Choose Heresy

[Victorious]

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.

With all due respect, how can you know what heresy is, since you reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church? As you admit, you’re left having to figure it out on your own. Since Protestants have so often felt the need to split away from churches because these churches don’t adhere to the teachings of Scripture, why does that not shake their faith in sola scriptura? If sola scriptura advocates are really being guided by the Spirit, then the one Spirit ought to be guiding them to one interpretation, not thirty thousand.

 

[Guardian]

With all due respect, how can you know what heresy is, since you reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church? As you admit, you’re left having to figure it out on your own. Since Protestants have so often felt the need to split away from churches because these churches don’t adhere to the teachings of Scripture, why does that not shake their faith in sola scriptura? If sola scriptura advocates are really being guided by the Spirit, then the one Spirit ought to be guiding them to one interpretation, not thirty thousand.

Touche!!

 

[scylla]

This is a good question because as a Catholic it is almost impossible to answer. It is almost like asking would you rather reject Jesus or the Holy Spirit. It makes no sense for a Catholic to answer.

I will give it a shot, and my answer is neither.

To choose otherwise than the Catholic Church for me, would be making myself God, and I would go to Hell. I can’t think of any way someone who knows, really knows Catholic belief which is a submittal to truth can leave without choosing Hell.
Since Catholic belief is essentially submittal to truth, and God’s will forsaking your own to leave is to make yourself God.

The Church cannot fall into heresy but plenty of heretics can be in it, even Popes. But once you see the cohesiveness of Catholic belief it all makes a lot of sense and you cannot see how a contradictory belief can be introduced without rejecting some part of the truth.

Like this, if the Pope suddenly comments it is ok to remarry, any true Catholic would know that this is directly against Catholic belief and would know that the Pope has a heretical belief. This would cause a bunch of turmoil in the Church and many would want to believe this new teaching as many have itchy ears.
Eventually it would be resolved and those who instead of following Gods will, but their own would need to correct their belief, or condemn theirselves to Hell, as they allow their own preference to define God’s truth instead of seeking His will.

God has the power to let us know truth and He wants us to know. We just have to be open to it, have enough humility and conform to it. Most people do not do this. That is why the gate is narrow.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[zachh]

The following is an inconsistent triad:

• The Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.
• The true Church of Christ will not teach any heresies.
• The Catholic Church is teaching a heresy.

As Catholics, we must have enough faith in the Catholic Church that we know when we find a “heresy,” the fault is not on the Church but on our understanding of the issue in question. Like a son questioning his father, we must have faith that the discrepancy lies not with the Church but our understanding.

To schism is to believe that the first part of the triad is false, which is to cease to be a Catholic. The only Catholic way to solve it is to reject the third part of the triad.

 

[didymus]

I think Bishop Lee is fooling himself if he thinks heresy and schism can be separated – they lead to each other. From what I’ve read, developments in the Episcopal Church have already led to, if not schism, “secession” of some parishes declaring themselves now under the authority of some more orthodox diocese outside the US. Add to this priests and individuals leaving the Episcopal church ind disgust.

Is having a siginificant chunk of your membership leave your church for other denominations (or for none at all) the same as schism? Maybe not, but I’d say it’s close enough for gov’t work.

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.

As a Catholic I have never understood this. Certainly we go parish-shopping to an extent, but it seems like Protestants try on denominations like clothes. I’[ve known people who chose their church because they liked the choir, or daycare, or politics.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

On the contrary, I think you will find that most Catholics at one point or another have questioned whether their Church has taught heresy. Heck, it’s nearly impossible to avoid with so many Protestants and Evangelicals going around questioning your faith.

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…

This is why I say that false alternatives are being offered. You implicitly recognize it as well when you say that those who have left the Church believe both that the Church was teaching heresy and that it separated itself from the “true church” by doing so. I know that’s the way those people who leave the Church think about it. The question is: are they right? And the answer is that they are not. The evidence demonstrates that just the opposite is true. It is the Reformers that embraced heresy and then outright declared schism.

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.

Well, how hard the various Reformers really tried is questionable. Luther appears to me to have been much more interested in establishing himself as the ultimate Christian authority, while at the same time preaching the novel and heretical view of sola scriptura. And look where it got him, Calvin and the rest. They ran around calling each other heretics and worse. Right out of the box they couldn’t agree with each other on what the Bible alone taught. The schism of the Reformation led to more heresy, not less.

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.

And right there is the legacy of the Reformers for you. Not only are Protestants now comfortable with schism, but with heresy as well - as long as in their own minds it isn’t too great of a heresy.

 

[rr1213]

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?

Scripture

 

[Ender]

“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.”

What an interesting question … and while it seems utterly theoretical I can’t resist throwing out some comments.

If we believe in one Church, as we confess in the creed, then leaving the Church entails rejecting one of our core beliefs so, from that perspective, schism is an irreparable option.

Regarding heresy (and ignoring the inherent difficulty of saying anything good about heresy) one could at least hope that at some future time the error would be corrected. Of course, this position assumes the possibility that the Church could actually teach heresy - which is not something a Catholic can accept. A more reasonable position is that what the Church is teaching is actually the truth and it is what we believe that is the heresy which makes going with the Church the safer choice.

This question seems much more philosophical (like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin) than real but there are levels of Church teachings and of the degree of infallibility claimed so we do admit that error is possible at some level. Given that, the question you pose is not entirely theoretical - and the bishop’s position seems the better of the two.

Ender

 

[Guardian]

Scripture

Your INTERPRETATION of Scripture, you mean.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

Yes, exactly. Because (to use another Old Testament metaphor) this is the Ark that Jesus and His crew are piloting.

I’ll bet Noah’s wife and children sometimes wondered if they should just jump overboard and swim for it when things got too smelly in there - good thing they didn’t, though!! :yup:

Another point to keep in mind is that, if I ever think that the Church is teaching heresy, then one of two things has happened: I have misunderstood something, or else I have made an incorrect basic assumption.

As others keep pointing out, it is impossible for the Church ever to teach heresy.

However, it is perfectly possible for me to misunderstand things and make wrong assumptions.

Also, the Church not being able to teach heresy doesn’t prevent my local priest or members of my local parish from being sinners - they could still do bad things. But it would be worse to leave, because although I might be glad to leave a bunch of sinners behind, I would ultimately regret leaving Jesus behind.

Anyone looking for a perfectly sinless church isn’t going to find it in this world, so they might as well go with Jesus’ Church - they won’t regret it.

 

[quasimodo]

Scripture

Unfortunately that is the same answer given by those whose theology is vastly different from yours. God is truth and he does not lead us into error and confusion, yet that is the result of your one word answer. Is it not? (And it is no better if you add the leading of the Holy Spirit to scripture.)

 

[Pug]

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.

Yes. St. Paul did. He met Jesus on the road to Damascus. But to choose schism after being in the Catholic Church and knowing her, as I’m sure many posters here do, this would be a huge thing.

Huh, maybe Jesus’s words to Paul *are *relevant here. He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” If a Catholic takes those words to indicated that Jesus says that to persecute his Church is to persecute him, then how do you schism from the Chruch if you love Jesus? It would be like leaving him.

(for background, Paul had been persecuting Christians before he met Jesus on the road).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

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.

This attitude takes an awful lot for granted, ISTM - but the reason I really find this sort of corporate ecclesiastical confidence (self-confidence ?) difficult, is that it sounds just like hubris: the sort of overweening self-confidence that invites destruction.​

Hubris is one thing that Protestantism does seem fairly free of. It has its problems, but thinking it can’t be corrected & doesn’t need correction is not one of them. In Catholicism - hubris is inescapable. It’s all over the place. Projection ? Possibly - but not entirely, I think. The CC has a terribly good opinion of herself - she “loves her, she’s wild about herself” - & that is dangerous. ##

 

[Victorious]

This attitude takes an awful lot for granted, ISTM - but the reason I really find this sort of corporate ecclesiastical confidence (self-confidence ?) difficult, is that it sounds just like hubris: the sort of overweening self-confidence that invites destruction.​

The essence of humility is a recognition of the truth. The truth is that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and entrusted with the mission of spreading and preserving the Gospel in its fullness, and that the Holy Spirit preserves her from error in matters of faith and morals. Humility therefore demands that she make the claims you complain of, since otherwise there would be no truth in her.

Hubris is one thing that Protestantism does seem fairly free of.That must be why so many Protestants think they can judge the state of other people’s immortal souls based on those other people’s church affiliation (or lack thereof).

 

[cheddarsox]

This attitude takes an awful lot for granted, ISTM - but the reason I really find this sort of corporate ecclesiastical confidence (self-confidence ?) difficult, is that it sounds just like hubris: the sort of overweening self-confidence that invites destruction.​

Hubris is one thing that Protestantism does seem fairly free of. It has its problems, but thinking it can’t be corrected & doesn’t need correction is not one of them. In Catholicism - hubris is inescapable. It’s all over the place. Projection ? Possibly - but not entirely, I think. The CC has a terribly good opinion of herself - she “loves her, she’s wild about herself” - & that is dangerous. ##

This hubris of which you speak is one of the reasons I left Catholicism. When studying the Catholic faith, I learned that the Church can never be wrong, or do wrong, or teach wrong…and a cold chill went down my spine. I knew I could not be part of something that beleived itself to be beyond fault, incapable of fault, unwilling to even entertain the possibility of fault.

I would rather take my chances with the humble.

cheddar

 

[Victorious]

This hubris of which you speak is one of the reasons I left Catholicism. When studying the Catholic faith, I learned that the Church can never be wrong, or do wrong, or teach wrong…and a cold chill went down my spine. I knew I could not be part of something that beleived itself to be beyond fault, incapable of fault, unwilling to even entertain the possibility of fault.

Then you can’t possibly believe in God or want any part of God, because God claims to be beyond fault, incapable of fault, and is unwilling to even entertain the possibility of fault. In fact, in His extreme hubris, He goes so far as to demand that we love Him with our whole heart, mind and strength.

I suggest to you that you really made no in-depth study of the Catholic Church, since you literally don’t know the first thing about her: that she was founded by Christ Himself, Who sent the Holy Spirit to guard her and guide her. If you have a problem with the idea that, under such guidance and protection, the Church cannot err in matters of faith, then your problem is not really with the Church: your problem is that you don’t really believe the Holy Spirit is capable of preserving her from error and leading her into all truth.

 

[rr1213]

If you have a problem with the idea that, under such guidance and protection, the Church cannot err in matters of faith, then your problem is not really with the Church: your problem is that you don’t really believe the Holy Spirit is capable of preserving her from error and leading her into all truth.

But didn’t the religious leaders of Israel err again and again? Isn’t that what most of the Old Testament is about, how Israel was unfaithful even though God was always faithful to the covenant he made with his people? Also, did not Jesus condemn again and again the religious leaders of his day for how they had strayed from the teachings of God, especially in placing man-made burdens on the faithful that even God did not require? Where would the faithful be during these times, in the Old Testament or the New, if they were bound to simply accept the proposition that their spiritual leaders could never err in matters of faith?

 

[Kristopher]

…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?..

Dear rr1213, et. al.:

I believe that the Japanese exemplify what I would do. Stated in a book by the Venerable Louis of Granada (1504-1588) in his classic book “The Sinner’s Guide.” 1883. USA-IL, Rockford: Tan Books Publishing, Inc.; 1985. (pags. xxii-xxiii)

“…There have been some 6 thousand editions of Fray Louis’ works. …tales brought back by missionaries that the Japanese version of ‘The Sinner’s Guide’ was one of the bullwarks that sustained the faith of the Japanese Catholics during two centuries of terrible persecution, when both in Europe and Japan, Japanese Christianity was believed dead. In 1865, when missionaries were again allowed into Japan, missionary Father Bernard Petitjean was astonished to find in the hills around Nagasaki thousands of Japanese Catholics who had kept the Faith,…, without priests, for over 200 years! …the joy of these faithful ones at once again having a Catholic priest among them. ‘The Sinner’s Guide’ had played a providential role in sustaining the Faith in their souls during that trying time. …”.

I am going to take very good care of my copy of “The Sinner’s Guide”, my Bible and Catechisms. Neither heresy, nor schism need to be choices–if these Japanese between the 1600’s to the 1800’s can keep the faith alive, under such intense persecution, than so can I. The universalality of the Catholic Church is both in place, and in time and therefore, it is able to be practised by all people, and at all times, and at all locations–it is a “method”, so-to-speak, for everyone and therefore, we always have an ability to become saints–there is no need to separate from the only Apostolic Church, either to deny the Papacy, or to avoid heresy–the Faith is always able to be perpetuated, virtually, by almost anyone–it is human nature in fact, I wish that I had the name of the encyclical name on hand at the moment, but one Pope went so far as to say, all are born Catholic, a reasonable statement in and of itself.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

P.S. I really love the beauty of the Catholic Church.

 

[Victorious]

But didn’t the religious leaders of Israel err again and again? Isn’t that what most of the Old Testament is about, how Israel was unfaithful even though God was always faithful to the covenant he made with his people? Also, did not Jesus condemn again and again the religious leaders of his day for how they had strayed from the teachings of God, especially in placing man-made burdens on the faithful that even God did not require? Where would the faithful be during these times, in the Old Testament or the New, if they were bound to simply accept the proposition that their spiritual leaders could never err in matters of faith?

There is a big difference between failing to adhere to the faith in practice and getting the faith wrong so that it fails to be preserved.

 

[rr1213]

There is a big difference between failing to adhere to the faith in practice and getting the faith wrong so that it fails to be preserved.

Perhaps, at least conceptually. Nonetheless, the Pharisees taught and required of the faithful things that were not required by God. This was a corruption of the true faith. If the approach taken by the Catholic Church today applied then, a faithful Jew of the time who properly understood the Scriptures would have found himself in the unenviable position of either (i) challenging his spiritual leaders regarding matters of faith as to which they, as teachers of Israel, should have known better or (ii) accepting those errant teachings on the grounds that those spiritual leaders could not err in matters of faith. I think that is one reason why God inspired written scriptures and did not rely soley on oral tradition. The written scriptures are a standard to which later traditions and teachings can be compared, to ensure that no error has crept into those teachings.

Of course, probably the best known example of this is found in Mark 7:6, where Jesus says:

[Jesus] replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”