.

 

[Pug]

I would probably consider rejecting Christianity altogether. Catholicism and Christianity go hand in hand; if I have to reject the one, then I have to reject the other.

I’ve made a similar statement before, but as I read this today, something suggests itself to me. I have a connection to Jesus quite apart from thinking about doctrines and truths. He is real to me. How could I reject that? Maybe over time I could slowly accumulate a debt of ignoring him, and then deliberately forget him, but, I’d be doing it against what I know. It would be easier to do if I felt strongly disillusioned, but even so, I think it would be hard.

 

[Ahimsa]

I’ve made a similar statement before, but as I read this today, something suggests itself to me. I have a connection to Jesus quite apart from thinking about doctrines and truths. He is real to me. How could I reject that? Maybe over time I could slowly accumulate a debt of ignoring him, and then deliberately forget him, but, I’d be doing it against what I know. It would be easier to do if I felt strongly disillusioned, but even so, I think it would be hard.

That leads to the question: is it possible to experience/know/love Christ outside of a Christian Church? If so, then even if schism is chosen, Christ would still be experienced/known/loved.

 

[Atreyu]

I’ve made a similar statement before, but as I read this today, something suggests itself to me. I have a connection to Jesus quite apart from thinking about doctrines and truths. He is real to me. How could I reject that? Maybe over time I could slowly accumulate a debt of ignoring him, and then deliberately forget him, but, I’d be doing it against what I know. It would be easier to do if I felt strongly disillusioned, but even so, I think it would be hard.

My problem though is that my entire belief structure is centred on the Catholic Church. I believe in Jesus because of the Church. This is somewhat similar to what Augustine said, when talking about the Scriptures (I would not believe in the Scriptures if not for the authority of the CC).

If what I understand to be Truth comes crashing down, then everything - absolutely everything - is up for grabs. I would certainly not become Protestant, as I have no doubt of the invalidity of Protestantism. I suppose my only other alternative would be Orthodox, unless atheism can come up with a sufficient answer for the Cosmological argument (unlikely).

 

[jmcrae]

Not that Catholics would “choose heresy” of course (although, as Protestants, we believe that to be the case at times and, as Catholics, you return the favor). But, instead, that it seems that Catholics are always preaching the value of unity…that the Body of Christ cannot be divided. So, from a Catholic viewpoint, what is the greater value here? If you were to ever see the Catholic Church teach heresy (humor me here) what would be your spiritual obligation assuming that you could not prevail upon the Church to correct itself? Do you remain yoked to unbelievers, or believers of another gospel, or do you enter into schism, having nothing further to do with your wayward brothers? Any thoughts?

Although I wouldn’t phrase it that way, that’s actually what I do, in practice.

In fact, one of the things keeping me out of the Catholic Church for the longest time was that I felt strongly that, no matter how bad things got at my home church (and it was bad - the Moderator of the General Council was essentially an atheist, and there were homosexuals using the Sunday School rooms as if they were hotel rooms), God wouldn’t want me to leave my Church - that you no more leave your church than you do your family - that the right thing to do is stick it out with them, and love them, and journey along with them to Christ, no matter what.

It was only when I realized that Christ only established one Church, and that mine wasn’t it, that I realized I had no choice but to become Catholic. And at that point, my home church could have been teaching every point of doctrine exactly according to the Catechism, the homosexuals could have been models of chastity, and I still would have had to leave them to become Catholic - because they were in schism against Jesus.

Now that I’m in Christ’s Church, I’m here to stay, even if I’m the only “true believer” of the whole 1.2 billion of us - because being a member of Christ’s Church is more important than being theologically correct, it’s more important than being morally upright, and it’s more important than good liturgy, or beautiful architecture, or beautiful music.

I always think of it this way - when Moses brought Israel out of Egypt and into the Promised Land, he got lost for 40 years.

Chances are good that some of the Israelites did know the right way to get there - but the moment they left Moses to go their own way, they were no longer members of Israel. And if they did find their way to the Promised Land by themselves? Then they were among the “aliens” that God commanded Joshua to get rid of, so that Israel could live there.

No - if you want to not only get to the Promised Land, but also get to live there among God’s people instead of being banished as an “alien”, you have to go with “Moses” - even when you know perfectly well that he’s completely lost - and even when he won’t listen to you when you tell him, “No, it’s that way.”

That’s just my take on it.

 

[havemercy]

Nonsense.

Heresy and schism seem to be so closely related that one would have no choice but to avoid both altogether. Moreover, one may (and often has) effected the other.

 

[tdgesq]

I agree with many others here that false alternatives are being offered. But if a person believes that heresy is being taught within the Christian Church, then it seems to me that attempting reform within the structures of the Church at least begins to avoid the horrible consequences of schism. It is quite an assumption to just say that reform could never be effected because you tried several times, or even that many before you tried. I see the Protestant reformation as more of a revolt - a revolution rather than a reformation. If I really believed that dogma of the Church was heretical, then I don’t know if I could continue to be a Christian.

 

[rr1213]

My problem though is that my entire belief structure is centred on the Catholic Church…If what I understand to be Truth comes crashing down, then everything - absolutely everything - is up for grabs.

I think that I can grasp that concept, although frankly it is foreign to the Protestant experience, at least in the USA. We do not believe that the Truth of the Gospel is limited to a particular Christian Church. At times, people change thier Church. Most of the time the change is probably not due to a change in the person’s theological perspective, but on other factors. Sometimes a person’s theology changes, i.e., a Presbyterian may become convinced that the concept of predestination is not Biblical and become a free will Methodist. Or vice versa. That said, perhaps the closest parallel for a Protestant would be if it were proven beyond any doubt (not that it will be of course) that Christ did not rise from the dead. If that is the case then, like Paul said, we are most to be pitied among men and it would make no sense to simply shift denominations.

 

[rr1213]

Although I wouldn’t phrase it that way, that’s actually what I do, in practice.

In fact, one of the things keeping me out of the Catholic Church for the longest time was that I felt strongly that, no matter how bad things got at my home church (and it was bad - the Moderator of the General Council was essentially an atheist, and there were homosexuals using the Sunday School rooms as if they were hotel rooms), God wouldn’t want me to leave my Church - that you no more leave your church than you do your family - that the right thing to do is stick it out with them, and love them, and journey along with them to Christ, no matter what.

It was only when I realized that Christ only established one Church, and that mine wasn’t it, that I realized I had no choice but to become Catholic. And at that point, my home church could have been teaching every point of doctrine exactly according to the Catechism, the homosexuals could have been models of chastity, and I still would have had to leave them to become Catholic - because they were in schism against Jesus.

Now that I’m in Christ’s Church, I’m here to stay, even if I’m the only “true believer” of the whole 1.2 billion of us - because being a member of Christ’s Church is more important than being theologically correct, it’s more important than being morally upright, and it’s more important than good liturgy, or beautiful architecture, or beautiful music.

I always think of it this way - when Moses brought Israel out of Egypt and into the Promised Land, he got lost for 40 years.

Chances are good that some of the Israelites did know the right way to get there - but the moment they left Moses to go their own way, they were no longer members of Israel. And if they did find their way to the Promised Land by themselves? Then they were among the “aliens” that God commanded Joshua to get rid of, so that Israel could live there.

No - if you want to not only get to the Promised Land, but also get to live there among God’s people instead of being banished as an “alien”, you have to go with “Moses” - even when you know perfectly well that he’s completely lost - and even when he won’t listen to you when you tell him, “No, it’s that way.”

That’s just my take on it.

Thanks for your comments. If I understand you, in this scenario, you would remain a member of the Body of Christ as a member of the Catholic Church. Thus, if in some hypothetical world, the Catholic Church should preach heresy you would avoid schism because to leave the Catholic Church would be to leave the Church that Christ himself ordained.

 

[rr1213]

I agree with many others here that false alternatives are being offered.

***Of course, it is difficult to present the question in a manner that would receive meaningful comments from Catholics when Catholics decline to consider the possibility of the Catholic Church ever teaching heresy. ***

But if a person believes that heresy is being taught within the Christian Church, then it seems to me that attempting reform within the structures of the Church at least begins to avoid the horrible consequences of schism.

Agreed. Still, at some point, if reformation fails you are presented with the decision of living within the heretical structure or leaving that structure, i.e., becoming schismatic. I think history shows that in the view of most people who leave, the real schismatics are those who are preaching heresy. In otherwords, by preaching heresy they have removed themselves from the true church.

It is quite an assumption to just say that reform could never be effected because you tried several times, or even that many before you tried. I see the Protestant reformation as more of a revolt - a revolution rather than a reformation.

The Reformers, at least at first, attempted reform in the Church. This was not achieved, at least to the degree considered necessary by the Reformers. At that point, in their view at least, reformation was achieved outside of the bounds of the Catholic Church instead of within its structures.

If I really believed that dogma of the Church was heretical, then I don’t know if I could continue to be a Christian.

I think it would depend on the heresy. Unlike Catholics (at least those who are not Cafeteria types), most Protestants do not believe or give assent to every doctrine uttered by their particular Church. We live with that tension and, if the disassociation becomes too great, go to other Christian Churches.

 

[ricmat]

That’s really an impossible question for a Catholic to answer. If the Church were to start teaching (officially) heresy, then as the verse goes the gates of Hell would have prevailed against her. Yet this is impossible. It cannot happen because Jesus said it would not. One should never support heresy and one should never support schism. To choose is impossible. Fortunately, Catholics don’t have to.

I agree with the above, and have some questions along the same lines.

If the Church were teaching heresy, how would you know it?
Your own ideas? Your own personal theology? Personal visits from angels? Lots of research?

Isn’t being Catholic all about accepting what the magesterium teaches, whether we think it’s heretical or not?

 

[Ahimsa]

XIII. INTOLERANCE AND CRUELTY
The Church’s legislation on heresy and heretics is often reproached with cruelty and intolerance. Intolerant it is: in fact its raison d’être is intolerance of doctrines subversive of the faith. But such intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the organism amounts to suicide. Heretical sects are subject to the same law: they live or die in the measure they apply or neglect it. The charge of cruelty is also easy to meet. All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is their nature. But they are not therefore cruel. The father who chastises his guilty son is just and may be tender-hearted. Cruelty only comes in where the punishment exceeds the requirements of the case. Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of the Inquisition violated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity of faith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, when heresy was looked on as more malignant than treason. In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the laws framed by emperors and kings. Medieval people found no fault with the system, in fact heretics had been burned by the populace centuries before the Inquisition became a regular institution. And whenever heretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the same laws: so the Huguenots in France, the Hussites in Bohemia, the Calvinists in Geneva, the Elizabethan statesmen and the Puritans in England. Toleration came in only when faith went out; lenient measures were resorted to only where the power to apply more severe measures was wanting. The embers of the Kulturkampf in Germany still smoulder; the separation and confiscation laws and the ostracism of Catholics in France are the scandal of the day. Christ said: “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). The history of heresy verifies this prediction and shows, moreover, that the greater number of the victims of the sword is on the side of the faithful adherents of the one Church founded by Christ (see INQUISITION).

 

[ComradeAndrei]

The question is really unanswerable by a person who thinks in the Catholic mindset. IF the Church would ever teach heresy-then the whole of Christianity is nonsense. This would make choosing “heresy” or “schism” impossible because there would be nothing to commit heresy or schism against.

Ok, what about during the Arian controversy when most of the Bishops of the Church, including the Pope, were in heresy? For a long time there, a devout Catholic would be faced with his spiritual leaders as heretics and teaching heresy, if not dogmatially. Admittedly, the Church corrected itself eventually, but to the average non-heretical Catholic at the time it may have seemed that he was between a rock and a hard place…forced to choose between heresy and schism.

There was never a heretical pope, and certainly not an Arian one. The pope you are thinking of is Pope Honorious who just failed to settle the monophysite and monothelite issues but was not a heretic himself.

The Church never had to “correct itself”, the Church always holds the True Faith. The Church, however, reconciled many heretics back to the fold. The non-heretical Catholic never had to choose between heresy or schism because by being orthodox he is in communion with the Church.

 

[Stephen_C]

Ok RR,
Just my view from the pew.
It all boils down to faith. I truly believe the Catholic Church is all what she claims to be. I may not understand all…but I believe. Still seeking understanding on all things. So that said Jesus will not allow his Church to go into Heresy. That was and is his promise. So it just won’t happen. I know you do not believe this and I understand where you are coming from. But from a Catholic view schism = denying the authority of the Church. heresy = proclaming doctrine that is different from the Church. That is what Luther did. And he got excommunicated for it. When he started a new Church with this doctrine he and his followers went into heresy. (again this is the Catholic view) And we all know what happened after that. But I guess you know all that. And your view might be a little different on this. Again it is not a good thing to be in heresy or schism. It is just dividing the body of Christ. Which he did not intend.